Patients now have access the laboratory results

[BU Pathology]

---

Members do not see this ad.

CMS issued a ruling yesterday that patients now have rights to their laboratory results, without the need to ask their physician first. While this will make it a little more difficult for labs to provide secure access to this information, it does empower the patient to be more active in managing their disease.

A brief news story is here:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=most-popular-box

And all 101 pages of the report, amending the 1988 CLIA, is found here

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-02280.pdf

 

[turtle1966]

CMS issued a ruling yesterday that patients now have rights to their laboratory results, without the need to ask their physician first. While this will make it a little more difficult for labs to provide secure access to this information, it does empower the patient to be more active in managing their disease.

A brief news story is here:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=most-popular-box

And all 101 pages of the report, amending the 1988 CLIA, is found here

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-02280.pdf

I have met nice MDs who held the view that doctors made too much. Had they been pathologists, even better chairmen or PDs, they would have felt very fulfilled. I wonder whether some of the posters here are such doctors.

 

[pathstudent]

CMS issued a ruling yesterday that patients now have rights to their laboratory results, without the need to ask their physician first. While this will make it a little more difficult for labs to provide secure access to this information, it does empower the patient to be more active in managing their disease.

A brief news story is here:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=most-popular-box

And all 101 pages of the report, amending the 1988 CLIA, is found here

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-02280.pdf

I never knew patients weren't allowe to know their lab results without the need to ask their physician first.

CMS issued a ruling yesterday that patients now have rights to their laboratory results, without the need to ask their physician first. While this will make it a little more difficult for labs to provide secure access to this information, it does empower the patient to be more active in managing their disease.

A brief news story is here:
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/art...&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=most-popular-box

And all 101 pages of the report, amending the 1988 CLIA, is found here

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-02280.pdf

While I never knew patients didn't have a right to the medical records, I do think having a doc or provider put their results in context is essential. Let's say the get the flow cytometry results back on their lymphocytosis and it reads "CLL/SLL". They could solely focus in on the word "leukemia" and start freaking out when actually they likely have an indolent disease that they will die with and not from. There are lots of examples like that I can think of. There could be abnormal results that could be of no significance that causes the patient to seek out expensive specialists or "holistic" practitioners to treat a condition they don't have. However I think even some clinicians don't know how to interpret lab results, like the family practice docs who refer their patients to a hematologist because the patient has a platelet count of 125 or an MCV of 97.

But all in all it seems like a good policy to me.

 

[yaah]

I never knew patients weren't allowe to know their lab results without the need to ask their physician first.


While I never knew patients didn't have a right to the medical records, I do think having a doc or provider put their results in context is essential. Let's say the get the flow cytometry results back on their lymphocytosis and it reads "CLL/SLL". They could solely focus in on the word "leukemia" and start freaking out when actually they likely have an indolent disease that they will die with and not from. There are lots of examples like that I can think of. There could be abnormal results that could be of no significance that causes the patient to seek out expensive specialists or "holistic" practitioners to treat a condition they don't have. However I think even some clinicians don't know how to interpret lab results, like the family practice docs who refer their patients to a hematologist because the patient has a platelet count of 125 or an MCV of 97.

But all in all it seems like a good policy to me.

I think there are a lot of exceptions and conditions in this rule, although I may be mistaken because I am not that familiar with it yet. But I don't think the rule requires immediate access to test results - thus it gives the clinician time to get the results and head off any misinterpretation or overreactions.