Abstract
Clinical laboratories comprise a modest part of the overall cost of health care in the United States, but they provide crucial tools for clinical decision-making. This study focused on assessing cost-effectiveness aspects embedded in the laboratory units directly affiliated with many hospitals within the United States. The study analyzed economic efficiency based on the DEA, mainly associated with Urmia’s public hospital diagnostic laboratories. The researchers adopted a cross-sectional descriptive-analytic study to evaluate elements of economic efficiency manifested within the hospitals. Another study focused on identifying significant obstacles faced by specialists in their attempt to optimize medical services by introducing a list of variants of the Lean Six Sigma method. The paper focuses on laboratory-related elements to ensure functionality and efficiency in use.
Introduction
Labs are critical in supporting health care where clinicians and patients monitor, diagnose, and treat disease and drive savings across the health system. Clinical labs provide approximately $106 billion (or 0.52% of GDP) in overall economic production, sustain over 688,000 employments, generate $44 billion in salaries, pay over $14 billion in state and federal taxes and provide vital medical insight cost savings (Apostu et al., 2021). In modern countries, uses in medical care frameworks are ceaselessly rising. Because of technical and clinical enhancements, developing consciousness of cases of patients, and, particularly, as the undeniable after-effect of a disproportionally maturing populace, costs are expanding. Instances of economic inefficiency in laboratories are prevalent in the United States. As a result, there is a desire to improve the allocation of resources to meet the optimal operational capabilities.
Apostu et al. (2021) identify significant obstacles faced by specialists in their attempt to optimize medical services by introducing a list of variants of the Lean Six Sigma method. This study highlighted the importance of testing services in medical laboratories by creating a flexible sense of balance both in quality responses time and depreciation of the service cost (Apostu et al., 2021). The study focused on identifying significant concerns resulting from specialists and sought to evaluate the situation in the medical laboratories services sector, particularly on the stipulated initiatives that arise following the implementation of Lean Six Sigma. The findings indicated that Lean Six Sigma effectively played a role in reducing diagnostic errors. It also played an instrumental role in saving time.
This paper instrumentalizes the review of current research to explore laboratory services and their economic effects. The paper emphasizes three discussion points; firstly, technology- and finance-related innovation, including laboratory automation and smart financial decisions, deserve consideration. Secondly, it focuses on a variety of potential and already implemented cost-reduction strategies in laboratory settings. Thirdly, the paper investigates the issues of quality and value-based care in the economics of laboratory operation. Applying the literature review method, this paper seeks to review clinical laboratories’ system-wide economic impacts and provide an extensive overview of promising laboratory-related elements, strategies, and technologies aimed at ensuring these settings’ efficiency and ability to operate safely and effectively in spite of possible hindrances stemming from declines in available financial resources.
The Significance of the Topic
Present-day lab units require a rising interest from the board to bypass the float among gains and costs. The three essential qualities are solidified critical capabilities to comprehend the extent of these difficulties and a humble level of technical capacity to move information, procedure, and strategy to a given setting. Secondly, social ability is fundamental, especially involving interpectoral perception, savvy aptitudes of correspondence, and availability for participation. The third essential capability is applied mastery, by which complex issues are streamlined, organized, and changed into exact directions.
Diagnostics is the connection for a maintainable medical services framework, giving prompt chances to lessen costs, carrying worth to the dynamic interaction, and great care. Centering more detail, a few modules can be recognized to accomplish an articulated influence. To start with, the ID of in-house costs should be examined. Consumption of materials and staff per analytic and benchmarking with equivalent establishments show potential reserve funds. The re-evaluated scientific portfolio must be screened. Current estimating arrangements and administrations and the examination of economic situations must be dissected, including parts of different administrations and quality. In this way, a collection of inside and outside satisfaction and execution should follow the underlying endeavors. The last advance inside this right sourcing system is the interdisciplinary trade to control and adjust research center solicitations’ volume, content, and conduct.
The proficient combination inside the clinical research facility network structure brings high efficiency and increased adequacy and effectiveness. Conversely, such gains must be painstakingly offset with quality angles to keep a worth-based medical care conveyance. Internal quality control, outside capability testing, a deeply grounded quality administration framework, and effective management are obligatory in this unique situation. As a result, research facility suppliers that are versatile and deft in the functional and monetary contemplations referenced will pull ahead.
The world of medical care conveyance is evolving quickly. Associations, medical clinics, and research facilities need to change their business systems to stay aware of an allegorical climate. New DNA research technologies are being developed, which require substantial funds (Petersen et al., 2019). However, the patient’s result makes the most significant difference and will keep on being the middle point and number of movements of every kind inside the complicated treatment process chain. Today, the generally divided frameworks boost the lab-conveyed administrations and direct the installment to support medical services. Nonetheless, the patient-focused result framework should address the general procedure while checking monetary enhancement. This discernment should never be ignored as worth-based care is the shared objective and the necessary methodology for the arrangement because of patient requirements. As a general system should consider the public exhibition, one might sum up this reflection similar to current governmental issues by saying, “patient first.”
Literature Review
Clinical arrangements are expected to confront current and future difficulties within the healthcare sector. Clinical research facilities offer types of assistance as auxiliary level help. While direct association with patients happens on the main level, insightful movement occurs behind the scenes. Nonetheless, as a most conspicuous enhancement, the research facility movement renders huge help for clinical independent direction and treatment. Hence, the vital usefulness of such logical units is not just applicable to clinical outcomes but also to the basic incomes of clinical foundations.
Value-Based-Healthcare
Healthcare has proved to be a fundamental component of life improvement in today’s world. As for the biblical principles, in Matthew 9:12, Jesus insists that “not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick” (New American Standard Bible, 1971/2020). If applied to the topic of interest, this passage implies that pursuing an adequate degree of relevance to patients’ needs, emphasizing the right priority areas in care improvement, and promoting the system’s ability to deliver value is crucial in the healthcare industry. Value-based healthcare has been pivotal in enhancing the quality of health services delivered to the population segment. Similarly, anon laboratory medicine focused on the exemplar of value-based healthcare. Arguably, value as a component of healthcare is considered a vital factor in initiating better medical outcomes.
Value and quality are crucial elements that go hand in hand with efficacy resulting in immediate improvement of the other. As a result, there is heavy reliance on high-quality medical services as it improves the efficiency of the health system in generating reliable outcomes for the betterment of society. Value-based care has been integral in saving a life as it ignites the desire to adopt sophisticated technology embedded in healthcare to provide modern-day quality services.
Quality handling and treating patients often play an instrumental role in reducing the duration of in-hospital stays. Laboratory services’ quality remains a major concern in economically vulnerable communities and entire countries (Davies et al., 2017). As a result, medical laboratory adoption of a value-based approach will be pivotal to initiating recovery amongst health seekers. Additionally, the US has overseen the establishment of Project Santa Fe, whose fundamental objective is to create evidence-based evaluation within the major American clinical labs. Similarly, the project has foreseen commonalities resulting from the considered transition to the value-based approach within the healthcare systems in which the laboratories are tasked with providing guidance. Objectively, the project has tasked the clinical laboratories with a guidance role to effectively label the overall cost of treatments by effectively making optimal use of time-to-diagnostics care treatment. The project has stimulated the availing of care, coordination within the laboratory, and general services provision, including screening and monitoring.
The evaluated aspects have indicated the relevance of medical laboratories in improving health services. Further, the element has shown the efficacy of clinical laboratories and the respective improvement towards attaining their stipulated goals within the US. However, limited information has been provided on the cost implication across the clinical laboratories. This has raised concerns considering the benefits associated with cost-effective operation on the operability of the clinical laboratories. Therefore, this paper will mainly focus on analyzing the economic elements related to laboratory units within the clinical laboratories to a specific efficiency to facilitate the establishment of an optimal strategy for resource allocation in the healthcare systems within the US.
Over time the US medical sector has been in continuous improvement. Several developments have seen rapid adjustments within clinical laboratories. Changes have widely ranged from incorporating technology-based tools to cost analysis to systematic analysis of the procedures adopted and cost improvement aspects. Waste reduction initiatives in laboratory settings have also been a topic of interest (Ross et al., 2019). The changes have been instrumental in attaining better services from the healthcare sector, particularly in clinical laboratories. As a function of service poison, the labs play a significant role in assessing patients, administering care, and ensuring continuous assessment of patients for optimal recovery. Limitless studies have been postulated on the same. This section will majorly compare and contrast findings to implicate clinical laboratories’ operational capabilities. The review will provide insight into economic elements that significantly cost efficiency and effectiveness within the clinical laboratories, particularly the sustainability of US healthcare.
Firstly, in part of their analysis, a study concluded that crucial units within the US hospitals’ laboratories were inefficient. The study revealed a discrepancy, which was majorly visible in the course of financial aspects. A different study by Arshoff et al. (2021) suggested that healthcare should adopt value-based healthcare to diagnose and treat patients as a cost reduction factor. These findings concur based on healthcare financial objectives. However, the first one indicated a flaw in the efficiency of economic systems; the latter agreed on establishing a mechanism to cut the cost for optimal operation. A conclusion was drawn that the healthcare systems and the clinical laboratories required a highly effective cost plan to eliminate the cost-related uncertainties that seemed to jeopardize the operation efficiency (Alinejhad et al., 2020). Highly cost-effective laboratories operational foamed the primary objective of healthcare to minimize unnecessary operational costs within the health sector. Similarly, the primary objective in clinical laboratories has been to administer better quality treatment and diagnostics. Therefore, a fundamental goal of healthcare is cost-driven services from which individuals can access better quality healthcare at a subsidized price.
Evaluation of the American clinical laboratories formed the most significant part of the study. Their focus was mainly on healthcare improvement through clinical labs, and they adopted the use of the Project Santa Fe report (Crawford et al., 2017). The study focused on the analysis of critical instruments which were highly effective and adopted within the transition to value-based healthcare. The study findings revealed vital aspects associated with ambulatory setting and laboratory services which formed the basis of care continuity. In comparison, the study was directly related to the study by Arshoff, whose focus was on value-based healthcare. Both have a strong influence on the value of the health services provided. Although the value was instrumental in quality healthcare services, both studies differed in their later adopted approaches. For instance, the first study adopted the Project Santa Fe report to conduct the valuation.
In contrast, the latter showed a summary of aspects related to value-based healthcare and postulated desirable mechanisms to accelerate the use of LM-specific examples. However, the two studies agreed on the common findings in the quality of health services formed the significant goal of the health sector. Under this, both studies adopted diverging procedures to ensure that better quality services are availed to healthcare seekers. More so, treatment and effective diagnosis formed the overall objective that motivated the occurrence of the studies. Given the economic implication, the quality of healthcare services was a significant aspect that had substantial financial implications on healthcare. Conversely, both findings supported efficiency in the improvement of healthcare.
Laboratory Automation
Further, a different study was conducted on attributes of implementation of Total Laboratory Automation (TLA) at tertiary care hospitals. The primary focus of the study was on the effects associated with turnaround and cost efficiency (Ellison et al., 2018). For instance, total laboratory automation was a significant element that greatly facilitated cost minimization by cutting operational staff. Reduced staff directly implied cost evasion as the limited staff was required due to automation. Such aspects highly contributed to cost efficiency. The adopted TLA significantly minimized the patient’s testing time and availed the process control within the laboratories. Therefore, such actions significantly contributed to operational efficiency as well.
Concerning the core objective of the paper on economic implications, the findings indicated that the adoption of TLA was a fundamental improvement in laboratory services. It also marked the continuous improvement in healthcare. Further, the results advocated a constant review of the process to optimize the strategies to attain optimal system use. The finding has substantial implications on economic impacts. For instance, this study provided systems automation with low operation costs and high-quality services, a function of continuous review. As a result, this study directly supported attaining the desirable economic implication within the clinical laboratories. Automation was instrumental in driving technological-related cost reduction techniques. In other research articles, Lippi and Da Rin (2019) and Thomson and McElvania (2019) further confirm TLA’s positive long-term effects on laboratory units’ economic feasibility and efficiency. Thus, the promise of TLA is widely acknowledged in the global healthcare research community.
Healthcare management is instrumental for desirable outcomes in inpatient treatment and handling. Laboratories units are the significant attributes that play a vital role in determining the national healthcare system. Their effectiveness directly results in a positive outcome. Sabev and Trancheva (2018) study revealed that rising demands to avail high-quality laboratory services at slightly lower costs had become a significant concern within the health sector. In care provision, laboratory services rely on the required resources to achieve their objective. Additionally, the contemporary clinical laboratory has faced many challenges in critical management areas.
Laboratories rely upon adequate funding and resources to actively achieve their operational objectives. A solution to this challenge implies providing resources to mainstream the laboratories’ operation. This will be of key importance in equipping the liberations services with desirable inputs for their operations. Cost maintenance is crucial where optimization could trigger positive outcomes within the healthcare sector. Therefore, as a fundamental focus, cost implications should be addressed to ensure efficiency in the operation of labs.
Quality of Healthcare
Healthcare quality has been the topic of discussion for several researchers. For instance, a study by (Meier et al., 2018) defined healthcare quality as the indicative structure, process, and result of medical activity. It implies the resultant output after a procedural medical process performed upon the individual. Healthcare improvement indicates the critical mission and objective of the providers. Over time, laboratories have focused on improving the quality by structuring their stipulated activities to meet the customer’s needs.
Similarly, several clinical indicators have strongly focused on enhancing final patient output. Healthcare provision has been objective in general desirable quality acceptable for the public. However, the attainment of quality health-related output is linked to a cost implication. Concurrently, a well-stipulated definition of healthcare was given by Donabedian as an asset, which entails attributes that are measurable in terms of structure, process, and outcome (Meier et al., 2018). Different dimensions were approached to attain the final, conclusive definition in the representation of the term healthcare. However, from the differences, it was agreed that healthcare quality was procedural in its attainment and the final product was desirable and measurable output with favorable implications.
Every clinical lab aims to achieve desirable healthcare outcomes. In the distinction of processes, the final output often differs systematically. In light of this, it was observed that to gain favorable outcomes. Clinical labs necessitated an influential and integral assessment of their operational capabilities. Also, the facilities assess key health-related indicators in their operation to ensure the optimization of the health services based on the identified indicators. Such highly contributed to improving the final health outcome, evaluated as a patient’s response and reaction to a given intervention. According to the study by (Meier et al., 2018), the findings indicated the efficacy of monitoring as a form of process improvement. For instance, process improvement contributed to refining the healthcare objectives and realigning the strategies to the formulated healthcare quality goals. Nevertheless, management of the clinical laboratories was instrumental in driving improved quality, particularly in the adopted system. However, it was found that management essentially encompassed vital elements and was not limited to cost implication alone but all other activities within the healthcare sector.
The study concluded that the most preferred converges of clinical laboratories were between 7 to 14 interim process monitors. Such would effectively enhance processes within the operation. Another important conclusion was made on clinical laboratory stewardship. It was concluded that an effective combination that involved education interventions, particularly among clinicians, was to be conducted, and the result is effectively evaluated to enhance the test ordering process.
Similarly, risk calculations were considered an important tool to detect critical elements such as defection while weighing the likelihood of potential harm. Furthermore, the study findings identified the triple approach’s essence, which focused on quality indicators, active clinical laboratory stewardship, and integration within the minimal risk assessment. This was considered fundamental as it facilitated a change in the preconceived from competing with economic value to improving it.
The adopted Donabedian framework has actively been used to guide government regulators, relevant administrators of healthcare services, actual health practitioners, and researchers. The efficacy has been the strategic plan from which activities have been aligned with a series of set objectives. The framework enables the underlined individuals and organizations to effectively comply with the set rules and regulations towards achieving desirable output in the healthcare sector. Arguably, compliance with the demonstrated prerequisite during the government inspection highly enhances the structural adjustment resulting in quality.
Diagnostic testing and patient monitoring were classified under three key deliverables: process quality. Under process quality, several concepts were revealed. This included technical competence, which mainly focused on analyzing individual technical capabilities and machinery concepts within the healthcare system. Secondly, data availability and completeness formed the basis of the discussion. This data was perceived as an instrumental element that mainly contributed to periodic review completeness of data contributed towards the accuracy of the dame, which translated to reliable inferences. Finally, successful data transmission involves the relevance of the available process to analyze data for better inferences.
On quality outcome, three additional concepts were reviewed. The first aspect entailed patient recovery, in which crucial elements and factors associated with recovery were reiterated. As an outcome of the healthcare system, patient recovery was considered a fundamental goal. It was also marked as the motivation that instituted continued morale towards the health caregivers. Further, the individual function ability restoration was significant in the outcome. This entailed practical system functionality following a sudden halt due to illness. Assessment of outcome based on functionality was instrumental in realigning the intervention with the final result. Patients’ survival formed the last indicator of outcome. Survival mainly implies escape from death which is the uncalled outcome of healthcare. Survivability rate analysis impacted positively among the caregivers. It contributed towards the ascertainment of the effects associated with medical intervention put in place. A goal to restore the individual’s health surviving a problematic illness implies efficacy related to clinical laboratories in administering care to the patients.
Financial Resources
Financial resources include all fundamental assets that enhance the operability within the health sector. They include operational capital that is mainly utilized to support the occurrence of healthcare provision. Most of the resources have an embedded monetary value as they majorly constitute the performance of the clinical laboratories. Financial resources play an integral role in the healthcare sector. They act as the key driving force that dictates the service provider’s ability to deliver the required quality effectively. According to Mosely et al. (2017), the study of cost price estimation mainly clinical laboratory services. Relativity in the occurrence of financial resources within healthcare is limited. Further, increases in healthcare activities have contributed significantly to the subdivision and structural breakdown of the financial resources. Segmentation of healthcare services has further decreased the sustainability aspects of financial resources. The outcome has been considered insufficient optimization of the service provider due to limited resources, resulting in difficulty meeting the healthcare service demands. Therefore, healthcare needs to effectively address the contributing factors to the financial issues to develop moderate solutions that will institute service delivery, particularly among the clinical laboratories.
The financial capabilities of healthcare form a fundamental component of the economy which is majorly relied upon for a positive outcome. While adequate finance marks the assistive operation within the health service delivery, inadequate financial resources could jeopardize the overall processes as it directly stalls the ability of healthcare to be self-sufficient. Healthcare managers are fully aware of the occurrences of financial resource constraints. Therefore, they are tasked with formulating a better balance between low cost and high-quality maintenance (Mouseli et al., 2017). Further, managers are responsible for adopting highly integrated smart decisions to stimulate resource allocation by developing and implementing intelligent decisions as part of their operation. These actions will essentially stimulate the maintenance of quality while integrating the internal processes of service delivery to optimal levels.
Smart Financial Decisions in the Lab Context
Current analysis has indicated the changing terms between volume-to-cost ratios; such has been evaluated as not in linearity. Additionally, several variables impact the final cost of every test conducted (Plebani, 2018). Further, trends have indicated the noticeable consolidation and adjustments in the laboratory’s series. Despite the old-fashioned ratio, the occurrence between volume and cost remains a significant concern as limited information is provided. Arguably, there has been an inefficient representation of the volume-to-cost ratio; it has been established that the ratio has not been conclusive in the coverage of all clinical laboratories. According to findings, it has been revealed that the increasing cost has a direct link to lower volume tests with up to about a million in a year’s duration. The cost has been seen as the primary driving force toward the occurrence of the test. While a rise in the cost has been evident in declines in tests, a significant drop in the cost could result in different tests conducted. Establishing the operational cost requires critical smart decisions to achieve a favorable outcome. For instance, cost-effective pricing strategies would be instrumental in driving more consumers to healthcare.
Exceeding the overall threshold within healthcare has been attributed to the non-linear volume-to-costs relationship. For a linear relationship to occur, the agreed threshold should not be exceeded within the laboratories’ activities. However, the organization of laboratories has been found to have comparatively higher significance than the actual volume of tests undertaken. Such has been impactful, particularly on the cost elements of the organization. The findings indicated that current data, especially on associated diagnostic errors and laboratory, played a crucial role in downplaying the need for a paradigm shift (Plebani, 2018). Following the above observation on paradigm, it is desirable to shift the focus to the patient-centered vision other than the actual other than the volume and efficacy. The patient-centered approach will essentially be pivotal in enhancing the satisfaction attainable from the services within the laboratories. Such would actively drive performance and the attainable revenue from the patients who flock in for better quality services.
Healthcare providers, particularly clinical laboratories, are patient-centered organizations. Their primary focus should be on improving the patients’ welfare which are elemental indicators of the healthcare services. Such focus would mainly enhance the attainment of the core objectives. On the other hand, competing for the economic value within healthcare would rapidly result in a lesser focus on patient recovery, response rate, and other vital patient-related indicators such would significantly result in inefficiency in key goal achievement. Therefore, clinical laboratories advocate implementing the most stringent strategies that will aim to promote the quality of the patients and proactive management, which will stimulate improvement of overall patient safety.
Demand for Laboratory Services, Diagnostic Tests, and Laboratory Technology
Laboratories services are a fundamental component of healthcare provision, which mainly initiates the process of patient assessment, treatment, and recovery. It entails all activities performed towards the patient from admission to the time of discharge. The evolution of laboratory activities has resulted in new diagnostics; such activities have been on the rise in recent years. Additionally, there has been consistent improvement and development of newer activities that actively enhanced the laboratory services to exemplary levels. A rise in technology has significantly resulted in the further establishment of newer lab-related services; such has been pivotal in improving the patient recovery experience. This section will primarily focus on new lab services and technologically generated services.
Firstly, the emergence of newer diagnostics has been confined to the challenge of direct and indirect costs. Similarly, overall lab cost has been on a significant rise within healthcare. Comparatively, rennet indicators imply that laboratory services form 10% of healthcare system expenditure (Mouseli et al., 2017). Such cost implication associates the clinical labs with their operational capabilities, which are also visible in their activities. As a factor of cost implication, the labs require a fundamental resource to execute their roles actively.
Moreover, clinical laboratories should consider cost analysis to be one of the most critical policies to stimulate decisions’ dependability. Arshoff et al. (2021) offer studies and reliable strategies that can be used to determine the costs of the services they offer. However, cost analysis should be taken based on economic and scientifically proven methods to prevent uncertainties. Such would be instrumental in continuing service delivery relative to the underlying high cost of laboratory equipment.
A fundamental review should be performed on the cost and valuation of the lab equipment to ensure that uncertainties are minimized within the health sector, stimulating desirable outcomes. The variation within the laboratory cost often impacts the ability of managers to express and control cost elements differently; hence an effective review should be conducted to evaluate the most desirable mechanism to gauge cost. The accomplishment of cost control can be performed through access to systematic data regarding healthcare activities and expenses. Attainment of the assessment is facilitated through the adoption of scientific costing methods. Further, the efficacy of such methods also lies in the ability to initiate cost analysis.
Clinical Trials and Service Costs
Clinical trials entail service support cost, which implies the cost that healthcare facilitates receive from the government to facilitate the occurrences and processes of clinical trials. Additionally, a patient’s contribution plays an essential role in facilitating clinical trials. For instance, patients are associated with auxiliary costs that play an integral role in the research that must be attained towards completing the trials, whether or not the care continues to be assigned (Rodriguez-Borja et al., 2018). Across the trials, patients are provided with additional studies, including tomography and laboratory tests. The services continue to be administered for an agreed period followed by the end of the trial. The patients contribute to receiving the care even after the termination to facilitate recovery.
According to the clinical trials regulation section for the year 2015, the conclusion was made by the Spanish legislation, which implied the reflection of the additional costs in the contract that was binding the healthcare institution and the promoters (Rodriguez-Borja et al., 2018). The contract was instrumental as it implied the specification of the initial budget to be adopted end of clinical trials; it considered both additional direct and indirect costs. The contract encompassed the costs that were not part of the integrated standard treatment and local treatment costs that were availed to the patients in the event of the trials. The findings indicated that promoters of clinical trials adequately attained all the respective components. Further, the findings indicated that quality costs included compliance and non-compliance costs (Santos et al., 2021). While involved compliance costs related to materials, equipment’s non-compliance involved errors whose occurrence was mainly in the analysis stage.
A focus on quality assurance systems implied continuous development of private and public sectors and the respective pressure on quality improvement. Quality improvement was majorly associated with other concerns, such as internal costs and the cost attributed to external failures (Santos et al., 2021). As part of the analysis, the study provided the efficacy of avoidance of instances of repeat exams geared towards minimizing monetary losses following the process of quality improvement. Cost reduction plays an instrumental role in enabling the company to be active while significantly enhancing its ability to compete in the market.
Recently, there has been an increasingly rising growth within the healthcare sector; such growth has enhanced the legislator’s ability to adequately address the issues regarding quality care cost-effectively (Pennestrì & Banfi, 2019). The evaluation found that laboratory efficiency mainly relies on the constant evaluation of their performance (Alinejhad et al., 2020). The findings revealed the desire to implement various context-appropriate laboratory cost-effective approaches within the healthcare systems. Therefore, the organization plan to effectively explore and review strategies implemented in the clinical laboratory focused on solving issues related to financial constraints.
Value-based healthcare has been perceived as another promising approach formulated for cost-maintaining processes. This value is estimated using the results achieved against every dollar spent (Pennestrì & Banfi, 2019). As a function of value, the benefit is shared between all the healthcare stakeholders; they include supervisors, patients, and other related personnel. Arguably, the introduction of the VBHC has become a primary ongoing concern for healthcare providers. Attainment of Quality in the service delivery has proven to be challenging. Many individuals have found it challenging to streamline patient-centered clinical services effectively. However, effective adoption and implementation of innovative patient assessments have propounding impacts on the quality of the services to the patients.
Laboratory medicine is one of the significant fields that have contributed to cons-effectiveness improvement in clinical medicine. It has acted as the key to spearheading cost evaluation and the relative cost minimization process (Pennestrì & Banfi, 2019). Improvement in technology has initiated saving from the improvement of older technology with over located budgets. Such has directly facilitated innovations in healthcare services (Arshoff et al., 2021). In clinical pathology laboratory contexts, cost-reducing proposals for innovation focus on 3D printing solutions, the Arduino prototyping platform, and plasmonic biosensing (Vázquez et al., 2021). Due to innovation, budgetary remarks have been implemented to enhance the adoption of newer technology. As a result of technology, adoption awareness has increasingly been promoted amongst different organizations on challenged and underlying issues in the funding of the innovation (Arshoff et al., 2021). Therefore, a highly stained budgetary methodology has been an essential requirement to institute effective financial allocation, adjustments, and valuation to enable value-based healthcare to acquire highly effective innovations that will promote patient outcomes in the healthcare setup.
Budgeting is an integral measure also considered the most effective cost strategy for operating laboratory systems. An adequate laboratory budget is a well-grounded tool that is the epitome of productive and successful financial management. A laboratory budget implies a detailed, established, and well-presented financial plan that is purposefully established based on a series of elements (Trancheva, 2018). Laboratories require highly interactive and less complex technologies to improve operational efficiency. Analysis by Kim et al. (2022) aimed to assess the best desirable way to invest to achieve clinical and operational efficiency. The results indicated that the adoption of TLA highly facilitated laboratory performance improvement.
Conclusion
The paper mainly focused on vital issues and their relevance to the economic impact of the clinical laboratory on healthcare. Several studies revealed the financial implication that was associated with laboratory services. Further, the searcher identified the efficacy of monitoring, evaluating, and valuing laboratory services in the health sector. The resources found that vital components such as value-based healthcare were instrumental in driving effective cost-related performance within healthcare. It was also revealed that budgeting played an instrumental role in driving innovation, significantly cutting operational costs, and improving laboratory efficiency.
Improvement in the financial sector within the clinical laboratory plays a crucial role in improving patients’ quality of services. Moreover, the adoption of newer diagnostic and technological innovations was mainly promoted as an object to strengthen the budgetary implication of the laboratory’s services. Therefore, the study was objective towards improving the clinical laboratory services, particularly on the financial aspects and resource allocation. The observation highly contributed to process improvement. For instance, process improvement will improve patient recovery, while innovation will enhance healthcare provision. Further, the adoption of automation will improve service delivery efficiency, improving the entire patient-healthcare relationship and interaction. As a future implication, the study will benefit clinical laboratories by improving the quality of services as a function of innovation and effective resource allocation. Therefore, future studies can identify technological innovation and its impacts on service delivery. This would complement the financial aspect, particularly in the clinical laboratory.
References
Alinejhad, M., Aghlmand, S., Feizollahzadeh, S., & Yusefzadeh, H. (2020). The economic efficiency of clinical laboratories in public hospitals: A case study in Iran. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 34(2), e23067. Web.
Apostu, S. A., Vasile, V., & Veres, C. (2021). Externalities of lean implementation in medical laboratories. Process optimization vs. adaptation and flexibility for the future. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), 12309. Web.
Arshoff, L., Hoag, G., Ivany, C., & Kinniburgh, D. (2021). Laboratory medicine: The exemplar for value-based healthcare. Healthcare Management Forum, 34(3), 175-180. Web.
Crawford, J. M., Shotorbani, K., Sharma, G., Crossey, M., Kothari, T., Lorey, T. S., Prichard J.W., Wilkerson, M., & Fisher, N. (2017). Improving American healthcare through “Clinical Lab 2.0”: A Project Santa Fe report. Academic Pathology, 4, 1-8. Web.
Davies, J., Abimiku, A., Alobo, M., Mullan, Z., Nugent, R., Schneidman, M., Sikhondze, W., & Onyebujoh, P. (2017). Sustainable clinical laboratory capacity for health in Africa. The Lancet Global Health, 5(3), e248-e249. Web.
Ellison, T. L., Alharbi, M., Alkaf, M., Elimam, S., Alfaries, M., Al Nounou, R., Nasr, R., & Owaidah, T. (2018). Implementing total laboratory automation at a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia: Effect on turnaround time and cost-efficiency. Annals of Saudi Medicine, 38(5), 352-357. Web.
Kim, K., Lee, S. G., Kim, T. H., & Lee, S. G. (2022). Economic evaluation of total laboratory automation in the clinical laboratory of a tertiary care hospital. Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 42(1), 89-95. Web.
Lippi, G., & Da Rin, G. (2019). Advantages and limitations of total laboratory automation: A personal overview. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 57(6), 802-811. Web.
Meier, F. A., Badrick, T. C., & Sikaris, K. A. (2018). What’s to be done about laboratory quality? Process indicators, laboratory stewardship, the outcomes problem, risk assessment, and economic value: Responding to contemporary global challenges. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 149(3), 186-196. Web.
Mouseli, A., Barouni, M., Amiresmaili, M., Samiee, S. M., & Vali, L. (2017). Cost-price estimation of clinical laboratory services based on activity-based costing: A case study from a developing country. Electronic Physician, 9(4), 4077-4083. Web.
New American Standard Bible. (2020). The Lockman Foundation. (Original work published 1971) Web.
Pennestrì, F., & Banfi, G. (2019). Value-based healthcare: The role of laboratory medicine. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 57(6), 798-801. Web.
Petersen, L. M., Martin, I. W., Moschetti, W. E., Kershaw, C. M., & Tsongalis, G. J. (2019). Third-generation sequencing in the clinical laboratory: Exploring the advantages and challenges of nanopore sequencing. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 58(1), e01315-19. Web.
Plebani, M. (2018). Clinical laboratory: Bigger is not always better. Diagnosis, 5(2), 41-46. Web.
Rodriguez-Borja, E., Corchon-Peyrallo, A., Diaz-Gimenez, M., & Carratala-Calvo, A. (2018). Computer physician order entry (CPOE) as a strategy to estimate laboratory activity and costs associated with cancer clinical trials. Biochemia Medica, 28(3), 439-445. Web.
Ross, J., Penesis, J., & Badrick, T. (2019). Improving laboratory economic and environmental performance by the implementation of an environmental management system. Accreditation and Quality Assurance, 24(5), 319-327. Web.
Sabev, N., & Trancheva, D. (2018). Organizational and economic aspects of clinical and laboratory activities-possibilities and perspectives of optimization. Knowledge – International Journal, 26(6), 1721-1726. Web.
Santos, P. R., Silva, C. L., Gall, M. C., & Grando, A. C. (2021). Impact of pre-analytical errors on costs of clinical analysis laboratory. Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial, 57, 1-5. Web.
Thomson, R. B., & McElvania, E. (2019). Total laboratory automation: What is gained, what is lost, and who can afford it? Clinics in Laboratory Medicine, 39(3), 371-389. Web.
Trancheva, D. (2018). Management and economic efficiency of clinical laboratory activities. Knowledge – International Journal, 28(2), 699-703.
Vázquez, M., Anfossi, L., Ben-Yoav, H., Diéguez, L., Karopka, T., Della Ventura, B., Abalde-Cela, S., Minopoli, A., Di Nardo, F., Shukla, V. K., Teixeira, A., Tvarijonaviciute, A., & Franco-Martínez, L. (2021). Use of cost-effective technologies for a routine clinical pathology laboratory. Lab on a Chip, 21(22), 4330-4351.