Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40891849›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical microbiology2025

The laboratory billing process and its applications to molecular microbiology testing: guidance for laboratorians.

Meghan W Starolis, Hema Kapoor, Kristen L Jurcic Smith, Rachael M Liesman, Dawn R Zenefski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Meghan W StarolisQuest Diagnostics, Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0009-0002-7648-2037
Hema KapoorHK Healthcare Consultant LLC, Davie, Florida, USA.
Kristen L Jurcic SmithbioMérieux, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Rachael M LiesmanMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Dawn R ZenefskiQuest Diagnostics, Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The processes used by laboratories to seek reimbursement for services performed are complex and often unclear to laboratorians, a key group that has the clinical and technical knowledge to influence reimbursement. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of laboratory billing processes for insurance billing and hospital inpatient services, as well as the various procedure codes used in these processes. Understanding the health plan landscape is also of critical importance, as health plan policies and coverage decisions have downstream effects on accessibility of testing for patients. A detailed overview of health plans and how coverage determinations are made and communicated is discussed in this review. Lastly, we present actionable areas of opportunity in clinical microbiology where laboratorians, as well as test manufacturers, can focus on improving reimbursement (syndromic panels, antimicrobial resistance, and next-generation sequencing) to expand access to these evolving technologies and encourage adoption in clinical laboratories.

Indexed as

Laboratories, ClinicalMicrobiological TechniquesMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesHumansantimicrobial resistancelaboratory billingnext-generation sequencingreimbursementsyndromic panels

Identifiers

PMID40891849
PMCPMC12505987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.