METHODS: The authors obtained data on volumes and reimbursement rates for the most common 25 tests at the five hospitals with which they are affiliated and organized them to be as comparable as possible. Simple descriptive statistics were used to make cross-country comparisons.
RESULTS: There are strong similarities across all five hospitals in the top five tests by both volume and revenue. However, the top five by volume differ from the top five by revenue. Reimbursement rates also follow common patterns, being lowest for the most common biochemical test; intermediate for the most common hematology and microbiology tests, respectively; and highest for the most common pathology test.
CONCLUSIONS: Most of the most common tests also appear in the new Essential Diagnostics List. This may inform plans for universal health coverage.
Methods: Five key themes were reviewed using existing literature (role of leadership; education, training, and continuing professional development; technology; accreditation, management, and quality standards; and reimbursement systems). A tiered system is described, building on existing proposals. The economic analysis draws on the very limited published studies, combined with expert opinion.
Results: Countries have underinvested in pathology services, with detrimental effects on health care. The equipment needs for a tier 1 laboratory in a primary health facility are modest ($2-$5,000), compared with $150,000 to $200,000 in a district hospital, and higher in a referral hospital (depending on tests undertaken). Access to a national (or regional) specialized laboratory undertaking disease surveillance and registry is important. Recurrent costs of appropriate laboratories in district and referral hospitals are around 6% of the hospital budget in midsized hospitals and likely decline in the largest hospitals. Primary health facilities rely largely on single-use tests.
Conclusions: Pathology is an essential component of good universal health care.