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.

Methods: Cost and workload data were obtained from hospital records for 2015. Time allocation of staff between laboratory testing and other activities was determined using assumptions from published workload studies.

Results: The laboratory received 20,093 cases for testing in 2015, and total expenditures were US $1.20 million, ie, $61.97 per case. The anatomic pathology laboratory accounted for 5.2% of the laboratory budget at the hospital, compared to 64.3% for the clinical laboratory and 30.5% for the microbiology laboratory. We provide comparisons to a similar laboratory in the United States.