Chapter 40 : Determination of Profitability

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Preview this chapter:
Zoom in

Determination of Profitability, Page 1 of 2

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817282/9781555817275_Chap40-1.gif /docserver/preview/fulltext/10.1128/9781555817282/9781555817275_Chap40-2.gif


This chapter describes those items that are included in the true costs of a laboratory procedure. Careful systematic consideration of all of types of direct and indirect costs will allow a laboratory to make reasonable decisions regarding price structure for fee-for-service testing services. To determine true costs and revenues, and assess profitability and efficiency, it is necessary to measure resources actually expended, including through amortization, and compare that measurement to amounts actually collected. To assess laboratory profitability, the balance sheet, the income statement, and the cash flow statement are the three primary tools used in the laboratory setting. In addition to these, most laboratories employ the use of key indicators to assess profitability and overall operational efficiency. Key indicators can assess both sides of doing business: income and expenses. Each individual laboratory must be able to operate efficiently within a defined budget and each laboratory manager must continue to seek ways to operate more effectively to decrease overall costs. Decisions regarding whether to implement costly new technologies in a laboratory will have to take into consideration the financial impact on healthcare in a more comprehensive sense as well as the immediate financial impact on a given laboratory. The role of the laboratory is to provide data used for effective management of patients. In doing so, laboratory professionals feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in assisting in patient care that cannot easily be measured in financial terms.

Citation: Baselski V, Weissfeld A, Sorrell F. 2014. Determination of Profitability, p 685-692. In Garcia L (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management, Second Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817282.ch40
Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...


1. Beastall, G. H. 2012. Adding value to laboratory medicine: a professional responsibility. Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. doi: 10.1515/cclm-2012-0630. E-pub ahead of print.
2. Church, D. L.,, H. D. Davies,, C. Mitton,, H. Semeniuk,, M. Logue,, C. Maxwell,, and C. Donaldson. 2002. Clinical and economic evaluation of rapid influenza A virus testing in nursing homes in Calgary, Canada. Clin. Infect. Dis. 34: 790 795. [PubMed][CrossRef]
3. Doern, G. V.,, R. Vautour,, M. Gaudet,, and B. Levy. 1994. Clinical impact of rapid in vitro susceptibility testing and bacterial identification. J. Clin. Microbiol. 32: 1757 1762. [PubMed]
4. Drinka, P. J.,, P. Krause,, L. Nest,, S. Gravenstein,, B. Goodman,, and P. Shult. 2002. Delays in the application of outbreak control prophylaxis for influenza A in a nursing home. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 23: 600 603. [PubMed][CrossRef]
5. Forsman, R. W. 2002. The value of the laboratory professional in the continuum of care. Clin. Leadersh. Manag. Rev. 16( 6): 370 373. [PubMed]
6. Gift, T. L.,, M. S. Pate,, E. W. Hook III,, and W. J. Kassler. 1999. The rapid test paradox: when fewer cases detected lead to more cases treated: a decision analysis of tests for Chlamydia trachomatis. Sex. Transm. Dis. 26: 232 240. [PubMed]
7. Hanson, C.,, and E. Plumhoff. 2012. Test utilization and the clinical laboratory. Mayo Med. Lab. Commun. 37: 1 4.
8. Kim, J. Y.,, W. H. Dzik,, A. S. Dighe,, and K. B. Lewandrowski. 2011. Utilization management in a large urban academic medical center. A 10-year experience. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 135: 108 118. [PubMed][CrossRef]
9. The Lewin Group. 2009. The value of laboratory screening and diagnostic tests for prevention and health care. http://www.lewin.com/∼/media/Lewin/Site_Sections/Publications/Lewin%20Value%20LabTesting%20Sept%202009.pdf ( last accessed November 20, 2012).
10. Miles, J.,, and R. L. Weiss. 2011. The role of laboratory medicine in accountable care organizations ARUP laboratories. http://www.aruplab.com/suite/documents/ACO%20Lab%20Strategy_whitepaper.pdf ( last accessed November 20, 2012).
11. NCCLS. 1998. Basic Cost Accounting for Clinical Services. Approved guideline GP11-A. NCCLS, Wayne, PA.
12. Travers, E. M. 1997. Clinical Laboratory Management, p. 259 283. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, MD.
13. Wilkinson, D. S. 2000. Technology assessment: measuring the outcomes of laboratory practice. Clin. Leadersh. Manag. Rev. 14: 267 271. [PubMed]
14. Wilkinson, D. S.,, and D. D. Reynolds. 2003. Using benchmarking to manage your laboratory. Clin. Leadersh. Manag. Rev. 17: 5 8. [PubMed]
15. Wilkinson I. 1999. Money! Money! Money! A Hitchhiker's Guide to Laboratory Finance. AACC Press, Washington, DC.


Generic image for table
Table 40.1

Comparison of features of traditional laboratory medicine and coordinated laboratory medicine

Citation: Baselski V, Weissfeld A, Sorrell F. 2014. Determination of Profitability, p 685-692. In Garcia L (ed), Clinical Laboratory Management, Second Edition. ASM Press, Washington, DC. doi: 10.1128/9781555817282.ch40

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error