Daniel M. Baer

A survey of state regulation of testing for drugs of abuse outside of licensed (accredited) clinical laboratories.

We surveyed all 50 states to find out if testing for drugs of abuse outside of clinical laboratories was regulated. In 14 states such regulations existed or were contemplated. Eight additional states indicated that regulatory language does not restrict their oversight of such testing. Content of the regulations is described for each of these 22 states.

Managing Liability Risk in the Office Laboratory-Reply

In Reply.— If a physician decides to have an office laboratory, for whatever reason, then the physician takes on additional responsibility. The fact that a physician chooses to use the office laboratory in lieu of an outside laboratory does not necessarily create a conflict of interest. The choice may be negligent, depending on the capacity and ability of the office laboratory and the type of testing that the patient requires. However, this decision is subject to the same general negligence analysis as any decision about patient care, including referral of a patient to a specialist. Financial benefits from using the physicians own office laboratory could, arguably, be part of the evidence that would further cloud the question of reasonable professional judgment, but in themselves do not necessarily represent lack of professional judgment by the physician. It seems excessive to require a patient to consent to office laboratory testing rather than