ASCLS is participating with the Clinical Laboratory Management Association (CLMA) on its Increasing Clinical Effectiveness™ (ICE) program designed to demonstrate positive contributions to the laboratory through increasing efficiency and value. Each year, CLMA collects abstracts that demonstrate these innovations and shares them with the laboratory community.

Health care is in the midst of unprecedented change, as it moves from a fee-for-service model to one that reimburses for value. This “volume to value” shift requires laboratories to re-think their approach to meeting the needs of their institutions or their agencies. This shift will require laboratories to broaden their focus beyond cost savings and operational efficiency to include measurable positive impact on patient outcomes.

Participate in ICE by submitting an abstract describing testing-related interventions and the quantifiable positive impact for patients produced. Winners will be recognized at CLMA’s annual KnowledgeLab, March 26-29, 2017 in Nashville, Tenn. The highest rated abstract will also have the opportunity to present at the IFCC EuropMedLab 2017 in Athens, Greece, with paid airfare and registration.

Abstract submissions are due Friday, September 30. Abstracts should be 750 words or less across all four sections:

  • Statement of Problem or Background
  • Intervention/Study
  • Plan/Measures Data Analysis and Results
  • Discussion and Lessons Learned

If you have made important advancements to efficiency in the clinical laboratory field receive recognition for your contributions by submitting an abstract, sharing the results of your efforts and helping your peers learn from your experience.

Resources
Frequently Asked Questions
Library of Previous ICE Submissions
Program Requirements and Guidelines

Why do we need the ICE initiative?
In the USA, a shift in reimbursement is occurring from fee-for-service to value-based. Since the clinical laboratory represents only 3-5% of the national health expenditure, value cannot be impacted by focusing only on reducing laboratory costs. Therefore, it is imperative we shift our focus to clinical effectiveness to address the larger opportunity of waste that the IOM estimates at 30% of health expenditures.

What kinds of projects would meet the published criteria?
There are many kinds of projects that could meet the criteria. The current focus on reducing unnecessary repeat testing is an example if it can be clearly shown it is unnecessary and not just a means to save money. Data mining efforts that reduce the absence of follow-up testing associated with abnormal results is another example. Projects that increase the screening of appropriate adults for diabetes could be another. In each case, the key will be identifying appropriate outcome measures.