The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Review and Analysis of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment of 1988: Compliance Plans and Enforcement Policy
Abstract
In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA), thereby extending coverage of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1967 to include quality standards for all laboratory-based testing. The CLIA was enacted to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of patient test results, regardless of the location where the tests were performed. This article assessed trends in the enforcement policy of the CLIA through an examination of the Laboratory Registry, an annual publication of those individuals or entities that have had sanctions imposed on them by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We reviewed the CLIA, including its oversight, regulations that were promulgated based on it, and its enforcement procedures. We obtained the Laboratory Registries for 1993-2001. Sanctions were categorized into groups per the enforcement regulations (42 C.F.R. section sign 493.2 2000). The data indicated an increasing use of more lenient sanctions from 1997 to 2001, and a gradual increase in fraudulent activity for that same period. One possible explanation for this finding is that implementation of compliance plans by participating clinical laboratories had a mitigating effect on enforcement policy. Compliance plan guidance from the OIG provides an opportunity for laboratory service providers to be proactive in their attempts to decrease errors, and thus improve accuracy and reliability by documenting laboratory policies, procedures, and objectiv…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“CLIA of 1988 was enacted to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of laboratory test results used in diagnosis, screening, and patient monitoring [329].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [329]
Citations
Cites
Policy analysis : concepts and practice
Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1989) · Cited by 861
Literature review of research related to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988.
Dj, B. (1992) · PubMed · Cited by 31
Is It Time to Turn the Page on CLIA 1988?
Bachner, P. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.6.473 · Cited by 12
The status of physician office labs since CLIA '88.
Higgins, J. C. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 5
Cutting red tape on clinical labs: why Congress should deregulate doctors.
Mahkorn, S. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 3
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Higgins, 2000, Journal of Medical Practice Management, 16, 99
- Boone, 1992, Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 116, 681
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Impact of Laboratory Accreditation on Patient Care and the Health System
PETER, T. F., Rotz, P. D., Blair, D. H., Khine, A.-A., Freeman, R. R., & Murtagh, M. M. (2010) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1309/ajcph1skq1hnwghf · Cited by 106
Interventions to reduce corruption in the health sector
Gaitonde, R., Oxman, A. D., Okebukola, P. O., & Rada, G. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd008856.pub2 · Cited by 117
Genetic Testing in Psychiatry: A Review of Attitudes and Beliefs
Lawrence, R. E., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2011) · Psychiatry · doi:10.1521/psyc.2011.74.4.315 · Cited by 61
Rashidian, A., Joudaki, H., & Vian, T. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041988 · Cited by 59
Angrist, M. H. (2011) · Personalized Medicine · doi:10.2217/pme.11.62 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- Authors
- Rivers, P. A., Dobalian, A., & Germinario, F. A.
- Affiliations
- Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Health Services Research & Development (US)
- Venue
- Health Care Management Review
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 93-102
- ISSN
- 0361-6274 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2159942798
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Health Care Management Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Health Services Research and Development
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Regulation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, compliance plan, Office of Inspector General, laboratory quality standards, fraud, regulatory oversight
- MeSH terms
- Accreditation, Facility Regulation and Control, Laboratories, Policy Making, Quality Assurance, Health Care, United States, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S., Guideline Adherence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review