As many of you are already aware, our 2007-2008 legislative journey for the Minnesota laboratory licensure bill ended in late February.  Although disappointing, the hindsight that occurs over a month later provides the perspective you need to reassess and move forward.

Neither Kathy Hansen nor I, as co-chairs of the Minnesota licensure coalition, expected that our licensure bill would pass on the first try (hoped – yes, expected – no).  I think we learned a lot about the legislative and political process.  We also learned a lot about who our opposition was and what their arguments against licensure were.  I can say, without a doubt that the resolve of Kathy and I to continue leading this effort is not wavering.  We have planned a follow-up licensure coalition meeting on April 7 with the specific goal to review what happened and to regroup for the next phase of this process.  We will need each coalition member organization to

MPR photo / Nikki Tundel

Laboratory Licensure: 

2008 Debriefing
Submitted By: Rick Panning, ASCLS President

ASCLS-MN

e-LABorate

 

APRIL 8, 2008

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1

Special points of interest:

· Licensure Bill Pulled

· 2008 CLC in Saint Paul; May 14-16

· Call for nominations

· Donate items for the CMN Silent Auction

e-LABorate is the official quarterly electronic newsletter of the American Society for Clinical

 Laboratory Science-Minnesota

recommit to continuing the process.

Our opposition came from the following fronts:  College of American Pathologists (CAP), Minnesota Society for Pathology (MSP), and American Association of Bioanalysts (AAB).  Although the Minnesota Hospital Association (MHA) did not oppose us, some of their member hospitals did.  Interestingly enough some of their member hospitals also specifically supported us.  The Minnesota Medical Association (MMA) did not officially oppose us but if we are to strengthen the bill to include physician office laboratories, they will be in opposition.  Mayo Clinic was officially neutral, but did voice their concerns about the bill.

If this sounds familiar to you, maybe it is because it sounds like the Bible story of David vs. Goliath.  We know where our opposition comes from and now we clearly understand the arguments that will be used against

us.  I will provide a brief list of the arguments used in opposition to our bill.

1. We are currently experiencing a severe shortage of laboratory professionals in Minnesota and licensure will make that worse.  National government workforce data does not support this.

2. The bill provides no alternate routes to a four year college degree.  In fact the bill provides opportunities for associate and bachelor degree level personnel and provides alternate routes to certification for those with a Bachelor’s degree not specifically in MT/CLS. 

3. Individuals currently working as technologists could lose their positions or be downgraded to a lesser position.  This is blatantly false due to the generous grandfathering clauses in the bill to recognize current practitioners.