CAP Revised Position on State Legislation Requiring Licensure of Clinical Laboratory Personnel Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is CAP’s new position on state legislation on licensure of clinical laboratory personnel?
The College has revised its position on state legislation requiring licensure for clinical laboratory personnel, and developed model criteria that will guide its decisions on whether to support or oppose medical licensure legislation introduced in the states.
It is expected to help support the efforts of clinical laboratory personnel who seek to be licensed, and at the same time ensure that the legislative language in every licensure bill will address the College’s key concerns.
2. How different is CAP’s new position from its prior position?
For the past several years, the College, in partnership with State Pathology Societies, has opposed licensure bills introduced in the states because CAP members had concerns about specific details in the bills being advocated.
The CAP model criteria address the legitimate concerns our members have expressed. Now, if a bill incorporates the model criteria in the legislative language, CAP will raise no objection to it.
3. What were the concerns CAP members expressed about licensure?
CAP members felt the legislative language in many of the bills would exacerbate workforce shortages by eliminating on the job training as a pathway to employment, create conflict within the laboratory over scope of work between physicians and non-physicians, and create an overly complex and regimented personnel classification scheme that would potentially undermine the authority of the laboratory director to select the most appropriate staffing for their laboratory.