Policy

Governmental Health Laboratories Slammed by Recession 
Governmental Health Laboratories Slammed by Recession

Some key findings include the following:

  • Approximately 96% of government laboratories made these reductions because of
        the recent economic downturn.
  • APHL estimates government laboratories nationwide have seen their budgets cut by
        approximately $39 million or $405,000 on average.
  • Laboratories nationwide either laid-off or left unfilled an estimated 429 full-time
        employees/positions
    and expect to see another 246 layoffs/unfilled positions in
        2009.
  • Eighty-four percent of government laboratories were forced to reduce their spending
        on much-needed supplies and equipment. The average reduction was around $142,000
        per laboratory, or an estimated $14 million nationwide.
    • To manage these spending reductions, governmental laboratories have done the following:

      1. 1.  Closed entire divisions within their laboratory and reduced the scope of other divisions.
      2. 2.  Frozen compensation and benefits for existing positions.
      3. 3.  Eliminated or reduced both in-state and out of state travel.
      4. 4.  Delayed and deferred the purchase and maintenance of equipment.
      5. 5.  Undergone monthly furlough days.

      Understandably, these budget actions are also causing reductions in services for West Nile virus, food safety testing, respiratory virus testing, HIV oral fluid testing, environmental testing, blood lead testing, hepatitis A, B, C testing, radiation chemistry, water microbiology, the number of samples tested for food safety, as well as increasing the time required to produce laboratory results.

      But the much larger impact is how these service reductions impact the public’s health by reducing the probability of finding a contaminated food product based on testing of high risk food; decreased surveillance of public health risk issues; and increased costs as testing, especially environmental testing, is shifted to the private sector. Overall, the laboratories are less prepared to respond to a large infectious disease, food or water-borne disease outbreak. This is an unacceptable position, and it must be addressed immediately.

      Actual Survey Respondents Testimony:

      What is the impact of those reduced services?

      " Significant overtime usages in specific areas. Increase in [turn around time], delay in development of new tests, severely limited ability to respond to [bioterrorism/chemical terrorism] events, outbreaks, pandemics or novel diseases. Major impact on indigent and non-insured population."

      " Loss of detecting persons when they are in their most infective stage for transmitting HIV."

      " Our lab will be less prepared to respond to to a large food or water-borne disease outbreak."

      " Decreased surveillence of public health risk issues."

      " Inadequate STD treatment."

      What is the impact of those reduced services (in equipment)?

      "Increased [turn around time] for laboratory testing and laboratory inspections. Acute delays in procesing laboratory applications and updates. Reduction/elimination of services for under-insured and non-insured populations."

      " Reduced ability to respond to outbreaks."