Originally July 14, 2006.
One of the Appendices included in the GAO Report provies a list of the
number of labs in each state that are inspected by state agencies, as
well as the number of labs in that state that were sanctioned during
the years 1998 to 2004. This state by state breakdown reveals some
interesting details. For instance, it's clear that some states are
either (a) blessed with perfect laboratories; or (b) aren't very tough
when it comes to enforcing laboratory regulations.
- Alaska (50 labs)
- Connecticut (246 labs)
- Delaware (46 labs)
- Idaho (203 labs)
- Kansas (279 labs)
- Kentucky (386 labs)
- Maine (89 labs)
- Massachusetts (409 labs)
- Mississippi (441 labs)
- North Dakota (74 labs)
- Oregon (270 labs)
- South Carolina (315 labs)
- Tennessee (705 labs)
- Vermont (46 labs)
There you have it, fourteen states that have had no recent sanctions in
any of their 3,559 laboratories. If you're lucky enough to reside in
one of those states, congratulations. You're living in a place with
world class healthcare.
Of course, that's just one of the conclusions you can draw about this
data. The other conclusion - the one that the GAO seems to have chosen
- is that some state agencies don't impose sanctions very often, and
that the enforcement of regulations is not performed consistently
across the country.
Which conclusion do you prefer?
Comments