Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lead Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to let private clinical labs test children’s lead levels prompts committee questions on reporting and cost
Summary
H 7191 would allow Rhode Island clinical laboratories to test pediatric blood lead levels (children under 6). Eastside Clinical Laboratory argued testing locally would save money and speed results; committee members asked for written assurances that private labs will report all results to DOH and for the DOH savings methodology.
Providence — Representative Phillips appeared before the House Committee on Health and Human Services to introduce H 7191, which would permit clinical laboratories incorporated in Rhode Island to analyze blood samples from children under age 6 for lead levels. The bill aims to expand the number of facilities that may perform pediatric lead testing beyond the Department of Health laboratory.
Eastside Clinical Laboratory representatives told the committee that commercial labs already collect about 1,200 pediatric specimens annually in Rhode Island and that allowing in‑state testing would reduce handling, lower contamination risk from multiple aliquots and improve turnaround time. Eastside’s operations manager said routine positive results would be reported to the Department of Health as required for public‑health surveillance.
Committee members focused questioning on three themes: who pays for the tests if private labs do them (insurers or Medicaid rather than direct state payment), whether private‑lab results would be reported and integrated into DOH surveillance systems, and what accreditation and certification would be required. Eastside said tests would be billed to third‑party payers in most cases and said the lab holds College of American Pathologists (CAP) certification; it also said it would notify DOH of positive results and could share full result datasets to support surveillance.
Members asked the sponsor to obtain documentation explaining the Department of Health’s earlier estimate that shifting testing procedures would save approximately $342,000; sponsors agreed to obtain and circulate the methodology. Representative McGaugh asked whether national or EPA laboratory accreditation standards should be required; Eastside said it holds CAP certification and would comply with standard quality controls.
Several members requested amendments or clarifications to ensure that DOH continues to receive complete test data so the state can monitor childhood lead exposure and link results to housing and public‑health follow‑up. Sponsors agreed to pursue written language ensuring reporting and to obtain additional cost figures from DOH.
The Committee closed the bill’s hearing and will consider amendments to address reporting, certification and cost‑impact questions.
Next steps: sponsors will follow up with DOH methodology on the state’s savings estimate and propose language to require private lab reporting to DOH, if necessary.
