Hmm. I think I agree with the physicians on this one. The person doing the test isn't the person seeing the patient. I don't want a diagnosis from someone who hasn't laid eyes/hands on me. And if they're trying to bill for something they legally aren't allowed to do, i.e. interpretation, well, wouldn't that fall under fraud?
Unless one person's idea of what "interpretation" means, differs from someone else's idea, which, with insurance and all that, might very well be what they're talking about. Does "interpretation" mean putting results in a format that shows if they are high or low? If so, then pay them for it, 'cause that's what happens. If not, if it means actual diagnosis, then no, sorry, I'll go with the physicians on this one, that's their territory.
I don't think this is at all related to nursing diagnosis, which, in my mind, is a system to teach nursing students to bang their heads into a concrete wall. We all know that we interpret lab results for ourselves, but we do it to have an idea of what to do with the patient; i.e., safety issues: Positive D-Dimer, add in our observations of the patient and we have a possible PE, well duh, of course we call the doc... We're participating in diagnosis every day but there is a LOT of patient contact. So I don't think it relates very well to the clinical lab issue.
Other than the money issue, I sort of saw this article as an attempt to point out the obvious.