Pathological Materials Study Committee Meets

On Wednesday the North Carolina General Assembly’s Legislative Research Commission met to discuss issues surrounding patients’ access to pathological materials.  This discussion was sparked by the introduction and debate of HB 795 – Patient Access to Pathological Materials, during the 2011-2012 legislative session.  This legislation proposed to require medical providers to return all pathological materials including tissues, blocks, slides, organs, blood, etc. to patients upon written request of the patient or their attorney.

The NCMS, together with the North Carolina Society of Pathologists and the North Carolina Hospital Association opposed this legislation in 2012 due to its lack of public health and safety protections as well as its inconsistency with federal regulation including CLIA standards.

Although the General Assembly has adjourned its session for the year, without passing HB 795, the Legislative Research Commission was tasked with further study and to report back on the issue prior to the beginning of the 2013 Legislative Session in January.

On Wednesday the Pathological Materials Study Committee, chaired by Representative Tom Murry and Senator Thom Goolsby, heard testimonyfrom Kevin Smith, MD, FCAP, President of the NC Society of Pathologists as well as Shannon McCall, MD from Duke University speaking against the legislation.  Advocating for the legislation was Bill Graham, an attorney with Wallace & Graham based in Salisbury, NC.

The Committee plans to draft its report on this issue no later than December 19, 2012 and hold its final meeting to approve the report on January 4, 2013.

To review any of the written documents provided at the meeting please visit the Committee’s website here.


Share this Post


1 Comment

  • william shipley

    the College of American Pathologists (CAP)has already addressed this issue on a national level and developed guidelines. I would encourage anyone interested to visit the website Further the fact that a law firm specializing in mesothelioma lawsuits is the primary driver for this legislation should raise some bright red flags.