Tougher tests for Pap smear lab readers?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The feds want the folks who read Pap smear results that check for cervical cancer to take a more rigorous proficiency exam.

A proposal by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would require pathologists and cytologists taking the proficiency exam to read 20 instead of 10 slides of cells. But it would also allow them to take the exam once every two years instead of annually.

Poor analyses of Pap smears in the late 1980s that led to women dying of cervical cancer prompted Congress to pass the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendments of 1988, which requires CMS to establish minimum quality standards for lab testing in the U.S. But the testing requirement for Pap smear readers wasn’t implemented on a nationwide basis until 2005.

Since then, pathologists and cytologists have apparently gotten better at reading the smears, with 33 percent failing the test in 2005 compared with 11 percent in 2007, according to CMS. Still, the agency says that's not good enough, especially since the death rate for minority women is falling slower than for white women. There were an estimated 11,070 cervical cancer diagnoses in the U.S. last year and 3,870 deaths, according to the National Cancer Institute.

The proposal is in today's Federal Register. CMS will issue a final ruling after the March 17 deadline to submit comments on the proposal.

Image of Pap smear via WikiMedia Commons  

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe