I?m seeking information on the estimated or actual dollars spent by
medical insurance companies due to a false or misdiagnosed test
results from lab work. Basically I?m looking for statistical
information that supports the need for accuracy in laboratory and
pathological testing.
Many insurance providers today use a capitated payment systems for
laboratory work that gives them an ?all you can eat? pricing structure
with labs. That may be okay for many common fluid tests, but is far
from perfect for a lot of pathology testing where subtle differences
in cell shape and color are important.  I?m trying to build an
argument that spending a little more on specialized testing that is
more accurate and performed by board certified physicians is more cost
effective than a misdiagnosis and the complications associated with
it.
Thank you for your time

Sounds to me like 'production theory' (manufacturing)

At its most simplistic the cost of fixing a screwup increases 10 fold
with each step that it remains undetected on the 'production line'

I think the buzzword is 'total quality control'

I've worked in medical labs for over 25 years. By far, the biggest
source of errors in lab work are mislabeled specimens and improperly
collected and stored specimens. ER nurses that leave preprinted labels
from a patient in a room, only to have those labels mistakenly used on
the next patient, staff that prelabels blood tubes or urine specimen
cups long before they are needed, and mistakenly grabbed for use with
another patient... Having two patients with similar names, patients
going for X-ray and being out in a different room on return... the
list goes on.

The second largest source of error is quality of sample. Between
mislabeling and quality of sample errors, many mistakes are made. In
my last job, we rejected about half a dozen samples per shift. Quality
of sample is affected when a nurse or phlebotomist does not understand
the importance of GENTLY mixing a blood sample drawn into s tube with
anticoagulant. Many clotted samples are received a day, and they all
have to be redrawn, at considerable expense. When a sample is drawn
into the wrong tube, and upon discovering the error, the phlebotomist
pours the blood into another tube... results are skewed. Not keeping
samples iced that MUST be iced, changes results. Drawing a sample
above an IV always produces false results, which can be fatal. Many
personnel do not understand that the blood above an IV is full of
glucose and/or saline. I can go on for hours about specimen collection
errors.

  I have to say that there is a great deal, no, an ENORMOUS amount, at
times to the extreme, of quality control going on in a HOSPITAL lab.
There is much sloppy work being done in private for profit laboratory
chains, starting with poorly trained phlebotomists. Most phlebotomists
in independent drawing stations are excellent at obtaining blood, but
not at processing and storing the samples.

 Quality medical labs and hospital labs have many checks and balances,
with known samples and unknown samples run for positive/negative or
high and low controls. All abnormal results are repeated, with
additional quality control run again. All analyzers are calibrated
routinely. Lab personnel must attend continuing education classes each
year, and proficiency testing of staff is ongoing, often monthly.
Mistakes ARE made, but not as nearly as often as most TV medical
dramas want to indicate. I can vouch for that. Hospital laboratories
have to meet strict guidelines in order to meet JCAOH, Medicare and
AABB standards and accreditation.

Also, licensed physicians do not perform lab tests. Certified
laboratories have one or more pathologists oversee the work. I
specialized in Special Hematology- reviewing blood, bone marrow and
spinal fluids for diseased cells, such as leukemias, lymphomas, lead
poisoning, anemias, bacteria, malaria,etc. , where "shape and color"
DO matter! Only Medical Technologists who have proved themselves
perform these tests, not lab technicians. Cytotechnologists prepare 
pathology specimens, such as tissue and body parts for the
pathologist.

Each lab has it's own criteria for the need for a "path review" when
finding an immature cell in a blood smear. This  means when something
pathogenic is found by a medical technologist, it may or may not need
to be checked by a pathologist.

I don't understand the 'all you can eat' concept. Today, most doctors
under-order, rather than over-order lab tests. Screening tests are
performed to save money. For example, a CBC can be run on a teenager
with a low fever to check for anemia, an infection, etc. If the blood
smear shows a high level of atypical lymphocytes, the doctor would
then order a test for mononucleosis. If there are no atypical
lymphocytes, the doctor would not typically waste money ordering the
Mono test, unless the patients conditions truly warrants it.

Another good example is the test for strep throat. Today, the nurse
usually collects TWO swabs when testing for strep. One swab is used to
run a rapid test, obtaining results in less than 20 minutes. Becasue
this test can give false negatives, partcularly if the patient has
sucked on lozenges shortly before swabbing, the second swab is used to
perform a routine old fashioned culture. But, if the test is positive,
money is saved by NOT running the culture, and the second swab is
discarded and autoclaved before going to the dump!