However, the cost for a typical 5-part instrument can be two to three times higher (20,000 to 50,000 USD) than for a 3-part instrument (less than 10,000 USD). In addition, a 5-part differential often requires more reagents than a 3-partdifferential, also increasing the cost per test from below 1 USD/test for a 3-part differential to 1.5 to 3 USD/test for a 5-part differential. Yet, government reimbursements commonly do not consider whether WBCs are differentiated into 3- or 5-parts. Hence, 5-part instruments are typically used by oncology or allergy clinics that can justify the need for eosinophil and basophil counts.
Depending on local policies, samples that are flagged as abnormal commonly require microscopical examination to confirm the results obtained with the analyzer, regardless of instrument type. For this, blood smears are typically sent to a hematology laboratory for a manual count. According to many hematology laboratories experienced in blood smear examinations, the number of samples that requires manual examination can be greatly reduced with the more detailed information on the blood status provided by a 5-part differential. If about 30% of the total number of samples generates a suspicious flag with a 3-part instrument, and thus will require manual examination, the more detailed information provided by a 5-part instrument can reduce this number to about 20%, ultimately decreasing laboratory time and cost for shipping of samples.
For general screenings, however, and when reimbursement is the same irrespective of 3-part and 5-part differential, a 3-part instrument can contribute to an improved laboratory economy by offering the caregiver a greater profit opportunity. In addition, a 3-part instrument based on robust impedance technology might require less maintenance than a 5-part instrument, which also includes a more sensitive laser-based measurement technology.
Learn more
Read more about the differences and similarities of 3-part or 5-part hematology analyzers from this whitepapper.
