3 Questions with Jonathan Genzen, MD, PhD, MBA

Jonathan Genzen, MD, PhD, MBA, chief medical officer and senior director of government affairs at ARUP Laboratories and professor of Pathology at the University of Utah, has always gravitated toward areas that benefit from clinical laboratory automation. “At its core, clinical pathology often involves solving routine and complex medical and operational questions. In the clinical laboratory, we can sometimes approach this systematically – developing processes such as pre-analytic or analytic automation to positively impact hundreds or even thousands of patients each day,” Dr. Genzen says. “That’s a powerful way to contribute to patient care, and it’s something I find deeply fulfilling both professionally and personally.”  

“For pathologists and laboratory professionals, everything centers around patient care,” he continues. “Every specimen represents a patient, and our decisions and daily work must reflect that principle. This mindset is deeply embedded in the culture of clinical laboratories. Not a day goes by that I don’t feel that we’re making a meaningful impact in improving the health and well-being of patients.”  

Here, Dr. Genzen shares his thoughts on challenges faced by today’s laboratories, and more.    

What are some of the biggest challenges you face in your field, particularly when it comes to supporting patient care?  

Pathology is underrecognized as a medical specialty, which presents challenges—especially in resource allocation. This is counterintuitive, given the significant impact laboratory testing has on patient care, often at a low relative cost versus other medical services. Because diagnostic testing can be easily quantified from a financial standpoint, it is frequently targeted for budget cuts under the umbrella of support services. This makes it difficult, for example, to recruit and retain skilled laboratory professionals. Additionally, ongoing federal reductions in reimbursement for laboratory and professional services place further strain on labs, forcing them to do more with less—a model that is unsustainable in many settings.  

What are some of the lessons you've learned through the different volunteer roles you’ve taken on, in or out of ASCP?  

My first volunteer role with ASCP was on the RISE (Resident In-Service Examination) Committee. Since then, I’ve had the privilege of serving in various roles in committees across the Commission on Continuing Professional Development, the Commission on Membership, and the Commission on Science, Technology, and Public Policy. In each of these experiences, I’ve been continually inspired by ASCP’s dedicated staff and volunteers, all of whom work tirelessly to advance the field of pathology and laboratory medicine.  

Volunteering with professional organizations like ASCP is a powerful way to amplify your impact and contribute meaningfully to patient care. Engaging with colleagues from diverse institutions and locations exposes you to a wide range of problem-solving approaches and fosters valuable collaboration. These experiences help one to build a strong professional network and reinforce the importance of staying engaged, being an active participant, and encouraging others to explore volunteer opportunities. There’s always room for more voices and perspectives in professional service roles.   

What do you hope to leave as your legacy in the laboratory?  

Over the past few years, I’ve focused extensively on advocacy and education regarding federal oversight proposals for laboratory developed tests (LDTs). Ideally, future frameworks could support ongoing innovation, access to diagnostic testing, and affordability, while also addressing concerns from some around transparency and safety. I believe this is achievable—perhaps even straightforward—if we can foster meaningful collaboration among regulators, legislators, and the broader clinical laboratory, medical, and patient advocacy communities. It could be a legacy we are all proud of, and one that benefits patients for generations to come.