The results of Lighthouse Lab Services’ third annual wage and morale survey of Medical Laboratory Professionals show significant improvements in overall satisfaction levels compared to previous years. While this jump is encouraging and hopefully serves as a harbinger of continued increases in morale industrywide, more must be done to improve staffing levels and associated burnout as understaffing continues to be noted as a serious concern.
In summary, our results show an industry whose professionals reported higher overall levels of morale and satisfaction within their roles as the uncertainty caused by the pandemic response of the early 2020s fades further into the rearview. Reports of understaffing and associated feelings of being overworked also improved when compared to responses from previous years, although our data shows these to continue to be the biggest areas of concern for both new and experienced individuals.
Additionally, while a super-majority of respondents reported receiving compensation increases within the past 12 months, most continued to note the modest raises do little to combat the rising cost of living and are not substantial enough to prevent attrition within individual labs and the industry at large.
Lighthouse’s intent with this project is to determine correlations between wages, morale, different positions, and experience levels as the Medical Laboratory industry continues to seek ways to better advocate for more training programs and attract new talent.
“It’s great to see that morale overall is improving as we work to bring more visibility to the critical role lab professionals play in informing medical decision-making,” said Lighthouse President Jon Harol. “That said, we must continue to push for new ways to expand the recruitment pipeline to finally provide a long-term solution to persistent staffing shortages.”
| Objectives: To inform the medical laboratory community of current levels of wages, staffing, and overall satisfaction among lab professionals, while also providing respondents with actionable data that can be used to inform future career choices. As this annual survey has progressed since we first conducted it in 2021, we have expanded our focus to highlight the gender wage gap, shift payment differentials, and additional insights from our CLIA lab director respondents. |
| Methods: Lighthouse Lab Services collected responses from 1,005 lab professionals across our newsletters, social media, and other outreach channels. Respondents were given the option to submit their data anonymously. Wage data was submitted by 895 individuals and was primarily collected from respondents who identified as Lab Assistants, Technicians, Technologists, Managers, Administrative Support, Administrative Lab Directors, and CLIA Medical Lab Directors. The vast majority of our respondents reported they are female (80%), while a plurality (40%) indicated they have 21 or more years of experience as a lab professional. |
| Results: For the first time, our results show a significant jump in overall reported satisfaction, with 52% saying they are moderately or extremely satisfied in their current role, up from 44% in 2023 and 41% in 2022. Additionally, a majority of respondents again received modest salary increases in 2024. However, concerns over staffing levels and burnout remain significant. Keeping in line with results from our first two years conducting this survey, most individuals (68%) again indicated they feel their lab is understaffed. And while for the first time, the majority no longer reported feeling overworked, that victory is a slight one, as 48% still said their workload was too severe. |
| Conclusion: As we have noted over the past two years, the medical laboratory community and stakeholders must continue to increase the recruitment of new lab professionals as older individuals retire from the workforce. Part of this effort must include increasing the number of training programs and lab degrees offered nationwide after these programs have experienced attrition in recent years, which continues to limit the number of pathways for potential new hires. In addition to recruitment, labs must also focus on maintaining proper staffing levels to avoid employee burnout and maintain morale. This approach must include a focus on compensation increases and consistent employee feedback in order to avoid turnover. However, it should not involve lowering training and certification standards to allow underqualified individuals to fill these high-skilled positions. |
Demographics and education
In total, Lighthouse collected data from 1,005 respondents. Of those, 68% described their race/ethnicity as White or Caucasian, while 9% identified as Black or African American, and 8% as Asian or Pacific Islander. An additional 8% identified as Latino or Hispanic, with Native Americans/Alaskan Natives, multiracial or biracial individuals, and those identified as “not listed” or preferring not to disclose their ethnicity comprising the remainder of the population.
Individuals identifying as female again comprised the overwhelming majority of our respondents at 80%. Meanwhile, men totaled 19% of responses, while those who identified as non-binary or preferred not to disclose their gender comprised the remaining 1%. This represents a slight aberration from workforce statistics reported by Medical Laboratory Observer in its 2023 survey of lab professionals (73% female), and career demographics tracker Zippia.com, which estimates the workforce is currently comprised of 66% females.
Respondents predominantly identified their roles as Technologists (49%), followed by Managers (20%), Technicians (13%), Administrative Lab Directors (7%), Board Certified CLIA Lab Directors (4%), Administrative Support/Other (3%), Lab Assistants/Accessioners (2%), and Field Service Engineers (1%). A plurality of individuals (40%) indicated they have 21 or more years of experience as a lab professional, while those with five or fewer years of experience comprised the second-most represented experience bracket with 16.5% of responses.
A substantial majority of respondents (75%) said they worked in a high-complexity lab, and 19% described their lab as moderate complexity. Additionally, 1% served in waived-complexity labs, while 5% were unsure of the complexity of their lab. More than half of the individuals who responded to this survey indicated they are currently fulfilling a CLIA-designated role for their lab (57%).
As for education, most of the individuals who completed the survey reported having earned a bachelor’s degree (57%) or master’s (22%). Those holding associate degrees totaled 13% of our responses, while 5% reported having earned a doctorate. Just 2% of respondents noted a high school diploma as their highest level of education.
Staffing levels improved slightly, but continue to impact morale
One of the most significant takeaways from our 2022 and 2023 surveys was the immense effect low staffing levels have on the morale of individual lab professionals. Although overall morale has improved significantly, staffing levels continue to have a substantial impact on morale.
According to this year’s results, 40% of respondents indicated their lab is moderately understaffed, while another 19% described their lab as significantly understaffed. While this total (59%) represents an improvement from the 67% of respondents who reported feeling significantly or moderately understaffed in 2023, the figure is still alarmingly high and requires the industry’s continued attention.
Fortunately, 41% of respondents felt their lab is adequately or well-staffed, up from the 31% who reported satisfaction with their staffing levels last year. Unsurprisingly, the respondent’s perception of staffing levels had a direct correlation to their feelings of satisfaction, with those perceiving their lab’s staffing situation favorably more likely to express satisfaction with their role.
To illustrate this point, the following graph displays satisfaction levels among the 59% of respondents (589 total) who described their lab as moderately or significantly understaffed. Of this group, 34% described themselves as extremely or moderately unsatisfied in their role, while another 23% stated their morale was neutral. A total of 43% of respondents who felt their labs had staffing issues said they were moderately or extremely satisfied with their careers, representing an improvement from the 35% of lab professionals with staffing issues who reported satisfaction with their jobs in 2023.
Finally, a slight minority of respondents (48%) described themselves as “overworked” relative to their position, an improvement from the 52% of lab professionals who said they were struggling with their workloads in 2023. The remaining individuals described their workload as “reasonable” (40%) or reported themselves as “satisfied” (12%) with their responsibilities.
Numerous respondents pointed to poor compensation and understaffing as the key culprits that continue to create a culture where new hires are continually seeking better opportunities.
“We’re not well staffed and our company doesn’t pay well compared to surrounding healthcare institutions,” said the individual. “This leads to us getting new/inexperienced staff that we train only to know they will be leaving for better pay.”
Another agreed understaffing continues to be the biggest issue facing the industry, noting it is particularly impacting lab directors.
“Understaffing is hurting our professional development and causing the best and brightest to leave the field,” they said.
Wage averages by position
The national average reported compensation across all positions was $91,405, collected from 895 respondents who chose to submit wage information. This total is a substantial increase (11%) over the reported average of $81,840 from 895 respondents in 2023.
The total pool of respondents for each position breaks down as follows: Technologists (445), Managers (189), Technicians (109), Administrative Lab Directors (65), CLIA Lab Directors (30), Administrative Support/Other (28), and Lab Assistants/Accessioners (20).
The chart below depicts the 2024 national annual compensation by position compared to data collected in 2023. As noted above, most positions saw healthy increases to reported compensation averages.
- Technologist (445): $80,902
- Manager (189): $100,840
- Technician (109): $61,133
- Admin LD (65): $137,786
- CLIA LD (30): $224,200
- Administrative Support Staff (28): $88,748
- Lab Assistant/Accessioner (20): $42,062
Additionally, this year we have elected to break out three states with an exceptionally high cost of living (HCL) due to the significant pay disparities reported by lab professionals within those states. The chart below presents national averages compared against reported averages for these HCL states, while the third bar shows national averages with wages reported from those states removed.
Across positions where we received wage data for these three states, respondents averaged roughly 20%-40% more in annual compensation. Technicians reported the most substantial pay gap for HCL states, with professionals within these states reporting earnings 43% greater than their counterparts in the other 47 states.
Technologist
- National (excluding CA, HI, NY): $77,426 (401)
- HCL states: $112,580 (44)
Manager:
- National (excluding CA, HI, NY): $96,838 (172)
- HCL: $141,341 (17)
Technician:
- National (excluding CA, HI, NY): $59,069 (102)
- HCL: $91,223 (7)
Admin Lab Director:
- National (excluding CA, HI, NY): $135,805 (61)
- HCL states: $168,000 (4)
CLIA Lab Director:
- National (excluding CA, HI, NY): $218,179 (28)
- HCL: $308,500 (2)
Many respondents noted that although they receive annual compensation increases, they generally are small merit or cost of living increases and don’t do enough to reflect improved performance alongside rising inflation. Another common theme was the perception that lab professionals are underpaid compared to other healthcare professionals.
“We are collectively underpaid relative to what we do for patient care and overall revenue,” said one respondent. “Technical wages are still trending too low for a bachelor’s prepared MLS, compared to their nursing counterparts.”
Impact of recent raises and the widening gender wage gap
Overall, while a substantial majority of respondents (80%) received a raise in the past year — up from the 74% who reported raises in 2023 — most compensation increases were modest, with 55% reporting their pay bump ranged from a 1% to 5% increase over their previous salary. As expected, those who did not receive a pay raise in the past year were the most likely to indicate higher levels of dissatisfaction within their position.
On average, women reported earning 23% less than their male counterparts
We have again elected to break out reported annual compensation averages by position for males and females after reporting a significant discrepancy in average compensation last year. Unfortunately, the gap has grown wider in the interim, with the average male respondent now reporting annual compensation 23% higher than the average female, up from a reported 19% gap in 2023.
On average, the 190 men who responded to the survey reported earning $109,810, compared to the average compensation of $87,097 reported by the 800 women who responded. The remainder of our respondents indicated they were non-binary or chose not to report their gender.
The charts below break out a few additional details from our respondents:
Examining CLIA-Certified Lab Directors
As we continually seek to improve this survey, we’ve implemented additional efforts to filter responses between CLIA-Certified Lab Directors and their administrative counterparts to receive more accurate salary data. That said, we still received a wide range of salary responses across a limited pool of individuals. We received responses from 37 Lab Directors who indicated they are CLIA-certified, with 30 electing to submit salary data.
Here is a brief rundown of some of the other data we collected from this group:
Average salary: $224K
Average amount made from consulting in 2023: $45K
1099 or W-2, if employed by multiple labs?
- Both – 35%
- W-2 – 31%
- 1099 – 27%
- Unsure – 2%
One lab director emphasized in their comments that they feel upper management in their health system, and in the industry in general, does not sufficiently value the role of the lab. They further commented that they struggle to locate qualified applicants when they are allowed to hire additional staff.
“The baseline level of staffing that we are allocated is way too low and they don’t seem to understand that when test volumes increase, staffing needs to increase,” they wrote. “Our technologists are frustrated with the lack of staffing. This industry is in crisis.”
Overall Morale Shows Significant Improvement
Overall, reported satisfaction amongst the total pool of respondents experienced a healthy jump this year, with 52% saying they are moderately or extremely satisfied in their current role, up from 44% in 2023 and 41% in 2022. Just 25% describe themselves as moderately or extremely unsatisfied, while 23% said they feel neutral about morale in their labs. This again marks a substantial improvement from the 32% who reported feelings of unhappiness within their lab in 2023.
Although we noted ongoing frustrations with staffing and wage stagnation above, there were several positive comments received this year that show many lab professionals continue to have passion for their careers despite these issues.
“I LOVE my job: educating new technologists and customers,” said one person. “I enjoy that I can affect positive change in my staff.”
However, the same individual noted they are also feeling the strain of staffing limitations, working up to 60 hours per week with no overtime compensation.
“I do it because I know it is for the better good of the lab,” they said. “I will, however, be quite pleased when I do not have to do that anymore.”
In each of the past two years, we noted lab professionals with five or fewer years of experience were found to be less satisfied than their more experienced peers, with 32% describing being moderately or extremely unsatisfied and another 30% stating they were neutral in our 2023 survey. Those satisfaction figures improved slightly this year, as 31% of newer entrants to the field reported some dissatisfaction within their role, and another 26% stated their feelings were neutral.
As in previous years, respondents again overwhelmingly said they believe salaries and morale for the industry will only be improved by lab professionals and stakeholders working to increase the visibility and public awareness of the profession.
“We are often overlooked and discredited for our role in patient care due to a lack of understanding about the vital work we do,” one respondent said. “Until that changes, these longstanding issues will remain.”
Meanwhile, those with 21 or more years of experience were again found to be the most satisfied with their roles, as nearly 61% described themselves as moderately or extremely satisfied, up from 48% satisfaction reported by this group in 2023. The following graph further displays satisfaction across years of experience reported by our respondents.
Conclusion
As highlighted in our introduction, we are pleased to see overall morale improving alongside an increase in the prevalence of compensation raises being awarded. However, pay increases currently offered remain modest and have a limited corresponding impact on retention and staffing industrywide. Beyond compensation, laboratories must seek to maintain appropriate staffing levels, as understaffing remains the biggest concern among our respondents.
Labs can further improve retention by outlining and communicating clear career advancement and training opportunities, investing in skill development, and consistently engaging employees to gather fresh ideas and identify areas for improvement.
Beyond efforts within individual laboratories, the industry must intensify recruitment and pipeline fortification efforts to address longstanding staffing challenges. Advocates must push to expand lab degree programs and training initiatives, which have dwindled in recent decades, to bolster the future workforce. However, this effort should not involve lowering qualification standards.
I don’t quite agree with including Hawaii with the other 2 HCL states. Hawaii is a high cost of living state, but we get paid significantly less than the other states, at least with my experience. I was paid well in California, but I now get paid half of what I was paid in CA here in Hawaii. But you must have higher salaries reported in Hawaii. I guess I’m not one of them.
Thanks for that feedback! It’s difficult to objectively determine what “high-cost of living” entails since that’s different to everyone, so bunched the three states that most heavily skewed our national averages. Your experience is noted however and we’ll definitely keep that in mind for next year’s report!
I think it would be worthwhile, and potentially revealing to further break down salary by gender. We need to see it broken down by job title, years of experience etc. It would also be transparent to include a spreadsheet of the raw data with sensitive info redacted for analysis. I can guarantee further correlations and trends can be established. I have a humble amount of experience in data analysis and I don’t think this data has been taken to its furthest potential.
Thanks for the feedback Chris! We agree with all of your points and definitely want to get more juice out of this data in future years, especially in terms of sortability by position and gender. To be completely transparent, any limits in our analysis can be chalked up to bandwidth issues as our team has other responsibilities to manage alongside this report. That said, we’re hope to continue to grow and improve. One of the first things we’re planning to add is a working anonymous data pool with slicers similar to what you suggested.
I am a female in NC, I love my work but after being a BSMT for 40 years. I have gotten my Specialty in my field but learned a week before my results came that a specialist position was handed to a male that would not qualify for the position for at least another 5 years and still would need to take classes for his certification. I was then asked to start a new department in the facility, but never given the acknowledgement or the compensation for doing such. At this time, I am still not making what you say is average. I have been very dissatisfied in the acknowledgement of the position/s, the advancement with those positions and the finances that were never seen for those positions. It has been a very political environment placing staff in positions they are not qualified to hold, and knowledge base and seniority is disregarded. Many that have worked along with me have seen the same results. Many of the people I went to school with have also seen a declines in satisfaction and no recognition with voice and finances.
Thank you for sharing your experience and how it matches against what was reported here. Unfortunately, despite some of the improvements we reported, your comments and overall feelings are far from unique. We’re going to continue to advocate for improving conditions overall, but that cannot entail handing positions to individuals who aren’t qualified or lack proper training and certification.
Hello – did you specifically break out Phlebotomists? It is hard to get them bumps in pay depending on the region you are in…no one wants to be the leader that sets a new wage, everyone wants to be ‘comparable.’ But phlebotomist pay is low.
Hi Melanie, we did not break out phlebotomists this year but have received that feedback from a few others. We agree it’s important to highlight their pay as well so they can advocate for increases. We’re planning to include them in next year’s edition, so stay tuned!
Thank you for your time and effort on this survey. It is a valuable resource for those of us actively involved in laboratory workforce development.
The one disconnect I see is in nomenclature. Medical Laboratory Scientist has been the official title for over a decade. Scientist, not Technologist should be used. If those of us within the field continue with the misnomer, anonymity and confusion will continue to negatively impact recruitment and the perception of non-laboratorians.
Thank you for the feedback! That’s a very fair criticism and something we’ll look to correct in the future.