AQHA Membership

Releasing 5-Panel Test Results

This is the response I received by email from AQHA.

 

"Once results are received in our office from UC Davis, we can email a copy of the results to the owner for quicker access. Our contract with UC Davis is strictly with AQHA and they do not have access to our AQHA member information. UC Davis is a genetic laboratory whose sole purpose is to run the data. They do not record the results and should not be responsible for releasing the results to our AQHA members."

 

Since there was no way for me to respond to the comment since it was now "closed" I am submitting my response:

 

UC Davis does not need access to AQHA's member information. All that needs to be done is add a line on the submission form to put our email address on so that UC Davis can email the owner the results upon completion. The EXACT same thing they do if you order directly through UC Davis.

 

If AQHA is the only route of getting the results emailed, they are going to have to get faster at it and it needs to automatically be done without members having to call numerous times to find out if they are available. It still takes WAY TOO LONG to get results. I ordered my kit online, paid online and it took two weeks for me to even get my kit in the mail. Then another two weeks to get my results, which I had to call several times to finally get. It took two months to actually get my paper copy in the mail.

 

Why can't we print the form off of AQHA's site directly? The SAME way you do if you are submitting the sample directly to UC Davis. I do not see why there should be any issue in doing this. That way we don't have to wait two weeks just to get the kit! We can fill out the form horse's info, our email and send it to UCD. UCD can then in turn submit the results to both AQHA and the Owner of the horse. It would save AQHA a ton of time not having to answer all these calls for people looking for the test results as well as make it simpler to get results to the members.

Tags

Voting

31 votes
32 up votes
1 down votes
Idea No. 291