Something could trivially be done to the same effect. A private party, say an investigative journalist, could submit a number of samples and report on the results (perhaps that happened in this case and that's why we know about it?). But to keep costs under control, instead of testing like this on every lab on a regular basis, that private party could randomly select labs for testing. While they're at it, they'd probably prefer to select labs with complaints, rather than a random sample. And at that point, you have something resembling the system we currently operate under, which has--to be fair--been completely successful (if a bit later than ideal) in identifying this problem lab. But as taxpayers, is it worth instituting a new regulated program over this essentially free solution?

Besides, this seems like a case of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Successfully identifying a problem lab--albeit tardily--is a signal the system is working; not that it needs a complete overhaul. Rather consider what completely unrelated problems would benefit from regulatory oversight at a higher return on investment. Focus on those, not on a solved problem.