As demand for SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus testing increases, leaders of the College of American Pathologists meet online to brainstorm possible solutions to the crisis
In September, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) began its series of “virtual media briefings” given by leading pathologists and physicians at the forefront of COVID-19 testing which are designed to “offer insights and straight talk” on the crisis confronting today’s clinical laboratories.
During the third virtual meeting on December 9, presenters discussed how the ever-increasing demand for COVID-19 testing has placed an enormous amount of stress on clinical laboratories, medical technologists (MTs), and clinical laboratory scientists (CLSs) responsible for processing the high volume of SARS-CoV-2 tests, and on the supply chains medical laboratories depend on to receive and maintain adequate supplies of testing materials.
“As soon as we get one set of supplies, then it’s another set of supplies that we can’t get our hands on,” said Christine Wojewoda, MD, Clinical Pathologist and Associate Professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center, during the third CAP virtual briefing. “Right now, we’re very concerned that our lab can’t get pipette tips that have a certain filter in them to transfer patient samples into the tubes that we need, or the plates that we need to do the testing. If we can’t get the patient sample into where it needs to go, safely, without contaminating other patient samples, that’s a big issue.”
Other members of the CAP panel concurred with Wojewoda and indicated that their clinical labs also are encountering supply chain challenges.
“It’s a daily battle,” said Amy Karger, MD, PhD, Clinical Pathologist and Associate Professor at University of Minnesota Physicians. “One of our managers spends hours a day making sure our lab has enough supplies, plastics, and chemicals to do the testing that we want to do. And he is often having to look for alternative solutions for COVID-19 testing, making phone calls, trying to find alternative products, and so we have a consistent worry about that.”
A June survey of CAP-accredited laboratories for COVID-19 testing found that more than 60% of lab directors reported difficulties in procuring critical supplies needed to conduct COVID-19 testing. The respondents indicated they encountered substantial barriers to obtaining equipment needed for SARS-CoV-2 testing—particularly test kits (69%), swabs (66%), and transport media (62%).
Staff Burnout and Shortages at Many Medical Laboratories
Karger also indicated that she is concerned about staff burnout and the toll the workload is taking on medical technologists at her laboratory.
“Lab staff have been working full throttle since March. I think that is often lost on people. They kind of assumed that when cases were low with COVID-19, that maybe the lab staff got a break. Well, that wasn’t the case,” she stated, adding, “They [the medical technologists] were planning for this surge that we’re experiencing now and have been working often seven days a week, double shifts to get us to this point of high testing capacity [to respond to the demand for COVID-19 testing].”
Another member of the CAP panel echoed Karger’s concerns.
“We worry about that as well,” said Patrick Godbey, MD, Founder and Laboratory Director at Southeastern Pathology Associates and current CAP President. “This demand for COVID-19 testing has made an already bad situation worse because there’s an absolute shortage of medical laboratory personnel and the increased demands on clinical labs have made this shortage even more acute.”
Almost all of the surveyed CAP-accredited laboratories reported losses in revenue and financial stress since the pandemic started. But few had applied for any of the available funds offered through federal assistance programs. The survey found that the top issues among pathologists reported by laboratory directors were:
reduced work hours (72%),
reductions in pay (41%),
increased burnout (21%), and
increased work hours (20%).
According to the survey, the top stresses affecting non-pathologist professionals working in clinical labs were:
The diminishing labor pool trained for COVID-19 testing—coupled with high stress/burnout among existing staff—is a major impediment to ongoing expansion in the daily number of molecular COVID-19 tests that can be performed by the nation’s labs.
Also, the already-tight supply of med techs means many metropolitan area labs—particularly hospital labs—are operating with just 75% of the number of staff they are authorized to hire, because there are no techs available. Thus, existing staff are working lots of overtime, and vacant FTE positions are being temporarily filled by MTs placed by employment agencies.
A New York Times (NYT) article in December, titled, “‘Nobody Sees Us’: Testing-Lab Workers Strain Under Demand,” revealed that testing teams across the country are dealing with “burnout, repetitive-stress injuries, and an overwhelming sense of doom.” The article reported on the shortages of supplies needed to perform testing and states there is a “dearth of human power” in the field of pathology as well.
The supply of MTs and CLSs, molecular PhDs, clinical pathologists, MLTs, and other laboratory scientists available to work in the nation’s labs is finite and training programs take years to produce qualified workers to perform laboratory testing.
In the NYT article, microbiologist Karissa Culbreath, PhD (above), Scientific Director, Infectious Diseases at TriCore Reference Laboratories, and Assistant Professor of Pathology at the University of New Mexico, said that when shortages arise, “there are workarounds for almost everything else, but people are irreplaceable.” In addition to the large volume of COVID-19 tests that labs are expected to perform, they also must keep up with the other tests that are sent to them for analysis. Some facilities are even transitioning to 24/7 testing to keep up with the demand. “Labs are trying to maintain our standard of operation with everything else, with a pandemic on top of it,” said Culbreath. (Photo copyright: KOB 4/NBC.)
Should Clinical Lab Workers Be First to Receive the COVID-19 Vaccine?
In the third CAP virtual media briefing, the panel suggested that medical laboratory workers should be among the first to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
“They are encountering and handling thousands of samples that have active live virus in them,” Karger said. “We are getting 10,000 samples a day [for SARS-CoV-2 testing]. That’s a lot of handling of infectious specimens and we do want them to be prioritized for vaccination.”
She added, “From an operational standpoint, we need to keep our lab up and running. We don’t want to have staff out such that we would have to decrease our SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity, which would have widespread impact on our health system and our state.”
Since the pandemic began nearly a year ago, there have been more than 18 million cases of COVID-19 confirmed in the US and more than 300,000 people have died from the virus, according to data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
And, as we move into flu season, the number of new COVID-19 cases is reportedly increasing, which adds more stress to clinical laboratories and their supply chains. As this is unlikely to end anytime soon, clinical lab managers must find new ways to do more with less.
The St. Louis-based in vitro diagnostics (IVD) developer is making PrecivityAD available to physicians while awaiting FDA clearance for the non-invasive test
Clinical laboratories have long awaited a test for Alzheimer’s disease and the wait may soon be over. The first blood test to aid physicians and clinical laboratories in the diagnosis of patients with memory and cognitive issues has been released by C₂N Diagnostics of St. Louis. The test measures biomarkers associated with amyloid plaques in the brain—the pathological hallmark of Alzheimer’s.
In a news release, PrecivityAD describes the laboratory-developed test (LDT) as “a highly sensitive blood test using mass spectrometry and is performed in C₂N’s CLIA-certified laboratory. While the test by itself cannot diagnose Alzheimer’s disease … the test is an important new tool for physicians to aid in the evaluation process.”
PrecivityAD provides physicians with an Amyloid Probability Score (APS) for each patient. For example:
A low APS (0-36) is consistent with a negative amyloid PET scan result and, thus, has a low likelihood of amyloid plaques, an indication other causes of cognitive symptoms should be investigated.
An intermediate APS (37-57) does not distinguish between the presence or absence of amyloid plaques and indicates further diagnostic evaluation may be needed to assess the underlying cause(s) for the patient’s cognitive symptoms.
A high APS (58-100) is consistent with a positive amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) scan result and, thus, a high likelihood of amyloid plaques. Presence of amyloid plaques is consistent with an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis in someone who has cognitive decline, but alone is insufficient for a final diagnosis.
The $1,250 test is not currently covered by health insurance or Medicare. However, C₂N Diagnostics has pledged to offer discounts to patients based on income levels.
Jeff Cummings, MD, ScD (above) Research Professor, Department of Brain Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said in a C₂N Diagnostics press release, “A blood test for Alzheimer’s is a game changer.” While there is no cure for Alzheimer’s, a non-invasive blood test can help providers diagnose patients when their symptoms are mild and often misdiagnosed. “Advances in Alzheimer’s diagnostics are key to more effective identification, diagnosis, and clinical trial recruitment,” he added. Currently, brain changes caused by the disease are most commonly identified through PET scans. (Photo copyright: University of Nevada Las Vegas.)
Additional Research Requested
While C₂N’s PrecivityAD is the first test of its kind to reach the commercial market, it has not received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance, nor has the company published detailed data on the test’s accuracy. However, the PrecivityAD website says the laboratory-developed test “correctly identified brain amyloid plaque status (as determined by quantitative PET scans) in 86%” of 686 patients, all of whom were older than 60 years of age with subjective cognitive impairment or dementia.
But some Alzheimer’s advocacy groups are tempering their enthusiasm about the breakthrough. Eliezer Masliah, MD, Director of the Division of Neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, told the Associated Press (AP), “I would be cautious about interpreting any of these things,” he said of the company’s claims. “We’re encouraged, we’re interested, we’re funding this work, but we want to see results.”
Heather Snyder, PhD, Vice President, Medical and Scientific Relations at the Alzheimer’s Association told the AP her organization will not endorse a test without FDA clearance. The Alzheimer’s Association also would like to see the test studied in larger and diverse populations. “It’s not quite clear how accurate or generalizable the results are,” she said.
Braunstein defended the decision to make the test for Alzheimer’s immediately available to physicians, asking in the AP article, “Should we be holding that technology back when it could have a big impact on patient care?”
Howard Fillit, MD, Founding Executive Director and Chief Science Officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), maintains the first-of-its-kind blood test is an important milestone in Alzheimer’s research. ADDF invested in C₂N’s development of the test.
“Investing in biomarker research has been a core goal for the ADDF because having reliable, accessible, and affordable biomarkers for Alzheimer’s diagnosis is step one in finding drugs to prevent, slow, and even cure the disease,” Fillit said in an ADDF news release.
C₂N is also developing a Brain Health Panel to detect multiple blood-based markers for Alzheimer’s disease that will aid in better disease staging, treatment monitoring, and differential diagnosis.
Second Alzheimer’s Test in Development
Soon medical laboratories may have two different in vitro diagnostic tests for Alzheimer’s disease. On December 2, Fujirebio Diagnostics filed for FDA 510(k) premarket clearance for its Lumipulse G β-Amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test, which looks for biomarkers found in cerebral spinal fluid.
“Accurate and earlier intervention will also facilitate the development of new drug therapies, which are urgently needed as the prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease increases with a rapidly aging population globally,” Fujirebio Diagnostics President and CEO Monte Wiltse said in a news release.
The Lumipulse G β-Amyloid test, which is intended for use in patients aged 50 and over presenting with cognitive impairment, has received CE-marking for use in the European Union.
Clinical laboratory managers will want to keep a close eye on rapidly evolving developments in testing for Alzheimer’s disease. It is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States and any clinical laboratory test that could produce an early and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease would become a valuable tool for physicians who treat patients with the symptoms of Alzheimer’s.
Former CEO Elizabeth Holmes now awaits March 9 court date on federal fraud charges that include reporting false medical laboratory test results on some patients
Clinical laboratory leaders have watched with keen interest the federal criminal proceedings against disgraced Theranos founder and former CEO Elizabeth Holmes, whose blood-testing company lost nearly $1 billion of investors’ money before dissolving in 2018.
In a recent CNBC interview, John Carreyrou, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigative journalist who first broke the Theranos story in 2015, contended that the once-high-flying Silicon Valley startup could have paid back investors on a pro-rata basis, but that the company opted to use its dwindling cash to challenge lawsuits.
“If you rewind to October 2015, when I finished, when I published my first investigative story on Theranos, the company still had $400 million in the bank and it could have called it quits then,” Carreyrou said in the interview. “And Elizabeth Holmes could have apologized to investors, to patients, to everyone she had misled and returned that money to shareholders on a pro-rata basis.”
Theranos Scandal Breaks Wide Open
Carreyrou’s nearly year-long Wall Street Journal investigation into Theranos helped bring down the venture capital darling that had achieved a $9 billion private valuation before crumbling under the weight of fraud allegations. Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report (TDR) covered in detail the allegations against and investigation into the embattled blood test company in dozens of e-briefings and TDR articles starting in 2015.
In fact, The Dark Report was first to publish the news that Theranos had ceased using its finger-stick collection method in Phoenix as early as April 2015. (See TDR, “Theranos: Many Questions, But Very Few Answers,” April 20, 2015.) At that time, Theranos declined to respond to The Dark Report’s requests for comments.
Theranos had built its superstar reputation on the backs of a revolutionary finger-prick blood testing system, which Holmes promised could diagnosis diseases ranging from diabetes to cancer with just a few drops of blood. But an in-depth investigation into hoopla surrounding the company’s breakthrough technology by Carreyrou and other reporters at the Wall Street Journal revealed it was based on false test results and phony claims to investors and companies, such as Walgreens, which had planned to feature the technology in their retail clinics.
Elizabeth Holmes (above), founder and former CEO of now defunct Theranos, was considered a wunderkind when, as a 19-year-old Stanford University dropout, she founded Theranos in 2003. Early on, she attracted high-profile members to the Theranos board, including former US Secretary of State George Schultz, and cultivated comparisons to legendary Apple CEO Steve Jobs. But once the accuracy of Theranos’ capillary blood-test device fell under suspicion, Holmes’ fall from grace was swift, as clinical laboratories learned from multiple Dark Daily e-briefings and articles in The Dark Report going back to 2015. (Photo copyright: The New York Times.)
In 2016, Theranos received sanctions from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which included revocation of the company’s CLIA certificate and sanctions against Holmes and other company officials that prohibited them from owning or operating a medical laboratory for two years. Soon afterward, Theranos laid off 340 workers, closed its laboratory operations, and shuttered its wellness centers to “focus on an initiative to create miniature medical testing machines,” the New York Times reported.
When Theranos was finally dissolved in September 2018, Carreyrou reported that the company had an estimated $5 million in cash to distribute to unsecured creditors. All told, Carreyrou estimates Theranos’ investors, which included such big names as News Corp Executive Chairman Rupert Murdoch, Bechtel Group Chairman Riley Bechtel, and US Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, lost nearly $1 billion.
Today, Holmes is preparing to stand trial on a dozen federal wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud charges at the US District Court in San Jose, Calif., where jury selection is slated to start on March 9, 2021, amid COVID-19 pandemic safety precautions.
According to the Mercury News, Holmes faces maximum penalties of 20 years in prison and a $2.75 million fine, plus possible restitution. Carreyrou does not expect Holmes to seek a plea deal.
“I think that the chances of that are pretty unlikely. From what I hear, she’s telling her friends and her entourage that she’s actually looking forward to her day in court and she thinks that the real story—her version of the story—will come out at trial,” he told CNBC. “And so, she’s actually putting on a cheerful face with people she knows, and people have seen her recently and are saying that she’s looking forward to see this go to a jury.”
While the final chapter of this story will be written by a federal court jury, clinical laboratory leaders likely will want Holmes to face maximum penalties if found guilty of all charges. The deceptive scientific and business practices Theranos allegedly engaged in caused many headaches for the clinical lab directors of hospitals and health networks as their CEOs asked why the “cheap and fast” Theranos testing system could not be used instead of traditional, more expensive testing methods.
Theranos also financially damaged investors who might otherwise have gained capital and continued to invest in more credible startups of diagnostic companies and clinical laboratories.
Developers of medical laboratory tests had high hopes that cheap saliva-based tests would compete with at-home OTC tests that use nasal swabs, but skepticism among scientists continues
Reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) technology has become the standard for clinical laboratory diagnostic testing used to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. However, to enable more widespread testing, some public health experts have called for deployment of cheap, rapid, saliva-based antigen tests that could be self-administered by consumers in their homes.
Despite the technology’s lower sensitivity compared with RT-PCR testing, the idea of “fast-and-frequent” universal antigen testing has gained support as a possible game-changer against the outbreak, the New York Times reported.
The FDA recently took a step in this direction with its first emergency use authorization for the Ellume COVID-19 at-home antigen test. But other developments suggest that these tests may fall short of the lofty vision initially outlined by the experts.
Ellume’s COVID-19 Home Test (above) received emergency use authorization from the FDA on December 15. In a press release, Ellume claimed its rapid-antigen test, “demonstrated a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100%, and in asymptomatic individuals, the test demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 96%. This level of accuracy across both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals is crucial in mitigating the spread of an infectious disease like COVID-19.” (Photo copyright: Ellume.)
The Promise of Rapid Antigen COVID-19 Tests
In a column he wrote for Time in July, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, a practicing General Internist and Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, described the promise of rapid antigen tests. “Imagine spitting on a special strip of paper every morning and being told two minutes later whether you were positive for COVID-19,” he wrote. “If everyone in the United States did this daily, we would dramatically drop our transmission rates and bring the pandemic under control.”
Another advocate for this approach is Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and a core member of the School’s Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics (CCDD). In a commentary for Time in November he wrote, “Widespread and frequent rapid antigen testing (public health screening to suppress outbreaks) is the best possible tool we have at our disposal today—and we are not using it.”
However, one major issue with antigen testing is sensitivity. “Antigen tests require higher levels of virus than qPCR [quantitative polymerase chain reaction] to return a positive result,” Jha wrote in Time. However, he contends, “the frequency of testing and the speed of results” counter concerns about accuracy.
Even with lower sensitivity, Jha wrote, the quicker test results from antigen tests “would identify viral loads during the most infectious period, meaning those cases we care most about identifying—at the peak period of infectiousness—are less likely to be missed.”
As the FDA explains, RT-PCR molecular tests “detect the virus’ genetic material,” whereas, according to an article published in Nature, titled, “Fast Coronavirus Tests: What They Can and Can’t Do,” antigen tests can “detect specific proteins … on the surface of the virus, and can identify people who are at the peak of infection, when virus levels in the body are likely to be high.”
At-Home Antigen Tests Receive EUAs
The new antigen test developed by Ellume is “the first over-the-counter (OTC) fully at-home diagnostic test for COVID-19,” the FDA said in a press release. The user self-administers a nasal swab and places it in an analyzer connected to a smartphone app. It can deliver results in 20 minutes. The company states that its test has overall sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 97% based on a clinical study of 198 subjects in a simulated home setting.
Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in the FDA press release, “This test, like other antigen tests, is less sensitive and less specific than typical molecular tests run in a lab. However, the fact that it can be used completely at home and return results quickly means that it can play an important role in response to the pandemic.”
Ellume expects to deliver about 20 million tests to the US by the end of June 2021. Multiple outlets reported that the test will cost about $30, AP News reported.
Meanwhile, the FDA also authorized at-home use of Abbott’s BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, which was previously authorized for use in point-of-care settings. This test, which requires a prescription, will sell for $25.
In a series of tweets, Harvard’s Mina applauded both moves, but he wrote that they [antigen tests] still fall short of his vision for fast and frequent testing. He described Abbott’s BinaxNOW as “the type of rapid test I have been calling for,” but said he’d like to see tests priced far less and available without a prescription.
Diminishing Prospects for Saliva-based Antigen Tests?
All rapid antigen tests authorized by the FDA so far require nasopharyngeal and/or nasal swab specimens, and it appears that it may be a long time, if ever, before saliva-based antigen tests are available. The New York Times (NYT) reported in October that two companies working on antigen tests—E25Bio and OraSure (NASDAQ:OSUR)—have dropped plans to enable use of saliva.
“If I was placing a bet—which I am, because I’m leading an antigen-based testing company—I would say it’s going to be very difficult for antigen-based testing to work on saliva samples,” E25Bio founder Bobby Brooke Herrera, PhD (above with E25Bio co-founder and Chief Technology Officer Irene Bosch) told the NYT. (Photo copyright: WCVB-TV.)
One advantage of a saliva-based test is that it would be easier to self-administer. “But as they continued to tinker with their tests, researchers at both E25Bio and OraSure found saliva’s performance to be more lackluster than anticipated, and were forced to pivot,” the New York Times reported. Instead, both companies will seek authorization for use of their tests with nasal swabs.
HHS Contract for Antigen Tests Brings High Rates of False Positives
A recent investigative story in ProPublica, titled, “Rapid Testing Is Less Accurate than the Government Wants to Admit,” raised additional questions about rapid antigen testing. In August, the US Department of Health and Human Services announced it had awarded a $760 million contract for 150 million Abbott BinaxNOW tests to be distributed to schools and nursing homes. But later, according to ProPublica, healthcare workers in Nevada and Vermont reported high rates of false positives.
“With the benefit of hindsight, experts said the Trump administration should have released antigen tests primarily to communities with outbreaks instead of expecting them to work just as well in large groups of asymptomatic people,” ProPublica reported. “Understanding they can produce false results; the government could have ensured that clinics had enough for repeat testing to reduce false negatives and access to more precise PCR tests to weed out false positives.”
A few weeks after the reports from Nevada and Vermont, the FDA issued a letter advising clinical laboratories and healthcare providers about the possibility of false positives, along with steps they could take to improve accuracy.
Though some experts remain hopeful about “fast-and-frequent” testing, others are skeptical and say more research is needed to assess the value of this approach. “We are open to thinking outside the box and coming up with new ways to handle this pandemic,” Esther Babady PhD, D(ABMM) of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told the New York Times. However, she added, “the data for that is what’s missing.”
Nevertheless, were at-home rapid saliva-based antigen tests to become a common choice for healthcare consumers, clinical laboratories that perform RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 could see a marked decrease in orders. Thus, regardless of the current state of antigen testing, its development is worth watching.
As mandatory screenings for private industry workers increases, some states launch free COVID-19 testing for state employees, while engaging medical laboratories to provide such testing
Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, welcoming employees back to work is not as simple as opening the company’s doors. Businesses based in some areas of the US and Canada are being required by state and provincial governments to conduct employee COVID-19 screenings. For clinical laboratories, the increase in mandatory screening programs could mean an expanding market for employee testing programs and opportunities for lab outreach programs.
But companies and medical laboratories may also face legal and regulatory risks as workplaces reopen and people return.
For example, how do clinical laboratory managers ensure their labs have the information they need to respond to new rules and regulations, and do employers have recourse should an employee receive a COVID-19 test report with an incorrect result?
Not COVID-19 Screening Can Lead to Fines, Imprisonment
Is there existence of “new or worsening symptoms,” such as fever or chills, difficulty breathing, and cough?
Has the employee travelled outside Canada in the past 14 days?
Has the employee had close contact with other confirmed or “probable” COVID-19 cases?
A “probable” case is “a person with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 AND in whom laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 is inconclusive,” according to a blog post by Justin P’ng, Employment and Labor Lawyer/Associate at international law firm Fasken in Toronto.
“Employers [in Ontario] must now specifically comply with the requirements of the Screening Tool and to implement such screening at any physical workplaces it operates in the province,” P’ng wrote. “Failure to comply can lead to significant penalties, including potentially fines and imprisonment under the legislation.”
It is possible the new requirements may ease Ontario workers’ minds about heading back to work during the pandemic. A Canadian workforce survey of employers and employees during July 2020 by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Canada found:
Most employers (78%) expect a return to the workplace in 2020.
Just one in five employees indicated they want to go back to the workplace full-time.
Michigan Makes Remote Work Mandatory
In the US, state rules enforced by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) require employers—for infection prevention reasons—to establish remote work programs for employees, unless it is not feasible for employees to work away from the workplace.
“The employer shall create a policy prohibiting in-person work for employees to the extent that their work activities can feasibly be completed remotely,” MIOSHA said.
Similar to the Ontario law, Michigan employers are also required to establish COVID-19 screenings. The MIOSHA rules direct employers to “conduct a daily entry self-screening protocol for all employees or contractors entering the workplace, including, at a minimum, a questionnaire covering symptoms and suspected or confirmed exposure to people with possible COVID-19, together with, if possible, a temperature screening.”
Michigan employers not in compliance with the state’s requirements for office work may be fined up to $7,000 per violation, a McDonald Hopkins Insights article noted.
Furthermore, anti-retaliation law in Michigan prohibits employers from terminating or “retaliating against” employees who oppose violation of the law or report COVID-19 “health violations,” the McDonald Hopkins Insights article added.
However, Michigan businesses may have protection under the COVID-19 Response and Reopening Liability Assurance Act. The law states a “person who acts in compliance with all federal, state, and local statutes, rules, regulations, executive orders, and agency orders related to COVID-19 that had not been denied legal effect at the time of the conduct or risk that allegedly caused harm is immune from liability for a COVID-19 claim.”
The law defines a “person” as “an individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or other legal entity, including, but not limited to, a school, a college or university, an institution of higher education, and a nonprofit charitable organization. Person includes an employee, agent, or independent contractor of the person, regardless of whether the individual is paid or an unpaid volunteer.”
New York Launches Free RT-PCR Tests for Transit Employees
Meanwhile, in New York, free COVID-19 tests are now available on a voluntary basis to 2,000 frontline employees of the Metropolitan Transit Authority, a news release states.
“Quality COVID-19 testing is critical to helping our nation’s frontline workers do their jobs as safely as possible,” Wendi Mader, Executive Director of Employer Population Health at Quest Diagnostics, said in the news release.
New Special Report Available on COVID-19 Employee Testing Programs
As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progresses, laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to COVID-19 employee testing and screening will likely continue to develop—and they will vary by area and by test type—making them a challenge to interpret, track, and ensure compliance.
This exclusive report offers guidance, best practices, and insights necessary to launch and operate high quality, compliant COVID-19 employee testing programs. Clinical laboratories and employers tasked with developing and maintaining coronavirus testing programs will gain critical insights and data from this invaluable special report. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Included in the report:
Ten regulatory essentials for launching a COVID-19 testing program
