Though the test initially drew ‘raves’ from Trump administration, the FDA now suggests negative results should be confirmed with an additional ‘high-sensitivity authorized SARS-CoV-2 molecular test’
This spring, as the United States attempted to jump-start a national response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, the Trump administration heralded Abbott Laboratories’ five-minute test for COVID-19 as a major breakthrough. But even as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued dozens of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) to quickly get COVID-19 diagnostic tests into clinical use, the accuracy of some of those tests came into question—including Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 rapid molecular test.
The continuing controversy over Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 test shows how the national spotlight can be a double-edged sword, bringing both widespread favorable attention to a breakthrough technology, followed by heightened public scrutiny if deficiencies emerge. At the same time, from the first news stories about the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 test, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers understood that this test always had certain performance parameters, as is true of every diagnostic test.
“Everybody was raving about it,” a former administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said of ID NOW in an interview with Kaiser Health News (KHN). “It’s an amazing test, but it has limitations which are now being better understood.”
In a White House ceremony on March 29, 2020, President Trump praised his administration’s role in speeding up development “on both testing and treatment that will help us win our war against the coronavirus.” Among the moves highlighted was the FDA’s approval two days earlier of Abbott’s ID-NOW COVID-19 rapid molecular test (above), which the President stated, “delivers lightning-fast results in as little as five minutes,” adding, “Normally, this approval process from the FDA would take 10 months, and even longer, but we did it in four weeks.” (Photo copyright: Washington Post.)
FDA Warns Public about Inaccurate Test Results
On May 14, the FDA issued a public warning about the point-of-care test’s accuracy after receiving 15 “adverse event reports” indicating some patients were receiving “false negative results.”
“Regardless of method of collection and sample type, Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 had negative results in a third of the samples that tested positive by Cepheid Xpert Xpress when using nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport media and 45% when using dry nasal swabs,” the NYU study authors stated.
Abbott Rebuts Criticism
In a statement following the FDA’s warning, Abbott said, “We’re seeing studies being conducted to understand the role of ID NOW in ways that it was not designed to be used. In particular, the NYU study results are not consistent with other studies. While we’ve seen a few studies with sensitivity performance percentages in the 80s, we’ve also seen other studies with sensitivity at or above 90%, and one as high as 94%.
“While we understand no test is perfect, test outcomes depend on a number of factors including patient selection, specimen type, collection, handling, storage, transport and conformity to the way the test was designed to be run. ID NOW is intended to be used near the patient with a direct swab test method,” Abbott’s statement added, noting the company would be “further clarifying our product information to provide better guidance” and “reinforcing proper sample collection and handling instructions.”
Then, on May 21, Abbott issued another statement highlighting an interim analysis of an ongoing multisite clinical study demonstrating ID NOW COVID-19 test performance is ≥94.7% in positive agreement (sensitivity) and ≥98.6% negative agreement (specificity) when compared to two different lab-based molecular PCR reference methods.
“We’re pleased ID NOW is delivering on what it was designed to do—quickly detect the virus in people who need to know now if they’re infected,” said Philip Ginsburg, MD, SAIM, Senior Medical Director, Infectious Disease, Rapid Diagnostics at Abbott, in the statement. “This is great news for people who are experiencing symptoms and want to take action before they infect others, reducing the spread of infection in society.”
Nonetheless, KHN reported on June 22 that the FDA had “received a total of 106 reports of adverse events for the Abbott test, a staggering increase. The agency has not received a single adverse event report for any other point-of-care tests meant to diagnose COVID-19.”
Second Comparison Study Results for Abbott’s ID NOW
The Abbott ID NOW test correctly identified 74% of positive samples. In comparison, Cepheid’s Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 test correctly identified 99% of positives. Negative agreement was 100% and 92.0% for ID NOW and Xpert, respectively.
The FDA’s testing policy for clinical laboratories and commercial manufacturers recommends diagnostic tests correctly identify at least 95% of positive samples. However, KHN pointed out, a senior FDA official in late May said coronavirus tests that were administered outside lab settings would be considered useful in fighting the pandemic even if they miss 20% of positive cases.
“There’s no way I would be comfortable missing two out of 10 patients,” Whittier told KHN.
Abbott ID-NOW’s Role in the Global Fight to Stop COVID-19
Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 test is promoted as delivering positive test results in five minutes and negative results in about 13 minutes. On its website and in news releases, Abbott maintains its test “performs best in patients tested earlier post symptom onset.”
In a July 17 statement, Abbott said, “ We have shipped 5.3 million of our rapid ID NOW tests to all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Islands. The majority of these tests have been sent to outbreak hotspots and we’ve asked that customers prioritize frontline healthcare workers and first responders.”
It is common for a new diagnostic instrument and a new clinical laboratory test to be continually improved after initial launch. Thus, the performance of such devices at the time they are given clearance from the FDA to be used in clinical care can be much improved several months or years later.
Given the importance of a reliable point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 test during the pandemic, it can be assumed that Abbott Laboratories is working closely with its medical laboratory customers specifically to improve the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of both the instrument and the test kit.
Since the pandemic began, federal investigators are specifically looking for patterns of fraud in Medicare claims data for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing
Last month, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced it had been investigating trends in Medicare claims data that could indicate patterns of fraud in the billing for COVID-19 clinical laboratory tests, Modern Healthcare reported.
Stretching back to at least March, fraudulent actors offering fake SARS-CoV-2 tests have preyed on vulnerable Americans in a wide variety of ways during the public health emergency, according to published reports. Some scam operators have gone into nursing homes and long-term care facilities to collect cash from unsuspecting elders in exchange for swab collections and phony testing, the New York Times reported.
Since the declaration of the public health emergency in the US, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) no longer requires a lab test requisition signed by a treating physician or other provider for COVID-19 testing. “The strong demand for and limited supply of SARS-CoV-2 tests, along with the move by CMS to relax rules for certain test orders during the pandemic, makes the situation a potentially ripe one for fraud,” Modern Healthcare stated.
Plus, a lack of clarity about the medical necessity of COVID-19 tests could raise the liability risk for law-abiding clinical laboratories. All of these factors make COVID-19 testing fraud a potential bombshell for clinical laboratories conducting coronavirus testing that may get caught up in federal investigations.
Feds Step Up Enforcement
Shortly after the pandemic arrived in the US, the FBI, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the FDA, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other federal and local authorities have frequently warned doctors, hospitals, and healthcare consumers about the potential for fraud by unscrupulous companies purporting to offer legitimate clinical laboratory testing for COVID-19. A June 26 FBI press release stated, “Scammers are marketing fraudulent and/or unapproved COVID-19 antibody tests, potentially providing false results.”
Some of the fraudsters behind these scams have operated online and through social media and email. While others have conducted these scams in person or over the phone, noted the press release.
And yet, despite the warnings, the scams and news articles about them have continued to spread throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Various Forms of Fraud and Their Consequences
In many of these scams, fraudsters seek to collect consumers’ personal information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, as well as other forms of personal health information, such as Medicare or private health insurance data, the FBI reported. Scammers can use that information in medical insurance fraud schemes or to commit identity theft, the agency added.
Additionally, any fake or inaccurate COVID-19 tests or assays that the FDA has not allowed for use could provide doctors with false results, potentially creating a dangerous situation for patients.
The New York Times (NYT) recently reported that the FBI had issued a warning “about scammers who advertise fraudulent COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to obtain personal information that can be used for identity theft or medical insurance fraud.”
Three days after the FBI issued its warning about the COVID-19 antibody testing scam, the BBB added an alert to its website: “BBB Scam Alert: Want a COVID-19 test? There’s a scam for that.” BBB also provided advice to consumers about how to avoid testing scams.
On June 17, the FDA reported that it issued warning letters to three companies for marketing adulterated and misbranded COVID-19 antibody tests, stated an FDA news release. The agency sent warning letters to:
In the FDA’s announcement, Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said “When tests are marketed inappropriately, with inaccurate or misleading claims—such as the ability to perform the test completely at home, or that the test is authorized, cleared, or approved when it is not—they put the health of Americans at risk. Such conduct will not be tolerated by the FDA, and we will continue to monitor tests marketed in the US, taking appropriate action as warranted.” (Photo copyright: The Food and Drug Administration.)
Scams Reported Just in April
On April 17, the New York Times reported that a special agent with the HHS OIG noted that impostors seeking Medicare or Medicaid information posed as doctors or laboratory technicians to offer fake tests in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Earlier in April, The Texas Tribune reported that the owner of a freestanding emergency room in Laredo, Texas, spent $500,000 to buy 20,000 rapid COVID-19 tests for patients suspected of having COVID-19. Health officials in Laredo planned to establish a drive-through testing site and then administer tests that came from a manufacturer in China to detect active infections. After trying to validate the tests, city health officials found they were unreliable and unusable.
An April 9 report from the news department of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) stated that federal officials have found fake coronavirus testing sites in many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, and Washington state.
The FBI, according to AARP, investigated several fake test sites in Louisville, Ky., after a city official reported that people in personal protective equipment (PPE) were collecting biological specimens from residents. Those seeking tests were told to pay $240 in cash or give their Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security cards to verify their identity.
Fake drive-up testing sites were reported at gas stations and other locations in Louisville over a four-day period, the AARP reported.
On April 2, WRGB TV in Albany, N.Y., reported that scammers pretending to be from the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) were taking money and insurance information from people in exchange for fake coronavirus tests. One woman told police she got a fake test at a drive-up site in a Little League parking lot.
North Greenbush police said the scammers identified themselves as being with NYSDOH and collected money and insurance information from multiple people. Police and state officials said the DOH had no connection to the collection site in the parking lot.
Lessons for Lab Directors
For clinical laboratory directors and all clinical lab scientists, the lesson from these stories is to be wary of strangers offering COVID-19 testing, while also making certain to post information for customers about the legitimacy of your lab’s COVID-19 rapid molecular and serological tests. Doing so might involve providing proof that the FDA has allowed your tests to be used for the coronavirus.
Also, medical laboratories should ensure that all employees collecting specimens in public places display proper identification.
The fledgling test-kit company sent plastic preforms that were intended for use in the manufacturing of soda bottles, not clinical laboratory specimen tubes
When is a specimen tube not a specimen tube? When it is a plastic tube made for creating soda bottles. And that may be exactly what the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) received after paying $7.3 million to a fledgling Florida-based company that won a multi-million-dollar no-bid contract from the federal government for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing supplies, which FEMA then shipped nationwide to states that had requested the supplies.
FEMA signed the deal with Fillakit, LLC, on May 7, 2020, “just six days after the company was formed,” reported ProPublica, which went on to state that the shipment of unusable Fillakit specimen tubes contributed to delays in rolling out widespread COVID-19 testing in the US.
According to ProPublica, Fillakit supplied “preforms” that are designed to be expanded with heat and pressure into 2-liter soda bottles, not laboratory specimen tubes.
Michelle Forman, a spokesperson for the Association of Public Health Laboratories, told ProPublica one major flaw of the Fillakit tubes is their size. “They are an unusual shape, so they don’t fit racks,” she said, “and we are getting lots of pushback about how difficult it is to work with them from our clinical partners.”
The photo of the preform sent by Fillakit above is taken from a Fox23 news report that stated “FEMA sent the Washington State Department of Health nearly 300,000 plastic tubes. They thought they were getting test tubes for coronavirus testing, but instead, they received tiny plastic preforms that can be made into 2-liter soda bottles.” This photograph shows the preform tube that is intended to be die-molded into a large soda bottle. That is why the cap on the tube is appropriate for the tubes intended purpose as a soda bottle. (Photo copyright: Alison Grande, KIRO7/Fox23.)
Fillakit Employees Describe ‘Unsanitary’ Working Conditions
Ex-employees of Fillakit told the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) the specimen tubes were being handled in unsanitary open-air conditions in a warehouse outside of Houston where the test kits were being assembled.
“There were up to 250 workers crowded in a small warehouse room, shoulder to shoulder … working off of fold-up tables with supplies placed on the floor and handled without gloves,” Teresa Bosworth Green told Community Impact (CI), which reported that Green worked at Fillakit from May 11-20.
“We were told that we would be filling and capping tubes that would be used for COVID testing,” Green told CI.
However, according to CI, Green “expressed concern about the lack of cleanliness and facemasks. Green brought her own mask, but workers were not initially provided any.”
Green told CI, “People were breathing and coughing right over the solution.”
In a letter to FEMA and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after Michigan received more than 322,000 tubes of transport media manufactured by Fillakit, Democrat Senators Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters wrote, “Even if the tubes themselves were not unsuitable for testing purposes, the contamination risks inherent in such careless handling would cause serious concerns about the reliability of any tests conducted using these materials.”
On July 7, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that Fillakit had notified the Florida Secretary of State on June 26 that the company had been dissolved.
Kira Doyle, JD (above), owner/attorney at Kira Doyle Law in St. Petersburg, Fla., who multiple media outlets listed as Fillakit’s manager, told the Tampa Bay Times that media portraits of the company have been unfair. In a series of emails, she said Fillakit was attempting to fill a void in the medical supply chain. “If you are interested in writing an article about empowered female business owners or entrepreneurs creating jobs and helping this great country during an unprecedented pandemic, Fillakit LLC, fits that profile,” Doyle wrote. (Photo copyright: Kira Doyle Law.)
Under Pressure, Feds Award Contracts for COVID-19 Test Supplies to Inexperienced Suppliers
Fillakit as just one example out of “more than 250 companies that got contracts worth more than $1 million without going through a fully competitive bidding process,” NPR reported.
“Government procurement experts say federal officials were trying to move quickly to deliver desperately needed personal protective equipment,” NPR continued. “But they question the need to turn to contractors who have never worked with the government before and lacked experience making or delivering the protective gear.”
Among those receiving contracts were companies with little to no experience in manufacturing clinical laboratory testing supplies, personal protective equipment (PPE), as well as others that had never worked in the medical field. One company imported vodka, while another was a school security consultant. Many of the contractors served as middlemen, securing PPE from Chinese manufacturers, which meant they often were “competing with federal agencies, state governments, and local health systems,” all of which were attempting to buy the same equipment in the global marketplace, NPR reported.
“Giving business to people who don’t have experience is something you don’t want to do in an emergency,” Joshua Schwartz, JD, a professor of Government Contracts Law and co-director of the Government Procurement Law Program at George Washington University School of Law, told NPR.
FEMA Defends Its Contracting Process
A ProPublica analysis of coronavirus contracts found that about 13% of total federal government pandemic spending went to first-time vendors. And in a follow-up article, ProPublica claimed, “many of the new contractors have no experience acquiring medical products.”
FEMA, however, maintains it pays for purchases only after they have been delivered to minimize potential for waste of taxpayer dollars. “FEMA does not enter into contracts unless it has reason to believe they will be successfully executed,” the agency told ProPublica.
The US’ lack of preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in missteps and misspending as federal agencies struggle to provide hospitals, clinical laboratories, and healthcare providers with personal protective gear and test supplies, and to ramp up COVID-19 testing nationwide.
This is yet another instance where federal agencies appear to lack the competencies required to fulfill healthcare requirements with proven products that meet critical specifications. Meanwhile, in every community throughout the United States, independent medical laboratories and hospital-based laboratories are clamoring for adequate supplies of everything from collect swabs and viral transport media to reagents and cuvettes.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should consider this another example of how CMS is taking forward steps to encourage value-based payment arrangements throughout the health system
With the sky-high cost of many prescription drugs and gene therapies, it was only a matter of time before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would seek to link reimbursement for them to patient outcomes.
A recent CMS proposed rule (CMS-2842-P) concerning value-based purchasing (VBP) for prescription drugs covered by Medicaid encourages payers to engage in Medicaid state value-based purchasing (aka, pay-for-performance) arrangements for expensive prescription drugs. This rule may have implications for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups if it were extended to cover companion diagnostics linked to expensive therapeutic drugs and gene therapies.
CMS also intents the proposed rule to help drug manufacturers ease roadblocks to contracting with payers—including Medicaid—a CMS fact sheet explained.
Federal officials are looking to reimburse healthcare providers for prescribing drugs that are shown to work best on patients that truly need them, while also incentivizing pharmaceutical manufacturers to created drugs “of high patient value,” stated Laffer Healthcare Intelligence, a Nashville, Tenn. healthcare investment firm, in an email to its intelligence service subscribers.
In a press release announcing the proposed rule, Seema Verma, CMS Administrator, said “We are creating opportunities for drug manufacturers to have skin in the game through payment arrangements that challenge them to put their money where their mouth is.”
Old Regulations Don’t Address Value, Expensive Gene Therapies
According to CMS, for 30 years federal regulations have favored the “volume of drugs” sold over the “quality of drugs.” Simultaneously, during the past three years the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four gene therapies with many more “in the development pipeline,” Verma wrote in the journal Health Affairs. “While the lifesaving impact of these often-curative therapies are profound, their costs are unprecedented,” she stated.
CMS’ new rule proposes to define value-based purchasing as “an arrangement or agreement intended to align pricing and/or payments to evidence-based measures and outcomes-based measures,” Verma added.
Companion Diagnostic: Molecular and Genetic Testing
For clinical laboratories, the case CMS makes for therapeutic drugs could be applied to expensive molecular diagnostics and genetic testing. CMS may base reimbursement on how accurately and how fast a lab test can enable a diagnosis. Also, payment could be linked to a lab’s report and guidance to the ordering provider in selecting a therapy that makes a difference in the patient’s outcome.
“This is exactly the concept of the companion diagnostic,” said Robert Michel, editor-in-chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report. “Take, for example, a $5,000 genetic cancer test that that stages a $500,000 cancer prescription drug. Patients who will not benefit from the drug will not get it. And the $5,000 lab test may keep, say, 10 people from getting a drug that wouldn’t work for them. Thus, the $50,000 in lab tests could save $5 million in prescription drug costs,” he explained.
For its part, Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland-based creator of Zolgensma, said the proposed CMS changes are “an important first step,” and helpful to the company’s “access strategy” in the US, BioPharma Dive reported.
Healthcare experts envision that deals struck under the new proposed CMS rule will focus on gene therapies and expensive drugs, MedPage Today reported.
“Measuring outcomes is costly; it takes time, and everyone has to come up with a way to do it. So, if a drug costs $50, it’s not worth going to every single patient (in research). If the drug costs $500,000, maybe it’s worth it … figuring out if the drug worked. That’s why people talk about it in the context of gene therapies,” Alexander Dworkowitz (above), Partner, Manatt Health, New York, told MedPage Today. (Photo copyright: Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP.)
According to the Laffer Healthcare Intelligence analysis email, CMS’ 137-page proposed rule is “very broad,” but focuses on three themes:
“First, CMS wants to establish an official definition for VBP models to accelerate development of drug pay-per-value programs.
“Second, CMS want to restrict the amount of opioids doctors can prescribe.
“Third, very subtle changes are proposed that negatively affect the PBM (pharmacy benefit management) industry.”
CMS’ proposal also includes standards aimed at fighting opioid prescription fraud and misuse in Medicaid drug programs, noted Fierce Healthcare.
Transparent Drug Prices
Medical laboratory leaders may want to monitor the progress of this proposed rule. In addition to value-based payment, the rule advances price transparency by clearing the way to sharing prices of therapeutic drugs and how they improve patient care, while also lowering costs.
Meanwhile, a refresh of lab information technology to enable authorization of genetic and molecular tests by payer also may prove worthwhile.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
