Lack of regular clinical laboratory screenings in this age group at least partially to blame, researchers say
While cervical cancer rates have seen a 50-year decline overall, that trend is shifting among 30- to 40 year-olds who have experienced a near 2% increase from 2012-2019. This finding comes from a 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) report that is eyeing the timeline of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and the lack of clinical laboratory cancer screenings as possible contributors to this new trend.
Though a 2% increase is significant, the study, which was published in CA: ACancer Journal for Clinicians, titled “Cancer Statistics, 2024,” noted that these cancers were “mostly early, curable tumors,” epidemiologist Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD, Senior Vice President Surveillance and Health Equity Science at ACS, and senior author of the new report, told NBC News.
To understand how the increase in cancer rates impacts this age group, consider the numbers: “About 13,800 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 4,360 die from the disease,” NBC reported.
US vaccination programs for youths have lagged behind nations that have embraced HPV vaccination to positive results.
Australia, for example, has vaccinated a high proportion of its youth since the vaccine was first released in 2006. In 2023, the nation created its National Strategy for the Elimination of Cervical Cancer in Australia program and expects cervical cancer to be fully eliminated there by 2035.
For lab professionals, this demonstrates how new technologies like the HPV test and vaccine can alter how individuals are screened for diseases, and how vaccines can reduce and even eliminate diseases that were once common.
“We need to make sure we are not forgetting about that generation that was a little too old for HPV vaccination,” Jennifer Spencer, PhD (above), Assistant Professor, Department of Population Health and Department Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News. “The onus is on the healthcare system to think about who is slipping through the cracks,” she added. Lack of clinical laboratory screenings among the 30-40 age group may be contributing to the increase in cervical cancer rates. (Photo copyright: Dell Medical School.)
Lack of Clinical Laboratory Screenings
Research points to a lag in cervical cancer screenings as a possible cause for the recent rise in cases. Timely screening allows doctors to both identify and remove any worrisome lesions before they become cancerous, Jennifer Spencer, PhD, Assistant Professor of the Department of Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News.
Screenings for women ages 21-65 have fallen 15% since 2000, according to data from the National Cancer Institute. Also, more than half of women with cervical cancer have “either never been screened or haven’t been screened in the past five years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” NBC reported.
The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends that women 21-29 years of age should receive Pap smears every three years. Women 30-65 years of age should do the same, or every five years with an HPV test or combo test.
Despite a decrease in cervical cancer, 29% of women in their 20s are overdue to get screening, NBC noted. This was the age group most likely to be lagging on getting screened. Spencer says that this delay in screening could explain the resulting increase in cervical cancer among the 30-40 age group.
Causes for Lack in Screenings
Regardless of age group, women who were uninsured, in a rural area, non-white, or identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or gay were also more likely to be overdue on screenings, according to Spencer’s study.
In addition, women who just moved to the United States may have missed their screenings, thus increasing risk, epidemiologist Nicholas Wentzensen, MD, PhD, Deputy Director, Senior Investigator, and Head of the Clinical Epidemiology Unit at the National Cancer Institute, told NBCNews.
Additionally, Spencer found in her research that confusion exists by both patients and doctors on when cervical screening should take place. Some participants in her study did not have screening recommended by their doctors, while others simply did not recognize it was necessary.
“When women in one of Spencer’s studies were asked why they hadn’t been screened recently, they commonly said that they didn’t know they needed to be screened or that a health provider hadn’t recommended it. Only 1% [of] women ages 21 to 29 said they had skipped screening because they had received the HPV shot,” NBC News reported.
A 2022 Journal of American Medicine (JAMA) report also looked at screenings as a possible cause. Those researchers found that “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
“If the increase (in cases) is real, it could be a result of missed screening opportunities at earlier ages, as suggested by the increase in squamous cell carcinoma and localized disease. It may also stem from a decrease in screening at younger ages,” the JAMA study authors wrote.
HPV Vaccine and Cervical Cancer Prevention
The HPV vaccine is another important area of research to be considered. Approved in 2006, HPV vaccines were beneficial because HPV “causes six types of cancer, including cervical cancer,” NBC reported.
Women in their early 20s at that time were the first generation to benefit from HPV vaccines, NBC noted. It may be that they continue to benefit in a decrease in cervical cancer among their cohort.
Countries that have emphasized HPV vaccines and stringent screenings in their cancer prevention efforts are reaping the benefits of that policy.
Though cancer screening and the HPV vaccine are important first steps women should take to prevent cervical cancer, follow-through clinical laboratory testing and diagnosis is crucial, Spencer added. This would include additional testing and treatment for any abnormal results of the cancer screening.
However, according to Spencer, “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
Healthcare policymakers today are emphasizing the need for providers to identify and close gaps in care as a way to improve patient outcomes and help control the cost of care. Women who are overdue for a cervical cancer screening test—whether an HPV test or Pap smear—have this care gap. This creates an opportunity for clinical labs to add value.
Clinical laboratories could be helpful during this period by looking at patient files to note which patients are overdue for screenings and then alerting their doctors. Medical labs also could work directly with doctors to establish a program to reach out to patients. Labs would thus be adding value as well as benefitting patients.
This may be a new ‘sign of the times’ as hospitals, clinical laboratories, and other healthcare providers working with AI find they also need to hire their own prompt engineers
AI “prompting,” according to Florida State University, “refers to the process of interacting with an AI system by providing specific instructions or queries to achieve a desired outcome.”
According to workable.com, prompt engineers specialize “in developing, refining, and optimizing AI-generated text prompts to ensure they are accurate, engaging, and relevant for various applications. They also collaborate with different teams to improve the prompt generation process and overall AI system performance.”
Healthcare institutions are getting more serious about using AI to improve daily workflows and clinical care, including in the clinical laboratory and pathology departments. But adopting the new technology can be disruptive. To ensure the implementation goes smoothly, hospitals are now seeking prompt engineers to guide the organization’s strategy for using AI.
When Boston Children’s Hospital leaders set out to find such a person, they looked for an individual who had “a clinical background [and] who knows how to use these tools. Someone who had experience coding for large language models and natural language processing, but who could also understand clinical language,” according to MedPage Today.
“We got many, many applications, some really impressive people, but we were looking for a specific set of skills and background,” John Brownstein, PhD, Chief Innovation Officer at Boston Children’s Hospital and Professor of Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School, told MedPage Today.
“It was not easy to find [someone]—a bit of a unicorn-type candidate,” noted Brownstein, who is also a medical contributor to ABC News.
After a four-month search, the hospital hired Dinesh Rai, MD, emergency room physician and AI engineer, for the position. According to Brownstein, Rai had “actually practiced medicine, lived in a clinical environment,” and had “successfully launched many [AI] applications on top of large language models,” MedPage Today reported.
“Some of the nuances I bring to the table in terms of being a physician and having worked clinically and understanding really deeply the clinical workflows and how we can implement the [AI] technology—where its limits are, where it can excel, and the quickest way to get things [done],” Dinesh Rai, MD (above), told MedPage Today. “I’m happy to be able to help with all of that.” Hospital clinical laboratory and pathology managers may soon by engaging with prompt engineers to ensure the smooth use of AI in their departments. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Prompt Engineers are like F1 Drivers
“It’s kind of like driving a car, where basically anyone can drive an automatic car, and anyone can go onto ChatGPT, write some text, and get a pretty solid response,” said Rai, describing the act of AI prompting to MedPage today.
Then, there are “people who know how to drive manual, and there are people who will know different prompting techniques, like chain-of-thought or zero-shot prompting,” he added. “Then you have those F1 drivers who are very intimate with the mechanics of their car, and how to use it most optimally.”
The American Hospital Association (AHA) believes that AI “holds great promise in helping healthcare providers gain insights and improve health outcomes.” In an article titled, “How AI Is Improving Diagnostics, Decision-Making and Care,” the AHA noted that, “Although many questions remain regarding its safety, regulation, and impact, the use of AI in clinical care is no longer in its infancy and is expected to experience exponential growth in the coming years.
“AI is improving data processing, identifying patterns, and generating insights that otherwise might elude discovery from a physician’s manual effort. The next five years will be critical for hospitals and health systems to build the infrastructure needed to support AI technology, according to the recently released Futurescan 2023,” the AHA wrote.
The graphic above is taken from the American Hospital Association’s article about Futurescan’s 2023 survey results on AI in healthcare. “Healthcare executives from across the nation were asked how likely it is that by 2028 a federal regulatory body will determine that Al for clinical care delivery augmentation (e.g., assisted diagnosis and prescription, personalized medication and care) is safe for use by our hospital or health systems,” AHA stated. This would include the use of AI in clinical laboratories and pathology group practices. (Graphic copyright: American Hospital Association.)
The AHA listed the top three opportunities for AI in clinical care as:
Clinical Decision Tools: “AI algorithms analyze a vast amount of patient data to assist medical professionals in making more informed decisions about care.”
Diagnostic and Imaging: The use of AI “allows healthcare professionals to structure, index, and leverage diagnostic and imaging data for more accurate diagnoses.”
Patient Safety: The use of AI improves decision making and optimizes health outcomes by evaluating patient data. “Systems that incorporate AI can improve error detection, stratify patients, and manage drug delivery.”
The hiring of a prompt engineer by Boston Children’s Hospital is another example of how AI is gaining traction in clinical healthcare. According to the Futurescan 2023 survey, nearly half of hospital CEOs and strategy leaders believe that health systems will have the infrastructure in place by 2028 to successfully utilize AI in clinical decision making.
“I’m lucky to [be] in an organization that has recognized the importance of AI as part of the future practice of medicine,” Rai told MedPage Today.
Pathologists and managers of clinical laboratories and genetic testing companies will want to track further advancements in artificial intelligence. At some point, the capabilities of future generations of AI solutions may encourage labs to hire their own prompt engineers.
“The timing of EWC with the release of this policy couldn’t be better,” CEO and founder of Momentum ConsultingValerie Palmieri told Dark Daily in an interview at Monday night’s opening reception. “It’s a great conference to not only catch up with colleagues but really hear and have those difficult discussions about where we are today, where we’re going, and where we need to be.”
Final LDT rule ‘radically’ different than draft
Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics called the finalized rule “radically different” from the proposed rule. In some ways it is less complex: “The bar is lower,” he said, noting that he was voicing his personal views and not those of the federal agency. “I was convinced that there would be lawsuits, but I’m now not sure if that’s advisable.”
Still, laboratory teams will have to parse the more than 500-page document to determine how the final rule relates to their specific circumstances. After that, it won’t be as challenging, Stenzel said.
His advice: First, read the rule. Second, reach out to FDA for help—he’s sure, he said, that the office is geared up to respond to a “ton of questions” about the implications for individual labs and are standing by to answer emails from labs. And, he added in a discussion session, emailing the agency is free.
The final rule will be in force 60 days after it’s published. Stenzel provided a timeline for some of the milestones:
1 Year: Comply with MD(AE) reporting and reporting of corrections and removals.
2 Years: Comply with labeling, registration and listing, and investigational use requirements.
3 Years: QS records and, in some cases, design controls and purchasing controls.
3.5 Years: Comply with high risk (class III) premarket review requirements.
4 Years: Comply with moderate and low-risk premarket review requirements.
Executive Chair and CEO of XiFin, Inc.Lâle White welcomed the audience with a morning keynote entitled “Big Changes in Healthcare” on new regulations and diagnostics players poised to reshape lab testing.
The diagnostics business is in constant flux, she noted, from payer requirements to greater regulatory and compliance burdens on labs. Other factors include the growing senior population and increasingly complex health conditions, rising costs throughout the healthcare ecosystem, falling funding and reimbursement, and staffing shortages.
As for the economic challenges, consumers are increasingly making decisions based on cost, convenience and quality. The population is shifting to Medicare advantage, which is more cost effective. But changes to the star ratings system will mean lower pay for payer organizations. Those companies will, in turn, mitigate their losses by making changes to pre-authorizations and tightening denials, even for clean claims.
Still, White said, more money isn’t the answer.
White urged the audience to use technology, including artificial intelligence and advances in genetic testing, to manage these and other industry changes.
“We need to optimize the tests we order,” she said. “And if we did that, lab diagnostics really has the potential to change the economics of health and improve outcomes.”
The FDA, Stenzel added, is “very interested” in stimulating innovation, building on the laboratory industry’s success in responding swiftly to the COVID pandemic and outbreaks of Monkey Pox, for example.
He shared lessons learned from recent public health emergencies, talked about CDC’s efforts to engage with clinical labs to improve future public health readiness and response and provided an overview of the CDC’s first laboratory-specific center.
“Laboratories are fundamental to public health,” he said. The industry is on the “front lines” when it comes to identifying threats, responding to them, and preparing for future responses.
Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report wrapped up the day’s regulatory discussions with a general session on the “regulatory trifecta” that includes the LDT final rule, CLIA regulations, and private payers’ policies for genetic claims.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concluded its review of the final rule on April 22. Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, and other regulatory experts expect the White House to send the final rule to Congress as early as late April and no later than May 22.
On Tuesday morning, Lâle White, executive chair and CEO of San Diego’s XiFin, Inc., will present a keynote on new regulations and diagnostics players that are “poised to reshape lab testing.” Her presentation is followed by a general session on Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations featuring Salerno Reynolds, PhD., acting director at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Center for Laboratory Systems and Response.
Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report will wrap day one with a general session on the regulatory trifecta coming soon to all labs, from LDT to CLIA to private payers’ policies for genetic claims.
Innovation in the spotlight
“It’s a rich mix of expert speakers, lab leaders who are doing innovative things in their own organizations, along with the consultants and the lab vendors who are pushing the front edge of laboratory management, operations, and clinical service delivery,” says Michel, who each year creates the agenda for EWC.
Several sessions, master classes, and speakers will look to the future with discussions about how healthcare data drives innovations in diagnostics and patient care, digital pathology adoption around the world, and hot topics such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data and precision medicine.
Panels offer a variety of viewpoints
“One valuable benefit of participating at the Executive War College is the various panel discussions,” Michel says. “Each panel brings together national experts in a specific area of the laboratory profession. As an example, our lab legal panel this year brings together four prominent and experienced attorneys who share opinions, insights, and commentary about relevant issues in compliance, regulations, and contractual issues with health plans and others.”
This allows attendees to experience a breadth of opinions from multiple respected experts in this area, he adds.
For example, a digital pathology panel will bring together representatives from labs, service providers, and the consultants that are helping labs implement digital pathology. The session will be especially helpful to labs that are deciding when to acquire digital pathology tools and how to deploy them effectively to improve diagnostic accuracy, Michel says.
And a managed care panel will feature executives from some of the nation’s biggest health plans—the ones that sit on the other side of the table from labs—to provide insights and guidance on how labs can work more effectively with them.
Networking opportunities abound
The event is about much more than politics and policy, however. There’s also a distinct social aspect.
“Everyone is welcome, and everyone appreciates the camaraderie, so don’t be shy about going up and introducing yourself to someone. The quality of the crowd is top-notch, yet I’ve always experienced a willingness for those of us who have been to this rodeo to always be welcoming,” she notes.
Michel agrees. “One of the special benefits of participation at the EWC is the superb networking interactions and collaboration that takes place,” he says.
“From the first moments that attendees walk into our opening reception on Monday night until the close of the optional workshops on Thursday, one can see a rich exchange happening amongst circles of attendees. Introductions are being made. Connections are developing into business opportunities. The sum of an attendee’s experience at the Executive War College is to gain as much knowledge from the networking and collaboration as they do from the sessions.”
In a follow-up story, investigative news team in Boston sends a reporter’s cheek swab sample to the same pet DNA testing lab: report states the reporter is part Malamute, Shar Pei, and Labrador Retriever
One pet DNA testing company returned results from human cheek swabs showing two different people were in fact part dog. The resulting local reporting calls into question the accuracy of DNA testing of our beloved furry friends and may impact the trust people have in clinical laboratory genetic testing as well.
Pet DNA analysis is nearly as popular as human DNA analysis. The market is expected to exceed $700 million by the end of the decade, according to Zion Market Research. But are customers getting their money’s worth? One CBS news station in Boston decided to find out.
Last year, the WBZ I-Team, the investigative part of a CBS News station in Boston, looked into the accuracy of pet DNA testing. They reported on a pet owner who questioned the DNA test results she received for her German Shepard. The report indicated that her dog had DNA from more than 10 breeds, besides German Shepard.
During their research, the WBZ investigative reporters learned that pet owners order these tests to reveal what one pet DNA testing company described as understanding “your dog’s unique appearance, behavior, and health.”
“So, the WBZ-TV I-Team came with more tests from different companies to compare. All came back with some German Shepherd, but the percentages ranged from 65% to just 29%. Aside from that, the three companies showed a puzzling hodgepodge of other breeds. One included Great Pyrenees, another came back with Siberian Husky, another listed Korean Jindo, and the list goes on,” WBZ News reported.
The owner of the German Shepard then sent two swab samples from her own cheeks to one of the pet DNA testing companies. The test results indicated that she was 40% Border Collie, 32% Cane Corso, and 28% Bulldog.
The company that performed that DNA testing—DNA My Dog—insisted to the WBZ I-Team that one of the pet owner’s cheek samples contained dog DNA, WBZ News reported.
“The second sample did in fact yield canine DNA. … The results provided would not be possible on a human sample,” Jessica Barnett, Director of Service Operations, DNA My Dog, told WBZ News.
This must have come as a shock to the pet owner, who is probably sure she is not part dog.
“I think that is a red flag for sure,” Lisa Moses, VMD (above), a veterinarian and bioethicist with Harvard Medical School, told WBZ News. “A company should know if they’ve in any basic way analyzed a dog’s DNA, that that is not a dog,” she said. One wonders what might happen if a dog’s DNA was secretly sent to a clinical laboratory performing human genetic testing. What might the results be? (Photo copyright: Harvard Medical School.)
Two Times is the Charm
To continue its investigation into this odd occurrence, the WBZ I-Team decided to repeat the test this year. They sent a cheek saliva sample from one of their own reporters to three different dog DNA testing companies.
According to the I-Team report, one company, Orivet, said the sample “failed to provide the data necessary to perform breed ID analysis. Another company, Wisdom Panel stated the sample “didn’t provide enough DNA to produce a reliable result.”
However, DNA My Dog once again reported that the human sample belonged to a canine. This time the company’s test reported that the DNA sample was 40% Alaskan Malamute, 35% Shar Pei, and 25% Labrador Retriever.
DNA My Dog did not respond to WBZ I-Team’s attempt to contact them for a comment, WBZ News reported.
Wild West of DNA Testing
“I personally do have concerns about the fact that, from a consumer standpoint, you don’t always know what you’re getting when you work with those companies,” said geneticist Elinor Karlsson, PhD, Director of the Vertebrate Genomics Group at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, told WBZ News. “There’s not a lot of rules in this space.”
Karlsson is also founder and Chief Scientist at Darwin’s Ark, a nonprofit organization that combines dog genetics and behavior to advance the understanding of complex canine diseases. People participating in the initiative contribute data about their dogs to an open source database, which is then shared with researchers around the globe. To date, more than 44,000 dogs have been registered with the project.
She hopes that reports like the one from the WBZ I-Team will not dissuade interest in pet genetics, as the science does have significant value when performed correctly.
“We might be able to figure out which dogs are at risk of getting cancer, and screen them more often and be able to diagnose it earlier,” Karlsson said. “We might be able to develop new treatments for that cancer.”
“There isn’t necessarily a gold standard answer for what your dog is,” veterinarian and bioethicist Lisa Moses, VMD, co-director of the Capstone Program for the Master of Science in Bioethics Program at Harvard Medical School, told WBZ News. “A breed is something that we’ve decided, which is based upon essentially the way a dog looks. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re going to know what their genes look like.”
DNA My Dog Awarded ‘Best Budget Dog DNA Test’
In February, US News and World Report published an article rating the best dog DNA tests of 2024. The magazine ranked the DNA My Dog Essential Breed ID Test as the “best budget dog DNA test on the market.” The test sells for $79.99. According to the company’s website, a simple cheek swab yields:
A complete breed breakdown,
Genetic health concerns,
Unique personality traits, and
Bonding tips for dogs and their owners.
“I worry about people making medical decisions … based on one of these tests,” Moses told WBZ News, which added that, “She and some of her colleagues have called on lawmakers to set standards and regulations for pet DNA labs, and to require them to share their databases with each other, for more consistent results.”
The investigation into pet DNA testing by the television news reporters in Boston is a reminder to clinical lab managers and pathologists that DNA testing can be problematic in many ways. Also, when consumers read news stories like this one about inaccurate canine DNA testing, it can cause them to question the accuracy of other types of DNA testing.
Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer will cover how clinical laboratories billing for genetic testing should prepare for Z-Codes at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans
After multiple delays, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) commercial plans will soon require clinical laboratories to use Z-Codes when submitting claims for certain molecular diagnostic tests. Several private insurers, including UHC, already require use of Z-Codes in their Medicare Advantage plans, but beginning June 1, UHC will be the first to mandate use of the codes in its commercial plans as well. Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, who oversees the coding system and is Chief Medical Officer at Palmetto GBA, expects that other private payers will follow.
“A Z-Code is a random string of characters that’s used, like a barcode, to identify a specific service by a specific lab,” Bien-Willner explained in an interview with Dark Daily. By themselves, he said, the codes don’t have much value. Their utility comes from the DEX Diagnostics Exchange registry, “where the code defines a specific genetic test and everything associated with it: The lab that is performing the test. The test’s intended use. The analytes that are being measured.”
The registry also contains qualitative information, such as, “Is this a good test? Is it reasonable and necessary?” he said.
Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD (above), Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer, will speak about Z-Codes and the MolDX program during several sessions at the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management taking place in New Orleans on April 30-May 1. Clinical laboratories involved in genetic testing will want to attend these critical sessions. (Photo copyright: Bien-Willner Physicians Association.)
Palmetto GBA Takes Control
Palmetto’s involvement with Z-Codes goes back to 2011, when the company established the MolDX program on behalf of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The purpose was to handle processing of Medicare claims involving genetic tests. The coding system was originally developed by McKesson, and Palmetto adopted it as a more granular way to track use of the tests.
In 2017, McKesson merged its information technology business with Change Healthcare Holdings LLC to form Change Healthcare. Palmetto GBA acquired the Z-Codes and DEX registry from Change in 2020. Palmetto GBA had already been using the codes in MolDX and “we felt we needed better control of our own operations,” Bien-Willner explained.
In addition to administering MolDX, Palmetto is one of four regional Medicare contractors who require Z-Codes in claims for genetic tests. Collectively, the contractors handle Medicare claims submissions in 28 states.
Benefits of Z-Codes
Why require use of Z-Codes? Bien-Willner explained that the system addresses several fundamental issues with molecular diagnostic testing.
“Payers interact with labs through claims,” he said. “A claim will often have a CPT code [Current Procedural Technology code] that doesn’t really explain what was done or why.”
In addition, “molecular diagnostic testing is mostly done with laboratory developed tests (LDTs), not FDA-approved tests,” he said. “We don’t see LDTs as a problem, but there’s no standardization of the services. Two services could be described similarly, or with the same CPT codes. But they could have different intended uses with different levels of sophistication and different methodologies, quality, and content. So, how does the payer know what they’re paying for and whether it’s any good?”
When the CPT code is accompanied by a Z-Code, he said, “now we know exactly what test was done, who did it, who’s authorized to do it, what analytes are measured, and whether it meets coverage criteria under policy.”
The process to obtain a code begins when the lab registers for the DEX system, he explained. “Then they submit information about the test. They describe the intended use, the analytes that are being measured, and the methodologies. When they’ve submitted all the necessary information, we give the test a Z-Code.”
The assessment could be as simple as a spreadsheet that asks the lab which cancer types were tested in validation, he said. On the other end of the scale, “we might want to see the entire validation summary documentation,” he said.
Commercial Potential
Bien-Willner joined the Palmetto GBA in 2018 primarily to direct the MolDX program. But he soon saw the potential use of Z-Codes and the DEX registry for commercial plans. “It became instantly obvious that this is a problem for all payers, not just Medicare,” he said.
Over time, he said, “we’ve refined these processes to make them more reproducible, scalable, and efficient. Now commercial plans can license the DEX system, which Z-Codes are a part of, to better automate claims processing or pre-authorizations.”
In 2021, the company began offering the coding system for Medicare Advantage plans, with UHC the first to come aboard. “It was much easier to roll this out for Medicare Advantage, because those programs have to follow the same policies that Medicare does,” he explained.
As for UHC’s commercial plans, the insurer originally planned to require Z-Codes in claims beginning Aug. 1, 2023, then pushed that back to Oct. 1, according to Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report.
Then it was pushed back again to April 1 of this year, and now to June 1.
“The implementation will be in a stepwise fashion,” Bien-Willner advised. “It’s difficult to take an entirely different approach to claims processing. There are something like 10 switches that have to be turned on for everything to work, and it’s going to be one switch at a time.”
For Palmetto GBA, the commercial plans represent “a whole different line of business that I think will have a huge impact in this industry,” he said. “They have the same issues that Medicare has. But for Medicare, we had to create automated solutions up front because it’s more of a pay and chase model,” where the claim is paid and CMS later goes after errors or fraudulent claims.
“Commercial plans in general just thought they could manually solve this issue on a claim-by-claim basis,” he said. “That worked well when there was just a handful of genetic tests. Now there are tens of thousands of tests and it’s impossible to keep up.
They instituted programs to try to control these things, but I don’t believe they work very well.”
Bien-Willner is scheduled to speak about Palmetto GBA’s MolDX program, Z-Codes, and related topics during three sessions at the upcoming 29th annual Executive War College conference. Clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend his presentations. Visit here (or paste this URL into your browser: https://www.executivewarcollege.com/registration) to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.
