By partnering with drug manufacturers to connect customers with clinical trials, the retail pharmacy chain believes this new venture will be the company’s “next growth engine.”
Walgreens is launching a business to connect customers with clinical drug trials, a venture that adds another offering to the retail pharmacy giants’ growing menu of healthcare services. This new venture might also mean additional test orders for clinical laboratories and pathology groups in areas that serve Walgreens customers.
Now, Walgreens is attempting to further redefine the patient experience by partnering with pharmaceutical companies to find participants for clinical trials, a business that could result in more Americans from underrepresented racial and ethnic populations enrolling in drug-development trials. With 9,021 retail pharmacies in all 50 states, it is well-positioned to know which of its customers would be candidates for different clinical trials.
“Walgreens’ trusted community presence across the nation, combined with our enterprise-wide data and health capabilities, enables us to pioneer a comprehensive solution that makes health options, including clinical trials, more accessible, convenient and equitable,” said Ramita Tandon, Walgreens’ Chief Clinical Trials Officer, in a press release.
Ramita Tandon, Walgreens’ Chief Clinical Trials Officer, believes Walgreens can play a role in solving the issues of diversity and declining enrollment in clinical trials. “Through the launch of our clinical trials services, we can provide another offering for patients with complex or chronic conditions in their care journey, while helping sponsors advance treatment options for the diverse communities we serve,” she said in a press release. (Photo copyright: Walgreens.)
Serving the Socially Vulnerable
In an interview with Fierce Healthcare, Tandon described the clinical trials business as Walgreens’ “next growth engine” of consumer-centric healthcare solutions.
According to the company press release, “Walgreens is addressing access barriers through a compliant, validated and secure decentralized clinical trial platform built on a rigorous compliance and regulatory framework to ensure patient privacy and security. This approach leverages owned and partner digital and physical assets, including select Health Corner and Village Medical at Walgreens locations, to directly engage patients at home, virtually or in-person.”
Walgreens notes that more than half of its roughly 9,000 U.S.-based stores are in “socially vulnerable areas.”
According to the Washington Examiner, a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study revealed that 75% of patients who participate in clinical trials are white, while just 11% are Hispanic and fewer than 10% are Asian or black. In addition, participation in clinical trials has been declining, with 80% of trials failing to attract enough participants on time.
Tandon maintains that making the process of participating in clinical trials easier is another key to increasing diversity and participation in clinical trials.
“During the clinical trial journey, we know it’s a burden for patients to visit sites. We also know that 78% of patient-consumers in the US live within five miles of a Walgreens,” she told PharmaVoice. “If a patient can complete much of the up-front clinical trial requirements at a local Walgreens, or conduct some of the visits digitally, it would make the whole clinical trial experience that much more positive and, maybe, encourage the patient to participate in new clinical trials going forward.”
Walgreens also plans to use its treasure-trove of customer data to find potential patients for its trials business.
“Understanding this detail of customer preference and segmentation can be quite useful particularly in clinical trials, for example, to create better protocols,” Tandon told PharmaVoice. “We are sitting on so much information, but we can, and need to, do a better job of using these insights in a real-world setting, which can be translated to pharma R/D or brand management organizations. We’re all about patient-centric drug development.”
FDA Seeks Diversity in Clinical Trails
Walgreens is in discussions with several drug manufacturers as it looks to launch this new venture.
“We are working very closely with them to understand their business needs and create the solution that’s going to be sort of bespoke to their specific trial needs,” Tandon told Fierce Healthcare. “Our goal is to move that needle and start to see a larger number of US patients participating and highly diverse participants that are coming into clinical trials.”
In April, an FDA press release announced new draft guidance aimed at “developing plans to enroll more participants from underrepresented racial and ethnic populations in the US into clinical trials.”
“Despite having a disproportionate burden for certain diseases, racial and ethnic minorities are frequently underrepresented in biomedical research,” the FDA stated. “Clinical trials provide a crucial base of evidence for evaluating whether a medical product is safe and effective; therefore, enrollment in clinical trials should reflect the diversity of the population that is ultimately going to use the treatment.”
Disintermediation of Retail Pharmacies
“Walgreens has a significant opportunity to create an interconnected healthcare ecosystem where we can use the physical assets of Walgreens and connect with patients and consumers at a local level to better support healthcare and healthcare equality,” Tandon said in PharmaVoice.
This is the latest example of a billion-dollar retail pharmacy chain diversifying away from simply filling prescriptions. Two types of competitors are driving the disintermediation of retail pharmacies because they end up directing patients away from the pharmacy:
Amazon.com acquired PillPack and now sends, via mail, prescriptions to patients’ homes.
Pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies with a business model that encourage patients to get 90 days of prescriptions at once, mailed to their home.
In both cases, retail pharmacies lose access to patients. This is what is motivating several national pharmacy chains to offer primary care within their retail pharmacies (where following an office visit with a general practitioner, the patient simply crosses the store to the pharmacy to fill his/her prescription), as well as the clinical trial matching business.
As retail pharmacy chains become an increasingly disruptive force in healthcare, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should be preparing new strategies to meet the testing needs of a changing primary care delivery model, which likely will include lab testing being offered in nontraditional medical locations.
Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”
For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.
According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.
The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”
In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal
Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.
The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.
“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”
Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”
AHA Voices Support
Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.
Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.
DNA analysis of early plague victims pinpoints Black Death’s start on Silk Road trading communities in mountain region of what is now modern-day Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory scientists will likely find it fascinating that an international team of scientists may have solved one of history’s greatest mysteries—the origin of the bubonic plague that ravaged Afro-Eurasia in the mid fourteenth century. Also known as the Black Death, the plague killed 60% of the population of Europe, Asia, and North Africa between 1346-1353 and, until now, the original source of this disease has largely gone unsolved.
In their study published in the journal Nature, titled, “The Source of the Black Death in Fourteenth-Century Central Eurasia,” the authors outlined their investigation of cemeteries in the Chüy Valley of modern-day Kyrgyzstan. The tombstone inscriptions showed a disproportionally high number of burials dating between 1338 and 1339 with inscriptions stating “pestilence” as the cause of death.
Archeological evidence combined with ancient DNA analysis of early plague victims enabled scientists to pinpoint the Black Death’s origins in Kyrgyzstan. “We have basically located the origin in time and space, which is really remarkable,” geneticist Johannes Krause, PhD (above), Professor at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who co-led the study, told The Guardian. “We found not only the ancestor of the Black Death, but the ancestor of the majority of the plague strains that are circulating in the world today.” These new research findings may help microbiologists and clinical pathologists gain new insights into how current strains of Yersinia pestis can be better diagnosed. (Photo copyright: Max Planck Institute.)
Big Bang of Plague
Using 30 skeletons that were excavated from these cemeteries in the late 1880s and moved to St. Petersburg, Russia, the scientists analyzed the DNA of ancient pathogens recovered from the remains of seven people. They discovered Yersinia pestis (Y. pestis) DNA in three burials from Kara-Djigach, which lies in the foothills of the Tian Shan mountains.
According to another article in Nature, the scientists showed that a pair of full Y. pestis genomes from their data were direct ancestors of strains linked to the Black Death, and that the Kara-Djigach strain was an ancestor of the vast majority of Y. pestis lineages circulating today.
“It was like a big bang of plague,” Krause stated at a press briefing, Nature reported.
The research team concluded that the Tian Shan region was the location where Y. pestis first spread from rodents to people, and that the local marmot colonies likely the prevalent rodent carriers of plague.
“We found that modern strains [of the plague] most closely related to the ancient strain are today found in plague reservoirs around the Tian Shan mountains, so very close to where the ancient strain was found. This points to an origin of Black Death’s ancestor in Central Asia,” Krause explained in a Max Planck Institute news release.
He told Nature that fleas likely passed the marmot-based infection on to humans, sparking a local Kyrgyzstan epidemic. The disease then spread along the Silk Road trade routes, eventually reaching Europe, where rats (and the fleas that they carried) spread the disease.
Understanding Context of Plague
Writing in The Conversation, Associate Professor of Medieval and Environmental History Philip Slavin, PhD, University of Stirling, who co-authored the study, explained that Kara-Djigach is unlikely to be “the specific source of the pandemic,” but rather that the “disaster started somewhere in the wider Tian Shan area, perhaps not too far from that site,” where marmot colonies were likely the source of the 1338-1339 outbreak.
Making a modern-day comparison, Krause told Nature, “It is like finding the place where all the strains come together, like with coronavirus where we have Alpha, Delta, Omicron all coming from this strain in Wuhan.”
Slavin maintains that understanding the “big evolutionary picture” is key when studying the phenomenon of emerging epidemic diseases.
“It is important to see how these diseases develop evolutionary and historically, and avoid treating different strains as isolated phenomena,” he wrote in The Conversation. “To understand how the diseases develop and get transmitted, it is also crucial to consider the environmental and socioeconomic contexts.”
Scientists have spent centuries debating the source of the Black Death that devastated the medieval world. The multidisciplinary process used by the Slavin/Krause-led team provides a lesson to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists on the important role they play when collaborating with colleagues from different fields on scientific investigations.
Employer group in Houston plans to use the numbers to pressure lawmakers for policy changes involving how hospitals and health plans price their services
Clinical laboratory leaders will probably not be surprised to learn that wide disparities exist between what Medicare pays hospitals and what is paid by private insurers and employers. That’s according to analysis by the Houston Business Coalition on Health (HBCH) which examined costs and billing practices at four of the region’s top hospitals, each a flagship for its respective health system.
This study—by a business group concerned about the spiraling cost of healthcare for their employees—is significant because it indicates that some large employers are willing to become more aggressive in driving down healthcare costs. In the Houston study, three of these hospitals—Houston Methodist, Memorial Hermann, and HCA Houston Medical Center—charged more than 250% over Medicare, noted a press release, which stated the group plans to use the numbers to lobby Texas lawmakers for policy changes.
“The prices employers paid to hospitals are unsustainable and negatively impact business growth, family quality of life, and resources needed for other critical community social needs,” said HBCH executive director Chris Skisak, PhD, in the press release. “Our intent in sharing and publicizing these resources is to facilitate direct discussions with health systems and employers to better understand the ramifications to Houston businesses and the greater community.”
The HBCH describes itself as a resource for local employers and healthcare providers seeking to promote cost-effective healthcare delivery and health benefits. It has 60 members that collectively provide healthcare coverage for 500,000 area residents.
“We’re entering a new age of transparency and it’s clear from these tools that pricing is not directly correlated with quality, but rather on what the market will bear,” said HBCH executive director Chris Skisak, PhD (above), in a press release. “While this is cause for concern, there are opportunities for change and these resources will enable employers and health plans to negotiate future contracts to select health systems that offer the best value—the highest quality at the lowest costs.” (Photo copyright: Houston Business Journal.)
Hospital Claims Medicare Reimbursement Flawed
A spokesperson for Memorial Hermann disputed the HBCH’s analysis, telling the Houston Chronicle that “Medicare reimbursement is a flawed and an inappropriate benchmark to use for commercial payments, as Medicare payments do not cover the cost of services provided.”
But the HBCH analysis also disclosed that each hospital was charging private insurers more than double the breakeven, defined as the amount needed “to make up for any shortfalls from public sector payers such as Medicare and Medicaid and uninsured patients.” And they “achieved a commercial profit margin of more than 45%” over the breakeven.
The fourth hospital, Baylor St. Luke’s, charged 216% over Medicare and had a commercial profit margin of close to 20%.
The Medicare claims data came from a RAND study, titled, “Prices Paid to Hospitals by Private Health Plans.” The 53-page report is accompanied by a downloadable spreadsheet with details on prices at more than 4,000 hospitals in 49 states plus the District of Columbia. Released in May, it covers data from 2018 through 2020.
The HBCH analysts combined data from this report with data from the NASHP Hospital Cost Tool (HCT), which was released in April. The HCT allows anyone with a web browser to look up cost metrics for 4,600 hospitals in the US. The numbers, available through 2019, include revenue, profitability, and breakeven points. It also incorporates an earlier set of the RAND Medicare claims data.
An NASHP press release notes that the breakeven calculation “accounts for a hospital’s operating costs, profit or loss from public coverage programs, charity care and uninsured patient hospital costs, Medicare disallowed costs, and a hospital’s other income and expense.”
The HBCH press release notes that hospitals need only 127% of Medicare to break even.
National Numbers
Nationally, the RAND study found wide variations in prices paid by private health plans from state to state. “In Texas, prices paid to hospitals for privately insured patients by employers averaged 252% of what Medicare would have paid,” the HBCH press release noted.
But that places Texas around the middle of the pack compared with other states. According to a Rand press release, prices charged to commercial payers were over 310% of Medicare in Florida, West Virginia, and South Carolina. But in Arkansas, Hawaii, and Washington, the numbers were below 175% of Medicare. The overall national average was 224%, the study found.
The RAND report’s downloadable spreadsheet breaks out the numbers by state and for individual health systems by name.
Numbers like these could have policy ramifications as employers seek to reduce the costs of providing health benefits. “The data is already being used to guide a new path forward,” states the HBCH press release. “As an example, HBCH and its members are working to demand transparency and change policies in the upcoming Texas 88th Legislative Session to eliminate anti-competitive language between hospitals and health plans.”
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists working in hospitals and health systems will want to watch how employer groups respond to future studies of hospital pricing compared to the Medicare program. Employers increasingly are dissatisfied with the status quo in how hospitals and doctors price their services to health insurers.
It is reasonable to expect more studies to be published that compare what hospitals charge private health insurers versus what they are paid by the Medicare program.
Shultz and fellow whistleblower Erika Cheung spoke to clinical laboratory scientists and attendees at the AACC Annual Scientific Meeting in Chicago
Two whistleblowers who raised concerns about the accuracy of Theranos’ blood test results offered thought-provoking comments on how the maligned company operated within current requirements for clinical laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) during last week’s American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) Annual Scientific Meeting.
“The laboratory-developed test loophole that Theranos exploited should be closed,” said Tyler Shultz, who complained about Theranos’ inaccurate testing to regulators and TheWall Street Journal. Both Shultz and fellow Theranos whistleblower Erika Cheung were former employees at the now-defunct company.
“There are a lot of good use cases for LDTs, so they shouldn’t all be shut down,” Shultz continued. “But in general, I do think that if FDA-cleared clinical laboratory tests are available, those tests should be used instead of a homebrew test that hasn’t been held to the same standard that an FDA-cleared product has.”
Both trials examined the dubious claims that Theranos’ technology worked properly during the company’s blazing ascent with both Silicon Valley investors and the media from 2003 to 2014. The company said it could take a few drops of blood from a patient and successfully analyze the specimen using a machine called Edison, although Shultz, Cheung, and others questioned the results.
By 2015, problems with Theranos’ testing began to go public. The company shut down in 2018 after Holmes and Balwani were indicted.
However, proposed legislation is before Congress that would transfer oversight of LDTs to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill, known as the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act, is now embedded in the larger Senate bill FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements Act of 2022 (S.4348).
Theranos’ saga did provide at least some inspiration for legislators filing the VALID Act. However, Cheung noted that trying to regulate all LDTs based the bad behavior of Theranos’ executives is a complex issue.
“Regulation is always tricky,” she said. “When you take an example of a very extraordinary case and a very specific circumstance [such as Theranos] and try to generalize that in terms of what is the behavior of all labs, you have to be careful.”
Proponents state FDA pre-market approval is needed for in vitro diagnostic tests because they are like medical devices. Opponents counter that the VALID Act would stifle innovation because of the costs involved with FDA review, particularly at academic medical laboratories.
Cheung questioned whether FDA review of Theranos’ technology would have averted patient and investor fraud by Holmes and Balwani.
“Would it have been the case that if it was necessary for the FDA to review Theranos’ LDTs, that it could have stopped it? Maybe,” Cheung told AACC attendees. “But you’re also dealing with a company that lied a lot. There were lots of things that Theranos had to submit to CLIA or to CMS in order to say that they were able to test certain types of patients.”
Shultz had similar feelings regarding a hypothetical FDA review of Theranos’ product, which will ring true with pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals who understand medical laboratory compliance and how the FDA regulate diagnostic instruments and kits.
“When you bring something to the FDA, they look at the data. They don’t go in and actually do third-party validation to see if your device works,” he said. “They just look at the data, and the [Theranos] data was largely manipulated. So, if you forced Theranos to go through the FDA process, I’m not sure if it would have prevented [the fraud].”
Genetic testing for the health and wellbeing of beloved pets is not unlike clinical laboratory testing to develop personalized treatments for humans
Clinical laboratory professionals know that the same patients who complain about a $10 copay for their own laboratory testing will happily pay veterinarians tons of cash to test and treat their beloved pets. And as genetic testing for humans becomes commonplace, more people are seemingly willing to pay for genetic analyses of their pets as well.
In June, animal health company Zoetis, Inc. announced it had completed the acquisition of pet care genetics company Basepaws. The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed.
California-based Basepaws is a privately-held company that provides pet owners with analytics, genetic tests, and early health risk assessments for their pets through oral microbiome analysis. Founded in 2017, Basepaws was responsible for the creation of the first at-home genetic testing platform for cats.
Basepaws sells easy-to-use genetic testing kits for cats that allow pet owners and veterinarians to better understand an individual pet’s predisposition to certain illnesses and increase the likelihood of early detection and treatment of those diseases.
It’s not unlike the drive toward personalized medicine and genetic testing that is at the core of human precision medicine.
Different Breeds, Different Needs
Basepaws has a slogan: “Different breeds, different needs.” This means, according to their website, each individual cat has a unique composition of genetic traits that can relate to its needs for optimal health and wellbeing. Obviously, this would apply to all pets.
“As a pioneer in pet care genetics, the California-based Basepaws offers easy-to-use genetic screening tools for the early detection of disease risk in pets, as well as individualized breed and health reports that can identify traits, biomarkers, and potential hereditary conditions for pets. Basepaws helps pet owners and veterinarians understand an individual pet’s risk for disease and can lead to more meaningful engagements and increased likelihood of early detection and treatment of disease,” states a Zoetis press release announcing the acquisition.
“The addition of Basepaws will enhance our portfolio in the precision animal health space and inform our future pipeline of pet care innovations,” said Kristin Peck, CEO of Zoetis, in the press release. “Working together, we can continue to provide veterinarians and pet owners with more comprehensive ways to proactively manage the health, wellness, and quality of care for their animals.”
“Basepaws and Zoetis both consist of pet lovers with a passion for science, and our mission is to create better and longer lives for our pets through knowledge and data,” Anna Skaya (above), CEO of Basepaws, told ROI-N.J. “We look forward to expanding our business and the impact of our genetic products with the global scale and [research and development] experience of Zoetis, the world leader in animal health. We believe that, together, we can bring the benefits of a more proactive healthcare approach to pet parents around the world.” Genetic testing for optimum pet health is not unlike the drive for personalized clinical laboratory genetic testing for humans. (Photo copyright: Los Angeles Times.)
Test Results for Hundreds of Genetic Disorders and Health Markers
Basepaws currently sells three DNA test kits for felines on their webpage. The current price for an oral health test kit that identifies active signs of dental diseases is $69. Their breed and cat health DNA test kit, which provides results for over 115 known feline genetic markers, is $129. Their most comprehensive testing kit is a whole genome sequencing (WGS) kit which is currently on sale for $399.
After receiving a test kit by mail, the purchaser registers the kit online, takes a single buccal swab from their kitty’s inner cheek, and then mails the sample to Basepaws. Lab personnel then extract the cat’s DNA from the sample and perform quality checks to ensure the sample is acceptable for genetic testing. It takes four to six weeks for consumers to receive test results.
According to the company’s website, Basepaws’ WGS test provides results related to 43 genetic disorders that are represented by 65 health markers. The listing of genetic disorders contained in the Health Marker section of the Basepaws report includes data on:
Metabolic disorders,
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders,
Renal disorders,
Cardiovascular disorders,
Blood disorders,
Eye disorders,
Endocrine disorders,
Skin disorders, and
Autoimmune disorders.
“The Basepaws team has done an amazing job demonstrating how genetic testing and data can improve how we care for the pets in our lives,” Abhay Nayak, Executive Vice President at Zoetis, told ROI-NJ. “With the addition of Basepaws, Zoetis will continue to strengthen our portfolio of products for precision animal health, across genetics, diagnostics, and data analytics for pets and livestock. We are also excited by how Basepaws’ feline genomic and microbiome database will help enhance our [research and development] capabilities and inform the future of our pet care pipeline.”
Zoetis, based in Parsippany, N.J., manufactures vaccines, medicines, clinical laboratory diagnostics, and other technologies for the benefit of companion pets and livestock. The Fortune 500 company generated $7.8 billion in revenue in 2021, according to its website.
The article also stated that the global animal genetic testing market was valued at $990 million in 2020 and is only expected to rise.
Thus, spending money keeping our pets healthy is not only a typical element of Americans’ lives, but also a mega-billion-dollar industry. With at-home genetic testing for humans increasing in popularity, it’s likely testing for animals will follow that trend as well.
In the future, some clinical laboratory organizations may want to consider assessing the animal DNA testing market for its potential to be a useful source of new revenue, especially because potential customers will pay cash when they order genetic tests for their dogs and cats.
