Retail giant now has primary care clinics at stores in five states, but the rollout has not gone smoothly
Healthcare is increasingly being driven by consumerism and one clear sign of this trend is Walmart’s ambitious plan to open health clinics at its retail locations. The retail giant set its plans in motion in 2019 with its first primary care site in a suburban Atlanta store, however, the rollout since then has presented certain challenges.
Nevertheless, the trend of placing nearly full-service primary care clinics in retail locations continues. Clinical laboratories in these areas need strategies to serve customers accessing healthcare through these new channels, particularly as Walmart and the national retail pharmacy chains continue to expand the clinical services offered in their retail stores.
“Consumer engagement is a huge part of healthcare, [yet it is also a] gap for us in healthcare,” cardiologist and Walmart VP of Health and Wellness Cheryl Pegus, MD, told Modern Healthcare. “Healthcare is incredibly complicated,” she added. “And where we are in healthcare today is not in having great treatments. It’s not in having evidence-based medicine. It’s understanding how we engage consumers.”
The company also entered the telehealth business with last year’s acquisition of multispecialty telehealth provider MeMD.
“Telehealth offers a great opportunity to expand access and reach consumers where they are and complements our brick-and-mortar Walmart Health locations,” said Pegus in a Walmart new release announcing the acquisition. “Today people expect omnichannel access to care and adding telehealth to our Walmart healthcare strategies allows us to provide in-person and digital care across our multiple assets and solutions.”
Currently, Walmart Health centers only operate in Georgia, Florida, Illinois, and Arkansas. But telehealth enables Walmart “to provide virtual healthcare across the country to anyone,” Pegus said. With both offerings, “we’re really attempting to allow people to get healthcare the way they need it without disrupting the rest of their life.” Many users of these services are Walmart “associates,” she added, using the company’s term for its retail employees.
“In this country, about 25% of people don’t have a primary care physician,” cardiologist Cheryl Pegus, MD (above), Walmart’s VP of Health and Wellness, told Medscape. “So, your options for being able to solve in real time something that will help you, they’re quite limited. What we’re trying to do is give those options. We’re not trying to take away emergency rooms, or healthcare systems, or existing primary care. We’re asking, how do we expand that infrastructure so that people get care when they need it?” And this includes clinical laboratory testing, radiology, and telehealth services as well. (Photo copyright: Walmart.)
Large Portfolio of Healthcare Offerings
Pegus joined Walmart (NYSE:WMT) in December 2020 to oversee a portfolio that now includes more than 4,700 pharmacies and 3,400 Vision Centers, in addition to the telehealth operation and the Walmart Health centers. She was previously chief medical officer at Walgreens and Cambia Health Solutions and worked in private practice as a cardiologist.
The retail giant opened its first Walmart Health center in Dallas, Ga., an Atlanta suburb, in September 2019, followed by additional centers in Georgia, Arkansas, and Illinois.
Earlier this year, it opened five new clinics in northern and central Florida with plans for at least four more in the Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa areas, according to a press release. Each health center is adjacent to a Walmart retail location.
These centers offer a range of primary care medical services, including:
physicals,
injury care,
immunizations,
radiology, and
care for chronic health conditions.
Pictured above is one of the first health clinics established by Walmart. This location is in a western Atlanta suburb. Note that the services advertised include more than just primary care. Also offered are “labs and X-ray,” along with dental, hearing, optometry, and counseling. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may want to monitor whether consumers embrace primary care delivered from clinics located in retail stores. (Photo copyright: Georgia Health News.)
As Dark Daily reported in May 2020, the Walmart Health centers also offer clinical laboratory testing at cut-rate prices, such as:
$10 for a lipid test,
$10 for Hemoglobin A1c, and
$20 for a strep test.
On the Walmart Health website, patients can enter their Zip code to view a list of Walmart Health clinics in their area, including links to price lists.
Walmart’s Expansion into Healthcare Not Without Problems
However, the company’s expansion into healthcare has not gone smoothly. In 2018, the Walmart board signed off on a plan to open 4,000 health centers by 2029, Insider reported. By the end of 2021, Walmart expected to have 125 health centers in operation, but as of June 2022, the Walmart Health website listed only 25 locations, mostly in Georgia.
Citing anonymous sources, Insider reported problems that include “leadership changes, competing business priorities brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, and the complexity of scaling a massive healthcare operation.”
In Sept. 2021, Insider further reported that the clinics were experiencing operational difficulties including hidden fees and billing problems. One culprit, the story suggested, was the company’s electronic health record (EHR) software. That same month, Walmart announced it would adopt the Epic health records system, beginning with the opening of new clinics in Florida locations.
Pegus’ arrival at Walmart appears to be part of a management shakeup. In January 2022, Insider reported that she had assembled a new executive team, with David Carmouche, MD, Senior VP, Omnichannel Care Offerings, overseeing the health centers and telehealth operations. By then, the original executives leading the rollout of the health centers had all left, Insider reported. Carmouche was previously an executive VP with Ochsner Health in New Orleans.
Partnership with Quest Diagnostics
Meanwhile, in January, Walmart announced a deal with Quest Diagnostics that allows consumers to order more than 50 lab tests through The Wellness Hub on Walmart.com, which is separate from the Walmart Health website. The tests cover “general health, digestive health, allergy, heart health, women’s health, and infectious disease,” according to a press release announcing the partnership.
Consumers can order at-home test kits for certain conditions or set up appointments for tests at Quest Patient Service Centers. The tests on the Walmart/QuestDirect website include:
COVID-19 Active Infection ($119+)
COVID-19 Antibody Test ($69)
Cholesterol Panel ($59)
Complete Blood Count ($59)
Comprehensive Metabolic Panel ($49)
CRP Inflammation Marker ($59)
Diabetes Management ($69+)
Diabetes Risk ($99+)
Food Allergy Test Panel ($209)
Chickenpox ($59)
The website also offers a combined Basic Health Profile with CBC, CMP, cholesterol panel, and urinalysis for $149. “Each purchase is reviewed and, if appropriate, ordered by a licensed physician,” the press release states.
What does all this mean for clinical laboratories? “They need to recognize that the Millennials and Gen Zs are driving a consumer revolution in healthcare,” said Robert Michel, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report.
“Walmart was early to recognize and respond to this, in part because it employs 1.3 million Americans, many of whom are Gen Y and Gen Z and quick to use telehealth and similar virtual health services,” he added.
Clinical laboratory leaders need to understand this trend and develop strategies to attract and serve new patients who are willing to access healthcare virtually, while still needing to provide blood and other specimens for the lab tests ordered by their providers.
Balwani’s lawyers opted not to have their client testify in his own defense and called only two witnesses, while Holmes’ defense team offered jurors the opportunity to hear her testimony
Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani dreamed of revolutionizing the clinical laboratory blood-testing industry with their now defunct Theranos Edison device, which they claimed could perform multiple tests with a single finger prick of blood. Instead, they became the rare Silicon Valley executives to be convicted of fraud.
On July 7, ex-COO/President Balwani was convicted on all 12 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy charges in his federal fraud trial. Holmes, Theranos’ founder/CEO and former romantic partner to Balwani, avoided convictions six months ago in January on seven of the 11 counts she faced for her role in exaggerating the accuracy and reliability of the company’s Edison blood-testing device and providing false financial claims to investors.
“Once again, a jury has determined that the fraud at Theranos reached the level of criminal conspiracy,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan in a press release posted on Twitter following the verdict. “The FBI has spent years investigating this investment fraud scheme with our partners at USPIS and the FDA Office of Criminal Investigations. Lies, deceit, and criminal actions cannot replace innovation and success.”
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani (above center), former COO/President of Theranos, is shown leaving the federal courthouse in San Jose, Calif., on July 7 after he was found guilty on all 12 counts of fraud, a verdict more severe than ex-CEO and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes received in January for similar charges. Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists have been closely monitoring both trails. (Photo copyright: Jim Wilson/The New York Times.)
Balwani’s Age and Experience May Have Worked Against Him
Michael Weinstein, JD, a former Justice Department prosecutor who is the Chair of White-collar Litigation at Cole Schotz, told The New York Times that Balwani’s age and his trial date—three months after Holmes’ conviction—worked against him. Balwani, 57, could not present himself as a young and inexperienced tech executive easily manipulated by those around him, as Holmes, 38, had attempted to do.
“Holmes could come off as a bit naïve, and [her defense team] tried to sell that,” Weinstein said of the former Stanford University dropout who founded Theranos in 2003 when she was 19.
In Holmes’ case the verdict was mixed, with jurors acquitting her of the patient fraud counts but unable to reach a decision on some of the investor fraud counts, Bloomberg reported.
Mr. Balwani, however, “came off as more of an experienced technology executive,” Weinstein added.
Weinstein pointed out that because the government’s case against Balwani mirrored its case against Holmes, prosecutors had time to refine their strategy before making a second appearance inside US District Court Judge Edward Davila’s San Jose courtroom.
“The streamlined presentation, the streamlined evidence, the streamlined narrative—all was beneficial for the government in the end,” he said.
Ever since opening arguments in March, Balwani’s legal team portrayed him to the jurors as a loyal partner who believed in Theranos’ technology and “put his money where his mouth is,” the Guardian noted.
Prosecutors, however, made the case that Balwani had a hands-on role in running the lab and was the source of Theranos’ overinflated financial projections.
Balwani invested about $15 million in the startup between 2009 and 2011 and never cashed in when his stake grew to $500 million. That money evaporated when Theranos collapsed.
In all, 24 witnesses testified against Balwani. He was ultimately convicted of all 12 counts he faced:
Two counts of conspiring with Holmes,
Six counts of defrauding investors, and
Four counts of patient fraud.
Major Differences in Trial Testimony
The Balwani trial made headlines due to COVID-19 pandemic related delays, but otherwise did not produce the news-generating moments that punctuated Holmes’ nearly four-month-long court appearance. Thirty-two witnesses appeared at the Holmes trial, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, according to CNN.
Another significant difference in the two trials was that Holmes testified in her own defense. Holmes spent nearly 24 hours on the stand, CNN Business noted at that time, during which she cast the blame for Theranos’ failings on those around her, including Balwani.
ABC NewsRebecca Jarvis, host and creator of the podcast “The Dropout,” believes Balwani’s decision not to testify worked against him.
“[The abuse claims] did not come up at his trial, but during [Holmes’] seven days of testimony, they were a big portion of what she talked about,” Jarvis said in an ABC News “Start Here” podcast. “The biggest difference is that he didn’t take the stand to say, ‘I didn’t do this,’ or … raise his own objections to the claims against him.
“You think about a jury who is supposed to know nothing about any of [the defendant’s] backstory, and they’re shown these things like … case pictures of [Holmes] so much younger than [Balwani], supposedly having to rely on him for his expertise,” Jarvis added.
“You can imagine where the jury may have found that presentation more sympathetic than Sunny Balwani who had experience,” she said.
Text May Have Been Balwani’s Undoing
Balwani’s defense team called only two witnesses:
A naturopathic physician who used Theranos’ blood-testing lab, and
A technical consultant who Balwani’s legal team hired to assess the accessibility of patient data in Theranos’ Laboratory Information System (LIS), which the defense argued could have provided evidence of the accuracy of Theranos’ test results.
“This verdict also signals the jurors did not buy Balwani’s highly speculative argument that the database Theranos lost in 2018 would have proven his innocence,” Park said.
“We are obviously disappointed with the verdicts,” he said. “We plan to study and consider all of Mr. Balwani’s options including an appeal.”
Following the verdicts, Judge Davila raised Balwani’s bail to $750,000 and set a Nov. 15 sentencing date. Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 26.
Balwani’s own words may have been his final undoing. During closing arguments, prosecutors again showed jurors a text message Balwani sent to Holmes in 2015, The New York Times reported.
“I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” he wrote. “All have been my decisions too.”
Clinical laboratory directors and medical laboratory scientists will no doubt continue to monitor the fallout from these two extraordinary federal fraud trials. There’s still much to learn about CLIA-laboratory director responsibility and how the government plans to prevent future lab testing fraud from taking place.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathology group leaders may want to pay closer attention to shrinking hospital margins and whether this may put pressure on hospital laboratory budgets
Financial performance of the nation’s hospitals and health systems continues to disappoint hospital leaders. For the fourth consecutive month this year, hospital operating margins have remained in the red. This will, of course, affect the clinical laboratories and pathology departments at these institutions.
A recently released National Hospital Flash Report from healthcare management consulting firm Kaufman Hall indicates that 2022 has started off poorly for most healthcare organizations. The information in Kaufman’s report is based on data gathered from more than 900 hospitals and healthcare systems across the country.
The key takeaways outlined in the report for the month of April that are negatively affecting hospitals’ bottom lines include:
More patients are utilizing urgent care facilities, telemedicine options, and primary care providers instead of seeking care at hospital emergency departments.
Patients tend to be sicker, more expensive to treat, and require longer hospital stays compared to April of 2021.
Expenses remain high due to labor shortages, specialty supplies, supply chain issues, and costly pharmaceuticals.
“Labor shortages, high prices for supplies, and cost increases to treat sicker patients over longer stays are ballooning hospital expenses,” Erik Swanson (above), Senior Vice President of Data and Analytics for Kaufman Hall, told Fierce Healthcare. “With a bleak consensus outlook for the US economy, those factors and their effects could be here for a while.” Clinical laboratories have been grappling with supply and personnel shortages and rising costs for many years. (Photo copyright: Kaufman Hall.)
According to the report, the operating margins for the hospitals were down nearly 40% compared to March 2022 and declined 76% when compared to April 2021. The calculated median operating margin index was -3.09% throughout April 2022. In addition, operating earnings declined almost 27% from March to April of this year and 51.5% when contrasted with April of last year.
The report also found that patient volumes, average lengths of stays, and surgeries performed had declined overall during the month of April—but that hospital expenses rose during that period—thus decreasing profit margins. Total expenditures increased by 8.3% over April 2021, and 9.6% between March and April of this year.
Inflation, COVID-19 Key Factors in Hospitals’ First Quarter Losses
The report noted that the historic rise in inflation during the month of April is fueling negative revenues for healthcare systems and hospitals. Several for-profit and nonprofit hospital systems reported losses for the first quarter of 2022.
Kaufman’s report for the month of March was slightly more positive as the healthcare organizations surveyed reported an incremental rise in patient volumes and minor expense relief, resulting in gains in volumes and revenues. March also saw an increase in outpatient and surgery volumes and lower numbers of high-acuity patients. However, that slight upward trend did not last through April.
Another reason for the year-to-date unsatisfactory revenue margins for hospitals across the country was the surge of patients seeking care for the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant of the COVID-19 infection earlier in the year.
“The first few months of this year were decimated by the impact of the omicron wave, but as the omicron wave subsided, we had a bit of a rebound in those volumes, and that’s what you saw in March,” Erik Swanson, Senior Vice President of Data and Analytics for Kaufman Hall told HealthLeaders. “However, it wasn’t a rebound to the full historical volumes, and that is again because of that wave.”
Healthcare Organizations are Advised to Look at Expenses
The National Hospital Flash Report is published monthly by Kaufman Hall and provides vital analyses and observations on the fiscal performance of hospitals and healthcare systems. The information contained in the report includes data on margins, volumes, revenues, and expenses.
“The revenue side is a bit more challenging for organizations to control. Many are looking at their internal revenue cycle, understanding where there can be improvements in their own process, improving just the performance of the revenue cycle that improves the collections rates,” Swanson said. “Many are also trying to renegotiate with payers and negotiate perhaps as aggressively as possible to get the best rates. But I think where you see much of the levers that organizations can pull is on the expense side.”
Fluctuations in revenue mean that organizations—including clinical laboratories—will have to establish new strategies to diminish their financial shortfalls.
“Finally, because a lot of these challenges are due to these ebbs and flows in volumes, many organizations are also looking to see how they can embrace more data-driven predictive type models to look at volumes and think about how they can optimize their workforce to better handle these ebbs and flows of volume,” Swanson added. “This very often includes thinking about the appropriate size of float pools, the number of times that you need to pay overtime versus hiring new individuals, so many organizations are taking those approaches to bend the cost curve. There are quite a few levers that organizations are pulling to bend this cost curve down to ultimately improve their margins overall.”
The most recent report concluded that the first four months of 2022 have been extremely challenging for hospitals and health systems with extended negative margins taking their toll. The report also projected that the overall picture does not look favorable for these organizations for the remainder of the year and that many healthcare facilities may finish out 2022 with substantially depressed margins.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathology group leaders serving hospital and integrated delivery networks (IDNs) may want to consider how these depressed hospital margins will affect their own laboratories. It may be timely to anticipate how this fall’s budget-planning cycle might require their labs to specify how costs can be cut in the coming budget year.
Theranos ex-COO and President Balwani will be sentenced on Nov. 15, while former CEO Elizabeth Holmes has her sentencing on Sept. 26
Observers within the clinical laboratory industry likely were not surprised to hear that Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani was convicted on Thursday of 12 counts of fraud related to his work at disgraced medical laboratory testing startup Theranos.
After all, Balwani’s conviction comes six months after a similar verdict for Elizabeth Holmes, the former founder and CEO of Theranos. The two were romantically involved during their time at the company.
A jury in San Jose deliberated for several days before reaching the guilty verdict against Balwani, 57, on a dozen counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He is the former chief operating officer and president at the Theranos. Holmes was convicted of four counts in January.
“The jury concluded that Balwani perpetrated frauds on unsuspecting patients,” Stephanie Hinds, US Attorney for the Northern District of California, told the press after the verdict.
Balwani didn’t provide any comments to the two dozen or so reporters and photographers who followed him as he left the courthouse.
Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani leaves the courthouse after being convicted on 12 counts of fraud during his Theranos trial.
Balwani, Like Holmes, Faces 20 Years Behind Bars
Balwani will be sentenced on Nov. 15, reported NBC Bay Area. Holmes is scheduled to be sentenced on Sept. 26. She and Balwani each face up to 20 years in prison on each count, although a judge could allow those terms to run concurrently for each individual.
At the core of Balwani’s trial was whether he knew that Theranos allegedly defrauded patients and investors about its proprietary Edison blood-testing machine. The government argued that Balwani realized the Edison analyzer did not work and that he should have informed investors about the poor accuracy of the equipment.
In the end, the jury did not believe Balwani’s contention that he was merely an investor who let Holmes steer business matters at Theranos. Jurors saw text messages between Balwani and Holmes that defied that defense strategy.
For example, in one text to Holmes, Balwani wrote, “I am responsible for everything at Theranos,” NBC Bay Area reported during the trial.
A profile on Balwani published in March 2022 by The Cut, a website affiliated with New York magazine, also pushed the idea he had influence. “While many questions remain about Balwani’s role in the Theranos scheme, he definitely wielded a lot of power at the company,” The Cut reported.
Balwani and Holmes were indicted by federal prosecutors in June 2018. The indictments followed a three-year investigation by the government, which occurred after a blockbuster series of articles by the Wall Street Journal that detailed complaints from whistleblowers who formerly worked at Theranos.
Balwani never took the stand in his own defense. However, during closing arguments, his attorney, Jeffrey Coopersmith, JD, said Holmes’ charm influenced Balwani, much like it did Theranos investors.
“There’s no reason why he wouldn’t have seen the exact same thing: the charisma, the drive, the vision, the goal to change diagnostic testing. And he bought into that vision,” Coopersmith told the jury, as reported by Bloomberg. “He bought into that vision not only with his time but also with his own money,” investing $4.6 million in Theranos.
Compared to Holmes’ trial, which attracted huge media attention from around the world, Balwani’s proceedings occurred to much less hype and fanfare, given he was not as well known as Holmes to the general public and press.
—Scott Wallask
Not a Dark Daily E-Briefing Service Subscriber?
Sign up for our free email service that keeps you informed on the top laboratory industry’s important events like this one three times a week!
Ultima Genomics says it is emerging from “stealth mode” with millions in fresh capital and technology capable of sequencing whole human genomes for a fraction of the cost
Investors seem to be optimistic that an emerging genetics company has the proprietary solution to sequence a whole human genome for just $100. If true, this is a development that would be of interest to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists.
The company, Ultima Genomics of Newark, Calif., recently announced that it had raised $600 million from the investment community. In a press release last month, the company announced it has “emerged from stealth mode with a new high-throughput, low-cost sequencing platform that delivers the $100 genome.”
The press release goes on to state that Ultima will unleash a new era in genomics-driven discoveries by developing a “fundamentally new sequencing architecture designed to scale beyond conventional approaches, including completely different approaches to flow cell engineering, sequencing chemistry, and machine learning.”
Are we at the cusp of a revolution in genomics? Ultima Genomics’ founder and CEO, Gilad Almogy, PhD, believes so.
“Our architecture is intended for radical scaling, and the $100 genome is merely the first example of what it can deliver,” he said in the press release. “We are committed to continuously drive down the cost of genomic information until it is routinely used in every part of the healthcare system.”
From an Estimated Cost of $3 Billion to $450 in Just 30 Years!
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has decreased dramatically in cost since research into the technology required got started in the early 1990s with the publicly-funded Human Genome Project. At that time, the cost to sequence the entire human genome was estimated at around $3 billion. Then, in 1998, John Craig Venter created Celera Genomics (now a subsidiary of Quest Diagnostics) and was the first to sequence the whole human genome (his own) and at a significantly lower cost of around $300 million.
The cost continued to drop as technology improved. In 2001, the cost to sequence the whole human genome hovered around $100 million. Twenty years later that cost had dropped to about $450/sequence, according to data compiled by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
When DNA sequencer Illumina announced in 2014 the arrival of the $1,000 genome, the news was expected to put whole genome sequencing on the road to becoming routine, Forbes reported. But that prediction didn’t pan out.
Ultima Genomics’ $100 price point, however, could be game changing. It would make the cost of decoding a human genome affordable for nearly everyone and accelerate the growth of personalized medicine in clinical laboratory diagnostics.
Applied Physics versus Biological Sciences
According to GEN, Almogy brings a tech background to Ultima—his PhD is in applied physics, not the biological sciences. He founded Ultima in 2016 after serving as founder, president, and CEO at Fulfil Solutions, a manufacturer of custom automation robotics systems. At Ultima, his goal is to “unleash the same relentless scaling in sequencing” that was used to drive down the cost of computing power and transform modern life.
“Ultima is the real deal, with good technology,” Raymond McCauley, cofounder and Chief Architect at BioCurious, and Chair of Digital Biology at Singularity Group, told Singularity Hub. “They’ve been working on an Illumina killer for years.”
“We designed our new sequencing architecture to scale beyond conventional technologies, and are excited to soon make the UG 100, our first instrument using this architecture, commercially available to more customers,” said Gilad Almogy, PhD (above), Ultima Genomics’ founder and CEO, in a press release. “In the future, we aim to continuously improve our technology, further drive down costs, and increase the scale of genomic information to improve patient outcomes.” At $100/sequence, whole genome sequencing may well become commonly available to improve precision medicine diagnostics and clinical laboratory testing. (Photo copyright: Ultima Genomics.)
TechCrunch reported that Ultima’s UG100 sequencing machine and software platform can perform a complete sequencing of a human genome in about 20 hours, with precision comparable to existing options, but does so at a far lower cost per gigabase (Gb), equal to one billion base pairs.
According to the Ultima Genomics website, its breakthroughs include:
An open substrate that creates a massive, low-cost reaction surface that delivers many billions of reads while avoiding costly flow cells and complicated fluidics.
Novel scalable chemistry that combines the speed, efficiency, and read lengths of natural nucleotides with the accuracy and scalability of endpoint detection.
A revolutionary sequencing hardware that uses spinning circular wafers that enable efficient reagent use, zero crosstalk, and ultra-high-speed scanning of large surfaces.
“We may be on the brink of the next revolution in sequencing,” Beth Shapiro, DPhil, an evolutionary molecular biologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), told Science. Shapiro is a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and an HHMI Investigator at UCSC and Director of Evolutionary Genomics at the UCSC Genomics Institute.
Ultima Genomics maintained a low profile since its founding six years ago. But that changed in May when it announced it had raised $600 million from multiple investors, including:
Affordable Genomics Will Lead to ‘Millions of Tests per Year’
Exact Sciences’ Chairman and CEO Kevin Conroy—whose Wisconsin-based molecular diagnostics company recently entered into a long-term supply agreement for Ultima Genomic’s NGS technologies—believes low-cost genomic sequencing will improve cancer screening and disease monitoring.
“Exact Sciences believes access to differentiated and affordable genomics technologies is critical to providing patients better information before diagnosis and across all stages of cancer treatment,” Conroy said in a press release. “Ultima’s mission to drive down the cost of sequencing and increase the use of genomic information supports our goal to provide accurate and affordable testing options across the cancer continuum. This is particularly important for applications like cancer screening, minimal residual disease, and recurrence monitoring, which could lead to millions of tests per year.”
GEN pointed out that Ultima’s 20-hour turnaround time is fast and its quality on par with its competitors, but that it is Ultima’s $1/Gb price (noted in the preprint) that will set it apart. That cost would be a fraction of Illumina’s NextSeq ($20/Gb) and Element Biosciences’ AVITI ($5/Gb).
Almogy told TechCrunch that Ultima is working with early access partners to publish more proof-of-concept studies showing the capabilities of the sequencing technique, with broader commercial deployment of the technology in 2023. Final pricing is yet to be determined, he said.
If the $100 genome accelerates the pace of medical discoveries and personalized medicine, clinical laboratory scientists and pathologists will be in ideal positions to capitalize on what the executives and investors at Ultima Genomics hope may become a revolution in whole human genome sequencing and genomics.
Factors contributing to shortage of med techs and other lab scientists include limited training programs in clinical laboratory science, pay disparity, and staff retention, notes infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD
Staff shortages are a growing challenge for medical laboratories, and now the problem has grabbed the attention of a major media outlet.
In a story she penned for Forbes, titled, “We’re Facing a Critical Shortage of Medical Laboratory Professionals,” senior contributor and infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD, wrote, “Behind the scenes at every hospital are indispensable medical laboratory professionals. They performed an estimated 13 billion laboratory tests in the United States each year before COVID. Since the pandemic began, they have also conducted almost 997 million diagnostic tests for COVID-19. The accuracy and timeliness of lab tests are critically important, as they shape approximately two-thirds of all medical decisions made by physicians.”
Though Stone states in her Forbes article that clinical laboratories in both the US and Canada are facing staff shortages, she notes that the problem is more acute in the US.
As Dark Daily reported in February, the so-called “Great Resignation” caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on clinical laboratory staffs, creating shortages of pathologists as well as of medical technologists, medical laboratory technicians, and other lab scientists who are vital to the nation’s network of clinical laboratories.
In her analysis, however, Stone accurately observes that the problem pre-dates the pandemic. For examples she cites two surveys conducted in 2018 by the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP):
Many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers would agree that Stone is right. Dark Daily has repeatedly reported on growing staff shortages at clinical laboratories worldwide.
And in “Lab Staffing Shortages Reaching Dire Levels,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that CAP Today had characterized the current lab staffing shortage as going “from simmer to rolling boil” and that demand for medical technologists and other certified laboratory scientists far exceeds the supply. Consequently, many labs now use overtime and temp workers to handle daily testing, a strategy that has led to staff burnout and more turnover.
“There is a critical shortage of medical laboratory professionals in the US, and in Canada to a lesser extent,” wrote infectious disease specialist Judy Stone, MD (above), in an article she penned for Forbes. “Here [in the US],” she added, “we are 20-25,000 short on staff, with only 337,800 practicing. That is roughly one medical laboratory scientist per 1,000 people.” Clinical laboratories are well aware of the problem. A solution to solve it and return labs to former staffing levels is proving elusive. (Photo copyright: Forbes.)
Why the Shortfall?
In her Forbes article, Stone notes the following as factors behind the shortages:
Decline in training programs. “There are only [approximately] 240 medical laboratory technician and scientist training programs in the US, a 7% drop from 2000,” Stone wrote, adding that some states have no training programs at all. She notes that lab technicians must have a two-year associate degree while it takes an average of five years of post-secondary education to obtain a lab science degree.
Pay disparities. Citing data from the ASCP, Stone wrote that “medical lab professionals are paid 40%-60% less than nurses, physical therapists, or pharmacists.” Moreover, given the high cost of training, “many don’t feel the salary is worth the high investment,” she added.
Staff retention. In the ASCP’s 2018 job satisfaction survey, 85.3% of respondents reported burnout from their jobs, 36.5% cited problems with inadequate staffing, and nearly that many complained that workloads were too high.
Inconsistent licensing requirements. These requirements “are different from state to state,” Stone wrote. For example, the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS) notes that 11 states plus Puerto Rico mandate licensure of laboratory personnel whereas others do not. Each of those states has specific licensing requirements, and while most offer reciprocity for other state licenses, “California [for example] does not recognize any certification or any other state license.”
In a 2018 report, “Addressing the Clinical Laboratory Workforce Shortage,” the ASCLS cited other factors contributing to the shortages, including retirement of aging personnel and increased demand for lab services.
Possible Solutions
Stone suggested the following remedies:
Improve working conditions. “We need to reduce the stress and workload of the lab professionals before we reach a greater crisis,” Stone wrote.
Standardize state certification. This will facilitate “mobility of staff and flexibility in responding to needs,” Stone suggested.
Improve education and training opportunities. The ASCLS has called for clinical lab science to be included in the Title VII health professions program, which provides funding for healthcare training. Rodney Rohde, PhD, a clinical laboratory science professor at Texas State University, “also suggests outreach to middle and high school STEM programs, to familiarize students early with career opportunities in the medical laboratory profession,” Stone wrote.
Recruit foreign workers. Stone suggested this as an interim solution, with programs to help them acclimate to practice standards in the US.
It will likely take multiple solutions like these to address the Great Resignation and bring the nation’s clinical laboratory staffing levels back to full. In the meantime, across the nation, a majority of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups operate short-staffed and use overtime and temporary workers as a partial answer to their staffing requirements.
