Because of ‘shelter in place’ orders, many anatomic pathologists are reviewing digital images from home during the COVID-19 outbreak and demonstrating the value of whole slide imaging, digital pathology, and CMS’ recent amended remote sign-out policy
COVID-19 is already triggering many permanent changes in the way healthcare is organized and delivered in the United States. However, not until the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic eases will the full extent of these changes become visible. This will be particularly true for anatomic pathology and the profession’s expanded use of telepathology, digital pathology, and whole-slide imaging.
Since early March, specimen referrals and revenues have collapsed at anatomic pathology groups and laboratories across the nation. Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR), was first to quantify the magnitude of this collapse in tissue referrals to pathology groups. In an interview with The Dark Report, Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, Inc., explained that pathology clients using XIFIN’s revenue cycle management services were seeing an average 40% decrease in specimens. And, for certain pathology sub-specialties, the drop-off in specimen referrals was as much as 90%. (See TDR, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” April 20, 2020.)
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) appealed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow pathologists to work remotely. In response, CMS issued a memorandum which stated, “Due to the public health emergency posed by COVID-19 and the urgent need to expand laboratory capacity, CMS is exercising its enforcement discretion to adopt a temporary policy of relaxed enforcement in connection with laboratories located at temporary testing sites under the conditions outlined herein.”
Since then, many physicians, including pathologists, have quickly adapted to working remotely in some form.
Push for Remote Pathology Services Acknowledges Anatomic Pathologist Shortage
The CMS memorandum (QSO-20-21-CLIA), which the federal agency issued to laboratory surveyors on March 26, 2020, notes that CMS will exercise “enforcement discretion to ensure pathologists may review pathology slides remotely” if certain defined conditions are met.
CMS’ decision, which “is applicable only during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” is intended to increase capacity by allowing remote site review of clinical laboratory data, results, and pathology slides.
Ordinarily, CLIA regulations for cytology (a branch of study that focuses on the biological structure of cells) state that cytology slide preparations must be evaluated on the premises of a laboratory that is certified to conduct testing in the subspecialty of cytology. However, a fast-acting Congressional letter sent by 37 members of Congress to US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar II, MD, states, “it is unwise and unnecessary to overburden the remaining pathologists with excess work due to staffing shortages, thereby increasing the risk of burnout, medical error, and further shortages in staffing due to exposure. The number of COVID-19 cases will increase and peak over the next two months and will stretch existing healthcare systems to their limits.”
Decreasing Number of ‘Active Pathologists’ Drives Adoption of Telepathology, Digital Pathology, and Whole-slide Imaging
The current COVID-19 outbreak is just the latest factor in support of enabling remote review of anatomic pathology images and cases. The trend of using telepathology, whole-slide imaging (WSI), and digital pathology systems has been gathering momentum for several years. Powerful economic forces support this trend.
The Dark Report devoted its June 10, 2019, issue to a deep dive of the challenges currently facing the anatomic pathology profession. In particular, TDR noted a study published May 31, 2019, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network Open, titled, “Trends in the US and Canadian Pathologist Workforces from 2007 to 2017.” The study’s authors—pathologists in the United States and Canada—reported that between 2007 and 2017 the number of active pathologists in the United States decreased from 15,568 to 12,839—a 17.53% decline.
TDR noted that these findings imply there are fewer pathologists in the United States today in active practice to handle the steady increase in the number of cases requiring diagnostic review. In turn, this situation could lead to delays in diagnoses detrimental to patient care.
In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic created an “immediate need for remote sign-outs, reviews, and consults,” said Mike Bonham, MD, PhD (above), Chief Medical Officer for Proscia, a digital pathology software developer, in an interview with Dark Daily. “In the context of highly relevant workflow and workforce challenges, it reinforces the opportunity for wider adoption of digital pathology.” Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, several distinct forces were driving adoption and use of digital pathology in combination with traditional microscopy, he said. (Photo copyright: Proscia.)
Distinct Forces Beginning to Reshape Anatomic Pathology
In recent years, the anatomic pathology profession has faced growing financial pressure, a shrinking workforce, and a surge in the global demand for pathology—issues that come at a time when biopsies and cancer diagnostics require greater expertise.
The UCSF School of Medicine started with frozen slide sections and moved to the broader volume of pathology slides. Since 2015, UCSF’s School of Medicine has moved toward a fully digital pathology operation and has serialized the adoption by specialty, according to Zoltan Laszik, MD, PhD, attending physician at UCSF and Professor of Clinical Pathology in UCSF’s Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
Laszik is among a handful of specialists and digital pathology early adopters who collaborated on the new Dark Daily white paper, which is available for free download.
Through the adoption of digital pathology, glass slides are digitized using a whole-slide image scanner, then analyzed through image viewing software. Although the basic viewing functionality is not drastically different than that provided by a microscope, digitization does bring improvements in lab efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, image management, workflows, and revenue enhancements.
Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI)-based computational applications have emerged as an integral part of the digital pathology workflow in some settings, the white paper explains.
“These developments are important to anatomic pathologists because the traditional pathology business model continues to transform at a steady pace,” noted Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report.
Anthony Magliocco, MD, FRCPC, FCAP, President and CEO of Protean BioDiagnostics and former Professor and Chair of Pathology at Moffitt Cancer Center, is featured in the white paper as well. His new pathology service model provides routine pathology services, precision oncology, second opinions, liquid biopsies, genetics, and genomics to cancer centers from a Florida-based specialty laboratory.
To register for this important learning opportunity, click here or place this URL in your web browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/streamlined-operations-increased-revenue-higher-quality-of-care-conclusive-evidence-on-the-value-of-adopting-digital-pathology-in-your-lab/.
These digital pathology technologies represent an innovative movement shaping the present and future of pathology services. Pathologists wanting to learn more are encouraged to sign up for the May 13 webinar, which will build on the body of evidence and commentary that is included in the new white paper, and which will be available for free on-demand download following the live broadcast.
Even more impressive is that the automated testing lab can reportedly process (with results in four hours) up to 3,000 patient samples daily for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness.
“All of our laboratories do PCR every day. But for this test we need to go above and beyond to ensure accurate detection,” said Jennifer Doudna, PhD, IGI Executive Director and UC Berkeley Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, in an IGA news release.
“We put in place a robotic pipeline for doing thousands of tests per day,” she continued, “with a pipeline for managing the data and getting it back to clinicians. Imagine setting that up in a couple of weeks. It’s really extraordinary and something I’ve never seen in my career.”
Robert Sanders, UC Berkeley’s Manager Science Communications, told Dark Daily the COVID-19 lab performs about 180 tests per day and has tested 1,000 people so far—80% of the samples came from the campus community. About 1.5% to 4% of the tests were found to be positive for the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus among the groups tested.
“We hope other academic institutions will set up testing labs too,” he said.
How Did Berkeley Set Up a COVID-19 Diagnostic Lab So Fast?
To get up and running quickly, university officials drew from the campus and surrounding business community to equip and operate the laboratory, as well as, train researchers to do clinical analysis of patient samples.
Though the methodology to test for the coronavirus—isolating RNA from a biological sample and amplifying it with PCR—is standard fare in most research labs worldwide, including at UC Berkeley, the campus’ research labs were shuttered due to the spread of the coronavirus.
IGI reached out to the idle labs for their high-throughput PCR systems to start-up the lab. Through its partnership with University Health Services and local and national companies, IGI created an automated sample intake and processing workflow.
Additionally, several research scientists who were under government-mandated stay-at-home orders made themselves available. “My own research is shut down—and there’s not very much I can do other than stay in my home … finally I’m useful,” said PhD candidate Holly Gildea in a Berkeleyside article which noted that about 30 people—mostly doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers—are being trained to oversee the process and monitor the automated equipment.
Postdoctoral fellows Jenny Hamilton (left) and Enrique Shao (right) with an automated liquid-handling robot (Hamilton Microlab STAR), which will be used to analyze swabs from patients to diagnose COVID-19. Hamilton and Shao volunteered to train to become CLIA certified so as to process patient samples. When analyzing real samples from patients, they would be wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE), including mask, face shield, gown and gloves. (Photo and caption copyright: Max and Jules Photography/UC Berkeley.)
Federal and State Authorities Remove Hurdles
In her article, “Blueprint for a Pop-up SARS-CoV-2 Testing Lab,” published on the medRxiv servers, Doudna summarized “three regulatory developments [that] allowed the IGI to rapidly transition its research laboratory space into a clinical testing facility.
“The second was California Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-25-20, which modified the requirements for clinical laboratory personnel running diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 in a certified laboratory.
“The third was increased flexibility and expediency at the state and federal levels for certification and licensure requirements for clinical laboratory facilities under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) program. Under these emergency conditions, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) was willing to temporarily extend—once the appropriate regulatory requirements have been fulfilled—an existing CLIA certificate for high-complexity testing to a non-contiguous building on our university campus.”
“These developments,” wrote Doudna, “enabled us to develop and validate a laboratory-developed test (LDT) for SARS-CoV-2, extend the UC Berkeley Student Health Center’s clinical laboratory license to our laboratory space, and begin testing patient samples.”
Lessons Learned Implementing a Pop-Up COVID-19 Testing Laboratory
“Our procedures for implementing the technical, regulatory, and data management workstreams necessary for clinical sample processing provide a roadmap to others in setting up similar testing centers,” she wrote.
Learned strategies Doudna says could aid other academic research labs transform to a “SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing Laboratory include:
Leveraging licenses from existing CLIA-certified labs;
Following FDA authorized testing procedures;
Using online HIPAA training;
Managing supply chain “bottlenecks” by using donated equipment;
Adopting in-house sample barcoding;
Adapting materials, such as sampling tubes, to work with donated equipment;
Cost of equipment and supplies (not including staff) was $550,000, with a per test cost of $24, Doudna noted.
“As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, our intention is to provide both PCR-based diagnostic testing and to advance research on asymptomatic transmission, analyze virus sequence evolution, and provide benchmarking for new diagnostic technologies,” she added.
Medical laboratory leaders understand that the divide between clinical and research laboratories is not easy to surmount. Nevertheless, UC Berkley’s IGI pulled it off. The lab marshaled resources as it took on the novel coronavirus, quickly developed and validated a test workflow, and assembled and trained staff to analyze tests with fast TAT to providers, students, and area residents. There’s much that can be learned from UC Berkeley IGI’s accomplishments.
Limited availability of COVID-19 clinical lab tests is major topic at federal briefings and news stories, yet many of nation’s labs are laying off staff and at point of closing
Cash flow at the nation’s clinical laboratories has crashed, with revenues down by more than $5 billion since early March. This is the biggest financial disaster for the nation’s clinical laboratory industry in its 100-year history and it couldn’t come at a worse time for the American public and the US healthcare system.
At the precise moment when the nation needs clinical laboratories to begin performing millions of tests for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, those same labs are watching their cash flow collapse.
Data from multiple sources gathered by The Dark Report, sister publication of Dark Daily, confirm that—beginning in early March and continuing through last week—clinical laboratories in the United States saw incoming flows of routine specimens decline by between 50% and 60%. During this same time, lab revenue fell by similar amounts.
Clinical Lab Industry Currently Losing $800 to $900 Million Weekly
To give this decline context, the healthcare system spends about $80 billion annually on medical laboratory testing. Thus, labs across the US generated about $1.5 billion in revenue each week during 2019 and into 2020. By April 5, the decline in routine lab specimen volumes reached 55% to 60%. Since then, the clinical lab industry now loses between $800 million and $900 million each week. Total revenue loss from previous levels is already estimated to be $5.2 billion, and it is growing by an additional $800 million to $900 million every week that patients stay away from hospitals and physicians’ offices.
In the eight weeks since the COVID-19 pandemic caused patients to cease coming to hospitals and visiting their doctors, incoming routine specimens and revenue fell by 60%, causing cumulative lost routine revenue of $5.2 billion for the clinical laboratory industry in the United States. Each week that the existing shelter-in-place directives are effective, labs lose another $800 million to $900 million. The Dark Report based these estimates on data provided by multiple companies working with lab billing/claims, middleware analytical solutions, and customer relationship management (CRM) and electronic health record (EHR) products. (Chart copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group, Inc.)
The recent dire financial condition of labs small and large has gone unremarked by federal healthcare officials at the daily White House COVID-19 Task Force briefings. National news sources have yet to report on this development and its implications for successfully expanding the availability and numbers of COVID-19 tests in response to the pandemic.
The rapid and deep decline in specimens and revenue is not limited to clinical laboratories. Biopsy cases referred to anatomic pathology groups have declined by 50% to 60%. Some subspecialty pathology labs saw case referrals drop by 80% or more.
The nation’s two biggest clinical laboratory companies confirmed similar declines in their normal daily flow of routine specimens. Both companies recently reported first-quarter earnings (which included the month of March).
Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp Each Disclose Volume Declines of 50% to 60%
During its Q1 2020 earnings conference call, Chairman, President, and CEO of Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), Steve Rusckowski, stated, “In April, volume declines continue to intensify as we are seeing signs that volume declines are bottoming out at around 50% to 60%.”
The drop-off in routine lab test referrals was the similar at LabCorp (NYSE:LH). “In our diagnostics business, at the end of the quarter, we experienced reductions in demand for testing of 50% to 55% versus the company’s normal daily levels,” explained Glenn Eisenberg, Executive Vice President and CFO during LabCorp’s Q1 2020 earnings call. “This reduction in demand impacted testing volume broadly but was more heavily weighted towards routine procedures.”
Interviews with independent clinical lab owners and the administrative directors of hospital and health system labs further confirm this rapid and dramatic decline in the number of routine specimens arriving in their labs. Fewer specimens mean fewer claims, which means less revenue to laboratories.
Two Different Financial Futures for ‘Have’ Labs and ‘Have Not’ Labs
What happens next to the clinical laboratory industry in the United States—and to its ability to continue ramping up the availability of adequate numbers of COVID-19 tests in major cities, small towns, and rural areas—will be a story of “haves” and “have nots.”
The “haves” are clinical labs that have access to money. These are publicly-traded lab companies, academic medical center labs, and the sophisticated labs of health networks that operate multiple hospitals. In each case, these organizations have capital reserves and access to loans that will probably enable them to sustain COVID-19 lab testing services at the large volumes required to respond to the pandemic.
clinical labs operated by community hospitals and rural hospitals that were not financially robust before the onset of the pandemic; and,
specialty lab companies that perform a specific number of proprietary diagnostic tests (and for which demand has collapsed as patients stopped seeing their doctors).
Medicare Led Payers in the ‘Lab Test Price Race to the Bottom’
Prior to the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the finances of the “have-not” labs were already shaky, with many on the verge of filing bankruptcy, closing, or selling to a bigger lab company. Much blame for the deteriorating finances at a large proportion of community lab companies, community hospital labs, and rural hospital labs can be attributed to the deep, multi-year price cuts to the Medicare Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule as mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA).
Medicare’s multi-year cuts to lab test prices were immediately copied by most state Medicaid programs. During this period, private payers followed Medicare’s lead and enacted their own deep cuts to the prices they paid labs for both routine tests and molecular/genetic tests.
That is why—when the pandemic intensified in early March—the 50% to 60% drop in specimens and revenue that hit these labs starved them of essential cash flow. When polled, the owners and directors of these labs acknowledge layoffs of the majority of their staff in all departments. They also reported substantial delays—both in submitted lab test claims and in getting payment for those claims—because claims-processing departments at the labs and private health insurers are understaffed due to shelter-in-place directives.
COVID-19 Test Revenue Helps Only Labs Performing Those Tests
Revenue from COVID-19 testing is helping certain labs offset the revenue loss from fewer routine specimens. XIFIN, Inc., a San Diego company that provides revenue cycle management (RCM) services for clinical laboratories and pathology groups, analyzed the lab test claims for COVID-19 rapid molecular tests. It determined that labs performing these tests are generating enough revenue from these test claims to equal about 20% of their pre-pandemic revenue.
The chart above was prepared by XIFIN, Inc., of San Diego and is based on the changes XIFIN observed in the volume of routine clinical laboratory test claims generated by client labs on a weekly basis. In the first two months of 2020, routine lab test claims ran at expected levels until the first week of March. During the rest of March, routine lab test claims declined by 60%. During April, incoming routine lab test claims remained 55% to 60% below pre-pandemic levels. The shaded area shows the number of COVID-19 test claims coming into clinical labs. XIFIN says COVID-19 test claims make up about 20% of the decline in routine test specimens for those labs performing COVID-19 tests. The Dark Report estimates that the clinical laboratory industry has lost $800 million to $900 million in routine test revenue each week since March 23. Weekly revenue losses will continue at this rate until patients begin visiting their physicians and hospitals again perform elective services. (Chart copyright: XIFIN, Inc.)
Many CLIA-certified community laboratories and hospital labs have the diagnostic instruments and experience to perform rapid molecular tests for COVID-19. But when contacted, they tell us that their suppliers do not ship them even minimal quantities of the COVID-19 kits, the reagents, and the consumables. Thus, they cannot meet the needs of their client physicians. Instead, they watch as these physicians refer COVID-19 tests to the nation’s largest labs. The supply shortage prevents these smaller labs from doing larger numbers of COVID-19 test for the patients in the communities they serve. It also prevents them from earning the revenues from COVID-19 testing that currently helps the nation’s “have” labs offset the decline in revenue from routine testing.
Congress, national healthcare policymakers, and state governors need to immediately address this situation. Each week that passes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the shelter-in-place directives drains another $800 million to $900 million in revenue from routine lab testing that previously flowed into the nation’s clinical laboratories.
‘Have-not’ Clinical Labs in Small Towns Will Quietly Shrink and Disappear
Without timely intervention and financial support, the nation’s network of ‘have not’ labs, which have so capably served towns away from big metropolitan centers and rural areas, will quietly begin shrinking. One at a time, labs in small towns will close or sell. Local lab facilities will be shuttered and specimens from small-town patients will be transported to big labs hundreds or thousands of miles away.
It is also true that the financial disaster besetting the nation’s clinical laboratory industry will have comparable dramatic consequences for the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers that sell them automation, analyzers, reagents, and other supplies. Since early March, IVD manufacturers watched as the pandemic caused orders for new instruments to collapse. During these same weeks, their clinical lab customers ceased ordering routine test kits at pre-pandemic levels. Dark Daily will cover the challenges confronting the IVD and other diagnostics industries in future e-briefings.
Announcing Free COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings for Clinical Labs
With the COVID-19 pandemic creating chaos in nearly every aspect of healthcare, business, and society, clinical labs and their suppliers need timely intelligence and analysis about the innovations and successes achieved by their peers. This week, Dark Daily and The Dark Report are launching COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings (Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.covid19briefings.com). This comprehensive service is free and will cover four basic areas of needs for clinical laboratories as they ramp up COVID-19 testing:
Daily and weekly COVID-19 testing dashboards to guide every lab’s short-term planning;
Proven steps for labs to introduce and validate COVID-19 tests (both rapid molecular tests and serology tests);
Getting paid for COVID-19 testing to ensure every lab’s financial stability and clinical quality; and
Legal and regulatory updates for labs doing COVID19 tests to ensure full compliance.
Also, to help clinical laboratory leaders deal with the coming wave of COVID-19 serology tests, we are producing a free webinar led by James O. Westgard, PhD, FACB, and Sten Westgard, Director of Client Services and Technology, of Westgard QC, Inc.
Each week that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, and strict shelter-in-place directives are in place, the clinical laboratory industry loses another almost $900 million in revenue from lower volumes of routine testing. No industry can survive when its incoming revenue collapses by 50% to 60% for sustained periods of time.
Will Congress Recognize the Need for a Financial Rescue of ‘Have-not’ Labs?
Thus, it is incumbent on Congress, elected officials, and healthcare policymakers to recognize the financial consequences of the pandemic to the nation’s clinical laboratories. That is particularly true of the ‘have-not’ clinical labs. They do not have the same access to decisionmakers in government as billion-dollar lab companies.
And yet, these labs located in small communities and rural areas often are the only local labs that can do STAT testing in a couple of hours, and where clinical pathologists are personally familiar with local physicians and patients.
These “have-not” labs are vital healthcare resources. They should receive the help they need to get through this unprecedented crisis that is the COVID-19 pandemic.
Supply chain experts can explain ways clinical laboratories should evaluate their suppliers and sources
Suddenly, supply chain management has become a critical success factor as hospitals, health systems, and clinical laboratories throughout the United States respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand for essential supplies has left many health network medical laboratories vulnerable and understocked.
One supply chain expert has several recommendations on how hospitals and clinical laboratories can respond to improve their access to needed supplies. Brent Bolton is Director of Supply Chain at Accumen, a developer of healthcare resource and performance solutions, including products specific to clinical laboratories. He says that expanding medical supply shortages—coupled with recently-issued federal regulatory guidelines—point to a potential “red-alert” disruption that will affect laboratories that want to maintain clinical testing services during this pandemic.
“There are important lessons to be learned from how the COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting the healthcare supply chain,” said Bolton. “It’s important to recognize that this is not a regional disruption for providers, such as what happens after a hurricane or a severe earthquake. It’s not even a national disruption. Rather, it is a global event where hospitals, physicians, and clinical laboratories in nearly every country are competing to redirect essential supplies to their organizations.”
Bolton said that, going forward, clinical laboratories would benefit from implementing Lean and Six Sigma process improvement techniques into inventory management and purchasing procedures when contracting for instruments, reagents, consumables, specimen collection supplies, and personal protective equipment (PPE), etc. These policies work well during periods of minimal supply/demand variability. But in the wake of COVID-19 it is imperative for supply chain professionals to be flexible and cautious. He described three useful steps:
“Many of the large medical laboratory distributors are partnering with American manufacturers that generally don’t create lab supplies—like Hewlett Packard, 3M, and Ford. Health systems can do the same. For instance, Accumen has created a distribution network of 3D printer manufacturers that have started creating 3D printed swabs to alleviate some of the supply issues.”
“Brokers who claim to have product are popping up everywhere, and some of them are scams. Most of the viable supply sources for swabs or masks, for example, require large purchases and payment in advance and generally health systems are not willing to take that risk. But these are unprecedented times and supply chains must be flexible and innovative to secure the products they need.”
“Unfortunately, this is just the first wave of shortages. The demand for testing reagents, nasopharyngeal swabs, and transport media will normalize. But, resuming elective surgeries will create blood shortages, serological testing will create shortages in consumables and blood collection devices, and increased COVID-19 testing along with population surveillance will continue to stress PPE supplies. Supply chain teams must be proactive.”
Thus, the importance of strategic planning and awareness of alternative supply sources is key to the survival of clinical laboratories moving forward, especially during times of unpredictable upheaval.
“One big issue is having enough of the supplies needed to protect the health and safety of the laboratory’s staff,” stated Bolton. “For example, in the US, a nationwide shortage of nasopharyngeal swabs and personal protective equipment, among others, increased the chance of exposure among our critical frontline clinical laboratory workers fighting the current SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus outbreak.”
“The price for C-diff testing was a loss leader, it should have been a red flag to do an assessment on their financial status,” said Bolton. “If Abbott or Roche did that strategy it’s no big deal—for them it’s a loss leader. But, with GBS, they had nothing else to fall back onto, so they were out of the market as quickly as they jumped in.”
Situations like these are visible clues that can warn clinical labs that a vendor may not be able to sustain its supply chain. When lab leaders see a growing company having financial problems that may cause difficulties in how it can keep its customers supplied with kits and reagents, they can consider that a useful warning that the possibility of a supply chain disruption may soon happen.
Most medical laboratories, Bolton explained, pick vendors based on the technology they are interested in buying for use in their labs. But at the moment that purchasing decision is made, there is seldom a strategic sourcing plan, nor have pre-approved and validated alternative sources been identified as backups should an emergency arise and the supply chain from that vendor is interrupted.
“The supply chain team and the clinical lab management team should initiate a long-term strategic sourcing roadmap together, which includes risk management and emergency preparedness plans. It is just another piece of managing the lab’s supply chain and having a robust supplier management program. Everything needs to be done holistically,” he advised.
Brent Bolton (above), Director of Supply Chain for Accumen, and Adjunct Professor of Supply Chain and Operations at San Diego State University, recommends developing a strategic sourcing roadmap. “A big reason why the lab [supply chain] is complicated is that it’s constantly evolving with so many disciplines, and many of those disciplines don’t have much to do with each other,” he said during a recent Dark Daily webinar. “Being a chemist or a microbiologist or a blood banker, those are very different specialties. And on top of that, the rate of technological change is consistently shortening.” (Photo copyright: Brent Bolton.)
How Clinical Laboratories Can Remain a Health System Asset During Times of Crisis
During a recent Dark Daily webinar, Bolton said that the medical laboratory supply chain is constantly evolving and involves a myriad of sourcing variables that inevitably present challenges and opportunities.
For example, he said that in other industries, it’s common practice for vendors to receive performance reviews on a quarterly basis, measured by the facility. Companies score each supplier on quality, service response time, price changes, and on-time delivery. Other factors such as flexibility, customer service, effective e-commerce, and inventory management also can be monitored.
“Clinical laboratories should consider selecting supply vendors based on similar criteria,” suggested Bolton. “The current disruptions in lab supply chains because of the pandemic are a reminder to all labs that supply chain risk reduction and cost efficiency are two ways to think strategically about the clinical laboratory as an asset (instead of a liability) for hospitals and health systems.”
In today’s healthcare environment, hospital executives think differently about ancillary services within their health networks. Clinical laboratories, in particular, have the attention of leadership—often as a cost center. That is why lab managers should help health system leaders think more strategically and position their lab as an asset for the system and a service line to drive integration.
To help clinical laboratory leaders increase their lab’s value by preparing for potential disruption to critical supply chains, Dark Daily offers a free on-demand webinar that explains:
Prevailing trends and challenges of lab operations prior to COVID-19;
Long-term strategic supply roadmapping for lab initiatives;
Utilizing capital planning to improve supply costs;
And more.
COOs, VPs of ancillary services, laboratory leaders, and supply chain leaders will gain critical insights from this crucial resource.
Facing a backlog, the state’s public health laboratory turned to the medical laboratory at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center
Much of the attention surrounding the COVID-19
outbreak—the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus—has focused on large urban areas such as New York City and Los
Angeles. However, the virus is impacting many rural areas as well. This is true
in New Hampshire, where the diagnostic response required close cooperation
between the state’s public health
laboratory and the clinical
laboratory at its lone academic medical center. Their experience offers
lessons for medical
laboratory leaders nationwide.
“When these things happen and you surge beyond what you
could imagine, it’s the relationships with people that matter more than
anything,” said Christine
L. Bean, PhD, Administrator of New
Hampshire Public Health Laboratory Division of Public Health Services , Concord,
N.H., during a recent Dark
Daily webinar, titled, “What Hospital and Health System Labs Need to
Know About Operational Support and Logistics During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
As Bean explained, during the earliest stages of the
pandemic the “CDC was doing the testing” and the state lab’s role was limited
to submitting samples from patients deemed as “presumptive positives.” Then, on
Feb. 4, the FDA granted an emergency
use authorization (EUA) allowing use of the CDC-developed real-time
reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assay by designated labs.
The New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory (NHPHL) received
its first test kit on Feb. 10, Bean said. But the kits were recalled due to
validation problems with one of the reagents. On Feb. 26, the CDC
issued revised test instructions allowing use of the test without the N3
primer and probe set that had caused the early validation issues. The NHPHL
verified the test under the new guidelines and went live on March 2, she said.
However, with a capacity of 150 to 200 tests per day, the
lab wasn’t equipped to handle a large volume. “Much of what we do is really
population-based,” she said. “Most of the time we’re not doing patient
diagnostic testing.”
Christine L. Bean, PhD (left), Administrator of the New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory, and Joel Lefferts, PhD (right), Assistant Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Assistant Director of the Molecular Pathology, at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, spoke with Dark Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Michel during a webinar on what hospital and health system labs need to know about operational support and logistics during the COVID-19 outbreak. The webinar can be freely downloaded by clicking here. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
NHPHL Turns to the Medical Laboratory at DHMC-CGHT for
Help
The DHMC-CGHT lab began having its own discussions about
testing in the first week of February, said Joel
A. Lefferts, PhD, HCLD, DABCC, Assistant Professor of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine and Assistant Director of Molecular Pathology at
Dartmouth’s Geisel School of
Medicine. They were unsure of how much need there would be, but “throughout
the month of February, we started exploring different testing options,” he said
during the Dark Daily webinar.
The Dartmouth-Hitchcock lab team began with the CDC test. However,
Lefferts noted that the initial FDA guidance was “somewhat restrictive” and required
specific RNA extraction
kits and real-time PCR instruments. “If our lab didn’t have the capability to
perform everything exactly as indicated, we would be running it off-label and
would have to possibly submit our own EUA submission to the FDA,” he explained.
Later, though, the FDA and CDC loosened those restrictions and the lab began testing with the CDC assay on March 18, using a Thermo Fisher ABI 7500Dx instrument, Lefferts said. According to Thermo Fisher’s website, the ABI 7500Dx “is a real-time nucleic acid amplification and five-color fluorescence detection system available for in vitro diagnostic use.”
However, Lefferts continued, “we only had one of these
7500Dx instruments, and it was a relatively manual and labor-intensive
process.” It allowed a maximum of 29 samples per run, he said, and took about
five hours to produce results.
Then, the FDA granted an EUA for Abbott’s
m2000 assay, which runs on the company’s m2000rt real-time PCR instrument.
“We were really excited, because we happened to have two of these systems in
our lab,” he said. “We quickly got on the phone and ordered some of these
kits.”
The DHMC-CGHT lab went live with the new system on March 23.
It can handle up to 94 samples per run, said Lefferts, and with two instruments
running from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., “there’s a potential to do as many as 10 runs
per day.”
This was the system they used to help New Hampshire’s Public
Health Lab with its backlog. “It was unbelievable to see that our backlog could
be really wiped out,” said Bean.
Challenges for Medical Labs
Gearing up for testing in a public health emergency poses
many challenges, Lefferts advised. “You need to look at what instrumentation
you have in your laboratory, what the experience level of your lab team is, how
much space you have, your expected batch size, and your needed turnaround
time.”
The two labs also had to deal with regulatory uncertainty. “This EUA process is something for which we don’t have much experience,” he said. “Trying to juggle CLIA, CAP, the FDA, and possibly state regulations is a bit challenging. You definitely need to do your research and talk to other clinical laboratories that are doing this testing to get advice.”
Lefferts explained that the most significant challenges to
develop and validate a molecular assay for COVID-19 included:
Availability of validation materials.
Obtaining “positive [viral] samples may be a challenge, depending on where you
are and what you have access to,” said Lefferts. However, he credits the FDA
for being “very proactive” in suggesting alternative sources for “viral isolates or genomic RNA that’s been
extracted from some of these viral isolates.”
Availability of collection kits. “We can
do a lot more testing now,” he said, but one bottleneck is the limited
availability of supplies such as nasopharyngeal swabs
and viral transport media. “We’re looking at alternative collection options,”
he said, such as 3D-printed swabs or even Q-tips [household cotton swabs], though
“hopefully it won’t come to that.” The DHMC-CGHT lab also considered producing its
own transport media.
Turnaround times. “Our lab wants to get
those results out as soon as possible,” Lefferts said. “So, we’re looking at
alternative methods to get that testing out sooner.” For example, “do we just
do the SARS-CoV-2 testing on a patient, or do we need to do other influenza and other viral
pathogens,” while also keeping up with other routine testing during the
pandemic?
Staffing issues. “Fatigue is a big issue
with members of our labs who put in lots of extra hours,” he said. The
DHMC-CGHT lab has developed contingency plans in case lab personnel get sick.
This critical information will be highly useful for
Laboratory Directors and Managers, Laboratory Supervisors and Team Leaders,
Integrated Health System Leaders, Hospital Group Leaders, Physicians and
Physician Group Leaders, Phlebotomy Managers, Courier and Logistics Managers,
and Safety and Compliance Managers.
Privacy concerns have one tech giant suggesting alternatives to sharing potentially identifiable location tracking data
Expect an interesting debate on the use of location tracking as a way to manage this and future pandemics. It is a debate that has implications for clinical laboratories. After all, if location tracking identifies individuals who may have been exposed to an infectious disease, will health authorities want those individuals to be immediately tested?
Location tracking has been around for quite some time. Anyone who owns a smartphone knows that digital map and navigation software applications (apps) locate our position and track our movements. That’s how they work. Maps are good. But does collecting and sharing location tracking data violate personal privacy laws that some Silicon Valley tech giants want to use to help public health officials track disease? Maybe.
Google, Facebook, and other tech companies have been talking to the US federal government about ways to use location tracking data from smartphones and online software applications to combat the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, reported the Washington Post.
The tracking data could be used by public health officials
to spot disease outbreaks in populations and predict how it might spread. Analyzing
the data generated by smartphone tracking and reporting apps also could be used
to identify individuals who may have been exposed to the coronavirus, and who should
get clinical laboratory tests to determine if they need medical intervention.
However, Google is apparently resistant to using its collected location data to track and identify individuals. Instead, Google Health’s Head of Communications and Public Affairs, Johnny Luu, said Google was “exploring ways that aggregated anonymized location information could help in the fight against COVID-19. One example could be helping health authorities determine the impact of social distancing, similar to the way we show popular restaurant times and traffic patterns in Google Maps,” said Luu in a statement. He stressed, though, that any such arrangement “would not involve sharing data about any individual’s location, movement, or contacts,” reported the Washington Post.
Can Privacy be Maintained While Tracking Disease?
Google’s sister company, Verily, launched a screening website in March for people who believe they may have COVID-19. The pilot program is only available to some California residents. Users of the service complete a series of online questions to determine their coronavirus risk and whether or not they should seek medical attention.
To use the service, individuals must log into the site using
a Google account and sign a consent authorization form which states data
collected may be shared with public health officials, a move that has received
criticism.
Jacob Snow, JD, a technology and civil liberties attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, expressed concerns about Verily’s program. “COVID-19 testing is a vital public necessity right now—a core imperative for slowing this disease,” he told CNET. “Access to critical testing should not depend on creating an account and sharing information with what is, essentially, an advertising company.
“This is how privacy invasions have the potential to
disproportionately harm the vulnerable,” he continued. “Google should release
this tool without those limits, so testing can proceed as quickly as possible.”
Facebook, on the other hand, has had a Disease Prevention Map program in place for about a year. This program provides location information provided by individuals who choose to participate to health organizations around the globe.
“Disease prevention maps have helped organizations respond to health emergencies for nearly a year and we’ve heard from a number of governments that they’re supportive of this work,” said Laura McGorman, Policy Lead, Data for Good at Facebook, in a statement, reported CNET. “In the coronavirus context, researchers and nonprofits can use the maps, which are built with aggregated and anonymized data that people opt in to share, to understand and help combat the spread of the virus.”
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University worked with Facebook to create the COVID-19 Symptom Map (above), which is based on aggregated data drawn from self-reported symptoms Facebook. The map, which updates regularly, is viewable by day, counties, hospital referral regions, and COVID-19 symptoms. “This is work that social networks are well-situated to do. By distributing surveys to large numbers of people whose identities we know, we can quickly generate enough signal to correct for biases and ensure sampling is done properly,” wrote Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook founder and CEO, in a Washington Post op-ed about the Carnegie Mellon’s results, reported MobiHealthNews. (Graphic copyright: Facebook/Business Insider.)
Privacy Organizations Voice Concerns
Privacy and civil liberties issues regarding the collection
and use of smartphone data to curtail the pandemic are of concern to some organizations.
There may be legal and ethical implications present when using personal data in
this manner.
Al Gidari, JD, Director of Privacy, Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University Law School, says the balance between privacy and pandemic policy is a delicate one, reported the Washington Post. “The problem here is that this is not a law school exam. Technology can save lives, but if the implementation unreasonably threatens privacy, more lives may be at risk,” he said.
In response to public privacy concerns following the Washington
Post’s report, representatives for Google and Facebook said the companies
have not shared any aggregated and anonymized data with the government
regarding contact
tracing and COVID-19, reported the Washington Post.
Google reiterated that any related projects are still in their early stages and that they are not sure what their participation level might look like. And, CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated that Facebook “isn’t prepared to turn over people’s location data en masse to any governments for tracking the coronavirus outbreak,” reported CNET.
“I don’t think it would make sense to share people’s data in a way where they didn’t have the opportunity to opt in to do that,” Zuckerberg said.
The potential use of location tracking data, when combined
with other information, is one example of how technology can leverage non-medical
information and match it with clinical data to watch population trends.
As of April 23, there were 2,637,911 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 184,235 deaths from the coronavirus worldwide, according to www.worldometers.info/coronavirus. And, cases of coronavirus disease have been reported in 213 countries according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
As testing increases, more cases will be reported and it is
unknown how long the virus will continue to spread, so advocates of location
tracking and similar technologies that can be brought to bear to save lives during
a disease outbreak may be worth some loss of privacy.
Pathologists and medical laboratory professionals may want
to monitor the public debate over the appropriate use of location tracking.
After all, at some future point, clinical laboratory test results of
individuals might be added to location tracking programs to help public health
authorities better monitor where disease outbreaks are occurring and how they are
spreading.
