Nov 20, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
FDA is streamlining how new diagnostic tests are approved; encourages IVD companies to focus on ‘qualifying biomarkers’ in development of new cancer drugs
It is good news for the anatomic pathology profession that new insights into the human immune system are triggering not only a wave of new therapeutic drugs, but also the need for companion diagnostic tests that help physicians decide when it is appropriate to prescribe immunotherapy drugs.
Rapid advances in precision medicine, and the discovery that a patient’s own immune system can be used to suppress chronic disease, have motivated pharmaceutical companies to pursue new research into creating targeted therapies for cancer patients. These therapies are based on a patient’s physiological condition at the time of diagnosis. This is the very definition of precision medicine and it is changing how oncologists, anatomic pathologists, and medical laboratories diagnose and treat cancer and other chronic diseases.
Since immunotherapy drugs require companion diagnostic tests, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) developers and clinical laboratory and pathology group leaders understand the stake they have in pharma companies devoting more research to developing these types of drugs.
New cancer drugs combined with targeted therapies would directly impact the future of anatomic pathology and medical laboratory testing.
Targeted Therapies Cost Less, Work Better
Targeted therapies focus on the mechanisms driving the cancer, rather than on destroying the cancer itself. They are designed to treat cancers that have specific genetic signatures.
One such example of a targeted therapy is pembrolizumab (brand name: Keytruda), a humanized antibody that targets the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor. The injection drug was primarily designed to treat melanoma. However, the FDA recently expanded its approval of Keytruda to include treatment of tumors with certain genetic qualities, regardless of the tumor’s location in the body. It was the first time the FDA has expanded an existing approval.
In a Forbes article, David Shaywitz, MD, PhD, noted that pembrolizumab had “an unprecedented type of FDA approval … authorizing its use in a wide range of cancers.” Shaywitz is Chief Medical Officer of DNAnexus in Mountain View, Calif.; Visiting Scientist, Department of Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School; and Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Cancers with high mutational burdens respond to the therapy because they are more likely to have what Shaywitz calls “recognizable novel antigens called mutation-associated neoantigens, or MANAs.” Such cancers include melanomas, non-small cell lung cancer, some rare forms of colorectal cancers, and others.
Such therapies require genetic sequencing, and because sequencing is becoming faster and less expensive—as is the analysis of the sequencing—the information necessary to develop targeted therapies is becoming more accessible, which is part of what’s motivating pharma research.
Biomarkers and Traditional versus Modern Drug Testing and Development
At the same time pharma is developing new immunotherapies, the FDA is recognizing the benefit of faster approvals. In an FDA Voice blog post, Janet Woodcock, MD, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA, wrote, “In the past three years alone, [we have] approved more than 25 new drugs that benefit patients with specific genetic characteristics … and we have approved many more new uses—also based on specific genetic characteristics—for drugs already on the market.”
In his Forbes article, Shaywitz notes that pembrolizumab’s development foreshadows a “More general trend in the industry,” where the traditional phases of drug testing and development in oncology are becoming less clear and distinct.
Along with the changes to drug development and approval that precision medicine is bringing about, there are also likely to be changes in how cancer patients are tested. For one thing, biomarkers are critical for precision medicine.
However, pharmaceutical companies have not always favored using biomarkers. According to Shaywitz, “In general, commercial teams tend not to favor biomarkers and seek to avoid them wherever possible.” And that, “All things being equal, a doctor would prefer to prescribe a drug immediately, without waiting for a test to be ordered and the results received and interpreted.”
In July, just weeks after expanding its approval for Keytruda, the FDA approved a Thermo Fisher Scientific test called the Oncomine Dx Target Test. A Wired article describes it as “the first next-generation-sequencing-based test” and notes that it “takes a tiny amount of tumor tissue and reports on alterations to 23 different genes.”
Thermo Fisher’s Oncomine DX Target Test (above) is the first multi-drug next-generation sequencing test approved by the FDA. The test is a companion diagnostic for lung-cancer drugs made by Novartis and Pfizer. (Caption and photo copyright: Thermo Fisher Scientific.)
Unlike pembrolizumab, however, the Oncomine Dx Target Test did not enjoy fast-track approval. As Wired reported, “Getting the FDA’s approval took nearly two years and 220,000 pages of data,” in large part because it was the first test to include multiple genes and multiple drugs. Thus, according to Joydeep Goswami, PhD, President of Clinical Next Generation Sequencing at Thermo Fisher, “That put the technology under extraordinary scrutiny.”
FDA Encouraging Use of Biomarkers in Precision Medicine Therapies
The FDA, however, is taking steps to make that process easier. Woodcock noted in her FDA Voice blog post that the agency is actively encouraging drug developers to “use strategies based on biomarkers.” She added that the FDA currently “works with stakeholders and scientific consortia in qualifying biomarkers that can be used in the development of many drugs.”
Additionally, in a column he penned for Wired, Robert M. Califf, MD, former Commissioner of the FDA, states that the organization has “begun to lay out a flexible roadmap for regulatory approval.” He notes, “Given the complexity of NGS [next-generation-sequencing] technology, test developers need assurance as well, and we’ve tried to reduce uncertainty in the process.”
Regulations that assist IVD developers create viable diagnostics, while ensuring the tests are accurate and valid, will be nearly as important in the age of precision medicine as the therapies themselves.
All of these developmental and regulatory changes will impact the work done by pathologists and medical laboratories. And since precision medicine means finding the right drug for the individual patient, then monitoring its progress, all of the necessary tests will be conducted by clinical laboratories.
Faster approvals for these new drugs and tests will likely mean steep learning curves for pathologists. But if the streamlined regulation process being considered by the FDA works, new immunoassay tests and targeted therapies could mean improved outcomes for cancer patients.
—Dava Stewart
Related Information:
How Precision Medicine, Immunotherapy Are Influencing Clinical Trial Design for Cancer Drugs
Pharma Cooperates to Achieve Precision Medicine
The Startling History Behind Merck’s New Cancer Blockbuster
Two Recent Scientific Advances Underscore an Encouraging Future for Precision Medicine at FDA
Fast, Precise Cancer Care Is Coming to a Hospital Near You
Biomarker Trends Are Auspicious for Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories
Precision Healthcare Milestone Reached as Food and Drug Administration Clears New Multi-Marker Medical Laboratory Test to Detect Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Genetic Tests and Precision Medicine Start to Win Acceptance by Some Payers; Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories Have Opportunity as Advisors
Nov 17, 2017 | Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Ongoing research at the University of Washington promises new methods for identifying and cataloging large numbers of cells quickly, which could lead to more individualized treatments in support of precision medicine initiatives
Researchers have found a new method for identifying specific cell types by groups, a breakthrough that some experts say could lead to new and more accurate methods for diagnosing and treating disease in individual patients, and new tools for fighting cancer and other chronic diseases. If this happens, both clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology labs would benefit from this technology.
A study published in the journal Science titled, “Comprehensive Single-Cell Transcriptional Profiling of a Multicellular Organism,” describes advances in cataloging cells that are much faster than the traditional method of using a microscope. The research is still in the experimental stage, but it is being hailed as both exciting and promising by experts in the field.
Barcoding Large Numbers of Cells for Viewing Simultaneously
To test their method, researchers from the University of Washington (UW) sequenced each cell of an individual Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode). Nematodes are transparent roundworms that have been extensively studied making them ideal for the UW study, since much information exists about their cellular structure.
The researchers developed a strategy they dubbed “single-cell combinatorial indexing RNA sequencing,” or “sci-RNA-seq” for short, to profile the transcriptomes of nuclei. A New York Times article on the study describes sci-RNA-seq as a kind of barcoding that shows which genes are active in each cell.
“We came up with this scheme that allows us to look at very large numbers of cells at the same time, without ever isolating a single cell,” noted Jay Shendure, PhD, MD, Professor of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington.
The UW researchers used sci-RNA-seq to measure the activity in 42,035 cells at the same time. Once all of the cells were tagged, or barcoded, the researchers broke them open so the sequences of tags could be read simultaneously.
“We defined consensus expression profiles for 27 cell types and recovered rare neuronal cell types corresponding to as few as one or two cells,” wrote the researchers in their published study.
Because such a rich body of research on nematodes exists, the researchers could easily compare the results that got to those procured in previous studies.
Jay Shendure, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Genomic Sciences at the University of Washington, and an Investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, was just a graduate student when his work with genetics led to the development of today’s next-generation gene sequencing technologies. His new cell-type identification technology could eventually be used by clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to diagnose disease. (Photo copyright: Howard Hughes Medical Institute.)
One Giant Leap for Medical Diagnostics
Identifying cell types has been a challenge to the medical community for at least 150 years. It is important for scientists to understand the most basic unity of life, but it has only been in the last few years that researchers have been able to measure transcriptomes in single cells. Even though the research so far is preliminary, the scientific community is excited about the results because—should the methods be refined—it could mean a great leap forward in the field of cell-typing.
However, the study did not identify all of the cell types known to exist in a nematode. “We don’t consider this a finished project,” stated Shendure in a New York Times article.
Nevertheless, researchers not associated with the study feel confident about the promise of the work. Cori Bargmann, PhD, a neurobiologist and Torsten N. Wiesel Professor at The Rockefeller University, and an Investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute from 1995 to 2016, states that the results “will be valuable for me and for the whole field,” adding, “Of course, there’s more to do, but I am pretty optimistic that this can be solved.”
“The ability to measure the transcriptomes of single cells has only been feasible for a few years, and is becoming an extremely popular assay,” wrote Valentine Svensson, predoctoral fellow et al, of EMBL-EBI in the UK, in a paper titled, “Exponential Scaling of Single-Cell RNA-Seq in the Last Decade.” He added, “Technological developments and protocol improvements have fueled a consistent exponential increase in the numbers of cells studied in single cell RNA-seq analyses.” The UW research represents another such improvement.
Human Cell Atlas—Understanding the Basis of Life Itself
There are approximately 37-trillion cells in the human body and scientists have long believed there are 200 different cell types. Thus, there is an enormous difference between a nematode and a human body. For medical science to benefit from these studies, massive numbers of human cells must be identified and understood. Efforts are now underway to catalog and map them all.
The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) is an effort to catalog all of those disparate cell types. The mission of HCA is “To create comprehensive reference maps of all human cells—the fundamental units of life—as a basis for both understanding human health and diagnosing, monitoring, and treating disease.”
According to HCA’s website, having the atlas completed will impact our understanding of every aspect of human biology, from immunologic diseases to cancer. Aviv Regev, PhD, of the Broad Institute at MIT, who also is an Investigator with the HHMI and is co-chair of the organizing committee at the Human Cell Atlas notes, “The human cell atlas initiative will work through organs, tissues, and systems.”
One of the many complications of creating the atlas is that the locations of cells vary in humans. “The trick,” Regev noted in the New York Times article, “is to relate cells to the place they came from.” This would seem to be at the heart of the UW researchers’ new method for “barcoding” groups of cells.
Just as sequencing the entire human genome has brought about previously unimagined advances in science, so too will the research being conducted at the University of Washington, as well as the completion of the Human Cell Atlas Project. It is possible that pursuing the goal of quickly identifying and cataloging cells will lead to advances in anatomic pathology, and allow medical laboratory scientists to better interpret genetic variants, ultimately bringing healthcare closer to the delivery of true precision medicine.
—Dava Stewart
Related Information:
Comprehensive Single-Cell Transcriptional Profiling of a Multicellular Organism
A Speedier Way to Catalog Human Cells (All 37 Trillion of Them)
Exponential Scaling of Single-Cell RNA-Seq In the Last Decade
Human Cell Atlas
Genetic Fingerprint Helps Researchers Identify Aggressive Prostate Cancer from Non-Aggressive Types and Determine if Treatment Will Be Effective
Big Data Projects at Geisinger Health Are Beginning to Help Physicians Speed Up Diagnosis and Improve Patient Care
Biomarker Trends Are Auspicious for Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories
Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories May Soon Have a Test for Identifying Cardiac Patients at Risk from Specific Heart Drugs by Studying the Patients’ Own Heart Cells
Nov 13, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Many aspects of traditional clinical laboratory pathology testing remain rooted to cancer care even as the cancer care industry embraces precision medicine, and digital pathology testing and interpretation
There’s good news for anatomic pathologists worried about the future of the pathology profession. A recent survey of oncology program participants in the United States determined that Precision Medicine—and the need for precision diagnostics—will be one of the top trends that significantly reshape how cancers are diagnosed and treated in the US.
Some of these five trends indirectly impact clinical laboratories and pathology groups by directly affecting the healthcare practices of hospitals and private practice doctors who order medical laboratory tests for their cancer patients.
Lindsey Conway, Managing Director, Research and Insights Division, for The Advisory Board, covered five of the top trends she says will “shape the business of cancer care in 2017,” which MedCityNews reported. They include:
1. Precision Medicine
2. Healthcare Consumerism
3. Telehealth Services
4. Care Navigation
5. Payment Reform
One of the trends involves increased use of specialized diagnostic tests that identify genetic mutations to help ensure cancer drugs and therapies are precisely targeted to a patient’s specific needs. This is a critical element of precision medicine.
Here are brief run-downs on each of the five trends:
Precision Medicine in Clinical Laboratory Cancer Care
The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) in partnership with Advisory Board’s Oncology Roundtable (AB) conducted the survey, which was funded by Pfizer Oncology, according to an ACCC press release.
The survey found precision medicine to be among the top trends impacting the cancer care business in 2017. This will be of particular interest to pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders who provide services to oncologists and cancer patients.
ACCC’s press release states: “By taking the pulse on issues such as program mergers and acquisitions, clinical pathways usage, and precision medicine and immunotherapy, ACCC can continue to provide needed resources to its members.”
The Advisory Board is a respected “think tank” that uses research, technology, and consulting to aid healthcare organizations. And, the ACCC is an advocacy and education organization for cancer care professionals.
“We are all betting big on the promise of precision medicine,” declared Conway, in the MedCityNews story. She noted, however, specific challenges related to precision medicine. They include:
· Understanding developments;
· Financing equipment purchases; and,
· Educating others.
Dark Daily noted similar concerns with precision medicine in an e-briefing on research conducted at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, where two commercially available next-generation sequencing tests had widely different results for the same cancer patients studied. (See Dark Daily, “University of Washington School of Medicine Study Finds Two Different Next-Generation Genetic Tests Can Produce Widely Different Results in the Same Patient,” May 1, 2017.)
Patient Consumerism in Cancer Care
Drawing on the AB/ACCC findings, MedCityNews noted that about 69% of cancer care consumers who use the Internet in healthcare decision-making are likely to change providers who receive negative online reviews.
These findings are not lost on cancer center administrators and medical directors who, according to an Advisory Board news release announcing the results of a survey of 250 cancer program leaders, have “increased interest in cancer patient consumerism—mainly around how to identify patient priorities and market cancer program services directly to patients.”
Telehealth Takes Cancer Care Virtual
Telehealth (AKA, Telemedicine) involves telecommunications and information technologies (IT), such as video, audio, and Internet-based software, to bring healthcare services to resource strapped remote and rural environments. One example of telemedicine that is focused on cancer care is the Breast Cancer Ally mobile app. Developed by Michael Sabel, MD, FACS, Associate Professor of Surgery and Chief of Surgical Oncology at the University of Michigan Medical School (U-M), Breast Cancer Ally is “an information and symptom management tool specially designed [to help] patients through every stage of breast cancer treatment.” The app is available for use by U-M Comprehensive Cancer Care Center patients.
“This is disease-specific technology that helps patients navigate the multiple facets of medical care by delivering information and tools based on the appropriate stage of treatment,” U-M noted in a statement.
Navigating the Care Continuum
Driven by a need to guide more cancer patients throughout their treatment, the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) is taking its navigation program to a national level, according to a UAB statement.
UAB’s partner in the Patient Care Connect Program (PCCP) is Guideway Care, a resource for personal guidance in cancer treatment and recovery. Guideway Care offers communication protocols and technology for assisting people following a cancer diagnosis.
According to UAB results, compared to non-navigated cancer patients the PCCP participants experienced:
· 55% less hospitalizations;
· 29% fewer emergency room visits;
· 60% less intensive care unit admissions; and,
· 45% reduction in Medicare costs.
“The PCCP is a model of navigation that supports patients throughout the cancer care continuum and may be a mechanism to extend palliative and support care more fully into the community,” wrote UAB-affiliated authors in a JAMA Oncology article.
“Overall, cost reductions were driven by substantial declines in hospitalizations and clinic-based services,” they concluded.
Ramona Colvin (standing) and Myeisha Hutchinson, patient navigators with UAB’s Patient Care Connect program, work together to help patients through their cancer journey. (Photo and caption copyright: UAB News.)
Healthcare Reimbursement and Reform
Insurance company programs intended to lower cancer care costs that operate concurrent with congressional lawmakers’ healthcare reform efforts are receiving increased scrutiny.
One relevant example of a payer plan aimed at increasing value is Anthem’s Cancer Care Quality Program. It enables participating oncologists to compare cancer care pathways and become eligible for additional $350 a month in reimbursements for each patient being treated.
“Private payers have been on the forefront of designing value-driven ways to pay for cancer care, but we’re not going to arrive at a satisfying payment solution any time soon,” stated Conway in the MedCityNews article.
Trends Can Guide Medical Laboratory Leaders
The findings of the AB/ACCC study affirm the important role that pathologists will have as precision medicine transforms cancer care. After all, it is pathologists who diagnose the primary cancer, and it is pathologists who conduct specialized testing to identify genetic mutations that would make a patient’s cancer vulnerable to a specific drug or therapy. Pathologists also have a role in monitoring the cancer patient’s treatment.
Thus, it is important for clinical laboratory leaders to acknowledge what their cancer care colleagues perceive as trends and topics of interest. Pathologists and medical laboratory leaders who provide services to oncologists and cancer patients should note these trends and related programs and research. Healthcare navigation and telemedicine applications, for example, could be ways for pathologists to collaborate with oncologists in outreach to cancer patients.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Five Healthcare Trends Impacting Cancer Care
ACCC Collaborates with Advisory Board to Conduct Eight Annual Trends in Cancer Care Survey
UAB Expands Cancer Navigation Program Nationally with Guideway Care
Resource Use and Medicare Costs During Lay Navigation for Geriatric Patients with Cancer
U-M Breast Cancer Ally Providing Patients with Effective Disease Management
Advisory Board Research for 2018
University of Washington School of Medicine Study Finds Two Different Next-Generation Genetic Tests Can Produce Widely Different Results in the Same Patient
Nov 8, 2017 | Laboratory Hiring & Human Resources, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Increased use of telemedicine may create opportunities for clinical laboratories to deliver increased value to both physicians and nurses
Recent data shows widespread employer adoption of telehealth services may soon become a reality. However, studies also show virtual provider visits and other telemedicine technologies are unlikely to diminish the role of clinical laboratories in providing the data required for diagnosis and treatment decisions. Instead, laboratories and anatomic pathology groups will likely see changes in how samples are collected from patients using telemedicine and how medical laboratory test results are reported, as access to telemedicine grows.
A recent National Business Group on Health (NBGH) survey indicates that in 2018 “virtually all [large] employers (96%) will make telehealth services available in states where it is allowed.” The survey was conducted between May and June 2017, with 148 large employers participating.
Christine Smalley, Managing Director with consulting firm Claremont Hudson, divides telemedicine technology into three distinct segments:
1. Provider-to-provider;
2. Remote patient monitoring; and,
3. Patient-to-provider.
In an article she penned for MedCityNews, Smalley calls provider-to-provider telemedicine the “most evolved to-date” segment of the telehealth trend. She highlights ICU stroke care with remote consults and monitoring as an example of its “success,” and notes a large potential for growth in remote patient monitoring (RPM). Smalley cites a Berg Insight report that estimates 50-million patients will use remote monitored devices by 2021. However, Smalley also notes consumer acceptance of patient-to-provider telemedicine has fallen short of industry expectations.
While virtual office visits—where patients have access to physicians via telephone or videoconferencing—grab headlines, Smalley argues that “several factors” are hindering adoption.
“Reimbursement is not yet universal,” she notes. “But consumers are growing used to paying more out-of-pocket with high-deductible plans. Physicians have long resisted change in how they practice, and many remain lukewarm at best about telemedicine. It’s no coincidence that many of the innovations and pioneering models have come from outside of healthcare delivery … The barriers that loom the largest may likely be consumer awareness and trial.”
The Center for Connected Health Policy (CCHP) reports that 35 states have laws governing private payer reimbursement of telehealth, a number that has not changed since 2016. According to a CCHP press release, some state laws require reimbursement be equal to in-person visits, though not all laws mandate reimbursement.
Adopting Existing Retail Models to Promote Telemedicine to Patients
Smalley contends “smart marketing” will be needed to get consumers to leverage the telemedicine options that are becoming available to them. She says simply offering video or telephone visits is not enough. She encourages integrated delivery systems to take a page out of retailers’ playbooks.
“Look at how retailers, like Walmart, integrate online shopping and the store experience by offering side-by-side options supporting product delivery and in-store pickup. Telemedicine options ultimately need to be offered in a way that feels integrated and seamless to the health consumer,” she suggested, in her MedCityNews article. One example, she notes, would be providing an easy-to-navigate link to a virtual visit on a healthcare network’s urgent care webpage.
Click image above to see YouTube video
Healthcare Spending Could Increase Due to Telehealth
While health plans have zeroed in on telehealth as a way to drive down healthcare costs, a 2017 RAND Corp. study published in Health Affairs found virtual visits to physicians might not decrease spending, though access to care is improved.
“Instead of saving money by substitution [replacing more expensive visits to physician offices or EDs], direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase spending by new utilization [increasing the total number of patient visits],” a MedCityNews article suggests.
The RAND study examined commercial claims data of workers enrolled in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Blue Shield of California HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) from 2011-2013. Researchers focused on care received for acute respiratory infections. According to a RAND press release, net annual spending for acute respiratory infections increased by $45 per telehealth user.
“Given that direct-to-consumer telehealth is even more convenient than traveling to retail clinics, it may not be surprising that an even greater share of telehealth services represents new medical use,” noted Lori Uscher-Pines, PhD, a RAND Policy Researcher. “There may be a dose response with respect to convenience and use: the more convenient the location, the lower the threshold for seeking care and the greater the use of medical services.”
Telehealth in Clinical Laboratories
Will telehealth services offered by hospital networks and healthcare providers impact clinical laboratories? While a physical visit is still required for drawing blood, collecting urine, or performing pathology testing, interpretive digital pathology, such as Whole Slide Imaging (AKA, Virtual Slide), does enable pathologists to provided distance interpretation services of blood tests to remote and/or resource deficient areas of the world, as Dark Daily reported in past e-briefings. This could become a substantial revenue stream in the future if telepathology’s global popularity continues to rise.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Telemedicine Is on the Rise, Including for Labs
Large U.S. Employers Project Health Care Benefit Costs to Surpass $14,000 per Employee in 2018, National Business Group on Health Survey Finds
Large Employers’ 2018 Health Care Strategy and Plan Design Survey
Take a Lesson from Retail to Improve Patient Adoption
mHealth and Home Monitoring
Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth Prompts New Use of Medical Services; Not Likely to Decrease Health Spending
State Telehealth Laws and Reimbursement Policies, April 2017
CCHP Releases Fifth Edition of 50 State Telehealth Lawns and Reimbursement Policies Report
Almost All Large Employers Plan to Offer Telehealth in 2018, but Will Employees Use It?
Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth May Increase Access to Care but Does Not Decrease Spending
International Telemedicine Gains Momentum, Opening New Markets for Pathologists and Other Specialists
‘Nighthawk’ Radiology Services Expand to Hospital Pharmacies: Could Pathology Laboratories Be Next?
From Micro-hospitals to Mobile ERs: New Models of Healthcare Create Challenges and Opportunities for Pathologists and Medical Laboratories
Nov 3, 2017 | Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology
Medical laboratory leaders urged to scrutinize pricing policies, billing decisions, and structural relationships that could trigger commercial payer and regulatory action
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups face another blow to their financial health on January 1, 2018, when new Medicare Part B price cuts take effect. Faced with increasing competition and declining reimbursement rates for anatomic pathology testing, medical laboratories will begin 2018 with their profitability under threat. In addition, healthcare legal experts warn many medical laboratory leaders risk further financial hardships by establishing “problematic” business relationships or developing pricing plans that put their labs at “unreasonable risk” with commercial payers and government regulators.
Financial Pressures Lead Clinical Laboratories to Risky Deals and Policies
One such expert is, attorney Jeffrey J. Sherrin, President and Partner at O’Connell and Aronowitz in Albany, New York. He contends that financial pressures are the impetus for many laboratories’ questionable deal-making and pricing policies.
“We’re increasingly dealing with proposed structures that clinical labs are entering into or considering entering into to remain viable, but without properly assessing how those relationships may run afoul of federal or state law or provider agreements,” Sherrin noted in an interview with Dark Daily. “If that doesn’t keep the labs up at night, it keeps us up at night!”
Tougher Auditing and Billing Scrutiny
While the “overwhelming majority of lab directors, owners, and managers are honest and law abiding,” Sherrin maintains they are “stepping into a minefield” by failing to properly vet decisions regarding:
1. Lab billing and referral arrangements that could violate federal and state anti-kickback or fee-splitting laws, or trigger violations of provider agreements with health insurers.
2. Participation in healthcare Management Service Organizations (MSOs) that involve “billing schemes” rather than legitimate administrative services, marketing, or data-collection activities.
3. Pricing plans and billing policies that could trigger increased scrutiny by government and commercial payers over balance-billing of patients, and waiver or partial waiver of co-pays and deductibles.
In an era of shrinking reimbursements and limited access to healthcare networks, Sherrin urges medical laboratory leaders to be aware of another new reality: tougher audits from commercial payers whose investigators “perceive that there is rampant fraud in the industry” that extends beyond toxicology/pharmacogenomics or molecular/genetic testing laboratories.
“In payers’ minds, it’s across the board,” Sherrin says. “When they see patterns of limiting or capping or waiving of patient responsibility, their normal inclination is to assume this is part and parcel of some fraudulent scheme or practice, as opposed to a proper business decision.”
Proactive Steps to Improve Medical Lab Leader Decision-Making
Seeking guidance from a healthcare attorney before establishing new business relationships, and pricing or billing policies, is one way to increase your laboratory’s odds of surviving payer action.
“Most labs adopt a pricing policy without fully vetting whether they are doing it the right way, the best way, or the way that creates as little risk as possible,” Sherrin notes. “A high percentage of labs have not approached this issue with a degree of scrutiny as to whether the marketing of their test menu, their prices, and how they bill puts them in a better or worse position. Most are making business decisions based on what they need to do competitively without having the ramifications and implications analyzed.”
To help medical laboratory and pathology group leaders prepare for the perils they face, Dark Daily’s upcoming webinar, “Tougher Lab Regulations and New Legal Issues in 2018: More Frequent Payer Audits, Problems with Contract Sales Reps, Increased Liability for CLIA Lab Directors, Proficiency Testing Violations, and More,” will reveal how lab leaders can take proactive steps to navigate the tough lab regulations and legal issues that lay ahead.
To attend this critical educational opportunity, click here to register (or place this link into your browser: https://ddaily.wpengine.com/product/tougher-lab-regulations-and-new-legal-issues-in-2018-more-frequent-payer-audits-problems-with-contract-sales-reps-increased-liability-for-clia-lab-directors-proficiency-testing-violations-and).
Healthcare attorney Jeffrey W. Sherrin, President and Partner, O’Connell and Aronowitz, will be one of three featured speakers during a new Dark Daily webinar on the upcoming Medicare Part B price cuts, and the critical legal and compliance issues facing clinical laboratories and pathology groups in 2018. (Photo copyright: O’Connell and Aronowitz.)
This crucial learning event takes place on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST. Sherrin will be joined by David W. Gee, JD, Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle, Wash., and Richard Cooper, JD, Chair of the National Healthcare Practice Group, McDonald Hopkins LLC, in Cleveland.
These three attorneys are among the nation’s foremost experts in issues unique to clinical laboratories, pathology groups, hospital labs, toxicology/pharmacogenomics labs, and molecular/genetic testing labs. Following our speakers’ presentations, there will be a question and answer period, during which you can submit your own specific questions to our experts.
You can’t afford to miss this opportunity. Click here to get up to speed on the most serious regulatory, compliance, and managed care contracting issues confronting all clinical laboratories today. This webinar will provide solutions to the perils facing labs now and in 2018 by helping you map a proactive and effective course of action for your clinical lab or pathology group.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Tougher Lab Regulations and New Legal Issues in 2018: More Frequent Payer Audits, Problems with Contract Sales Reps, Increased Liability for CLIA Lab Directors, Proficiency Testing Violations, and More
What Every Lab Needs to Know about the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Price Cuts That Take Effect in Just 157 Days, on Jan. 1, 2018
Nation’s Most Vulnerable Clinical Laboratories Fear Financial Failure If Medicare Officials Cut Part B Lab Fees Using PAMA Market Price Data Final Rule
Nov 1, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement
Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists must be fully aware of the coming legal and regulatory changes taking place starting January 1, 2018, or risk fines and decreased reimbursements
January 1, 2018, marks the start of new Medicare Part B price cuts for clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology testing. But decreasing reimbursement rates is just one issue facing medical laboratory leaders. The other is the increasingly rigorous regulatory environment poised to ensnare labs and pathology groups unprepared to navigate the dark waters of government compliance.
Tougher payer audits, higher recovery demands, and enforcement policies that increase the personal liability of CLIA lab directors and lab executives, are reasons why attorney David W. Gee, JD, a Partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle, argues that laboratories need to step up their focus on compliance and due diligence. He notes laboratories must guard against “death by 1,000 knives” in this new landscape.
Insufficient Focus on Compliance Brings Consequences to Clinical Laboratories and Their Management
“There are more and more people and agencies whose focus it is to regulate and watch the dollars and make sure there is integrity in the system,” noted Gee in an interview with Dark Daily. “That includes not only the formerly regular players—the OIG [Office of Inspector General, US Department of Health and Human Services] and DOJ [Department of Justice]—but you’ve got an increasing number of states with their own False Claims Acts. You’ve got state agencies looking at opportunities to clean up the system and to tag along with other investigations going on, as well as commercial payers who have become more active in pursuing litigation and other measures against practices they allege to be fraudulent.”
Faced with these emerging trends, Gee stresses that labs must:
1. Recognize the increased personal liability facing lab directors, owners, and management, and take steps to mitigate risk of enforcement actions that not only expose executives to potential penalties but also jeopardize the financial health of lab organizations.
2. Understand the importance of meaningful and sustained investment in compliance (including providing compliance officers with the resources to manage an increasingly complex job) and leverage OIG guidance to assess gaps and risks in compliance programs.
3. Be aware of risks inherent in third-party marketing agreements, which can result in short-term spikes in order volume, but which also could reduce “lines of sight” to clients, making it even more difficult to adhere to compliance standards.
Gee believes the emphasis labs place on cost control and “running lean” often results in a lack of attention being paid to compliance. He argues today’s competitive environment increases the need for laboratory directors to ensure proper business practices are followed and “compliance fundamentals are not overlooked in the haste to compete for the business of referral sources.”
Healthcare attorney and Partner, David W. Gee, JD, of Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, in Seattle will be one of three featured speakers during a new Dark Daily webinar on the Medicare Part B price cuts, and the critical legal and compliance issues clinical laboratories and pathology groups face starting in 2018. (Photo copyright: Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP.)
CLIA-Lab Directors to Be Held Personally Liable for Compliance Failures
Because federal regulators are considering holding CLIA-lab directors personally liable for compliance failures, Gee suggests laboratory executives should be motivated to put effective compliance programs in place.
“The best reason I can give for insisting as a lab director that the company actually has a successful and effective compliance program is that these days they stand to lose,” he argues. “The ability to prove you are not complicit—and that you are not the driver of things that have gone wrong—comes down to having an effective and well-documented compliance program so you are on record. And so there’s evidence that, as an engaged lab leader, you tried to do the right thing.”
Educational Opportunities for Lab Leaders
To help medical laboratory and pathology group leaders prepare for the perils they face, and take proactive steps to navigate the tough lab regulations and legal issues that lay ahead, click here to register for Dark Daily’s upcoming webinar “Tougher Lab Regulations and New Legal Issues in 2018: More Frequent Payer Audits, Problems with Contract Sales Reps, Increased Liability for CLIA Lab Directors, Proficiency Testing Violations, and More,” (or place this link into your browser: https://ddaily.wpengine.com/product/tougher-lab-regulations-and-new-legal-issues-in-2018-more-frequent-payer-audits-problems-with-contract-sales-reps-increased-liability-for-clia-lab-directors-proficiency-testing-violations-and).
This crucial learning event takes place on Wednesday, November 8, 2017, at 1 p.m. EST. Gee will be joined by Jeffrey J. Sherrin, President and Partner, O’Connell and Aronowitz in Albany, New York, and Richard Cooper, Chair, National Healthcare Practice Group, McDonald Hopkins, LLC, in Cleveland.
These three attorneys are among the nation’s foremost experts in issues unique to clinical laboratories, pathology groups, hospital labs, toxicology/pharmacogenomics labs, and molecular/genetic testing labs. Following our speakers’ presentations, there will be a question and answer period, during which you can submit your own specific questions to our experts.
You can’t afford to miss this opportunity. Click here to get up to speed on the most serious regulatory, compliance, and managed care contracting issues confronting all labs today. This webinar will provide solutions to the perils facing labs now and in 2018 by helping you map a proactive and effective course of action for your clinical lab or pathology group.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Tougher Lab Regulations and New Legal Issues in 2018: More Frequent Payer Audits, Problems with Contract Sales Reps, Increased Liability for CLIA Lab Directors, Proficiency Testing Violations, and More
What Every Lab Needs to Know about the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Price Cuts That Take Effect in Just 157 Days, on Jan. 1, 2018
Nation’s Most Vulnerable Clinical Laboratories Fear Financial Failure If Medicare Officials Cut Part B Lab Fees Using PAMA Market Price Data Final Rule
