Clinical laboratory scientists should also know experts warn that ‘herd resistance’ is more likely than ‘herd immunity’ due to low vaccination rates in many parts of the world
Scientists estimate 73% of the US population may be immune to the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant. Whether the nation is approaching “herd immunity” against the disease, however, remains open to debate, the Associated Press (AP) reported. These estimates are relevant to medical laboratories doing serology tests for COVID-19, as different individuals will have different immune system responses to COVID-19 infections and vaccines.
More than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker shows the number of daily cases dropped to fewer than 50,000 as of March 4, 2022, after reaching a high of 928,125 on January 3, 2022.
Meanwhile, the seven-day death rate per 100,000 people stands at 2.78. That’s significantly above the seven-day death rate reached last July of .45, but well below the 7.21 mark recorded on January 13, 2021.
“We’re clearly entering a new phase of the pandemic,” William Morice, II, MD, PhD, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., told KARE11, an NBC affiliate.
Is Herd Immunity Achievable?
According to the AP, an estimated 73% of the US population is likely to be immune to the Omicron variant due to vaccination or natural immunity from contracting the disease. That calculation was done for the media outlet by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle. The IHME anticipates immunity to Omicron could rise to 80% this month, as more people receive vaccination booster shots or become vaccinated.
“Herd immunity is an elusive concept and doesn’t apply to coronavirus,” he told the Associated Press (AP).
Milton maintains populations are moving toward “herd resistance,” rather than “herd immunity.” This will transform COVID-19 into a permanent fixture with seasonal outbreaks similar to influenza.
Epidemiologist, Ali Mokdad, PhD (above), Chief Strategy Officer for Population Health and Professor of Health Metrics Science at the University of Washington in Seattle, believes the US is now much better positioned to withstand the next wave of COVID-19 cases. “I am optimistic even if we have a surge in summer, cases will go up, but hospitalizations and deaths will not,” he told the Associated Press (AP). Mokdad worked on the IHME model that calculated the 73% Omicron-immunity figure for the AP. However, he recommends continued vigilance toward COVID-19. “We’ve reached a much better position for the coming months, but with waning immunity we shouldn’t take it for granted,” he added. And so, clinical laboratories can expect to continue to play a vital role in the fight against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. (Photo copyright: University of Washington.)
Herd Immunity Varies, according to the WHO
Because antibodies that developed from vaccines—or natural immunity from a previous infection—diminish over time, waning protection means even those boosted or recently recovered from COVID-19 could be reinfected. In addition, vaccination rates vary widely around the world. Our World in Data estimates only 13.6% of people in low-income countries had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine as of March 7, 2022.
The World Health Organization (WHO) points out that herd immunity levels vary with different diseases. Herd immunity against measles requires about 95% of a population to be vaccinated, while the threshold for polio is about 80%.
“The proportion of the population that must be vaccinated against COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known. This is an important area of research and will likely vary according to the community, the vaccine, the populations prioritized for vaccination, and other factors,” the WHO website states.
Living with COVID-19
Nonetheless, the US appears to be moving into a new “normal” phase of living with the disease.
In an interview with Reuters, US infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) acknowledged a need for returning to normal living even though portions of the population—immunocompromised individuals and the unvaccinated, including children under age five who are not eligible for vaccination—remain vulnerable to more severe COVID-19.
“The fact that the world and the United States—and particularly certain parts of the United States—are just up to here with COVID, they just really need to somehow get their life back,” Fauci said. “You don’t want to be reckless and throw everything aside, but you’ve got to start inching towards that. There’s no perfect solution to this.”
Most states have lifted coronavirus-related restrictions, including masking requirements. As COVID-19 cases drop in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom put in motion a plan called SMARTER (Shots, Masks, Awareness, Readiness, Testing, Education, and Rx) that no longer responds to COVID-19 as a crisis, but instead emphasizes prevention, surveillance, and rapid response to future variant-based surges in cases.
“We have all come to understand what was not understood at the beginning of this crisis, that there’s no ending, that there’s not a moment where we declare victory,” Newsom told USA Today.
Mayo Clinic’s Morice agrees. “It can’t be out of sight, out of mind, per se, but it at least gives us hope that we can get back to some level of normalcy here over the course of the year,” he said.
Since clinical laboratories played a critical role in assay development and COVID-19 testing, medical laboratory leaders should continue monitoring COVID-19 as it moves from pandemic to endemic status due to high vaccination rates and advances in treatment options.
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness among healthcare consumers as well, about the critical role laboratory medicine plays in modern medicine and healthcare. Medical laboratory leaders and pathologists would be wise to amplify this message and stress the importance of clinical laboratory testing for many diseases and healthcare conditions.
The Department of Justice steps beyond the law’s original focus on opioid-related lab testing fraud
An interesting aspect with enforcement of the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) is the government’s willingness to go after charges tied to fraudulent COVID-19 testing.
The case U.S. vs. Malena Badon Lepetich provides a good example of this approach. A grand jury indicted Lepetich on various healthcare fraud charges last year, including that she allegedly offered to pay kickbacks for referrals of specimens for COVID-19 testing.
“The government had really only used EKRA in the context of addiction treatment space,” attorney Alexander Porter, a Partner at law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in Los Angeles, said in the latest issue of The Dark Report. “The Lepetich case shows that the government’s going to use EKRA beyond that context and go into other areas where they think that it can be useful—in particular, in the area of COVID-19 testing.”
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should take note of this development.
Attorney Alexander Porter said EKRA enforcement now goes after fraudulent COVID-19 testing. (Photo: Davis Wright Tremaine)
Defendant Allegedly Filed $10 Million in Fraudulent Lab Claims
Lepetich was the owner of MedLogic, a clinical laboratory in Baton Rouge, La.
In addition to the fraudulent COVID-19 testing charges, she allegedly solicited and received kickbacks in exchange for referrals of urine specimens for medically unnecessary tests, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
EKRA Provisions Rose from the Opioid Crisis in the U.S.
EKRA is a criminal law that falls under the Communities and Patients Act, which lifted restrictions on medications for opioid treatment and sought to limit overprescribing of opioid painkillers. Originally, EKRA targeted fraudulent practices at sober homes and substance abuse treatment centers. However, the final draft of the bill added clinical laboratories to the list of providers under potential scrutiny.
At the time Congress passed EKRA, the law was primarily aimed at fraudulent activity in opioid treatment centers, including related lab testing.
Thus, the government’s use of EKRA in the COVID-19 charges against Lepetich case is newsworthy and establishes a precedent, noted Porter. He’ll speak about EKRA at the 2022 Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The event takes place April 27-28 in New Orleans.
A contentious part of EKRA for clinical laboratories and pathology groups is that certain conduct protected under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute is treated as a criminal offense under EKRA. Some common lab practices come under that confusing designation, such as paying lab sales reps on a commission-based formula based on testing volumes they generate.
COVID lab testing company reportedly was paid up to $124 million for COVID-19 testing
What do an axe-throwing lounge, a donut shop, and a COVID-19 testing company have in common? All three were under the ownership of the same husband and wife. Apparently, though, COVID-19 medical laboratory testing was more lucrative. It’s been reported this married couple’s testing company received as much as $124 million just from federal health programs.
The co-owners are now being sued by multiple state’s attorney generals for allegedly failing to deliver SARS-CoV-2 test results and/or for delivering COVID-19 test results that “were falsified or inaccurate,” according to NBC News.
Chicago-based Center for COVID Control (CCC)—an operator of 300 pop-up COVID testing sites nationwide—faces investigations from state and federal authorities amid allegations of improper procedures and business practices. The company voluntarily suspended operations in January, when the allegations first surfaced, according to a company press release.
The founders, who had no prior clinical laboratory experience, now say they have turned their attention from running the sites to handling the investigations, USA Today reported. The newspaper was the first to publicly report problems with the company and its associated lab, Doctors Clinical Laboratory (DCL), both of which have the same address in suburban Chicago.
According to USA Today, “The Center for COVID Control was incorporated in December 2020, according to Illinois state filings. The business, which describes itself as a ‘test collection marketing and management firm,’ worked closely with Doctors Clinical Lab. Regulators didn’t visit the lab for an on-site inspection until the end of September of the following year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Regulators found the lab was not reporting coronavirus test results to public health officials.”
Questionable Collection Procedures for COVID-19 Testing
An earlier USA Today story by reporter Grace Hauck described an outdoor COVID-19 collection site in Chicago run by a man operating from a small shack powered by a generator.
“As he opens the door, piles of plastic bags, apparently grouped by test type, can be seen in crates on the ground,” Hauck reported. “He encourages test-takers to scan a QR code with their phones, fill out an online form with identifying information, and write a digitally-generated string of numbers on a paper sheet inside the plastic test kit bag.”
Hauck’s story noted complaints from readers about shoddy specimen collection procedures, conflicting or errant clinical laboratory test results, and failure to receive COVID-19 results in a timely manner.
Block Club Chicago, a non-profit news site, reported on Jan. 13 that inspectors from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had uncovered numerous instances of “non-compliance” and “deficiencies” at DCL.
CMS lab inspectors found that DCL “could not process or store PCR test samples appropriately—while it was being inundated with tests,” the news site reported. “Over an 11-day period in November, the lab received 84,436 PCR test samples; over that period, it processed and reported 43,240 test results, according to the [CMS] report.”
Specific problems included:
Inadequate staffing, training, and quality controls at the clinical laboratory.
A lack of freezers needed to store test samples.
Failure to maintain confidentiality of patient information.
Failure to label samples with identifying information.
Failure to log complaints from test recipients.
USA Today reported that the FBI executed a search warrant at the companies’ suburban Chicago offices on Jan. 22.
State Actions against Doctors Clinical Laboratory and CCC
In addition to the federal actions, state attorneys general in Minnesota and Washington State both filed lawsuits against Center for COVID Control (CCC) and Doctors Clinical Laboratory (DCL).
“When Minnesotans and people from around the country tested with these companies to keep themselves and their families safe, they trusted they would get correct [COVID-19 test] results on time,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in a statement announcing a lawsuit against the two companies. “I’m holding these companies accountable that sent back false or inaccurate [COVID-19 test] results, when they sent them back at all, for deceiving Minnesotans and undermining the public’s trust in testing.” (Photo copyright: Office of Minnesota Attorney General.)
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit in King County Superior Court on Jan. 31. “Center for COVID Control contributed to the spread of COVID-19 when it provided false negative results,” he stated in a news release. “These sham testing centers threatened the health and safety of our communities.”
On Feb. 17, Ferguson announced that the court had granted a preliminary injunction that prohibited CCC from providing testing services in the state.
NBC News reported that authorities in other states have also taken actions against the company. Oregon and Illinois launched civil investigations, while “Massachusetts and Rhode Island have issued cease and desist letters to the company, and local regulators in Washington and California shut down several of its sites for operating without a license,” the newspaper reported.
Big Money in COVID-19 Testing
USA Today reported that CCC was launched in December 2020 by Akbar Syed, 35, and Aleya Siyaj, 29, a married couple. Siyaj is listed as being CEO of CCC since June 2021, according to her LinkedIn profile.
“Doctors Clinical Lab is registered under another person’s name in state records, but federal documents and multiple former employees and business partners claimed Siyaj and Syed run the lab and Center for COVID Control,” Block Club Chicago reported.
USA Today reported that DCL received more than $124 million in federal reimbursement for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing and treatment. The paper also described a lavish lifestyle for Syed and Siyaj, including recent purchases of a $1.36 million mansion and multiple luxury cars. Asked on social media site TikTok about the source of his wealth, Syed stated, “COVID money,” according to USA Today.
Siyaj and Syed have denied wrongdoing, stating that they are now focused on “responding and cooperating with legal probes, and to clearing our good names,” according to a statement provided to USA Today.
Regulatory Loopholes
One question about CCC and DCL is how they were able to escape regulatory scrutiny. “Some experts said unscrupulous lab operators can take advantage of a regulatory opening that allows labs to register, test, and bill before inspectors finish a CLIA certificate survey,” USA Today reported. “In other cases, investors might purchase or establish management agreements with labs and begin testing before inspectors get in to verify the lab’s reliability.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to continue to watch the news, as other examples of fraud and incompetence by new companies that rushed into the COVID-19 lab testing marketplace are uncovered and investigated by both state and federal regulators.
Further, some of these companies may have generated more than $1 billion in payments from public and private sources after launching testing operations in the months after the arrival of the pandemic.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathologists may need to squeeze into narrow networks to be paid under value-based schemes, especially where Medicare Advantage is concerned
Pathologists have likely heard the arguments in favor of value-based payment versus fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement models: FFS encourages providers to order medically unnecessary procedures and lab tests. FFS removes incentives for providers to order patient services more carefully. Fraudsters can generate huge volumes of FFS claims that take payers months/years to recognize and stop.
Studies that favor value-based payment schemes support these claims. But do hospitals and other healthcare providers also accept them? And how is value-based reimbursement really doing?
To find out, Chicago-based thought leadership and advisory company 4Sight Health culled data from various organizations’ reports that suggest value-based reimbursement shows signs of growth as well as signs of stagnation.
Value-Based Payment Has Its Ups and Downs
Healthcare journalist David Burda is News Editor and Columnist at 4Sight Health. In his article, “Is Value-Based Reimbursement Mostly Dead or Slightly Alive?” Burda commented on data from various industry reports that indicated value-based reimbursement shows “signs of life.” For example:
More doctors are accepting pay-for-performance payments: 44.5% in 2020, up from 42.3% in 2018, according to an American Medical Association (AMA) biennial report on physician participation in value-based reimbursement, titled, “Policy Research Perspectives: Payment and Delivery in 2020.”
On the other hand, Burda reported that value-based reimbursement also has these declining indicators:
39.3% of provider payments “flowed” through FFS plans in 2020 with no link to cost or quality. This was unchanged since 2019. (HCPLAN report)
19.8% of FFS payments to providers in 2020 were linked to cost or quality, down from 22.5% in 2019. (HCPLAN report)
88% of doctors reported accepting FFS payments in 2019, an increase from 87% in 2018. (AMA report)
Does Today’s Healthcare Industry Support Value-based Care?
A survey of 680 physicians conducted by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions suggests the answer could be “not yet.” In “Equipping Physicians for Value-Based Care,” Deloitte reported:
“Physician compensation continues to emphasize volume more than value.
“Availability and use of data-driven tools to support physicians in practicing value-based care continue to lag.
“Existing care models do not support value-based care.”
Deloitte analysts wrote, “Physicians increasingly recognize their role in improving the affordability of care. We repeated a question we asked six years ago and saw a large increase in the proportion of physicians who say they have a prominent role in limiting the use of unnecessary treatments and tests: 76% in 2020 vs. 57% in 2014.
“Physicians also recognize that today’s care models are not geared toward value,” Deloitte continued. “They see many untapped opportunities for improving quality and efficiency. They estimate that even today, sizable portions of their work can be performed by nonphysicians (30%) in nontraditional settings (30%) and/or can be automated (18%), creating opportunities for multidisciplinary care teams and clinicians to work at the top of their license.”
Hospital CFOs Also See Opportunities for Value-based Care
This could be problematic for clinical laboratories, according to Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report. According to Guidehouse, “Nearly 60% of health systems plan to advance into risk-based Medicare Advantage models in 2022.”
Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollments have escalated over 10 years: 26.4 million people of the 62.7 million eligible for Medicare chose MA in 2021, noted a Kaiser Family Foundation brief that also noted MA enrollment in 2021 was up by 2.4 million beneficiaries or 10% over 2020.
The graph above is taken from the Kaiser Family Foundation report, “Medicare Advantage in 2021: Enrollment Update and Key Trends.” According to the KFF, “In 2021, more than four in 10 (42%) Medicare beneficiaries—26.4 million people out of 62.7 million Medicare beneficiaries overall—are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans; this share has steadily increased over time since the early 2000s.” Since MA employs narrow networks for its healthcare providers, it’s likely this trend will continue to affect clinical laboratories that may find it difficult to access these providers. (Graphic copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
“The shift from Medicare Part B—where any lab can bill Medicare on behalf of patients for doctor visits and outpatient care, including lab tests—to Medicare Advantage is a serious financial threat for smaller and regional labs that do a lot of Medicare Part B testing. The Medicare Advantage plans often have networks that exclude all but a handful of clinical laboratories as contracted providers,” Michel cautioned. “Moving into the future, it’s incumbent on regional and smaller clinical laboratories to develop value-added services that solve health plans’ pain points and encourage insurers to include local labs in their networks.”
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups need to be aware of this trend. Michel says value-based care programs call on clinical laboratories to collaborate with healthcare partners toward goals of closing care gaps.
“Physicians and hospitals in a value-based environment need a different level of service and professional consultation from the lab and pathology group because they are being incented to detect disease earlier and be active in managing patients with chronic conditions to keep them healthy and out of the hospital,” he added.
Value-based reimbursement may eventually replace fee-for-service contracts. The change, however, is slow and clinical laboratories should monitor for opportunities and potential pitfalls the new payment arrangements might bring.
Labs need to rethink recruitment tactics to successfully hire younger workers
We’ve heard a lot anecdotally about the “Great Resignation”—a labor phenomenon rooted in the pandemic that has led to an abnormally large amount of workers, including lab professionals, quitting their jobs.
The trend has hit healthcare hard, as evidenced by the latest numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. From August 2021 through December 2021, the healthcare and social assistance workforce saw nearly 2.8 million workers quit—an average of 551,000 people each of those months. By comparison, in December 2020, 419,000 healthcare workers left their jobs.
Nearly 2.8 million healthcare and social workers quit their jobs from August through December 2021. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Anxiety from the pandemic is likely a contributing factor to some job departures. However, in clinical labs, other causes also are behind the abundance of open positions, such as early retirements, graduating individuals experiencing more specialized training programs, and a shift in the way the current working generation views employment, said Tara Luellen, Vice President of Laboratory Director Services at consulting and recruiting firm Lighthouse Lab Services.
“The lab industry has been hurt at the greatest extreme from this Great Resignation just in terms of the dire need for lab roles and the small pool of correctly qualified individuals in many instances,” particularly with COVID-19 testing demand, she noted.
Specialized Laboratory Roles Cramp Further Development for New Hires
Luellen explained that the labor shortage problem is exacerbated because fewer new lab technologists and pathologists are entering the field at the same time that many lab professionals are quitting.
Additionally, younger workers that do go into the clinical lab and pathology industry tend to be trained in specialty areas more so now than the broader training programs of the past.
“We don’t have as many individuals who are more broadly trained; instead, they’re very specialized,” she added. “So, it takes them years working at labs that do a variety of things to gain real-life, hands-on experience with other kinds of testing than that included in their specialty program, in many cases.”
“We don’t have as many individuals who are more broadly trained,” said Tara Luelllen.
‘They Want to Experience a Community at Work’
For clinical labs and pathology groups looking to fill open roles, it may be time to take action beyond just beefing up salaries.
Instead, look at what motivates lab professionals to come to an organization, Luellen suggested. She’ll explore the topic of how to successfully recruit new clinical lab leaders in further detail at her session during the 2022 Executive War College on April 27-28 in New Orleans.
One piece of advice she offered is for lab recruiters to carefully articulate to job candidates how an open lab director position or similar role may contribute to either the local or medical community. It’s also important to explain what type of culture an organization offers new employees.
“What we’re seeing is a big shift in what people are looking for,” Luellen said. “The compensation still has to be there, but it’s also a whole community that these people are looking for.
“They’re looking for more than just a 9 to 5, punch the clock, and go home gig,” she continued. “They want the job to enrich their lives. They want to experience a community at work. It’s a different paradigm in how they look at what work means for them.”
Due to the national health system’s aggressive cost-cutting measures over the past 20 years, some regions of the island country now have only limited local medical laboratory services
It was in the early 2000s when different district health boards throughout New Zealand decided on a strategy of issuing sole source, multi-year medical laboratory testing contracts in their regions to cut lab test testing costs. Consequently, pathology laboratories that lost their bidding were forced to cease operations or merge with the winning bidders. At the time, New Zealand pathologists and laboratory scientists feared the government health system was undermining the financial stability of pathology laboratories and leaving portions of the country with limited testing capacity.
Now, arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant on the remote island nation may be creating a day of reckoning for that decision. In particular, “holiday hotspots” in New Zealand may be filling up with seasonal travelers at the exact moment a surge in COVID-19 testing is needed.
Holiday Destinations Lack Pathology Lab Capacity
Medical laboratory scientist Terry Taylor, president of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Science (NZIMLS), fears some small-town tourist destinations do not have the local-based medical laboratory testing capacity to process a surge in PCR tests and will need to ship samples elsewhere, delaying the speed at which COVID-19 test results can be delivered in communities that attract thousands of vacationers during New Zealand’s summer from December to February.
“In these areas, those swabs that are taken will end up being sent to the mothership so to speak, so one of the larger laboratories that’s nearby those regions,” he told Checkpoint. “So, there will be delays when this starts to kick on.”
Taylor also pointed out that shifting lab work to larger medical centers creates capacity concerns within those facilities as well.
“I will reiterate, all of the big hospitals will obviously still be operating 24-hour services doing the acute work that’s coming through,” he said. “But be aware, we do everything. We don’t just do COVID testing, so sometimes things are just going to have to wait in those periods.”
“We’ve certainly got to get together now and come up with a plan that works so that we do not inundate our laboratories and therefore the other health services,” medical laboratory scientist Terry Taylor (above), president of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Science, told Newshub. “It is really not an option to test everyone. We need to be looking at who we test, how we test and when we test,” he added. (Photo copyright: Newshub.)
In a statement to Checkpoint, the New Zealand Ministry of Health maintained COVID-19 testing remained a priority for the government over the Christmas and New Year period.
“The ministry works closely with DHBs (District Health Boards) and laboratories to manage demands for testing, and to reiterate the importance of processing and returning tests as quickly as possible,” the statement said. “It should be noted that samples of close contacts of cases and high-risk individual are prioritized by laboratories.”
Dark Daily Correctly Predicted Pathology Lab Losses
In 2009, Dark Daily reported on New Zealand’s use of contract bidding for pathology lab testing services in Wellington and Auckland in an effort to drive down costs. The winning labs agreed to roughly a 20% decrease in reimbursement rates.
At that time, Editor Robert L. Michel predicted the loss of established pathology providers and insufficient reimbursement rates could lead to scaled down testing menus, loss of skilled staff and a negative impact on patient care. He noted then, “New Zealand may become the first developed country in the world to learn what happens to the entire healthcare system when deep budget cuts finally leave medical laboratories with insufficient reimbursement.
“Such a situation,” Michel continued, “would likely mean that laboratory test providers in New Zealand would lack the funding and resources to offer physicians and patients a full menu of state-of-the-art diagnostics tests. It could also mean that medical laboratories would lack adequate resources and skilled staff to sustain the quality of test results at a world-class level of quality, accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility. In either case, the quality of patient care would be negatively affected.”
Fast forward to 2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues some New Zealand leaders fear the opening of Auckland’s border to summer travelers will lead to community spread of the coronavirus at a time when budget cuts have left these same regions with local pathology testing capacity that is insufficient to meet the needs of the surrounding community.
In fact, New Zealand’s first case of community exposure to the Omicron variant was reported in Auckland on December 29, 2021, a Ministry of Health news release noted.
“You’re going to see the virus seeded everywhere,” epidemiologist Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, told The Guardian in mid-November.
Critical Supply Shortages as Pathology Testing ‘Crunch Point’ Reached
In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, New Zealand’s clinical laboratory system nearly reached a breaking point as a shortage of COVID-19 tests left the system teetering on the edge of collapse.
According to Joshua Freeman, MD, Clinical Director of Microbiology and Virology at the Canterbury DHB, the “crunch point” arrived around March 20, 2020, when New Zealanders were being urged to get tested so the country could determine if there was community transmission of the virus, online news site Stuff reported.
Meanwhile, testing supplies such as reagents, plastic tubes, and pipette tips were in short supply globally and 13 regional labs were yet to be set up across the country. Even once the new laboratories, district health board testing centers, and mobile clinics were up and running, procuring needed supplies remained challenging, according to COVID-19 testing data from the Ministry of Health.
America also Struggled with COVID-19 Supply Shortages
While New Zealand’s mostly publicly funded universal healthcare system has been stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, America’s private system has not fared much better. In the early months of the pandemic, personal protective equipment, COVID-19 tests, and testing materials also were in short supply in this country.
CBS News reported that the US was continuing to struggle with limited supplies of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests and long turnaround times for clinical laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests as families gathered for the recent holiday season.
Thus, clinical laboratory leaders and laboratory scientists in this country should watch with keen interest at how New Zealand’s pathology laboratories fare as the Omicron variant further challenges the country’s testing capacity.
