Since the pandemic began, federal investigators are specifically looking for patterns of fraud in Medicare claims data for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing
Last month, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced it had been investigating trends in Medicare claims data that could indicate patterns of fraud in the billing for COVID-19 clinical laboratory tests, Modern Healthcare reported.
Stretching back to at least March, fraudulent actors offering fake SARS-CoV-2 tests have preyed on vulnerable Americans in a wide variety of ways during the public health emergency, according to published reports. Some scam operators have gone into nursing homes and long-term care facilities to collect cash from unsuspecting elders in exchange for swab collections and phony testing, the New York Times reported.
Since the declaration of the public health emergency in the US, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) no longer requires a lab test requisition signed by a treating physician or other provider for COVID-19 testing. “The strong demand for and limited supply of SARS-CoV-2 tests, along with the move by CMS to relax rules for certain test orders during the pandemic, makes the situation a potentially ripe one for fraud,” Modern Healthcare stated.
Plus, a lack of clarity about the medical necessity of COVID-19 tests could raise the liability risk for law-abiding clinical laboratories. All of these factors make COVID-19 testing fraud a potential bombshell for clinical laboratories conducting coronavirus testing that may get caught up in federal investigations.
Feds Step Up Enforcement
Shortly after the pandemic arrived in the US, the FBI, the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the FDA, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other federal and local authorities have frequently warned doctors, hospitals, and healthcare consumers about the potential for fraud by unscrupulous companies purporting to offer legitimate clinical laboratory testing for COVID-19. A June 26 FBI press release stated, “Scammers are marketing fraudulent and/or unapproved COVID-19 antibody tests, potentially providing false results.”
Some of the fraudsters behind these scams have operated online and through social media and email. While others have conducted these scams in person or over the phone, noted the press release.
And yet, despite the warnings, the scams and news articles about them have continued to spread throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Various Forms of Fraud and Their Consequences
In many of these scams, fraudsters seek to collect consumers’ personal information, including names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers, as well as other forms of personal health information, such as Medicare or private health insurance data, the FBI reported. Scammers can use that information in medical insurance fraud schemes or to commit identity theft, the agency added.
Additionally, any fake or inaccurate COVID-19 tests or assays that the FDA has not allowed for use could provide doctors with false results, potentially creating a dangerous situation for patients.
The New York Times (NYT) recently reported that the FBI had issued a warning “about scammers who advertise fraudulent COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to obtain personal information that can be used for identity theft or medical insurance fraud.”
Three days after the FBI issued its warning about the COVID-19 antibody testing scam, the BBB added an alert to its website: “BBB Scam Alert: Want a COVID-19 test? There’s a scam for that.” BBB also provided advice to consumers about how to avoid testing scams.
On June 17, the FDA reported that it issued warning letters to three companies for marketing adulterated and misbranded COVID-19 antibody tests, stated an FDA news release. The agency sent warning letters to:
In the FDA’s announcement, Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said “When tests are marketed inappropriately, with inaccurate or misleading claims—such as the ability to perform the test completely at home, or that the test is authorized, cleared, or approved when it is not—they put the health of Americans at risk. Such conduct will not be tolerated by the FDA, and we will continue to monitor tests marketed in the US, taking appropriate action as warranted.” (Photo copyright: The Food and Drug Administration.)
Scams Reported Just in April
On April 17, the New York Times reported that a special agent with the HHS OIG noted that impostors seeking Medicare or Medicaid information posed as doctors or laboratory technicians to offer fake tests in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
Earlier in April, The Texas Tribune reported that the owner of a freestanding emergency room in Laredo, Texas, spent $500,000 to buy 20,000 rapid COVID-19 tests for patients suspected of having COVID-19. Health officials in Laredo planned to establish a drive-through testing site and then administer tests that came from a manufacturer in China to detect active infections. After trying to validate the tests, city health officials found they were unreliable and unusable.
An April 9 report from the news department of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) stated that federal officials have found fake coronavirus testing sites in many states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, and Washington state.
The FBI, according to AARP, investigated several fake test sites in Louisville, Ky., after a city official reported that people in personal protective equipment (PPE) were collecting biological specimens from residents. Those seeking tests were told to pay $240 in cash or give their Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security cards to verify their identity.
Fake drive-up testing sites were reported at gas stations and other locations in Louisville over a four-day period, the AARP reported.
On April 2, WRGB TV in Albany, N.Y., reported that scammers pretending to be from the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) were taking money and insurance information from people in exchange for fake coronavirus tests. One woman told police she got a fake test at a drive-up site in a Little League parking lot.
North Greenbush police said the scammers identified themselves as being with NYSDOH and collected money and insurance information from multiple people. Police and state officials said the DOH had no connection to the collection site in the parking lot.
Lessons for Lab Directors
For clinical laboratory directors and all clinical lab scientists, the lesson from these stories is to be wary of strangers offering COVID-19 testing, while also making certain to post information for customers about the legitimacy of your lab’s COVID-19 rapid molecular and serological tests. Doing so might involve providing proof that the FDA has allowed your tests to be used for the coronavirus.
Also, medical laboratories should ensure that all employees collecting specimens in public places display proper identification.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should consider this another example of how CMS is taking forward steps to encourage value-based payment arrangements throughout the health system
With the sky-high cost of many prescription drugs and gene therapies, it was only a matter of time before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would seek to link reimbursement for them to patient outcomes.
A recent CMS proposed rule (CMS-2842-P) concerning value-based purchasing (VBP) for prescription drugs covered by Medicaid encourages payers to engage in Medicaid state value-based purchasing (aka, pay-for-performance) arrangements for expensive prescription drugs. This rule may have implications for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups if it were extended to cover companion diagnostics linked to expensive therapeutic drugs and gene therapies.
CMS also intents the proposed rule to help drug manufacturers ease roadblocks to contracting with payers—including Medicaid—a CMS fact sheet explained.
Federal officials are looking to reimburse healthcare providers for prescribing drugs that are shown to work best on patients that truly need them, while also incentivizing pharmaceutical manufacturers to created drugs “of high patient value,” stated Laffer Healthcare Intelligence, a Nashville, Tenn. healthcare investment firm, in an email to its intelligence service subscribers.
In a press release announcing the proposed rule, Seema Verma, CMS Administrator, said “We are creating opportunities for drug manufacturers to have skin in the game through payment arrangements that challenge them to put their money where their mouth is.”
Old Regulations Don’t Address Value, Expensive Gene Therapies
According to CMS, for 30 years federal regulations have favored the “volume of drugs” sold over the “quality of drugs.” Simultaneously, during the past three years the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four gene therapies with many more “in the development pipeline,” Verma wrote in the journal Health Affairs. “While the lifesaving impact of these often-curative therapies are profound, their costs are unprecedented,” she stated.
CMS’ new rule proposes to define value-based purchasing as “an arrangement or agreement intended to align pricing and/or payments to evidence-based measures and outcomes-based measures,” Verma added.
Companion Diagnostic: Molecular and Genetic Testing
For clinical laboratories, the case CMS makes for therapeutic drugs could be applied to expensive molecular diagnostics and genetic testing. CMS may base reimbursement on how accurately and how fast a lab test can enable a diagnosis. Also, payment could be linked to a lab’s report and guidance to the ordering provider in selecting a therapy that makes a difference in the patient’s outcome.
“This is exactly the concept of the companion diagnostic,” said Robert Michel, editor-in-chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report. “Take, for example, a $5,000 genetic cancer test that that stages a $500,000 cancer prescription drug. Patients who will not benefit from the drug will not get it. And the $5,000 lab test may keep, say, 10 people from getting a drug that wouldn’t work for them. Thus, the $50,000 in lab tests could save $5 million in prescription drug costs,” he explained.
For its part, Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland-based creator of Zolgensma, said the proposed CMS changes are “an important first step,” and helpful to the company’s “access strategy” in the US, BioPharma Dive reported.
Healthcare experts envision that deals struck under the new proposed CMS rule will focus on gene therapies and expensive drugs, MedPage Today reported.
“Measuring outcomes is costly; it takes time, and everyone has to come up with a way to do it. So, if a drug costs $50, it’s not worth going to every single patient (in research). If the drug costs $500,000, maybe it’s worth it … figuring out if the drug worked. That’s why people talk about it in the context of gene therapies,” Alexander Dworkowitz (above), Partner, Manatt Health, New York, told MedPage Today. (Photo copyright: Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP.)
According to the Laffer Healthcare Intelligence analysis email, CMS’ 137-page proposed rule is “very broad,” but focuses on three themes:
“First, CMS wants to establish an official definition for VBP models to accelerate development of drug pay-per-value programs.
“Second, CMS want to restrict the amount of opioids doctors can prescribe.
“Third, very subtle changes are proposed that negatively affect the PBM (pharmacy benefit management) industry.”
CMS’ proposal also includes standards aimed at fighting opioid prescription fraud and misuse in Medicaid drug programs, noted Fierce Healthcare.
Transparent Drug Prices
Medical laboratory leaders may want to monitor the progress of this proposed rule. In addition to value-based payment, the rule advances price transparency by clearing the way to sharing prices of therapeutic drugs and how they improve patient care, while also lowering costs.
Meanwhile, a refresh of lab information technology to enable authorization of genetic and molecular tests by payer also may prove worthwhile.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
Researchers found evidence indicating that the virus has—under selection pressure—made itself more stable, giving it a “significant boost in infectivity”
While the COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread across the United States and throughout the world, new research suggests that a coming genetic mutation within the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus may make it much more dangerous than it already is. This finding has significant implications for clinical laboratories that perform COVID-19 testing and the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) companies that develop and manufacture tests for COVID-19.
The mutation, called D614G, will provide the coronavirus with sturdier spikes that will increase its ability to latch onto and infect cells. That’s according to a study conducted at The Scripps Research Institute (Scripps) in Jupiter, Fla., which found that a mutated coronavirus may be up to 10 times more infectious than the original strain.
“Viruses with this mutation were much more infectious than those without the mutation in the cell culture system we used,” said Hyeryun Choe, PhD, Professor, Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Scripps Research, and senior author of the study, in a Scripps news release.
A More Flexible and Potent Coronavirus May Be Coming
The researchers found that coronavirus particles containing the mutation tend to have four to five times more functional spikes than particles without the mutation. The spikes enable the virus to bind to cells more easily. The research suggests that the greater the number of functional spikes on the viral surface the greater the flexibility and potency of the coronavirus.
In the Scripps news release, Farzan said, “more flexible spikes allow newly made viral particles to navigate the journey from producer cell to target cell fully intact, with less tendency to fall apart prematurely.
“Over time, it has figured out how to hold on better and not fall apart until it needs to,” he added. “The virus has, under selection pressure, made itself more stable.”
The image above, taken from the Scripps Research news release, shows “a cryogenic electron microscope image of a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein side view, the S1 section of the spike is shown in green and the S2 portion is shown in purple. This unique two-piece system has shown itself to be relatively unstable. A new mutation has appeared in the viral variant most common in New York and Italy that makes this spike both more stable and better able to infect cells.” (Graphic and caption copyright: Andrew Ward lab, Scripps Research.)
Mutation Makes SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus ‘Much More Stable’
The two Scripps scientists have studied coronaviruses for nearly 20 years and performed extensive research on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak that occurred in 2003. They noted that there is a difference between spike proteins of SARS, an earlier strain of coronavirus, and the new SARS-CoV-2 strain.
The protein spikes of both strains were originally tripod shaped. However, the spikes of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus are divided into two different segments: S1 and S2. According to the published study: “The S1domain mediates receptor binding, and the S2 mediates downstream membrane fusion.”
This feature originally produced unstable spikes, but with the D614G mutation, the tripod breaks less frequently, which makes more of the spikes fully functional and the virus more infectious.
“Our data are very clear, the virus becomes much more stable with the mutation,” Choe said in the news release.
Is COVID-19 Spread Due to ‘Founder Effect’
The scientists also examined whether the spread of COVID-19 could have been the result of the “Founder Effect,” which is seen when a small number of variants fan out into a wide population by chance. Could the founder effect explain why COVID-19 outbreaks in some areas of the world were more severe than others? The researchers believe their data definitively answered that question.
“There have been at least a dozen scientific papers talking about the predominance of this mutation,” Farzan said. “Are we just seeing a founder effect? Our data nails it. It is not the founder effect.”
Hyeryun Choe, PhD (left), and Michael Farzan, PhD (right), scientists at Scripps Research explained that their research was performed using engineered viruses and that their observations of the virus and its mutation may not translate to increased transmissibility when a virus attaches to a host outside the lab. COVID-19 and its mutation appear to be relatively stable and are mutating at a rate slower than that of the seasonal flu, which may be critical factors in the development of a vaccine. (Photos copyright: Scripps Research.)
Findings Raise ‘Interesting’ Questions about the COVID-19 Coronavirus
Nevertheless, the two scientists are curious about some of their findings. “Our data raise interesting questions about the natural history of SARS-CoV-2 as it moved presumably from horseshoe bats to humans. At some point in this process, the virus acquired a furin-cleavage site, allowing its S1/S2 boundary to be cleaved in virus-producing cells. In contrast, the S1/S2 boundary of SARS-CoV-1, and indeed all SARS-like viruses isolated from bats, lack this polybasic site and are cleaved by TMPRSS2 or endosomalcathepsins in the target cells.
“In summary, we show that an S protein mutation that results in more transmissible SARS-CoV-2 also limits shedding of the S1 domain and increases S-protein incorporation into the virion. Further studies will be necessary to determine the impact of this change on the nature and severity of COVID-19,” the Scripps researchers concluded.
However, not all Scripps researchers agreed with the conclusions of Choe and Farzan’s research.
The Times of Israel reported that Kristian Andersen, PhD, a professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology, Scripps California Campus, told the New York Times that “other analyses of virus variants in labs had not found significant differences in infection rates.”
“That’s the main reason that I’m so hesitant at the moment,” Andersen said. “Because if one really was able to spread significantly better than the other, then we would expect to see a difference here, and we don’t.”
Times of Israel also reported that “In late May researchers in University College London said their studies of the genomes of more than 15,000 samples had not shown one strain being more infectious than others.”
So, the jury’s out. Nonetheless, clinical laboratory leaders will want to remain vigilant. A sudden increase in COVID-19 infection rates will put severe strain on already strained laboratory supply chains.
As digital healthcare continues to gain acceptance and regulatory support, clinical laboratories will need to help patients provide biological samples for virtual doctor visits
Patterns are emerging in healthcare that will likely impact clinical laboratories now and into the future. Trends in telehealth and mobile health (mHealth) that were just beginning to develop before the COVID-19 pandemic have accelerated with the outbreak, and many are predicted to remain once the pandemic is over, reported Healthcare Business and Technology.
Now comes virtual waiting rooms to go along with virtual doctor’s visits. One example is Banner Health of Phoenix, Arizona. The non-profit has more than 50,000 employees in Ariz. and is the state’s largest employer. It operates 28 hospitals and multiple specialty clinics in six states, making it one of the largest health systems in the US as well.
Banner Health is working with LifeLink to deploy virtual waiting rooms in all of its 300 clinics.
What is a Virtual Waiting Room?
The Banner Health System includes 1,500 physicians who work in 300 clinics. More than one million patients in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming are part of the system.
In the not too distant past, when patients visited Banner Health providers and received doctor’s orders for diagnostic tests, they then went to clinical laboratories or the lab’s patient service centers to provide a biological specimen for testing.
Now, because of COVID-19, patients at Banner Health clinics access virtual waiting rooms through a mobile device or computer. They check in virtually for video visits and may not visit a doctor’s office or medical facility at all. Instead, they engage their healthcare provider through a telehealth connection.
The introduction of the virtual waiting rooms is Banner Health’s response to the need for social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The virtual waiting rooms employ LifeLink chatbots, which interact with patients in a conversational way, and are available for both telehealth and in-person appointments. The chatbots can:
provide appointment reminders,
guide patients through completing necessary paperwork,
provide instructions on using telehealth technology,
check patients in for appointments, and
direct patients to an exam room for in-person doctor visits.
Banner Health used similar technology for patients visiting their emergency departments.
“The traditional patient experience of walking into an office, filling out paper forms, reading instructions and then waiting for an exam room had to change. LifeLink chatbots have already helped hundreds of thousands of Banner patients navigate emergency room visits, so the concept of digitizing regular doctor appointment visits with a mobile, virtual waiting room chatbot assistant was a natural extension of the technology,” said Jeff Johnson, JD, Vice President of Innovation and Digital Business at Banner Health, in a press release. (Photo copyright: Healthcare IT News.)
Both Patients and Healthcare Providers Need to Adapt
“The COVID-19 pandemic requires an entirely different level of thinking when it comes to providing routine patient services,” said Greg Johnsen, CEO at LifeLink, in the Banner Health press release. “Like the changes we are seeing in retail, healthcare providers need to adapt, and the waiting room experience is one area that will need to change. We take great pride in knowing that LifeLink chatbots are providing peace of mind and convenience for patients that need to see their doctors.”
A significant innovation is that patients can easily engage with the chatbots through a “one-click authentication process and then interact through a standard web browser,” rather than requiring them to download and install a mobile device app, Healthcare IT News reported.
“One of the key benefits of this chatbot technology is the ease of use,” said Banner Health’s Jeff Johnson in the press release. “Interactions that use natural language eliminate the need for user training, and there are no apps or passwords required so it’s simple for patients to interact with us securely, on any device. We have seen high engagement rates as a result.”
One thing seems certain, as COVID-19 causes increased anxiety over social distancing, it is likely that virtual healthcare, telehealth, and digital pathology will continue to be developed in the medical industry.
This has implications for clinical laboratories, because if patients are being scheduled virtually, it is just a small additional step to have the doctor see them virtually via telehealth. In such circumstances, medical laboratories will need to have a way for the patient to provide a specimen for lab testing.
Genomics experts say this is a sign that clinical laboratory genetics testing is maturing into a powerful tool for population health
Faced with lagging sales and employee layoffs, genomics companies in the genealogy DNA testing market are shifting their focus to the healthcare aspects of the consumer genomics data they’ve compiled and aggregated.
Recent analysis of the sales of genetic tests from Ancestry and 23andMe show the market is definitely cooling, and the analysts speculate that—independent of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on consumer behavior—the two clinical laboratory genetic testing companies may already have done testing for the majority of consumers who want to buy these tests.
“I think the consumer market is going to become more integrated into the healthcare experience,” Joe Grzymski, PhD, told GenomeWeb. “Whether that occurs through your primary care doctor, your large integrated health network, or your payor, I think there will be profound changes in society’s tolerance for using genetics for prevention.”
In February, Ancestry, the largest company in the home DNA testing space, announced it was laying off 6% of its workforce or approximately 100 people, across different departments due to a decline in sales, CNBC reported. Several weeks earlier, 23andMe, the second largest company in this market, also announced it was laying off about 100 people or 14% of its workforce due to declining sales.
“I wasn’t surprised by the news,” said Linda Avey, a 23andMe co-founder who is now co-founder and Chief Executive Officer at Precisely Inc., a genomics company headquartered in San Francisco. She was commenting to GenomeWeb on the recent restructuring at her former company. “The level of expensive advertising has been insane here in the US. Those [customer acquisition costs] are not a sustainable model.”
CNBC surmised that the lull in at-home genetic testing is due mainly to:
A drought of early adopters. Individuals who were interested in the testing for genealogical and health reasons, and who believed in the value of the tests, have already purchased the product.
Privacy concerns. Some potential customers may have reservations about having their DNA information collected and stored in a database due to concerns about how that data is safeguarded and its potential uses by outside companies, law enforcement, and governments.
COVID-19 May or May Not Be a Factor in Declining DNA Testing Sales
The COVID-19 pandemic may be playing a role in the decline in sales of at-home DNA testing kits. However, there are indications that the market was cooling before the virus occurred.
An article in MIT Technology Review reported that 26 million people had purchased at-home DNA testing kits by the beginning of 2019. The article also estimated that if the market continued at that pace, 100 million people were expected to purchase the tests by the end of 2020.
However, data released by research firm Second Measure, a company that analyzes credit and debit card purchases, may show a different story, reported Vox. The data showed a general decline in test kit sales in 2019. Ancestry’s sales were down 38% and 23andMe’s sales were down 54% in November 2019 compared to November 2018. The downward trend continued in December with Ancestry sales declining 15% and 23andMe sales declining 48% when compared to December 2018.
Second Measure, however, compiled data from the two companies’ websites only. They did not include testing kits that may have been purchased through other sources such as Amazon, or at brick and mortar locations.
Nevertheless, the measures being taken by genomics companies to shore up their market indicates the Second Measure data is accurate or very close.
Rise of Population-level Genomics
This decline in genealogical sales seems to be behind DNA-testing companies shifting focus to the healthcare aspects of consumer genomics. Companies like 23andMe and Ancestry are looking into developing health reports based on their customers’ data that can ascertain an individual’s risk for certain health conditions, or how they may react to prescription medications.
“We are seeing the next wave of maturity of the genetics market,” Othman Laraki, co-founder and CEO of Color Genomics, told CNBC. “If expensive diagnostic testing was genomics’ equivalent of mainframe computers, direct to consumer ancestry genetics was the hobbyist use. While the early adopter wave is petering out, we are seeing the real market (the equivalent of a PC in every home and a phone in every pocket), which is population-level use of genetics, taking hold.” (Photo copyright: San Francisco Business Times.)
For some genomics companies like 23andMe, the at-home DNA testing market was never specifically about selling testing kits. Rather, these companies envisioned a market where consumers would pay to have their DNA analyzed to obtain data on their ancestry and health, and in turn the testing companies would sell the aggregated consumer data to other organizations, such as pharmaceutical companies.
“Remember that 23andMe was never in the consumer genomics business, they were in the data aggregation business,” Spencer Wells, PhD, founder and Executive Director of the Insitome Institute, a US-based 501(c)3 nonprofit think tank focused on key areas in the field of personal genomics, told GenomeWeb. “They created a database that should in principle allow them to do what they promised, which is to improve people’s health through genomic testing.”
Even with clinical laboratory testing currently focused on COVID-19 testing, there remains an opportunity to sequence large numbers of people through at-home DNA testing and then incorporate those findings into the practice of medicine. The hope is that sales will again accelerate once consumers feel there is a compelling need for the tests.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to watch to see if the companies that grew big by selling ancestry and genealogy tests to consumers will start to send sales reps into physicians’ offices to offer genetic tests that would be useful in diagnosing and treating patients.
