Price shopping for clinical laboratories and other healthcare services and surgical procedures creates a ‘healthy competitive environment,’ an Optum executive noted
One example, SmartShopper by Vitals (now known as Sapphire Digital) of Lyndhurst, N.J., is a pre-paid employer- or health plan-based program that lets people use mobile phone apps and go online using their computers to check prices and quality ratings for healthcare service providers in their area. The program may also incentivize members to prices shop by offering up to $500 per service for choosing lower-cost providers.
“Today, there is no reason consumers shouldn’t know the price of routine, non-emergency care,” said Heyward Donigan, former President and CEO of Vitals who is now CEO of Rite Aid (NYSE:RAD), in a news release. “Putting consumers in the driver’s seat for making informed healthcare decisions will create a competitive healthcare marketplace that ultimately lowers costs for everyone.”
Does Price Shopping Create a ‘Healthy Competitive Environment’?
Individuals whose health plans or employers have signed up
for SmartShopper can use it to seek out the best prices for routine exams,
preventative exams, imaging scans, and to schedule surgeries. The program’s
provider data is compared by cost and quality based on nationally recognized
metrics and patient reviews.
Some of the largest health insurers in the country, such as Anthem and Highmark, provide price
shopping tools to their clients.
“Up to 7% of overall healthcare spent could be reduced through price transparency tools like SmartShopper,” Becca Lococo, PhD, Vice President, Customer Experience at Optum, told Modern Healthcare. This can create a really healthy competitive environment in an industry where costs are already rising.”
Employers Save Big with Price Shopping
Large companies can reap substantial savings when they
provide their employees with price shopping tools. Employer savings can range
from $1,810 for a round of physical therapy to $80 for a mammogram. Patients,
on average, save $606 for each procedure with SmartShopper, reported Modern
Healthcare.
“Even just one person shopping can make a difference for
that employer in terms of the claims they’d be paying out at the end,” Steve Crist, Vice
President, Commercial Health Plan, Blue
Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, told Modern Healthcare. “Even
though the employer is paying the incentive, the cost savings more than make up
for it. The ROI on this program is very strong.”
The Vitals SmartShopper Book of Business Report 2017 notes that, between 2014 and 2017, the tool saved employers $40 million and paid out $4.6 million in cash rewards to individual consumers. In 2016 alone, SmartShopper saved employers $15 million and paid out $1.8 million in cash incentives with the average incentive check totaling $85.
The Vitals report also listed the top 10 procedures and the
three-year total cost savings for employers that used SmartShopper. The list
includes clinical laboratory testing as the fifth largest source of savings for
employers that used price-transparency tools as part of their health benefits
programs:
SmartShopper has a configurable list of more than 200
medical procedures and services included in the tool. Sapphire Digital
(formerly Vitals) uses claims data and collaborates with clients to develop the
ideal combination of services to maximize savings for their customers.
“We don’t have to boil the ocean to produce a sizeable reduction in healthcare costs for our employer clients,” said Heyward Donigan, former President and CEO of Vitals and now CEO of Rite-Aid, in the Vitals report. “Focusing on routine, shoppable procedures that are relevant to the demographics of a client’s workforce generates significant savings.” (Photo copyright: Wall Street Journal.)
Price Shopping for Surgery
In 2018, before changing its name to Sapphire Digital, Vitals sold its consumer services division to WebMD. The sale enabled Vitals to focus on enhancing and developing its price transparency tools. The company then launched Medical Expertise Guide (MEG), which uses advanced analytics to create “proprietary Composite Quality Scores for surgeons and facilities to help consumers find the best surgeon and facility combination for their surgery, at a predictable cost,” according to Sapphire Digital’s website.
“MEG brings consumers information, powered by data and
analytics and supported by personalized service, to help them make quality
healthcare decisions with confidence,” said Donigan, in a news
release. “MEG guides employees to the best care, while helping employers
manage the overall cost-effectiveness of their healthcare program.”
Examples presented in the news release of the “savings per case”
for people using MEG include:
In October 2016, Dark Daily reported on another example of using healthcare transparency tools from Castlight Health. That tool enables Safeway employees to check clinical laboratory prices on their smartphones or computers before selecting where to have tests performed. At that time, Safeway and its employees were able to reduce spending on clinical laboratory tests by 32% in only 24 months by selecting the labs with the lowest prices.
The examples presented above are evidence that price
transparency is gaining a foothold in healthcare. These are early
demonstrations that price shopping tools do help consumers make more informed
decisions when choosing hospitals, physicians, or clinical laboratories. The
trend is for ever-growing numbers of consumers to rely on pricing transparency
tools when selecting their medical care.
Pathologists and clinical laboratories should not ignore
this trend, as it could affect business workflow and revenue streams.
‘Aerosol and Surface Stability’ study shows that the virus can remain infectious in aerosol form for hours and on surfaces for days
By now, clinical laboratory workers, microbiologists, and phlebotomists should be fully aware of the potential for transmission on surfaces of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that the coronavirus “was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the Diamond Princess, but before disinfection procedures had been conducted,” the New York Post reported. That means the virus can survive on surfaces significantly longer than CDC previously believed.
But did you know a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found that SARS-CoV-2 can also survive in the air for many hours, potentially allowing aerosolized transmission of the virus as well?
The NEJM study also showed that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 to survive on surfaces and in aerosolized form mirrors the stability of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) that caused the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003.
This is critically important information for clinical laboratory professionals in open-space laboratories, phlebotomists collecting medical laboratory specimens, and frontline healthcare workers who come in direct contact with potentially infected patients. They should be aware of every potential COVID-19 transmission pathway.
Hospital infection control teams will be particularly
interested in the possibility of airborne transmission, as they often visit
infected patients and are tasked with tracking both the source of the infection
as well as individuals who may be exposed to sick patients.
The NEJM study, titled “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” was conducted by scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Princeton University, and University of California, Los Angeles. The researchers concluded that SARS-CoV-2 remains in the air “up to three hours post aerosolization.”
FREE Webinar | What Hospital and Health System Labs Need to Know About Operational Support and Logistics During the COVID-19 Outbreak Wednesday, April 1, 2020 @ 1PM EDT — Register now
They also found the virus was detectable for up to four
hours on copper and up to 24 hours on cardboard. The scientists concluded SARS-CoV-2
can remain on plastic and stainless-steel surfaces for two to three days,
though the amount of the virus on surfaces decreases over time.
“Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days,” the study states. “These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.”
But Can COVID-19 Be Caught Through Air?
However, as noted in Wired, the researchers did not clearly state that infected persons can spread COVID-19 to others in the same airspace. Some experts have pointed out that there is a difference between a virus that can exist as an aerosol—defined as a liquid or solid suspended in gas under only limited conditions—and the measles virus, for example, which the CDC estimates “can live for up two hours in an airspace where the infected person has coughed or sneezed.”
“While the researchers tested how long the virus can survive
in aerosols suspended in the air, they didn’t actually sample the air around
infected people,” Wired noted. “Instead, they put the virus into a
nebulizer and puffed it into a rotating drum to keep it airborne. Then, they
tested how long the virus could survive in the air inside the drum.”
Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, a research fellow at National Institutes of Health (NIH) and researcher at the NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, who coauthored the NEJM study, cautioned against an overreaction to this latest research. On Twitter she wrote, “Important: we experimentally generated [COVID-19] aerosols and kept them afloat in a drum. This is not evidence of aerosol transmission.”
Nonetheless, the World House Organization (WHO) took note of the study’s findings and on March 16, 2020, announced it was considering “airborne precautions” for healthcare workers, CNBC reported in its coverage of a virtual press conference on March 16, 2020, led by Maria Van Kerkhove, MS, PhD, Technical Lead for WHO’s Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Task Force.
Van Kerkhove emphasized that health officials were
monitoring results from other studies investigating how environmental
conditions such as humidity, temperature, and ultraviolet light affect
the disease and its ability to live on different surfaces.
“When you do an aerosol-generating procedure like in a medical care facility, you have the possibility to what we call aerosolize these particles, which means they can stay in the air a little bit longer,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, MS, PhD (above), Technical Lead for WHO’s Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Task Force during a virtual press conference, CNBC reported. “It’s very important that healthcare workers take additional precautions when they’re working on patients and doing these procedures,” she added. [Photo copyright: World Health Organization/YouTube.)
To Be or Not to Be an Airborne Pathogen
Stanley Perlman, MD, PhD, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Iowa, believes aerosol transmission ultimately will be found not to play a large role in COVID-19 transmission.
“I think the answer will be, aerosolization occurs rarely, but not never,” Perlman told STAT. “You have to distinguish between what’s possible and what’s actually happening.”
In an NEJM editorial, Perlman expanded on those thoughts. “Although specific anti-coronaviral therapies are still in development, we now know much more about how to control such infections in the community and hospitals, which should alleviate some of this fear,” he wrote. “Transmission of [SARS-CoV-2] probably occurs by means of large droplets and contact and less so by means of aerosols and fomites, on the basis of our experience with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Public health measures, including quarantining in the community as well as timely diagnosis and strict adherence to universal precautions in healthcare settings, were critical in controlling SARS and MERS. Institution of similar measures will be important and, it is hoped, successful in reducing the transmission of [SARS-CoV-2].”
An NIH news release announcing the SARS-CoV-2 stability study highlighted two additional observations:
“If the viability of the two coronaviruses is
similar, why is SARS-CoV-2 resulting in more cases? Emerging evidence suggest
that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 might be spreading virus without
recognizing, or prior to recognizing, symptoms. That would make disease control
measures that were effective against SARS-CoV-1 less effective against its
successor.
In contrast to SARS-CoV-1, most secondary cases
of virus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appear to be occurring in community
settings rather than healthcare settings. However, healthcare settings are also
vulnerable to the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the stability of
SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols and on surfaces likely contributes to transmission of
the virus in healthcare settings.”
Clearly, the scientific community has not agreed on
aerosolization as a definite source of infection. Nevertheless, clinical
laboratory workers in settings where potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 exists
should take precautions against airborne transmission until scientists can
definitively determine whether this latest coronavirus can be acquired through
the airborne transmission.
By taking early measures to combat the spread, the country had a medical laboratory test for COVID-19 available as early as Jan. 24, and was able to focus medical laboratory testing on the most at-risk individuals
With the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak dominating headlines and medical laboratories under growing pressure to increase testing capacity, Taiwan’s rapid response to the pandemic could provide a critical model for other countries to follow.
Given its proximity to mainland China—just 81 miles—and the large number of individuals who frequently travel back and forth between the countries, Taiwan was at risk of having the second-highest number of imported COVID-19 cases, according to a model developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of New South Wales Sydney. News reports indicate that, each year, about 60,000 flights carry 10 million passengers between Taiwan and China.
Data from Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) indicate that the country has managed to contain the outbreak thanks to these aggressive actions.
As of March 19, Taiwan’s CECC reported a total of 108 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections. That compares with 81,155 in China, 41,035 in Italy, and 10,755 in the US, according to data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. When the World Health Organization (WHO) reports on the number of COVID-19 cases by country, it includes the number of COVID-19 cases from Taiwan under the totals for the People’s Republic of China. WHO made this decision several years ago, under pressure by China to not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
The World
Population Review website says Taiwan’s population is about 23.8 million.
But its infection rate is low even on a per capita basis: Approximately 45
infections per million population, compared with 6,784 in Italy, 564 in China,
and 326 per million in the US.
The JAMA authors noted that Taiwan was prepared for
an outbreak after its experience with the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003, which also originated
in China.
Timeline of COVID-19 Outbreak at the Earliest Stages
Taiwan apparently learned a lesson about preparedness from
the SARS outbreak the rest of the world did not and that enabled the tiny
nation to respond immediately to the novel Coronavirus threat.
The country’s efforts began on Dec. 31 with inspections of
flight arrivals from Wuhan. “When there were only a very few cases [of
COVID-19] reported in China, [Taiwanese health authorities] already went onto
every airplane that came from Wuhan,” C. Jason Wang,
MD, PhD, an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and
Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA
report, told Vox.
“Health officials came on the airplane and checked people for symptoms,” he
added.
Travelers who had recently visited Wuhan and displayed
symptoms of pneumonia were quarantined at home for 14 days. Taiwan’s
CDC reported that quarantined individuals were being tested for the
2019-nCoV coronavirus (later renamed to SARS-CoV-2)
soon after it was identified. The CECC, activated in January to coordinate the
government’s response, reported the first confirmed imported case on Jan. 21.
On Jan. 24, their
CDC announced that testing for the virus was being performed at the CDC and
eight designated hospitals. Testing included samples from physicians around the
country. As of Feb. 17, daily testing capacity was about 1,300 samples, the JAMA
authors reported.
Wang told Vox that aggressive measures to identify
and isolate at-risk individuals at the earliest stages reduced the volume of clinical
laboratory tests that had to be performed. “Here in the US and elsewhere, we’re
now seeing community spread,” he said. “It’s probably been here for a while.
And so now we’re trying to see, ‘Oh, how many people should we test?’ Then, you
really need to have a very large capacity in the beginning.”
“I think the US has enormous capacity that’s currently not being used,” C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA report, told Vox. “We have big tech companies that really could do a lot, right? We ought to get the big companies together. Get the governors together, get the federal government agencies to work with each other, and try to find innovative ways to think about how to best do this. We’ve got the smartest people here in the US because they come from everywhere. But right now, those are untapped resources. They’re not working together. And the federal government, the agencies, they need to collaborate a little more closely.” (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
More Actions by Authorities
The JAMA report supplementary materials notes a total of 124 actions taken by Taiwanese authorities between Jan. 20 and Feb. 24 to contain the outbreak. In addition to the border inspections, quarantines and testing, they included integration of data between the country’s National Health Insurance Administration and National Immigration Agency, so authorities, and later hospitals, could identify any patient who had recently traveled to China, Hong Kong, or Macau.
The steps also included:
An escalating series of travel restrictions,
eventually including suspension of most passenger flights from Taiwan to China,
as well as a suspension of tours to Hong Kong or Macau.
Use of government-issued cell phones to monitor
quarantined individuals.
Fines for individuals breaking the 14-day home
quarantine.
Fines for incoming travelers who failed to
provide accurate health information.
Fines for disseminating false information or
rumors about the epidemic.
Fines and jail sentences for profiteering on disease-prevention
products.
Designation of military camps and other
government facilities for quarantine.
Nationwide disinfection of universities,
colleges, and public spaces around schools.
The government also took aggressive action to ensure
adequate supplies of surgical masks, including stepped-up manufacturing, export
bans, price limits, and a limit of one to three masks per purchase.
The JAMA authors noted that government officials issued daily press briefings to educate the public about the outbreak. Communication efforts also included public service announcements by Taiwan Vice President Chen Chien-jen, a trained epidemiologist.
A poll taken in Taiwan on Feb. 17 and 18 indicated high approval ratings for officials’ response to the crisis.
The JAMA authors also noted some “challenges” in the
government’s response. For example, most real-time public communication was in
Mandarin Chinese and sign language, leaving out non-Taiwanese citizens in the
country. And the cruise ship Diamond Princess, later found to have infections
on board, was allowed to dock near Taipei and disembark passengers. There are
also questions about whether similar policies can be sustained through the end
of a pandemic.
Still, “well-trained and experienced teams of officials were
quick to recognize the crisis and activated emergency management structures to
address the emerging outbreak,” the JAMA authors wrote. “Taiwan is an
example of how a society can respond quickly to a crisis and protect the
interests of its citizens.”
One noteworthy difference in the speedy response to
recognition of a novel coronavirus in Taiwan, compared to recognition of the
same novel coronavirus in the United States, was the fast availability of
clinical laboratory tests for COVID-19 in Taiwan.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals here in
the US are frustrated that their skills and talents at developing and
validating new assays on an accelerated timeline were not acknowledged and
leveraged by government officials as they decided how to respond to the
emergence of the novel coronavirus now called SARS-CoV-2.
In a separate study, HHS finds a 40% increase in sepsis cases, as more patients succumb to infections without effective antibiotics and antimicrobial drugs
Given the drastic steps being taken to slow the spread of the Coronavirus in America, it’s easy to forget that significant numbers of patients die each year due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB), other forms of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and in thousands of cases the sepsis that follows the infections.
The CDC’s website states that “more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the US each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result.” And a CDC news release states, “on average, someone in the United States gets an antibiotic-resistant infection every 11 seconds and every 15 minutes someone dies.”
Those are huge numbers.
Clinical laboratory leaders and microbiologists have learned to be vigilant as it relates to dangerously infectious antimicrobial-resistant agents that can result in severe patient harm and death. Therefore, new threats identified in the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report will be of interest.
Drug-resistant Microbes That Pose Severe Risk
The CDC has added the fungus Candida auris (C. auris) and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (a bacteria that can survive for a long time on surfaces) to its list of “urgent threats” to public health, CDC said in the news release. These drug-resistant microbes are among 18 bacteria and fungi posing a greater threat to patients’ health than CDC previously estimated, Live Science reported.
In 2013, the CDC estimated that about two million people each year acquired an antibiotic-resistant (AR) infection that killed as many as 23,000. However, in 2019, the CDC reported that those numbers were low and that the number of deaths due to AR infections in 2013 was about twice that amount. During a news conference following the CDC announcement, Michael Craig (above), a Senior Adviser for the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Coordination and Strategy Unit said, “We knew and said [in 2013] that our estimate was conservative … and we were right,” Live Science reported. In 2019, CDC reported 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections annually with more than 35,000 related deaths in the US alone. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
The CDC considers five threats to be urgent. Including the
latest additions, they are:
Dark Daily has regularly covered the healthcare industry’s ongoing struggle with deadly fungus and bacteria that are responsible for hospital-acquired infections (HAI) and sepsis. This latest CDC report suggests healthcare providers continue to struggle with antimicrobial-resistant agents.
Acinetobacter Threat Increases and C. auris
a New Threat since 2013
Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, a bacterium that
causes pneumonia and bloodstream and urinary tract infections, escalated from
serious to urgent in 2013. About 8,500 infections and 700 deaths were noted by the
CDC in 2017.
C. auris, however, was not addressed in the 2013
report at all. “It’s a pathogen that we didn’t even know about when we wrote
our last report in 2013, and since then it’s circumvented the globe,” said Michael
Craig, Senior Adviser for the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Coordination and
Strategy Unit, during a news conference following the CDC announcement, Live
Science reported.
Today, C. auris is better understood. The fungus
resists emerging drugs, can result in severe infections, and can be transmitted
between patients, CDC noted.
By year-end, CDC tracking showed 988 cases in the US.
More Patients Getting Sepsis as Antibiotics Fail: HHS
Study
In a separate study published in Critical Care Medicine, a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi are resulting in more people acquiring sepsis, a life-threatening condition, according to an HHS news release.
Sepsis increased by 40% among hospitalized Medicare patients
from 2012 through 2018, HHS reported.
“These (untreatable infections) are happening here and now in the United States in large numbers. This is isn’t some developing world thing. This isn’t a threat for 2050. It’s a threat for here and now,” Cornelius “Neil” Clancy, MD, Associate Chief of Veterans Affairs Pittsburg Health System (VAPHS) and Opportunistic Pathogens, told STAT.
It is troubling to see data about so many patient deaths
related to antibiotic-resistant infections and sepsis cases when the world is
transfixed by the Coronavirus. Nevertheless, it’s important that medical laboratory
leaders and microbiologists keep track of how the US healthcare system is or is
not responding to these new infectious agents. And, to contact infection
control and environmental services colleagues to enhance surveillance, ensure
safe healthcare environments and equipment, and adopt appropriate strategies to
prevent antibiotic-resistant infections.
Scientist described the speed at which SARS-CoV-2’s full sequence of genetic material was made public as ‘unprecedented’ and medical labs are rushing to validate tests for this new disease
In the United States, headlines scream about the lack of
testing for the novel Coronavirus
disease 2019 (COVID-19). News reporters ask daily why it is taking so long
for the US healthcare system to begin testing large numbers of patients for
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Yet, pathologists
and clinical
laboratory scientists know that new technologies for gene sequencing
and diagnostic testing are helping public health laboratories bring up tests
for a previously unknown new disease faster than at any time in the past.
At the center of the effort to develop accurate new assays
to detect SARS-CoV-2 and help diagnose cases of the COVID-19 disease are medical laboratory
scientists working in public health
laboratories, in academic medical centers, and in research labs across the
United States. Their collective efforts are producing results on a faster
timeline than in any previous discovery of a new infectious disease.
For example, during the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2003, five months passed
between the first recognized case of the disease in China and when a team of
Canadian scientists cracked the genetic code of the virus, which was needed to
definitively diagnose SARS patients, ABC
News reported.
In contrast, Chinese scientists sequenced this year’s
coronavirus (originally named 2019-nCoV) and made it available on Jan. 10,
2020, just weeks after public health officials in Wuhan, China, reported the
first case of pneumonia from the unknown virus to the World Health Organization
(WHO), STAT
reported.
Increases in sequencing speed enabled biotechnology
companies to quickly create synthetic copies of the virus needed for research. Roughly
two weeks later, scientists completed sequencing nearly two dozen more samples
from different patients diagnosed with COVID-19.
Molecular biologist Kristian Andersen, PhD (above right, with graduate students who helped sequence the Zika virus), an Associate Professor in the Department of Immunology and Microbiology at Scripps Research in California and Director of Infectious Disease Genomics at Scripps’ Translational Research Institute, worked on the team that sequenced the Ebola genome during the 2014 outbreak. He told STAT that the pace of sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is “unprecedented.” (Photo copyright: Scripps Research.)
Lower Sequencing Costs Speed COVID-19 Diagnostics Research
Additionally, a significant decline in the cost of genetic synthesis is playing an equally important role in helping scientists slow the spread of COVID-19.In its coverage of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, The Verge noted that two decades ago “it cost $10 to create a synthetic copy of one single nucleotide, the building block of genetic material. Now, it’s under 10 cents.” Since the coronavirus gene is about 30,000 nucleotides long, that price reduction is significant.
Faster sequencing and cheaper access to synthetic copies is
contributing to the development of diagnostic tests for COVID-19, an important
step in slowing the disease.
“This continues to be an evolving situation and the ability to distribute this diagnostic test to qualified medical laboratories is a critical step forward in protecting the public health,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said in an FDA statement.
However, the Washington Post soon reported that the government-created coronavirus test kits contained a “faulty component,” which as of February 25 had limited testing in the US to only 426 people, not including passengers who returned to the US on evacuation flights. The Post noted that the nation’s public health laboratories took “the unusual step of appealing to the FDA for permission to develop and use their own [laboratory-developed] tests” for the coronavirus.
“This is an extraordinary request, but this is an extraordinary time,” Scott Becker,
Parallel efforts to develop and validate tests for COVID-19
are happening at the clinical laboratories of academic medical centers and in a
number of commercial laboratory companies. As these labs show their tests meet
FDA criteria, they become available for use by physicians and other healthcare
providers.
Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report just published an intelligence briefing about the urgent effort at the clinical laboratory of Northwell Health to develop both a manual COVID-19 assay and a test that can be run on the automated analyzers already in use in the labs at Northwell Health’s 23 hospitals. (See TDR, “Northwell Lab Team Validates COVID-19 Test on Fast Timeline,” March 9, 2020.)
Following the FDA’s March 13 EUA for the Thermo Fisher test,
Hahn said, “We have been engaging with test developers and encouraging them to
come to the FDA and work with us. Since the beginning of this outbreak, more
than 80 test developers have sought our assistance with development and
validation of tests they plan to bring through the Emergency Use Authorization
process. Additionally,” he continued, “more than 30 laboratories have notified
us they are testing or intend to begin testing soon under our new policy for
laboratory-developed tests for this emergency. The number of products in the
pipeline reflects the significant role diagnostics play in this outbreak and
the large number of organizations we are working with to bring tests to
market.”
Pharma Company Uses Sequencing Data to Develop Vaccine in
Record Time
Even as clinical laboratories work to develop and validate diagnostic tests for COVID-19, drug manufacturers are moving rapidly to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. In February, Massachusetts-based biotechnology company Moderna Therapeutics (NASDAQ:MRNA) announced it had shipped the first vials of its potential coronavirus vaccine (mRNA-1273) to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) for use in a Phase One clinical trial.
“The collaboration across Moderna, with NIAID, and with CEPI [Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations] has allowed us to deliver a clinical batch in 42 days from sequence identification,” Juan Andres, Chief Technical Operations and Quality Officer at Moderna, stated in a news release.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that NIAID expects to start a clinical trial of about 20 to 25 healthy volunteers by the end of April, with results available as early as July or August.
“Going into a Phase One trial within three months of getting the sequence is unquestionably the world indoor record,” NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, MD, told the WSJ. “Nothing has ever gone that fast.”
There are no guarantees that Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine
will work. Furthermore, it will require further studies and regulatory
clearances that could delay widespread distribution until next year.
Nonetheless, Fauci told the WSJ, “The only way you
can completely suppress an emerging infectious disease is with a vaccine. If
you want to really get it quickly, you’re using technologies that are not as
time-honored as the standard, what I call antiquated, way of doing it.”
In many ways, the news media has overlooked all the important
differences in how fast useful diagnostic and therapeutic solutions for
COVID-19 are moving from research settings into clinical use, when compared to
early episodes of the emergence of a new infectious disease, such as SARS in
2003.
The story the American public has yet to learn is how new
genetic sequencing technologies, improved diagnostic methods, and enhanced
informatics capabilities are being used by researchers, pathologists, and
clinical laboratory professionals to understand this new disease and give
healthcare professionals the tools they need to diagnose, treat, and monitor
patients with COVID-19.
As CMS price transparency rules go into effect, and demand grows for publishing provider charges, consumers are becoming aware of how widely healthcare prices can vary
With the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic saturating the news, it is easy to forget that clinical laboratories regularly conduct medical tests for influenza, the common cold, and other illnesses, most of which are affordable and covered by health insurance. So, how did a common throat culture and blood draw result in a $25,865 bill?
That was the question a New York City woman asked after a
doctor’s visit for a sore throat that resulted in a five-figure charge. This
should not simply be dismissed as another example of hidden prices in clinical
laboratory testing or the true cost of medical procedures shocking a healthcare
consumer. The issue is far from new.
For example:
An Indiana girl’s snake bite at summer camp in 2019 resulted in a $142,938 bill, which included $67,957 for four vials of antivenin and $55,578 for air ambulance transport, reported Kaiser Health News (KHN);
In 2019, Dark Daily highlighted a New York Times article showing the insurer-negotiated price of a common blood test could range from $11 to $952 in different major cities;
In 2018, Dark Daily spotlighted a Kaiser Health News story about a $48,329 bill for outpatient allergy testing; and
In 2013, Dark Daily reported on a patient’s $4,317 bill for blood work done at a Napa Valley medical center, which a national lab would have performed for just $464.
Prices Vary Widely Even Within Local Healthcare Markets
As the push for price transparency in healthcare increases, exorbitant patient bills—often tied to providers’ chargemaster pricing—add to that momentum. Consumers now recognize that prices can vary widely for identical healthcare procedures, including clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology group tests and procedures.
However, on January 1, 2021, price transparency will get a major boost when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) final rule requiring hospitals to post payer-negotiated rates for 300 shoppable services goes into effect. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should be developing strategies to address this changing healthcare landscape.
Until price transparency is the norm, examples of outrageous pricing are likely to continue to make headlines. For example, National Public Radio’s (NPR) December 2019 “Bill of the Month,” titled, “For Her Head Cold, Insurer Coughed Up $25,865,” highlighted a recent example of healthcare sticker shock.
New York city resident Alexa Kasdan’s sore throat resulted in a $28,395.50 clinical laboratory bill (of which her insurer paid $25,865.24) for a “smorgasbord” of DNA tests aimed at explaining her weeklong cold symptoms. NPR identified the likely causes for the sky-high charges. In addition to ordering DNA testing to look for viruses and bacteria, Kasdan’s doctor sent her throat swab to an out-of-network lab, with prices averaging 20 times more than other medical laboratories in the same zip code. Furthermore, the lab doing the analysis, Manhattan Gastroenterology, has the same phone number and locations as her doctor’s office, NPR reported.
In contrast, NPR learned that LabCorp, Kasdan’s in-network laboratory provider, would have billed her Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota insurance plan about $653 for “all the ordered tests, or an equivalent.”
Ranit Mishori, MD, MHS, FAAFP (above), Professor of Family Medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and Senior Medical Advisor for Physicians for Human Rights, maintains patients should not hesitate to question doctors about the medical tests they order for them. “It is okay to ask your doctor, ‘Why are you ordering these tests, and how are they going to help you come up with a treatment plan for me?’” Mishori told NPR. “I think it’s important for patients to be empowered and ask these questions, rather than be faced with unnecessary testing, unnecessary treatment and also, in this case, outrageous billing.” (Photo copyright: Primary Care Collaborative.)
Hospitals Can ‘Jack-up’ Prices
The Indiana girl’s snake bite at summer camp last year became another example of surprisingly high medical bills. Nine-year-old Oakley Yoder of Bloomington, Ind., was bitten on her toe at an Illinois summer camp. The total bill for treating the suspected copperhead bite was $142,938, which included $67,957 for four vials of antivenin and $55,578 for air ambulance transport, KHN reported.
The summary of charges her parents received from Ascension St. Vincent Evansville hospital included $16,989.25 for each vile of anti-venom drug CroFab, five times as high as the average list price for the drug. Until recently, KHN reported, CroFab was the only antivenom available to treat pit viper bites, which created a monopoly for the drug maker’s expensive-to-manufacture product. Though the average list price for CroFab is $3,198, KHN noted hospitals can “jack-up the price.”
While Yoder’s family had no out-of-pocket expenses thanks to a supplemental insurance policy through the summer camp, Yoder’s father, Joshua Perry, JD, MTS, Professor of Business Law and Ethics at Indiana University Kelley School of Business, knows his family’s outcome is unusual.
“I know that in this country, in this system, that is a
miracle,” he told KHN.
The push for healthcare price transparency is unlikely to
wane. Clinical laboratory leaders in hospitals and health networks, as well as
pathologists in independent clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups,
should plan for a future in which consumers demand the ability to see pricing
information before obtaining services, and regulations require it.
