Though more payers are covering laboratory-developed genetic tests for conditions such as depression, the tests remain uncleared by the FDA
Clinical pathologists interested in pharmacogenetics tests for depression and other psychiatric disorders may be interested to learn that UnitedHealthcare (NYSE:UNH) announced in its Network Bulletin a change to its Molecular Pathology Policy and is now covering certain molecular diagnostics. That’s despite the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning “against the use of many genetic tests with unapproved claims to predict patient response to specific medications.”
In its Safety Communication, the FDA stated healthcare providers and clinical laboratories that “are using, or considering using, a genetic test to predict a patient’s response to specific medications, be aware that for most medications, the relationship between DNA variations and the medication’s effects has not been established.”
In its coverage of the FDA’s warning, The Dark Report, sister publication to Dark Daily, wrote, “Serious concerns are associated with some pharmacogenetic tests and whether physicians have the training and knowledge needed to use this genetic test data appropriately in patient care.”
Should the FDA Even Be Regulating Clinical Laboratory Tests?
Experts note that it is notoriously difficult in some cases for providers to identify which drug or group of drugs is most likely to help a patient with a psychiatric disorder such as depression. Pharmaceuticals that work well for one individual may actually worsen things for someone else.
Nevertheless, the idea that a genetic test could reveal how a psychiatric patient is likely to react to a particular drug is extremely appealing. It could save years of trial and error, which is often terribly disruptive for the patient.
Currently, there’s quite a debate about whether these tests should be available, who should take them, and whether they offer any kind of guidance for providers. There’s even a faction that maintains the FDA should not be regulating clinical laboratory tests at all.
In its coverage of the FDA’s warning, NPR reported that Victoria Pratt, PhD (above), a medical and clinical molecular geneticist who at the time was President of the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), said, “Tests conducted in a lab are a medical service, not a medical device that’s shipped like a product. As a medical service, clinical laboratories are already regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It would be redundant to have dual regulation by both the FDA and CMS.” (Photo copyright: AMP.)
Does Evidence of Pharmacogenomics Effectiveness Exist?
Studies regarding the effectiveness of genetic tests for psychiatric disorders have had, at best, mixed results. “Genes determine some of our risk for depression and some of our response to treatment,” wrote Bruce Cohen, MD, PhD, and George Zubenko, MD, PhD, in a Harvard Health Blog post, titled, “Gene Testing to Guide Antidepressant Treatment: Has Its Time Arrived?” The authors go on to say that although the genes that are tested in the panels can have an effect on the levels of the drugs in the patient’s blood, they “generally don’t predict clinical response.”
The authors then discussed the results of a dozen studies that looked into the genetic panels. “Most studies were completely unblinded,” they wrote. “Even with that bias, the use of gene results showed no evidence of effectiveness.”
Advocacy Groups, Payors, and Clinicians Support Pharmacogenomics
Nevertheless, even with the FDA’s warning—and tepid study results— pharmacogenetic testing has its supporters. In large part, that is because identifying the most appropriate medication for any given patient can be incredibly difficult.
“Right now, one of our greatest frustrations is that when [patients] comes in with depression, we have very little idea of what the right treatment for them is,” said Amit Etkin, MD, PhD, Founder and CEO of Alto Neuroscience. Etkin is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford and a member of the Wu Tsai Neuroscience Institute. He authored a study published in Nature that investigated measuring patients’ brainwaves to identify the most appropriate treatment. “Essentially, the medications are chosen by trial and error.”
“You use the science that you currently have,” Reyna Taylor, Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy, National Council for Behavioral Health, told NPR. She says that doctors should be able to use the tests to inform their choice of medication.
Daniel Mueller, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinical scientist, agrees. Mueller is a professor at the University of Toronto and head of the Pharmacogenetic Research Clinic at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto. He told NPR that the pharmacogenomic clinical laboratory tests “are not an alternative intervention. It’s additional information.” He suggests that anyone who can afford the test should take it, because it could help them avoid “the cost of depression and weeks of suffering.”
The decision by UnitedHealthcare to cover genetic tests for depression and other psychiatric disorders could be important. “We expect this to be a tipping point,” Shawn Patrick O’Brien, CEO of Genomind, told NPR, adding that he expects other insurance companies to begin covering the cost of the tests, as well, “because they don’t want to be uncompetitive in the marketplace.”
Historically, there have been few clinical laboratory tests for patients with psychiatric disorders, and while these tests may open a new market in the future, for now, caution is warranted. In addition to the warning from the FDA, there will likely be challenges regarding physician education and curbing fraud.
Questions remain, however, over how much of the funding will actually reach hospital and health system clinical laboratories
For many cash-strapped clinical laboratories in America, the second round of stimulus funds cannot come soon enough. Thus, lab leaders are encouraged by news that Congress’ $484-billion Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act (H.R.266) includes almost $11 billion that will go to states for COVID-19 testing. But how much of that funding will reach the nation’s hospital and health system clinical laboratories?
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the new influx of money to the states on May 18. In a news release outlining the initiative, the HHS said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will deliver $10.25 billion to states, territories, and local jurisdictions to expand testing capacity and testing-related activities.
To qualify for the additional funding, governors or “designee of each State, locality, territory, tribe, or tribal organization receiving funds” must submit to HHS its plan for COVID-19 testing, including goals for the remainder of calendar year 2020, to include:
“Number of tests needed, month-by-month to include diagnostic, serological, and other tests, as appropriate;
“Month-by-month estimates of laboratory and testing capacity, including related to workforce, equipment and supplies, and available tests;
“Description of how the resources will be used for testing, including easing any COVID-19 community mitigation policies.”
“As the nation cautiously begins the phased approach to reopening, this considerable investment in expanding both testing and contact tracing capacity for states, localities, territories, and tribal communities is essential,” said CDC Director Robert R. Redfield, MD, in the HHS statement. “Readily accessible testing is a critical component of a four-pronged public health strategy—including rigorous contact tracing, isolation of confirmed cases, and quarantine.” (Photo copyright: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Funding Should Go Directly to Clinical Laboratories, Says ACLA
The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), argues the funding needs to go directly to clinical laboratories to help offset the “significant investments” labs have made to ramp up testing capacity during the pandemic.
“Direct federal funding for laboratories performing COVID-19 testing is critical to meet the continued demand for testing,” ACLA President Julie Khani, MPA, said in a statement. “Across the country, laboratories have made significant investments to expand capacity, including purchasing new platforms, retraining staff, and managing the skyrocketing cost of supplies. To continue to make these investments and expand patient access to high-quality testing in every community, laboratories will need designated resources. Without sustainable funding, we cannot achieve sustainable testing.”
Some States Are Increasing Testing, While Others Are Not
Since the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in January, the United States has slowly but significantly ramped up testing capacity. As reported in the Washington Post, states such as Georgia, Oklahoma, and Utah are encouraging residents to get tested even if they are not experiencing coronavirus symptoms. But other states have maintained more restrictive testing policies, even as their testing capacity has increased.
“A lot of states put in very, very restrictive testing policies … because they didn’t have any tests. And they’ve either not relaxed those or the word is not getting out,” Ashish Jha, MD, MPA, Director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told the Washington Post. “We want to be at a point where everybody who has mild symptoms is tested. That is critical. That is still not happening in a lot of places.”
Meanwhile, Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp continue to expand their diagnostic and antibody testing capabilities.
On May 18, Quest announced it had performed approximately 2.15 million COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests since March 9 and had a diagnostic capability of 70,000 test each day. The company said it expected to have the capacity to perform 100,000 tests a day in June.
LabCorp’s website lists its molecular test capacity at more than 75,000 tests per day as of May 22, with a capacity for conducting at least 200,000 antibody tests per day. Unlike molecular testing that detects the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, antibody tests detect proteins produced by the body in response to a COVID-19 infection.
As states reopen, and hospitals and healthcare systems resume elective surgeries and routine office visits, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should begin to see a return to normal specimen flow. Nonetheless, the federal government should continue to compensate laboratories performing COVID-19 testing for the added costs associated with meeting the ongoing and growing demand.
Insurance industry claims new federal price transparency regulations cost each payer as much as $13.6 million in set up and maintenance costs
Price transparency in hospital, clinical laboratory, and other service provider costs marches ever closer to reality for America’s healthcare consumers. Meanwhile, some insurers and hospital groups are working to block implementation of federal rules they argue will confuse consumers and potentially lead to higher costs.
The first is a Proposed Rule, titled, “Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule” (CMS-9915-P) that would require payers to make public on their websites negotiated rates for in-network providers and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers. Insurers also would be required to make an online “tool” available to members that would provide consumers with out-of-pocket cost estimates for “all covered healthcare items and services.” The 60-day public comment period for this rule went into effect November 15, 2019.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may want to closely monitor ongoing efforts by payers and hospital groups to block these rules, since any changes will extend to their services, as well as extend price transparency to most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage.
Will Transparency Lead to Higher Healthcare Costs?
In its story on insurer claims, FierceHealthcare reported that the rule would require payers to disclose a “staggering” amount of data, leading to implementation costs 26 times more than the Trump administration’s $510,000 estimate. To comply with the federal rule, an insurer will spend as much as $13.63 million on setup and maintenance. That prediction is based on an economic analysis from economic consulting firm Bates White, which conducted the survey on behalf of The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
“Some plans have indicated they would be forced to run two sets of tools—one designed to meet member shopping needs and another implemented only to meet the requirements of the proposed rule,” the BCBSA told FierceHealthcare.
Meanwhile, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) argued in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma that cost-sharing liability estimates—which are not a price quote for care—could “lead to consumer confusion and frustration.” The ACAP also asserts the transparency plan could inadvertently lead to higher healthcare cost increases.
“In the absence of quality data, consumers may determine that high cost equates to higher value, select the higher-cost providers, and ultimately drive up medical expenses, especially in circumstances where the consumer’s out-of-pocket costs have been met,” wrote ACAP Chief Executive Officer Margaret A. Murray.
“We have long supported efforts to make quality and pricing information more accessible, understandable, and actionable for consumers,” the ACHP wrote. “But they need real-time, patient-specific information tied to individual coverage benefits, not a massive published list of prices that may only frustrate consumers and likely increase costs over time.”
Hospital Associations and Healthcare Systems Bring Lawsuit Against HHS
In December 2019, several hospital associations and healthcare groups filed a lawsuit to block next year’s implementation of the hospital price transparency rule. The plaintiffs included the:
These healthcare organizations and providers joined together to argue that HHS lacks the statutory authority to require and enforce public disclosure of individually negotiated rates between commercial health insurers and hospitals. They also say consumers are likely to be confused by the information they receive.
“America’s hospitals and health systems stand with patients and are dedicated to ensuring they have the information needed to make informed healthcare decisions, including what their expected out-of-pocket costs will be,” said Rick Pollack (above), President and CEO, American Hospital Association, in a news release. “Instead of giving patients relevant information about costs, this rule will lead to widespread confusion and even more consolidation in the commercial health insurance industry.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
In its legal response, HHS contends that hospitals are adding to consumers’ confusion by failing to provide transparency.
“They do not dispute that consumers are casting about for accurate information about prices in a complex healthcare system, yet they rely on that same complexity as an affirmative reason to deprive patients of pricing information they need to figure out their out-of-pocket expenses,” HHS said in its brief.
DePaul University Professor Anthony LoSasso, PhD, who specializes in healthcare economics, admits to being “on the fence” regarding the pros and cons of transparency plans.
“I want to think that people can benefit from price transparency. But for a variety of reasons, people don’t look at pricing info even when it’s available,” LoSasso told WTTW News in Chicago.
Nevertheless, HHS vows to continue its push for price transparency.
“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary and National Spokesperson Caitlin Oakley told Reuters in a response to the hospital groups’ lawsuit.
In light of the government’s push to make healthcare pricing more transparent, clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders in hospitals and health systems would be wise to prepare for a future that includes price shopping by consumers.
In another example of giving consumers more direct access to medical laboratory tests, Walmart believes that convenience and lower prices can help it capture market share
Retail giants continue to add healthcare services—including medical laboratory testing—to their wares. It’s a trend that pressures hospital systems, clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and primary care providers to compete for customers. And, while in most instances competition is good, many local and rural healthcare providers cannot reduce their costs enough to be competitive and stay in business.
This is true at Walmart (NYSE:WMT), which recently opened its second “Health Center” in Georgia and announced prices for general healthcare services 30% to 50% below what medical providers typically charge, reported Modern Healthcare.
The services offered at the new Walmart Health Center in Calhoun, a suburb of Atlanta, include:
Primary care
Dental
Counseling
Clinical laboratory testing
X-rays
Health screening
Optometry
Hearing
Fitness and nutrition
Health insurance education and enrollment
A Walmart news release states, “This state-of-the-art facility provides quality, affordable and accessible healthcare for members of the Calhoun community so they can get the right care at the right time … in one facility at affordable, transparent pricing regardless of a patient’s insurance status.”
The fact that Walmart posts “Labs” on the Health Center’s outdoor sign may indicate the retail giant considers easy access to clinical laboratory testing a selling point that will draw customers.
“By offering clinical laboratory testing in support of primary care and urgent care, Walmart may be able to lower prices for lab tests in any market that it enters,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and President of The Dark Intelligence Group.
The sign above on the exterior of Walmart Health Centers lists the services offered. By advertising “Labs” Walmart is confirming that growing numbers of consumers want to order their own lab tests and that the availability of lab tests gives its medical clinic a competitive advantage. (Photo copyright: Modern Healthcare.)
Healthcare Transparency and Lower Prices
The 1,500 square-foot free-standing Walmart Health Centers offer more services than the in-store Care Clinics installed in other Walmarts throughout Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas. For its healthcare services, Walmart established partnerships with “on-the-ground” health providers to offer affordable services.
“We have taken advantage of every lever that we can to bring the price of doing all of this down more than any hospital or group practice could humanly do. Our goal, just like in the stores, is to get the prices as low as we can,” Sean Slovenski, Senior Vice President and President of Walmart Health and Wellness, told Bloomberg Businessweek.
Some of the clinical laboratory prices prominently posted in the building and noted on the Health Center online price list include:
Meanwhile, the average cost to visit a primary care doctor is $106, according to Health Care Cost Institute data cited by Business Insider, which noted that Walmart’s rates “could be a steep mountain for traditional providers to climb.”
However, Rob Schreiner, Executive Vice President of WellStar Health System in Northern Georgia told Modern Healthcare that “Walmart will offer a cheaper alternative for working-class families who may not have health insurance and may not have an established relationship with a primary care provider.”
Convenient Access to Quality Healthcare Services a Major Draw
At a freestanding Walmart Health Center, people can park near the entrance and walk a few steps to the entrance, rather than traversing aisles to a Care Clinic inside a Walmart Supercenter. And for many customers, finding a Walmart Health Center may not be as complicated or stressful as visiting doctors’ offices.
That seems to be Walmart’s goal—not simply using the Health Centers to increase traffic in its stores, Slovenski said. “We are trying to solve problems for our customers. We already have the volume,” he told Forbes. “We have the locations and the right people. We are creating a supercenter for basic healthcare services.”
Walmart’s arrangement with local healthcare providers differs from traditional primary care clinics staffed by doctors who are practice owners, or who are employed by nearby hospitals and health systems.
“The whole design of the clinic is curious to most of the doctors here [in Dallas, Ga.],” Jeffrey Tharp, MD, Chief Medicine Division Officer, WellStar Medical Group, told Modern Healthcare. “We are advocating integration into our network, for instance with patients who need a cardiologist coming from Walmart to WellStar.”
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to explore partnerships with Walmart and other retailers that are developing healthcare centers to deliver primary care services in places where masses of people shop for everyday items. Especially given that these big-box retailers remain open during healthcare crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
As federal and state officials ease many regulatory requirements to speed new COVID-19 serology tests to market with minimum data about performance, labs are left with important questions to answer on their own
Every day, elected officials at all levels of government call for a huge expansion of COVID-19 serology testing. But, as most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists know, it is a complex undertaking for a lab to select any serological test, validate it, then run it daily in support of patient care, and have confidence that the results are accurate and reproducible.
Clinical laboratories across the United States understand the volume of testing will be in the tens of millions—even hundreds of millions—of COVID-19 serology tests. That is an important financial opportunity because it gives clinical labs the opportunity to generate some cash flow to offset the 60% decline in daily routine specimens they have experienced since most states enacted shelter-in-place orders in early March.
But this big opportunity to serve physicians and patients with COVID-19 serology testing also comes with equally big risks. There are three major risks a COVID-19 serology testing program that clinical labs must successfully address, otherwise the consequences can be devastating.
Three Major Serology Testing Risks for Clinical Laboratories
Risk one comes during the time when medical laboratories shop for COVID-19 serology tests. As of this writing, about 20 such tests have an emergency use authorization (EUA) with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and more are expected to obtain an EUA. As is true with everything in life, not all of these tests will perform equally. The risk to the lab is that it purchases a COVID-19 assay that later proves to be unreliable, despite the lab’s rigorous validation process.
Risk two derives from the fact that new diagnostic methods are being incorporated into the serology tests that companies are submitting to the FDA for an EUA. Although the data submitted to the FDA may indicate acceptable performance to the federal agency, in actual clinical use many unexpected or unknown factors could be recognized which lower confidence that the new method utilized by this particular assay is producing accurate results. That risk would only be recognized downstream from validation and the lab would find itself dealing with unhappy physicians, patients, and employers (who were using the test to check the health of their employees).
Risk three is supply chain risk. Will the manufacturer of the COVID-19 serology test be capable of supplying all of its clinical lab customers with adequate supplies to meet each lab’s demand for this testing? New manufacturers have an unknown track record in their ability to supply their lab customers. But even the largest in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers may need to ration kits, reagents, and other consumables to the large number of medical laboratories they serve. This happened with the rapid molecular tests for COVID-19. Community laboratories capable of performing these tests could not obtain adequate supplies to serve their client physicians.
Millions Lost on Faulty COVID-19 Serology Test Kits
If there is a fourth major risk to clinical labs performing COVID-19 serology tests for physicians, patients, and employers (who are screening employees in their workplace) it is the negative publicity that can result if a lab’s choice of a COVID-19 serology test ends up generating inaccurate or unreliable test results.
The most recent example is here in the United States. On March 27, Abbott Laboratories announced that the FDA had issued an EUA for its Abbott ID NOW platform and its point-of-care rapid molecular test for COVID-19 that could produce results in less than 15 minutes. This made national news and was hailed regularly during the daily White House COVID-19 Task Force briefings.
What is important with the examples of Spain, United Kingdom, and a major IVD manufacturer is that news outlets are ready to pounce on any evidence that COVID-19 tests are returning inaccurate or unreliable results. This is a source of risk which every clinical laboratory wants to avoid.
How Clinical Laboratories Can Minimize Risk When Buying COVID-19 Serology Tests
During their upcoming webinar, James Westgard, PhD (above), and Sten Westgard of Westgard QC will address how clinical laboratory leaders can evaluate different serology COVID-19 tests by: understanding the testing architecture and intended medical use of COVID-19 testing, taking inventory of lab resources; navigating EUA, LDT, and non-EUA regulatory approval; assessing the expected performance of test methods; understanding the critical performance characteristics for COVID-19 testing; and much more. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
This is an exceptional opportunity to gain an inside perspective of how your lab can address the three major risks identified above when selecting a COVID-19 serology test for use in patient care. You’ll gain essential insights about how to assess the public data on tests with an EUA.
This webinar presentation will also discuss how your lab should view all of its COVID-19 testing as a single program. That’s because your lab may test the same patient with a rapid molecular test, then later do serology tests in the days after the patient may have cleared the infection.
Register now for this critical educational opportunity by clicking here or by entering this URL in your web browser (https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/quality-issues-your-clinical-laboratory-should-know-before-you-buy-or-select-covid-19-serology-tests/).
Even as some states lift stay-at-home orders, clinical laboratories and pathology groups face uncertainty about how quickly routine daily test referrals will return to normal, pre-pandemic levels
Although strokes and heart attacks do not take vacations, a large and growing number of patients with serious health issues who—in normal times—would require immediate attention are not contacting providers to get needed care. Instead, they are avoiding hospital emergency rooms and clinical laboratories for fear they’ll contract the COVID-19 coronavirus.
Starting in early March, hospitals nationwide suspended elective surgeries and procedures and reduced non-COVID-19 inpatient care to make beds available for the predicted on-rush of COVID-19 patients. However, in parts of the country, the predicted high demand for hospital beds and ventilators failed to materialize. Additionally, due to shelter-in-place orders, patients in many states postponed routine office visits with their primary care physicians.
The collective collapse in the number of elective services provided by hospitals, and the fall-off in patients visiting their doctors, is crushing the financial stability of the nation’s clinical laboratory industry.
In, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR) reported on the revenue challenges facing clinical pathology groups and clinical laboratories. Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, a revenue cycle management company, told TDR that starting in the third week of March, labs suffered a steep decline in routine testing. By the end of March, that fall-off in revenue ranged from 44% for some AP specimens to 70% to 80% for some specialty AP work. During these same weeks, XIFIN’s data showed clinical labs experienced a drop in routine testing volume of 58%, hospital outreach testing declined by 61%, and molecular lab volume went down by 52%.
Can Clinical Laboratories Hang on Financially Until COVID-19 Goes Away?
Though most states have not met the nonbinding criteria recommended by the Trump administration for reopening, nearly 40 governors in early May began loosening stay-at-home orders, reported CNN, including allowing elective medical procedures to resume.
Patients may make up for lost time by returning to doctors’ offices for medical laboratory tests and other COVID-19-delayed procedures, and as this happens, clinical laboratories may experience a surge in routine test orders from doctors’ offices and hospital admissions once stay-at-home orders are lifted and fear of COVID-19 has passed.
According to an article published on Axios, a survey of 163 physicians conducted by SVB Leerink—an investment firm that specializes in healthcare and life sciences—found that “roughly three out of four doctors believe patient appointments will resume to normal, pre-coronavirus levels, no earlier than July, and 45% expect a rebound to occur sometime between July and September.” If so, the financial squeeze facing clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and other medical and dental professionals may continue to loosen.
Christopher Freer, DO (above), an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx and Director of Emergency Medicine at RWJBarnabas Health, told CNBC that emergency departments are seeing patients with severe issues, such as stroke and appendicitis, but that those with milder symptoms appear to be staying away. “Even with coronavirus, we still have healthy people who get an illness and need to go to the emergency room,” he said. “Heart attacks don’t stop.” (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Hospital Finances Are Being Particularly Stressed by Loss of Patients
The impact of stay-at-home orders on hospital systems, in particular, has been dramatic. CNBC reported that RWJBarnabas Health, an 1l-hospital 22-laboratory health system in New Jersey that has 11 emergency departments, totaled just 180 emergency room visits per day during a mid-April weekend, a sharp decline from their 280-per-day-average.
A recent Washington Post article paints an even bleaker picture. Clinicians in the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, and China anecdotally report a “silent sub-epidemic of people who need care at hospitals but dare not come in,” the article states, noting people with symptoms of appendicitis, heart attacks, stroke, infected gall bladders, and bowel obstructions are avoiding hospital emergency rooms.
“Everybody is frightened to come to the ER,” Mount Sinai Health System cardiovascular surgeon John Puskas, MD, told the Post. Though his 60-bed cardiac unit had been repurposed to care for COVID-19 patients, Puskas said the New York hospital system was seeing “dramatically fewer” cardiac patients.
Concerned that patients may be ignoring signs of heart attack or stroke rather than go to a hospital, the American College of Cardiology launched the “CardioSmart” campaign, which urges anyone experiencing heart symptoms to get prompt treatment and to continue routine appointments, using telehealth technology when available.
“Hospitals have safety measures to protect you from infection,” the CardioSmart website states. “Getting care quickly is critical. You’ll get better faster, and you’ll limit damage to your health.”
However, David Brown, MD, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, argues the number of people having heart-related issues is unlikely to have dropped during the pandemic.
“Strokes and heart attacks don’t take a vacation just because there’s a pandemic,” Brown told The Boston Globe. “They’re still happening. They just aren’t happening as much inside the hospital, which is a major concern to me.”
Many healthcare professionals are worried about the long-term effect from pandemic-delayed preventative and elective procedures.
“The big question is are we going to see a lot more people that have bad outcomes from heart disease, from stroke, from cancer because they’ve put off what they should have had done, but were too afraid to come to the hospital?” Providence St. Joseph Health CEO Rod Hochman, MD, told CNBC.
Hochman, who is Chair-elect of the American Hospital Association (AHA), maintains the aftereffects of people putting off elective surgeries and screening procedures like colonoscopies and mammograms may be felt for years to come.
“We’re possibly going to see a blip in other disease entities as a consequence of doubling down on COVID-19,” he told CNBC.
In clinical laboratories, COVID-19 testing may have somewhat helped offset the drop in routine testing volume. However, the pandemic’s overall financial costs to labs and pathology groups will likely be felt for months to years, as patients slowly return to healthcare providers’ offices and hospitals.
