Lack of regulations and quality management jeopardizes the quality and safety of LDTs, claim experts in clinical laboratory medicine in a commentary to Canadian policymakers
The IHPME members published their comments in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), a peer-reviewed journal owned by Joule Inc., a subsidiary of the Canadian Medical Association. In it, they claim “recent expansion of the molecular diagnostics industry has revealed weaknesses in Canada’s regulatory system for laboratory-developed tests, which are not subject to statutory regulations on medical devices.”
For pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals in both Canada and the United States, these recent actions show the concerns many experts have as they watch the explosive growth in the use of laboratory-developed tests in both countries. In many ways, the swift advances in molecular and genetic diagnostics is outrunning the ability of government regulators to keep pace with use of LDTs in clinical care settings.
In their commentary in CMAJ, the IHPME members also
claim the review and evaluation of LDTs in Canada is inconsistent. Some LDTs they
say, may endure stringent assessments and have endorsements by clinical
guidelines or findings that are published in scientific journals. Other LDTs,
however, may have no analysis at all.
In addition, the IHPME members point out that there is no
national registry kept of LDTs. They theorize that a lack of proper regulation,
controls, and quality management “has potentially jeopardized the delivery of
quality, safe, timely, and appropriate care.”
The researchers calling on Health Canada to address these
issues include:
Fiona A. Miller, PhD, Professor of Health Policy and IHPME Chair in Health Management Strategies;
François Rousseau, PhD, Professor, Department of Molecular Biology, Medical Biochemistry and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec;
Alberto Gutierrez, PhD, Partner, NDA Partners LLC, former Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH);
Stuart Hogarth, PhD, Lecturer in Sociology of Science and Technology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
During an exclusive presentation offered by The Dark Report (Dark Daily’s sister publication) in 2015, Alberto Gutierrez, PhD (above), who at that time was Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health at the FDA, said, “LDTs are an area that will be difficult to regulate. There is a broad set of tests. Some of the LDTs are very good. Some of them require a lot of expertise from the pathologists and some of them don’t. Regulating LDTs in a way that makes sense and that does not disrupt what’s going on [in clinical laboratories] is going to be difficult.” (Photo copyright: FDA.)
Canadian Scientists Call on Health Canada to Take the
Lead on Regulating LDTs
In the US, the FDA has been making moves to regulate LDTs since 2010, with much opposition from clinical laboratories and In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) manufacturers. The FDA describes LDTs as internally designed clinical laboratory tests that are developed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory. They have not undergone government regulatory review, can be simple or complex, and can be utilized to detect a variety of analytes.
Health Canada is the name of a department that falls under
the purview of the Minister of
Health and is part of Canada’s Health
Portfolio. It is responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve
their health. Other agencies included in the Health Portfolio are:
According to the IHPME paper, however, Health Canada
currently does not have a way to regulate LDTs, and no government agency in
that country is responsible for the oversight of laboratory-developed tests.
Only LDTs that are marketed as test kits are evaluated and reviewed by Health
Canada.
“The current laboratory regulatory system in Canada involves a mixture of public and private entities and operates with oversight from provincial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and professional societies,” the IHPME paper states, adding, “most provinces and territories rely on voluntary standards that are unevenly applied, with little auditing and systematic testing to ensure quality.”
The authors also note that the current lab regulations in
Canada apply only to the operations of the medical laboratories themselves,
encompassing such things as lab environments, personnel, accreditation, and
quality control. They believe the loophole regarding LDTs needs to be addressed,
and they urged Health Canada to “demonstrate leadership” by subjecting these
tests to regulations that are currently applied to medical devices and
pharmaceuticals.
Other Countries Regulate LDTs, though Not Without
Controversy
In support of their call to action, IHPME researchers noted
that Australia, the EU, and the US all have taken steps to regulate LDTs.
The Australian government began oversight of LDTs in 2010 by
subjecting high-risk LDTs to external evaluation and then tracking them in a
public registry.
An EU regulation, which was passed in 2017, will administer
regulatory review of LDTs manufactured on an industrial scale, which targets
commercial laboratories. The law exempts LDTs utilized within individual
hospital laboratories and should be fully implemented by 2022.
Though on its radar since the 1990s, in 2010, the FDA officially
announced its intent to regulate LDTs in the US. The agency released an initial
draft approach for doing so starting in 2014, held a public workshop on the
topic in 2015, and released a
discussion paper in 2017. At this time, however, the FDA is not regulating
LDTs, though the agency remains open to the possibility.
Dark Daily
has reported extensively over the years on the development of LDTs and the
controversy surrounding the FDA’s moves to regulate them.
According to the FDA
website, problems with several high-risk LDTs have been identified,
including:
Claims that are not adequately supported with
evidence;
Lack of appropriate controls which may yield
erroneous results; and
The FDA’s report, titled, “The
Public Health Evidence for FDA Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests,” reviewed
20 case studies of LDTs for Lyme disease, ovarian cancer, whooping cough,
fibromyalgia, prostate cancer, autism, breast cancer, melanoma, Vitamin D, and
other conditions. The agency concluded that in many instances “patients have
been demonstrably harmed or may have been harmed by tests that did not meet FDA
requirements.”
Klein noted, however, that “The 20 tests described by FDA are mostly a hodgepodge of outlier assays including tests that were never offered, tests for which comparable FDA assays perform poorly, tests for poorly defined disorders with psychologic components, and use of an FDA-approved test off-label.” He continued, “That FDA could find only these dubious examples out of the many thousands of laboratory-developed procedures (LDPs) that benefit patients each day, calls into question the agency’s rationale for expanding its regulatory scope to include LDPs.”
Perhaps this is why the FDA has yet to implement regulations
for LDTs. The controversy continues.
Whether Health Canada will accept the advice of the IHPME
scientists and take steps to regulate laboratory-developed tests in Canada remains
to be seen. As more LDTs are created and manufactured, however, it is probable
that governments will continue to evaluate the administration and oversight of laboratory-developed
tests.
In both Canada and the United States, pathologists, clinical
laboratory managers, and executives at in vitro diagnostic manufacturers
can expect an ongoing tug-of-war between government regulators and the lab
industry over the most appropriate ways to regulate LDTs.
Clinical laboratories could offer services that complement SDH programs and help physicians find chronic disease patients who are undiagnosed
Insurance companies and healthcare providers increasingly consider social determinants of health (SDH) when devising strategies to improve the health of their customers and affect positive outcomes to medical encounters. Housing, transportation, access to food, and social support are quickly becoming part of the SDH approach to value-based care and population health.
For clinical laboratory managers and pathologists this rapidly-developing trend is worth watching. They can expect to see more providers and insurers in their communities begin to offer these types of services to individuals and patients who might stay healthier and out of the hospital as a result of SDH programs. Clinical laboratories should consider strategies that help them provide medical lab testing services that complement SDH programs.
Medical laboratories, for example, could participate by offering
free transportation to patient
service centers for homebound chronic disease patients who need regular
blood tests. Such community outreach also could help physicians identify people
with chronic diseases who might otherwise go undiagnosed.
Anthem Offers Social
Determinants of Health Package
In fact, health benefits giant Anthem, Inc. (NYSE:ANTM) partly attributes its 2019 first quarter 14% increase of Medicare Advantage members to a new “social determinants of health benefits package” comprised of healthy meals, transportation, adult day care, and homecare, according to Forbes.
“Our focus on caring for the whole person is designed to deliver
better care and outcomes, reduce costs, and ultimately accelerate growth,” Gail Boudreaux,
Anthem President and CEO, stated in a call to analysts, Forbes reports.
An Anthem news release states that SDH priorities for payers, providers, and other stakeholders should focus on enhancing individuals’ access to food, transportation, and social support.
In the Anthem news release, which announced the publication of a white paper that “outlines key differences in how individuals and the public perceive social determinants of health,” Jennifer Kowalski (above), Vice President of the Anthem Public Policy Institute stated, “By better understanding how individuals view and talk about social determinants, payers and providers alike can identify new and improved ways to engage with them to more effectively improve their health and wellbeing and the delivery of healthcare.” (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
CMS Expands Medicare
Advantage Plans to Include Social Determinants of Health
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that, effective in 2019, Medicare Advantage plans can offer members benefits that address social determinants of health. Medicare Advantage members may be covered for services such as adult day care, meal delivery, transportation, and home environmental services that relate to chronic illnesses.
Humana’s ‘Bold Goal’
Humana, Inc. (NYSE:HUM) calls its SDH focus the BoldGoal. The program aims to improve health in communities it serves by 20% by 2020.
“The social barriers and health challenges that our Medicare Advantage members and others face are deeply personal. This requires us to become their trusted advocate that can partner with them to understand, navigate, and address these barriers and challenges,” said William Shrank, MD, Humana’s Chief Medical Officer, in a news release.
UnitedHealthcare
Investing More than $400 Million in Housing
Meanwhile, since 2011, UnitedHealthcare (NYSE:UNH) also has invested in affordable housing and social determinants of health, Health Payer Intelligence reported.
In a news release, UnitedHealthcare, the nation’s largest health insurer, described how it is investing more than $400 million in 80 affordable US housing communities, including:
$12 million, PATH Metro Villas, Los Angeles;
$11.7 million, Capital Studios, Austin;
$14.5 million allocated to Minneapolis military
veterans housing;
$7.9 million, New Parkridge (in Ypsilanti, Mich.)
affordable housing complex;
$21 million earmarked to Phoenix low- and moderate-income
families needing housing and supportive services;
$7.8 million, Gouverneur Place Apartments, Bronx,
New York; and
$7.7 million, The Vinings, Clarksville, Tenn.
“Access to safe and affordable housing is one of the
greatest obstacles to better health, making it a social determinant that
affects people’s well-being and quality of life. UnitedHealthcare partners with
other socially minded organizations in helping make a positive impact in our
communities,” said Steve Nelson,
UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, in the news
release.
According to the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Health Research and Educational Trust (HRET), housing, or lack of it, impacts health. In “Housing and the Role of Hospitals,” the second guide in the organizations’ “Social Determinants of Health Series,” AHA and HRET state that 1.48 million people are homeless each year, and that unstable living conditions are associated with less preventative care, as well as the propensity to acquire diabetes, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, and other healthcare conditions.
Social determinants of health programs are gaining in
popularity. And as they become more robust, proactive clinical laboratory
leaders may find opportunities to work with insurers and healthcare providers
toward SDH goals to help healthcare consumers stay healthy, as well as reducing
unnecessary hospital admissions and healthcare costs.
If direct-to-consumer testing continues to attract healthcare consumers and financial investors, medical laboratories could have a new source of revenue
Many have tried but few have found the right formula to
offer medical laboratory tests directly to consumers. Direct-to-consumer lab
testing as a robust business model has been an elusive goal. But now one
entrepreneur wants to crack this market and just attracted $50 million in
venture capital to fund her idea!
Outsiders often establish industries. This was the case when Jeff Bezos created Amazon in 1994. The online retailer transformed the way books were sold and, subsequently, established a massive new retail market.
Along the same lines, Julia Taylor Cheek, Founder and CEO of EverlyWell, a well-financed digital health company based in Austin—hopes to build a similarly disruptive business in the clinical laboratory industry.
Cheek is increasing her company’s outreach to consumers by
putting some of the company’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical tests on store
shelves at CVS and Target.
A former consultant and Harvard Business School graduate, Cheek raised $50 million in financing to expand EverlyWell’s digital platform. According to a news release, “Just two full years into operation, EverlyWell is reporting 300% year-over-year customer growth and a world-class consumer Net Promoter Score (NPS).”
“I think it’s a representation of sexism in our space. There are 15 other companies that have popped up in blood testing and you don’t hear anyone comparing Theranos to those male-founded startups,” she told Inc.
However, Dark Daily believes Cheek may be missing one
basis for the comparison with Elizabeth Holmes. Holmes intended for Theranos to
serve consumers with lab testing, and let consumers order and purchase their
own medical laboratory tests. Cheek is talking about the same primary business
strategy of letting consumers purchase their own lab tests.
Armed with this additional financing from investors, EverlyWell intends to expand services and develop new partnerships with retail pharmacy chain CVS Health (NYSE:CVS) and for-profit insurance company Humana (NYSE:HUM).
The news release notes, “The company has also expanded its
product line to offer 35 panels, including first-to-market tests in fertility,
vitamins, peri- and post-menopause, and high-risk HPV. In addition, EverlyWell
has launched an end-to-end care model for consumers, now offering an
independent physician consult and prescription, if appropriate, for select STDs
and Lyme Disease testing. All of this is included in an upfront price before
purchase.”
EverlyWell Intent on
Bringing Medical Laboratory Tests to Retail
Earlier this year, EverlyWell made nine lab tests available in more than 1,600 Target store locations, MedCity News reported. This may suggest that retailers are intrigued with direct-to-consumer lab testing.
“We didn’t create new tests or technologies. Instead, we’ve built technology that empowers people to get tests more easily. Our medical director works with the labs to create panels that are already validated and clinically relevant and understandable for consumers,” Julia Taylor Cheek (above), Founder and CEO of EverlyWell told Forbes. (Photo copyright: Arnold Wells/Austin Business Journal.)
Cheek reportedly established EverlyWell after becoming
disenchanted with medical laboratory tests that she felt were not well
explained and too costly under high-deductible health plans.
Just two years on, EverlyWell reports “hundreds of thousands of customers and tens of millions in sales.” The company plans to add additional staff on top of its existing 70 employees in anticipation of the new funding, Austin Business Journal reports.
“We are building a consumer brand, which means we have to be where people shop. We need to be in places like CVS and Target to really allow for broader distribution and name recognition,” Cheek told the Austin American-Statesman.
What Draws People to EverlyWell?
EverlyWell offers home health test kits, priced from $49 to
$400 that people can order without a doctor’s prescription and pay for online. Users
take their samples (saliva, urine, or a pinprick of blood) with provided
lancets and cotton swabs, MedCity News
reported.
EverlyWell’s top selling tests are:
Food sensitivity-$159;
Thyroid function-$159;
Metabolism-$89; and
Vitamin D deficiency-$99.
EverlyWell says it is “first” in direct-to-consumer tests
for:
EverlyWell Test kits come with registration information, instructions, collection tools;
Biological samples are sent by consumers to CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments)-certified labs that partner with EverlyWell;
Results are generally completed within 10 days depending on type of test and business volume;
A physician reviews the test results;
Reports on test results are electronically accessible through smartphone apps and online web dashboards.
“Lab testing is arguably one of the most important steps in preventing and managing illness but has been largely ignored by digital health companies. EverlyWell is successfully navigating an entrenched industry to offer consumers an opportunity to take charge of their own health,” said Eric Kim, Managing Partner at Goodwater Capital (which led the financing), in the news release.
“We’re building the definitive technology-enabled healthcare platform that consumers deserve and have already come to expect in other areas of their lives,” Cheek told VentureBeat. “As high-deductible plans become the norm, consumers are becoming discerning buyers who look for seamless, digitally enabled experiences.”
Learning from
EverlyWell
Of course, pathologists and medical laboratory professionals
will watch to see if EverlyWell can sustain its rapid rise in popularity with
healthcare consumers. In particular, those consumers who prefer DTC testing
over traditional clinical laboratory visits and who may be on high-deductible
health plans.
The DTC test market represents an opportunity that most
clinical laboratories have yet to take seriously. There are many reasons why
medical lab managers and pathologists would be taking a “wait and see”
attitude. Meanwhile, EverlyWell has $50 million of investors’ money to use to
demonstrate the financial viability of its strategy to encourage consumers to purchase
their own clinical laboratory tests—and even collect their own specimens at
home!
Expanding healthcare services into communities is expected to increase orders for clinical laboratory tests, promote precision medicine, and lower overall costs
Clinical
laboratories continue to adapt to servicing providers in non-traditional
healthcare settings. These include freestanding urgent care centers as well as
mini-clinics in retail locations. Dark Daily has covered this trend
extensively in previous
e-briefings.
To secure a share of this new market, national retailers,
pharmacy chains, and grocery stores are increasing their health and medical
service offerings and forging partnerships with other organizations, such as
tech developers.
One such recent partnership involves Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.
(NYSE:WBA) and the Microsoft
Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT). In January, both parties announced a joint
venture to develop new healthcare solutions that will improve patient outcomes while
lowering cost through research and development, funding, and technology.
“Our strategic partnership with Microsoft demonstrates our
strong commitment to creating integrated, next-generation, digitally-enabled
healthcare delivery solutions for our customers, transforming our stores into
modern neighborhood health destinations, and expanding customer offerings,”
said Stefano
Pessina, Executive Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Walgreens,
in a Microsoft press
release.
Through this partnership, Walgreens plans to provide personalized healthcare (aka, precision medicine) by connecting its customers to pertinent health information through digital devices and in-store expert advice. The goal is to proactively engage patients in their own care to improve medication adherence, reduce emergency room visits, decrease hospital readmissions, and provide customers with lifestyle management solutions.
In addition, the two companies will share each other’s
market research and work with consumers, payers, providers, and pharmaceutical
manufacturers to devise solutions that improve health outcomes while lowering
costs.
“[Walgreens Boot Alliance] will work with Microsoft to harness the information that exists between payers and healthcare providers to leverage, in the interest of patients and with their consent, our extraordinary network of accessible and convenient locations to deliver new innovations, greater value, and better health outcomes in healthcare systems across the world,” Pessina said in the press release.
As part of this partnership, Walgreens will move the majority of its IT infrastructure onto Microsoft Azure, a cloud computing and artificial intelligence (AI) platform. Walgreens also will provide Microsoft 365 to more than 380,000 employees and stores located throughout the world. Microsoft 365 is a business solution which bundles Windows 10 and Office 365 with advanced security features.
Other Walgreens Collaborations That Provide Healthcare at
Retail Locations
Walgreens also announced several collaborations with other
companies to become more competitive and secure their share of the healthcare
market.
Through its partnership with Chicago-based VillageMD, a national provider of primary
care clinics, Walgreens will open five primary care clinics next to Walgreens
stores in the Houston area. These clinics, called “Village Medical at Walgreens,”
will offer customers comprehensive primary care services, pharmacists, nurses,
and social workers.
“This collaboration with VillageMD demonstrates our ongoing commitment to create neighborhood health destinations that bring affordable healthcare services to customers and provide a differentiated patient experience to the communities we serve,” stated Patrick Carroll, MD (above), Chief Medical Officer, Clinical Programs and Alliances, Walgreens, in a Walgreens press release. “VillageMD has a strong track record nationally of improving outcomes and reducing the cost of healthcare through their transformative primary care model.” (Photo copyright: Walgreens.)
Another collaboration involves Verily Life
Sciences, a research arm of Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG), Google’s parent company. The
agreement is for multiple projects to improve health outcomes for patients with
chronic illnesses. The two companies will be exploring the use of technology, such
as sensors, and software to help prevent, manage, screen, and diagnose disease
with the ultimate goal of deploying those technologies at Walgreens retail
locations.
“The
continued rise in chronic diseases today can be costly to patients as well as
to our healthcare system,” Pessina told Business
Wire. “Working with Verily, we’ll look at how we can best support
integrated and value-based care to meet our patients’ needs, as well as
opportunities to address other chronic conditions over time.”
Service Agreements with LabCorp and Quest
In 2018, Walgreens
announced a significant expansion of their collaboration with LabCorp, to increase the number of patient
service center (PCS) locations within Walgreens stores. The two companies
agreed to open at least 600 additional LabCorp-at-Walgreens facilities across
the US over the next four years. At the time of the announcement, LabCorp operated
17 facilities at Walgreens in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, and Illinois.
Along the same lines, Quest
Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX) also has opened hundreds of patient-serviced centers
within various food and drug retail stores throughout the US, which Dark
Daily reported in 2017.
“Healthcare is too complicated, too big, and if I can say, a
little too messy,” Pessina told Digital
Commerce 360. “We cannot be helpful to our patients if we don’t team up
with many, many different, practically all, the players in this industry.”
CVS HealthHubs Offer Blood Testing, Health Screenings,
and Other Services
To remain competitive, CVS also is trying new ways to
capitalize on the growing healthcare market.
In February, CVS announced
the creation of three newly designed stores in the Houston area as pilot
projects. These stores, called HealthHubs,
will include expanded health clinics with medical laboratories for blood
testing and health screenings. They’ll also feature dieticians, respiratory
specialists, and dedicated space to assist customers with the management of
some chronic health conditions, as well as wellness rooms for yoga classes and
health seminars.
“We’re pleased and surprised pleasantly with the ecosystem
of healthcare that we’ve created here and how approachable it is, how much
people are interested in it, and there are certain things we can take to all
stores,” Kevin
Hourican, Executive Vice President, CVS Health and President, CVS Pharmacy,
told Becker’s
Hospital Review.
With more retailers
adding an ever-increasing number of healthcare services to their offerings, the
number of medical laboratory tests available at those locations will likely
also increase. Although this trend may boost competition for clinical
laboratories, it could also benefit them by creating new opportunities to
provide value-added services to their clients.
Defamation, libel, harassment, and causing emotional distress are some of the charges patients who launched online negative review campaigns are defending themselves against in court
Healthcare systems, surgeons, family practitioners, clinical laboratories, anatomic pathologists—none are immune to receiving negative online reviews from patients who believe they’ve been damaged by their caregivers. And these reviews can have such an impact on practice revenues, doctors and hospitals have begun suing patients for damages caused by harmful online reviews. And they are winning.
Several notable cases involve high-profile healthcare systems. One such lawsuit involved the Cleveland Clinic. A patient who claimed a 2008 prostate surgery left him impotent and incontinent due to negligence on the part of the surgeon launched a negative campaign that spanned a decade, USA Today reported.
David Antoon, a retired Air Force Colonel, filed a malpractice lawsuit against urologist, Jihad Kaouk, MD, and the Cleveland Clinic. Antoon alleged Kaouk was not present in the operating room during his surgery, even though he insisted that only Kaouk perform the procedure. Antoon also claimed the Cleveland Clinic’s urology department did not have the proper credentials to operate the robotic device used during his surgery.
In addition to filing the lawsuit, Antoon complained to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the State Medical Board of Ohio.
However, Antoon also vented his frustrations on social media, as well as sending e-mails to Kaouk, which the doctor felt were threatening and made him concerned about the situation escalating. “What would be next—showing up at my door?” Kaouk asked during the criminal trial against Antoon. “That’s what we feared.”
Jihad Kaouk, MD (above), a urologist with the Cleveland Clinic, giving testimony atCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court during a lawsuit involving patient David Antoon, a retired Air Force Colonel. Kaouk and the Cleveland Clinic prevailed in that lawsuit and the State Medical Board of Ohio closed a five-year investigation into Kaouk without reprimanding him. (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Antoon posted unfavorable online comments about Kaouk for a decade. The urologist eventually petitioned the court, which granted him a civil stalking protective order against Antoon. It banned Antoon from contacting the doctor. Nevertheless, the day after that order was granted, Antoon posted another bad review about Kaouk on Yelp and urged people to avoid Kaouk when seeking medical care.
Antoon was later arrested on felony charges of menacing by stalking, telecommunications harassment, and violating a protection order. He faced up to one year in prison if indicted. In addition to spending two days in jail, he paid $40,000 for a defense attorney and a $50,000 bond after being arrested. He also agreed to pay $100 as part of a plea deal.
Above is David Antoon (left), Col USAF Ret, and Don Malarcik (right), an attorney with Malarcik, Pierce, Munyer, and Will in Akron, Ohio. Malarcik argued that “the Yelp review doesn’t violate the protection order because Antoon did not make direct contact with Kaouk,” Cleveland.com reported. (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Other Lawsuits Against Patients Involving Social Media
Joon Song, MD, PhD, a New York City area gynecologist sued patient Michelle Levine over critical reviews she left about his practice on several online sites. Though Levine removed her posts from the sites after being sued, Song wants her to pay $1 million in legal fees and damages. The doctor accused Levine of defamation, libel, and causing emotional distress. Sound familiar?
Two Scottsdale, Ariz., doctors—Albert Carlotti, MD, and Michelle Cabret-Carlotti, MD, DDS,—successfully sued patient Sherry Petta for defamation after she posted negative statements about the doctors online. After filing a complaint with the Arizona Medical Board and clashing with Carlotti over access to her medical records, Petta posted unfavorable reviews about the practice on several online sites and created a website to warn others about Carlotti. The doctors claimed the statements Petta made were untrue and portrayed them in a false light. A jury agreed and awarded the doctors $12 million, which was later vacated on appeal.
Cleveland cosmetic surgeon Bahman Guyuron, MD, sued a former patient after she posted adversarial reviews on several online review sites about her dissatisfaction with a nose job. The patient, who remains unidentified, alleges that Guyuron acted in an untrustworthy and unprofessional manner, that she received no follow-up care, and that Guyuron urges people to post erroneous positive reviews online. She also claims that there was no informed consent to the procedure and that her nose is now twice as large as before.
Guyuron is seeking monetary damages, an injunction against the patient to prevent her from posting negative reviews about him online, and an order to remove all existing statements about him from the Internet.
Clinical Laboratories Vulnerable to Negative Reviews
Healthcare is complicated and positive outcomes can never be guaranteed. When patients do not get satisfaction by complaining to the doctors and facilities, they may seek other ways to be heard. And negative comments made on social media and online review websites can harm the reputations and businesses of physicians and medical facilities.
“It would be great if the regulators of hospitals and doctors were more diligent about responding to harm to patients, but they’re not, so people have turned to other people,” Lisa McGiffert, former head of the Consumer Reports Safe Patient Project, told USA Today. “This is what happens when your system of oversight is failing patients.”
However, Ryan Lorenz, Petta’s attorney warns consumers to be aware of the consequences of posting critical online reviews, especially if they post factually inaccurate information. “Make sure what you are saying is true—it has to be truthful,” he told USA Today.
Similar situations can arise in the clinical laboratory industry as well. There were multiple postings on Yelp in 2014 and 2015 by patients criticizing blood-testing company Theranos regarding discordant test results they’d received from Theranos’ lab, which Dark Daily covered in multiple e-briefings.
Trust is the hardest thing to earn, the easiest thing to lose, and once gone, can be impossible to get back. Clinical laboratories are just as susceptible to negative reviews as hospitals and doctors.
Worse yet, labs can be drawn into lawsuits simply because they service the hospital systems and caregivers involved. Preparing in advance for this possibility should be on every clinical laboratory manager’s do list.
