Fawning media coverage Theranos’ blood-test claims ended once experts spoke out, showing the importance of strong relationships between pathologist and journalists
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reporter John Carreyrou’s investigation into former Silicon Valley darling Theranos is credited with turning the spotlight on the blood-testing company’s claims and questionable technology. However, Carreyrou’s investigation may never have happened without the assistance of Missouri pathologist Adam Clapper, MD, who tipped off the reporter to growing skepticism about Theranos’ finger-stick blood testing device.
Clapper’s involvement in Theranos’ fall from grace provides
a lesson on why anatomic
pathologists, clinical
pathologists, and other medical
laboratory leaders should cultivate strong working relationships with
healthcare journalists who seek out expert sources when covering lab-related
issues.
Dark Daily has written extensively about Theranos—once valued at nine billion dollars—and its founder and former CEO Elizabeth Holmes, whose criminal trial on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud is scheduled to begin this summer, noted the WSJ.
In 2018, Holmes and former Theranos President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani settled a civil case with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Holmes agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty and relinquished control of Theranos. She also was barred from serving as Director of a public company for 10 years.
Theranos Investigation Would Not Have Occurred without
Clapper
Holmes founded Theranos in 2003 when she was 19 years old.
By 2013, Holmes had become a media sensation based on her claims that Theranos
had developed a medical technology that could run thousands of clinical
laboratory tests using the blood from a tiny finger-prick. And, she claimed, it
could do so quickly and cheaply.
By 2015, Carreyrou’s exposé in theWall Street Journal revealed Theranos’ massive deceptions and questionable practices. His series of stories kickstarted the company’s downfall. However, Carreyrou acknowledges his investigation would not have occurred if it were not for pathologist Clapper.
“Without Adam Clapper, I am almost 100% sure that I wouldn’t have done anything,” Carreyrou told the Missourian. “It was the combination of him calling me and telling me what he had found out and how he felt and my feelings about the New Yorker story that really got me on the call of this scandal,” he said.
Anatomic and clinical pathologist Adam Clapper, MD (above), became skeptical about Holmes’ claims after reading a profile on her in The New Yorker. In December 2014, Clapper ended a post on his now defunct Pathology Blawg by saying, “Until proven otherwise, I’m going to be skeptical of Theranos’ claims.” That comment became a starting point for Carreyrou’s later investigation into Theranos. (Photo copyright: Missourian.)
According to the Missourian, Clapper turned to
Carreyrou because the reporter had impressed him as “very fact-oriented and
fact-driven” during telephone interviews for a series Carreyrou had written the
year prior on Medicare fraud.
“I could hear his wheels spinning in his head as we were
talking the first time, then he definitely sounded interested and intrigued,”
Clapper told the Missourian. “And then I could tell he was even more so
because very soon thereafter—like half an hour after that initial
conversation—he’d already started to do some research into Theranos.”
Ten months later, the WSJ published Carreyrou’s first
installment of his series on Theranos.
“The fact that this tip originated from a guy in Columbia,
Missouri, thousands of miles from Silicon Valley—who never spoke to Elizabeth
Holmes, who had no connection to the company or even to Silicon Valley other
than he read about her claims in a magazine and knew a lot about this by virtue
of being a pathologist—tells you that the people who put in all the money in [Theranos]
didn’t spend enough time talking to experts and asking them what was feasible
and what wasn’t,” said Carreyrou.
Benjamin Mazer, MD (above), an anatomic and clinical pathology resident in pathology and lab medicine at Yale New Haven Hospital, argues pathologists’ voices were noticeably—and critically—absent from media coverage during Theranos’ decade-long ascension. “For many of us in the pathology community, the writing was on the wall long before Carreyrou’s article was published,” he wrote in Health News Review. “Had journalists consulted pathologists as expert sources, the news coverage of Theranos might have been less fawning and more skeptical. Patients might have been spared erroneous tests.” (Photo copyright: Yale University.)
The lawyers defending Holmes against criminal fraud charges are contending Carreyrou “went beyond reporting the Theranos story” by prodding sources to contact federal regulators about the company’s alleged frauds and “possibly biased the agencies’ findings against [Theranos],” Bloomberg News reported.
Carreyrou told New York Magazine he doesn’t blame reporters for hyping Holmes and the technology she touted.
“You could make a case that maybe they should have done more
reporting beyond interviewing her and her immediate entourage,” he said. “But
how much is a writer/reporter to blame when the subject is bald-face lying to
him, too?”
Nonetheless, the Theranos scandal offers a lesson to
pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals in the importance of
building good working relationships with healthcare journalists who not only
must accurately report on healthcare breakthroughs and developments, but also
need someone they can trust for an unbiased opinion.
Minnesota startup’s ‘breakthrough’ technology aims to deliver point-of-care blood and urine test results within minutes for an estimated $8/single-use test cartridge
Less than a year has passed since blood-testing company Theranos dissolved and saw its top two executives Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani and Elizabeth Holmes indicted for fraud. Now, Ativa Medical, is boasting revolutionary technology that brings similar blood-testing technology to the point of care. After the Theranos debacle, the logical question for clinical laboratories is—will it work?
According to the St. Paul, Minn.-based diagnostic startup’s
website, “Our breakthrough fluid processing engine will enable the full
analytical processes used in large core lab blood analyzers to be performed
affordably and entirely on a low-cost disposable card, within minutes at the
point of care.” Sound familiar?
Though still under development and not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Ativa claims the MicroLAB system, “will enable a broad range of hematology and chemistry testing to be performed on a single test system for the first time.” The system will replicate large-core lab-blood analyzer results within minutes at the point-of-care using a disposable test cartridge with an estimated $8/test cost, the Minneapolis Star Tribune noted.
“We have a team here that is really good at doing really difficult things,” Ativa co-founder and Chief Technology Officer David Deetz, PhD, told the Star Tribune. “We usually [form startup] companies where the last 10 companies have failed.”
Ativa is positioning its MicroLAB system (above) to be the laboratory industry’s next disrupter. The company says its initial test card panels will be aimed at diagnosing patients with acute conditions in primary care settings. It will first introduce a complete blood count panel, followed by a basic metabolic panel and urine panel. Phase two of development will add “focused critical test panels, including those needed to manage patients with chronic conditions,” Ativa’s website states. (Photo copyright: Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal.)
Is Ativa a Phoenix
Rising?
Ativa is rising through the ashes of Theranos, which at its pinnacle was valued at $9 billion based on claims of “breakthrough advancements” that made it possible to “quickly process the full range of laboratory tests from a few drops of blood,” TheWall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.
In reality, the company’s proprietary blood-testing system was unable to live up to Theranos’ marketing hype and claims. It turned out, as the WSJ revealed, Theranos had been performing “the vast majority of its tests with traditional machines from companies like Siemens AG.”
The Theranos curtain began closing on Theranos in June 2018, when Holmes and Balwani were indicted on two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud against Theranos investors, doctors, and patients, as well as nine counts of wire fraud. (Both have pled not guilty.)
Three months later, the company announced plans to formally dissolve,
the WSJ reported.
Pathologist Brad S. Karon, MD, PhD, Mayo Clinic Departments of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, told the Star Tribune, “[MicroLAB’s] microfluidic technology to produce the right sample, like a plasma-like substance to measure glucose, or sodium or potassium or all electrolytes, is not new. And it is being done well now,” Karon explained. “What no one is doing well now—and is a home run for whoever does it first—is the universal platform.” [Photo copyright: Mayo Clinic.)
Theranos’ Taint on
Capital Funding
Point-of-care technology has long been both disruptive and transformative
to clinical laboratories. A trend on which Dark Daily has often reported.
According to Grand
View Research, in 2016, the global market for point-of-care diagnostics was
estimated at $6.3 billion. However, the ghost of Theranos continues to hang
over venture capital funding for emerging technologies, and this dark cloud has
hampered Ativa’s quest for funding.
“This technology—the concept—is amazing. I think that’s why people were willing to go down that road with Theranos,” Kathleen Tune, Managing Director of Minneapolis’ Fourth Element Capital, told the Star Tribune. “But I’m sure [Theranos’ collapse] did cause a taint on the technology area.”
North Carolina-based Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), a leading global diagnostics company, became an investor in Ativa in 2015 when it joined a global syndicate supplying $15 million in new Series B equity financing to the company, VCAOnline.com reported. Yet, traditional venture capital funding for MicroLAB has been in short supply, forcing Ativa to turn to China’s Ping An Ventures and so-called angel investors in the US for much of the $50 million in venture capital that’s been secured, the Star Tribune reported.
The collapse of Theranos has created not only a more
challenging financial environment in which Ativa and other startups must operate,
but it also means all companies touting diagnostic breakthroughs in the
clinical laboratory space will face a more intense spotlight.
“The basic question at Theranos was, where was the demonstrated evidence that could validate the claims that the company was offering?” Jodi Hubler, Managing Director at Minnetonka, Minn.-based Lemhi Ventures, told the Star Tribune. “Those that follow them [such as Ativa] are going to face what might feel like an additional level of scrutiny.”
Time will tell if Ativa can bring its promise of
inexpensive, accurate, and rapid blood testing at the point of care to fruition.
If it succeeds where Theranos failed, clinical laboratories may face new
challenges to their workflow and bottom line, while healthcare consumers will celebrate
easier access to the diagnostic testing they demand.
Affected patients speak about emotional, financial, and medical costs of receiving inaccurate results from the startup’s faulty Edison ‘finger-stick’ blood draw testing device
Healthcare consumers trust America’s clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to provide accurate test results. When those test results are inaccurate, the loss of public trust can trigger a sharp decline in referrals/revenue and draw an avalanche of lawsuits by those harmed by inaccurate results.
Theranos first made its unproven finger-stick blood draw device available to consumers in September 2013, when it announced a partnership with drugstore chain Walgreens (NASDAQ:WBA). At its height, Theranos operated 40 “Wellness Centers” in Walgreens stores in Arizona and a single location in California, which were the source of much of its revenue. USA Today reported the metro Phoenix-area centers alone sold more than 1.5 million blood tests, which yielded 7.8 million tests results for nearly 176,000 consumers. Theranos shuttered the wellness centers in 2016 after CMS inspectors found safety issues at Theranos’ laboratories in California and a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation raised questions about the company’s testing procedures and accuracy claims. Ultimately, Theranos voided the results of all blood tests run on its Edison device from 2014 through 2015.
Breast-cancer survivor Sheri Ackert (above) told the WSJ she panicked when blood-test results from Theranos indicated her cancer may have reoccurred or were indicative of a rare type of tumor. After being retested by a different clinical laboratory, her results were found to be normal. Click here to watch a WSJ video about Ackert’s experience. (Photo/video copyright: Mark Peterman/Adya Beasley/Wall Street Journal.)
USA Today outlined the impact Theranos’ supposedly low-cost, cutting-edge technology had on several customers:
A woman inaccurately diagnosed with the thyroid condition Hashimoto’s disease changed her lifestyle, made unnecessary medical appointments, and took medication she didn’t need;
A woman inaccurately diagnosed with the autoimmune disease Sjögren’s syndrome was checked for food allergies before being retested and found not to have an autoimmune condition; and,
An Arizona resident who had heart surgery visited a Theranos clinic five times to monitor the results of blood-thinning drug warfarin and was switched to a different drug. He had to have a second heart surgery to drain blood from the pericardial sac and believes more accurate test results could have averted the follow-up operation.
Arizona resident Steven Hammons visited a Theranos clinic several times to have his blood tested. He’d been placed on blood thinners following heart surgery. He was taken off the blood thinners presumably based on the results of those tests. However, as USA Today reported, one test result was later found to be inaccurate. Hammons, who underwent a second procedure to remove blood that had built up around his heart, told USA Today he was concerned about the safety of his fellow citizens.
“That makes me very concerned and worried for the safety of other Arizonans,” said Hammons, who once worked in the medical services division of a private health insurance company. “Government had a role in patient safety. The powers that be dropped the ball.”
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich spearheaded a lawsuit against Theranos under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, which led to a $4.65 million settlement covering full refunds for every Arizona customer who used the company’s testing services.
“Theranos may have not only had some erroneous test results, but they may have misread my rising blood pressure level as well,” Brnovich told The Republic in a 2017 article announcing the state’s fraud settlement with Theranos. “They said that about 10% of the results were inaccurate. The problem is, as an Arizona consumer, you don’t know whether you were part of that class or not.”
Downfall of a Once-Vaunted Clinical Laboratory Company
Dark Daily and sister publication The Dark Report have written extensively about these events. Former CEO Elizabeth Holmes founded Theranos in 2003 when she was just 19-years old. By 2013, Holmes had become a media sensation based on her claims that “Theranos had developed a medical technology that could do what seemed to be impossible: Its secret machines could run thousands of medical tests using the blood from a tiny finger-prick, and do so quickly and cheaply,” Bloomberg reported in a recent article outlining Holmes’ fall from grace.
While Holmes continues in the role of Chairman of Theranos’ Board of Directors, she was stripped of control of the company as part of the SEC settlement in 2016. The SEC found Holmes and then-company President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani had fabricated claims Theranos technology had been validated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical companies and battle-tested by the US military in Afghanistan.
As a result, the SEC also barred Holmes from serving as an officer or director of any public company for 10 years. In October 2016, Theranos announced it would be closing its laboratory operations and focusing on its effort to create miniature medical testing machines, which it did. Nevertheless, the fallout continues.
As pressures on medical laboratories and pathology groups to cut costs while delivering quality care and value increases, laboratory leaders must not lose sight of the fact that accuracy of results remains the key to maintaining trust with healthcare consumers and a financially viable business.
Agreements to open PSCs in the nation’s largest retail grocery and pharmacy chain stores shows a willingness by clinical laboratories to attract customers through convenience
Greater use of retail stores as the location for patient services centers (PSCs) may be an important new trend for the clinical laboratory industry. That’s because, historically, medical laboratories placed most of their patient service centers in hospital campuses or near medical office buildings.
However, in recent months, both of the nation’s billion-dollar lab companies signed deals with national retailers to put patient service centers in their stores. Dark Daily believes that the motivation for a lab company to put a PSC into a grocery store or retail pharmacy is to make it easier and more convenient for a patient to get their specimen collected at a location that is closer to their home or office. In other words, it is faster for the patient to get to their nearest grocery store for a blood draw than to travel to the hospital campus in their community.
Various news reports indicate that Quest Diagnostics (Quest) may be more active than Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) in opening PSCs in grocery stores and retail pharmacies. Over the last four months, Quest has announced plans to open patient services centers with several retailers, particularly in the states of Texas and Florida. Similarly, in the past four weeks, LabCorp disclosed an agreement with Walgreens Boots Alliance (Walgreens).
Ground zero for this current interest in putting PSCs into retail stories is Phoenix, Arizona. In 2014, to serve its direct-to-consumer lab testing business model, Theranos had PSCs in about 40 Walgreen’s pharmacies. Pathologists and clinical laboratories will recall that in November, 2015, Sonora Quest Laboratories of Phoenix opened a patient service center (PSC) in a Scottsdale, Ariz., supermarket owned by Safeway. It was the first PSC Sonora Quest had opened in collaboration with a grocery store chain, but it was not the last. Less than a year later, Sonora Quest and Safeway expanded their operations by opening additional PSCs in stores throughout the Grand Canyon State.
At the same time Sonora Quest was stepping into the retail blood-drawing business, Theranos of Palo Alto, Calif., was exiting it after opening 40 PSCs in Walgreens pharmacies, most of them in Arizona. However, before leaving the lab-testing business altogether, the embattled company put a lot of effort into educating consumers about the benefits of purchasing lab tests without a physician’s order. Theranos had even supported a bill (HB2645) the Arizona State Legislature passed that allowed patients to order tests without a physician’s requisition.
Now, in 2017, Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX) appears interested in following a similar strategy as Theranos and Sonora Quest by developing Quest-branded PSCs in retail chain stores. On its website, Quest states that in the past several years it has opened 106 PSCs in Albertsons, Randalls, Safeway, Tom Thumb, and Vons retail stores in nine states.
This Quest patient service center operates within a Safeway store location. (Photo copyright: Quest Diagnostics.)
In June 2017, Quest announced it would open 10 additional PSCs in Tom Thumb retail stores in North Texas by the end of the month. Thom Thumb is a division of Albertsons, a food and drug retailer with stores nationwide. In the same announcement, Quest said it plans to open PSCs in 200 Albertson’s-owned stores nationwide by the end of the year.
Give Blood Then Shop
Also in June, Quest and Walmart (NYSE:WMT) announced a deal in which the two companies would open co-branded PSCs in 15 Walmart stores in Florida and Texas by the end of 2017.
In these locations, Quest encourages patients to have their blood drawn and then shop. Such locations can accommodate collecting specimens for routine blood work, such as total cholesterol and white blood cell count, as well as complex gene-based and molecular testing. Even patients with such chronic conditions as cancer, diabetes, and hepatitis, are encouraged to use these PSCs, the lab-testing company stated in the announcement.
Not to be outdone, LabCorp also announced a deal with Walgreens in June. In Forbes, Bruce Japsen reported that Walgreens (NASDAQ:WBA) announced it would collaborate with LabCorp (NYSE:LH) to develop and operate PSCs in Walgreens drugstores in Colorado, Illinois, and North Carolina.
The deal is the first for Walgreens since its troubled relationship with Theranos ended last year. Walgreens’ collaboration with LabCorp will initially begin this summer with five patient service centers in Denver and one in Morrisville, N.C. A seventh location in Deerfield, Ill., will open by the end of the year. Financial terms of the partnership were not disclosed.
Lessons Clinical Laboratories Learned with PSCs in Retail Stores
For Quest, the speed with which it is opening new PSCs is significant, because it seems to have taken lessons that Theranos and Sonora Quest learned earlier in Ariz. and applied them to markets nationwide. It’s worth noting that Safeway and Albertsons were already two of the largest retail grocery chains in the nation before they merged in 2015.
So, while Sonora Quest was working with Safeway, its parent company, Quest, was working with Albertsons.
One other point that is significant about Quest’s efforts is that not many other clinical laboratories have a presence in retail stores. It’s unknown just how much specimen volume these retail operations generate for Quest, one of the largest clinical lab companies in America. And, it is unknown if these PSCs in retail settings are breaking even or making a profit.
One result, however, is clear. That Quest is being so aggressive in opening PSCs testifies to the company’s level of interest in serving consumers directly. In other words, these PSCs are not primarily a direct-to-consumer play, but are aimed at building market share by adding regular lab testing done for patients. In this way, the direct-to-consumer business that Quest generates is a bonus.
The deals by Quest and LabCorp also imply that both clinical laboratory companies are willing to bet on the fact that consumers may prefer the convenience of using PSCs located in retail stores they currently frequent, rather than going to patient service centers in hospitals and sitting in a waiting rooms.
Clinical chemists at AACC pointed out that Holmes did not present data as promised. Instead, she did a speech that advertised her company’s latest medical lab analyzer
DATELINE: PHILADELPHIA—By now, the clinical laboratory industry and the world knows that Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes took the stage here last Monday at the annual meeting of the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC). The content of her presentation was given wide play by the national press and, in general, Holmes appears to have failed to impress both the medical laboratory scientists in attendance and the journalists representing some of the world’s most prominent news outlets.
Among those in attendance was your Dark Daily editor, and I reported on the key elements of the presentation given by Holmes last week. However, the details contained within Holmes’ speech are only part of this important story. What is of equal or greater interest to medical laboratory professionals and pathologists is how their peers reacted to the invitation to have Holmes speak at the AACC meeting last week (a joint conference with the American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science—ASCLS), along with their reaction to what Holmes decided to present, their assessment of the diagnostic instrument she unveiled, and how they viewed the data she presented about certain assays performed by the Theranos “miniLab” device. (more…)
