Technology like Apple’s VR/AR headsets may prove useful to clinical laboratories in accessioning and in pathology labs during biopsy grossing
In what has been billed as a first, medical teams in the US and UK used Apple’s Extended Reality (XR) Vision Pro headset system to assist in surgical procedures. The surgeons themselves did not wear the $3,500 headset. Instead, surgical nurses used the device for touch-free access to a software application that assisted them in setting up, organizing, and performing the operations. For pathologists and clinical laboratories, in the histology laboratory, such an arrangement involving XR headsets could be used when a biopsy is at the grossing station as well.
The headset software the team used during surgery was developed by eXpanded eXistence, Inc. (eXeX), a Florida-based company whose primary product is an iOS (Apple mobile operating system) application that provides similar functions for mobile devices. eXeX adapted the iOS app to work on Apple’s Extended Reality headset.
Extended Reality is an umbrella term for augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). Apple refers to the technology as “spatial” computing.
Within the clinical laboratory, XR headsets could be used in the accessioning process as the accessioner works through the steps to confirm all required information accompanies the test requisition and that the patient’s specimen is processed/aliquoted appropriately.
“The eXeX platform, enhanced by artificial intelligence, is designed not as a medical device but as an organizational and logistics tool. It aims to streamline the management of tens of thousands of items, including equipment, tools, technologies, consumables, implants, and surgical products,” said neurosurgeon Robert Masson, MD, eXeX’s founder and CEO, in a February news release.
Masson first deployed the software in his own surgical practice. Then in March, eXeX announced that a surgical team at Cromwell Hospital in London used the system in two microsurgical spine procedures, according to a March new release.
That news garnered media coverage in the UK as well as in US-based publications that follow Apple.
“We are in a new era of surgery, and for the first time, our surgical teams have the brilliance of visual holographic guidance and maps, improving visuospatial and temporal orientation for each surgical team and for each surgery in all specialties,” said neurosurgeon Robert Masson, MD (above), eXeX’s founder and CEO, in a press release. Clinical laboratories may one day use XR headsets in the histology lab at the grossing station. (Photo copyright: Masson Spine Institute.)
Surgical Process Not Glamorous, But Important
Despite being on a cutting-edge XR platform, the eXeX software addresses “the least glamorous part” of the surgical process, Masson told Gizmodo.
“People assume that surgical healthcare has got to be sophisticated and modern,” he said. “The reality is the way we organize it is probably the most archaic of all the major industries on the planet. It’s all memorization and guesswork with scribbles on pieces of paper.”
The advantage of an XR headset is that it allows use of the eXeX software in a sterile environment, he added. “The ability to interact with digital screens and holograms and lists and maps and products unlocks all kinds of possibilities. Suddenly, you’ve got an interactive digital tool that you can use without violating the sanctity of sterility.”
Does he foresee a future when the surgeons themselves use XR headsets in the operating room? Not necessarily, Masson told Gizmodo.
“There’s always a tendency to say, ‘look at this amazing tech, let’s put a screw in with it,’” he said. “Well, we’re already putting screws in without the headset, so it doesn’t really solve a problem. People tend to think of floating spines, floating heights, you know, an overlay that tells you where to put a catheter in the liver. Honestly, it’s all unnecessary because we already do that pretty well. What we don’t do really well is stay organized.”
Other XR Apps for Healthcare
In a news release, Apple showcased other healthcare apps for its Vision Pro platform.
Epic Systems, an electronic health record (EHR) system developer, has an app called Epic Spatial Computing Concept that allows clinicians “to easily complete charting, review labs, communicate using secure chat, and complete in-basket workflows through intuitive gestures, like simply tapping their fingers to select, flicking their wrist to scroll, or using a virtual keyboard or dictation to type,” Apple stated in the news release.
Stryker, manufacturer of Mako surgical robotic arms for joint-replacement procedures, has an Apple iOS app called myMako that “allows surgeons to visualize and review patients’ Mako surgical plans at any time in a brilliant, immersive visual experience,” Apple said.
Cinematic Reality, from Siemens Healthineers, is an Apple iOS app that “allows surgeons, medical students, and patients to view immersive, interactive holograms of the human body captured through medical scans in their real-world environment,” Apple said.
New Era in Technology
For the past 20 years, manufacturing companies have installed systems at workstations with audio and video that show each step in a work process and with written checklists on the computer screen. This allows workers to check off each required step as proof that each required work element was performed.
This is similar to professional pilots who use checklists at every step in a flight process. One pilot will read the checklist items, the other will perform the step and confirm it was complete.
These procedures are generally completed on computer displays, but with the advent of XR headset technology, these types of procedures are evolving toward mobility.
To prepare for the emergence of XR-based healthcare apps, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has organized a research team to devise best practices for testing these headset devices, CNBC reported.
It will be some time before XR headset technology finds its way into histology laboratories, clinical laboratories, and pathology practices, but since the rate of technology adoption accelerates exponentially, it might not take very long.
Because of their big share of patient prescriptions, the three largest PBMs are about to undergo scrutiny via Congressional reports and looming lawsuits that call out questionable practices
Pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are finding themselves under scrutiny from both Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigations into drug pricing as well as recent Congressional hearings into anticompetitive practices.
Because of how PBMs have captured the lion’s share of patient prescriptions away from retail pharmacies in the United States during the past 15 years, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers may want to track how Congress and federal antitrust regulators respond to this development. The issue is the high cost of prescription drugs for patients and the role of PBMs in keeping drug prices high to optimize their profits.
House representatives pressed the executives for “steering patients to pharmacies the PBM owns and favoring more expensive brand-name drugs on their formularies, or list of covered drugs, which result in higher rebates paid to them by drugmakers,” Healthcare Dive noted.
In its final report, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability found that “PBMs inflate prescription drug costs and interfere with patient care for their own financial benefit.”
Though hearings on PBMs have been increasing, the last time PBM executives testified on the Hill was before the Senate Committee on Finance in 2019, according to Healthcare Dive.
“Spread pricing and rebates benefit PBMs and have helped the three largest PBMs monopolize the pharmaceutical market … these self-benefitting practices only serve to help their bottom line rather than patients,” said Chairman James Comer (above) during a meeting of the federal Committee on Oversight and Accountability. “PBMs have been allowed to hide in the shadows for far too long. I look forward to the Oversight Committee continuing to work in a bipartisan fashion to shine a light on how these PBMs have undermined community pharmacies, raised prescriptions drug prices, and jeopardized patient care.” Clinical laboratory executives may want to track efforts by Congress to rein in PBMs so as to reduce the cost of prescription drugs to patients. (Photo copyright: US Federal Government/Public Domain.)
Turning up the Heat on PBMs
The spotlight began to grow on PBM practices back in 2023. Since then, PBMs have been the focus of three congressional hearings. The late July meeting came just hours after Chairman James Comer, R-KY, presented his report following a 32-month-long investigation “into how PBMs raise prices and reduce consumer choice,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Comer’s research found that “PBMs have used their position as middlemen to cement anticompetitive policies which have increased prescription drug costs, hurt independent pharmacies, and harmed patient care,” according to a press release announcing the upcoming hearing with the executives of the three largest PBMs.
Comer’s report uncovered “300 examples of the three PBMs preferring medications that cost at least $500 more per claim than a safe alternative medication excluded from their formularies,” Healthcare Dive noted.
Coming Lawsuits, Public Opinion
While the Congressional hearings put pressure on the three PBMs, a new threat looms on the horizon—multiple lawsuits—including one from the FTC “over their tactics for negotiating prices for drugs including insulin, after a two-year investigation into whether the companies steer patients away from less-expensive medicines,” The Wall Street Journal reported.
State attorney generals and independent pharmacies are lining up with lawsuits targeting PBM’s questionable business practices as well, Healthcare Dive reported.
While PBMs maintain their innocence, public opinion differs. An independent survey from KFF found that approximately three out of 10 individuals surveyed reported not taking a prescribed medicine due to expensive costs.
“This includes about one in five who report they have not filled a prescription or took an over-the counter drug instead (21%), and 12% who say they have cut pills in half or skipped a dose because of the cost,” KFF reported.
Further, 82% of those surveyed described the cost of prescription drugs to be unreasonable. Still, 65% described the costs as being easily affordable, with the biggest challenge going to those with a household income of less than $40,000.
PBMs Push Back
In response to the backlash, the PBMs brought their own report to Congress, prepared by global consulting firm Compass Lexecon. It showed that “PBMs pass through almost all rebates to plan sponsors and have operating margins below 5% in recent years,” Healthcare Dive reported.
During their testimony, Conway said that Optum Rx saves over $2,000 per person annually. Kautzner claimed Express Scripts brought $64 billion in savings to patients last year and kept “out-of-pocket costs on a per-prescription basis at $15, despite brand manufacturers raising drug prices on 60% of those products,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Joyner said CVS Caremark experienced “little or no competition” from the pharmaceutical industry for brand name drugs. He blamed the pharmaceutical industry for drug pricing increases, Healthcare Drive reported.
“Let me be clear, we do not contribute to the rising list prices. Hampering our ability to negotiate lower drug cost … would only remove an essential tool and our ability to deliver lower cost for medications,” Joyner told the Congressional committee.
House representatives were not moved.
“On one hand we have PBMs claiming to reduce prescription drug prices and on the other hand we have the Federal Trade Commission, we have major media outlets like The New York Times, and we have at least eight different attorneys generals, Democrats and Republicans, who all say PBMs are inflating drug costs,” said Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill), Healthcare Dive reported.
“This is why just about every state now is taking up PBM reform,” Comer said. “There’s a credibility issue.”
Because there has been a parallel concentration of market share for clinical laboratory testing among a handful of billion-dollar national lab corporations, clinical laboratory managers may want to follow these events. They are examples of federal regulators investigating the business practices of a major healthcare sector while, at the same time, members of Congress look for ways to lower healthcare costs. Prescription drugs is a high-profile target.
At some future point, the cost of genetic testing could also become a target when Congress seeks other healthcare sectors in their goal to control medical expenses.
Predicted steady increase in the number of new cancer cases globally will stress pathologist and clinical laboratories to process specimens and issue timely cancer diagnoses to referring physicians and patients
In many nations today, it is recognized that the demand for cancer testing services outstrips the capacity of anatomic pathology laboratories to perform cancer testing in a timely manner. Now a new report published in CA, a journal of the American Cancer Society, estimates that the number of new cancers globally will increase substantially during the next few decades.
With today’s cancer diagnostic technologies and standards of practice, it is anatomic pathologists who will typically receive biopsies or patient specimens, perform the tests, and confirm/report whether a patient has cancer. Thus, this new report projecting that the disease will grow 77% to 35 million cases by the year 2050 should be of interest to pathology groups and clinical laboratories worldwide.
The report is a collaboration between the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC) and the American Cancer Society (ACS). The report called for “global escalation of cancer control measures” and paying close attention to risk factors such as smoking, obesity, and infections, according to an IARC statement.
Unfortunately, the news about increasing cancer cases comes at a time when worldwide demand for pathologists already far exceeds available supply.
“The impact of this increase will not be felt evenly across countries of different HDI [human development index] levels. Those who have the fewest resources to manage their cancer burdens will bear the brunt of the global cancer burden,” said epidemiology of cancer researcher Freddie Bray, PhD (above), Head of the Cancer Surveillance Branch at the IARC in Lyon, France, in a press release. Bray “specializes in estimating the global cancer burden and predicting future trends,” according to the organization’s website. He also “leads the Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development (GICR), which is aimed at expanding the coverage and quality of population-based cancer registries in low- and middle-income countries.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists in the United States and abroad would be wise to keep an eye on the coming cancer burden. (Photo copyright: IARC.)
Top Diagnosed Cancers
To complete their study, the WHO/IARC researchers tapped GLOBOCAN [Global Cancer Observatory] estimates of cancer incidence and mortality, the disease’s geographical variability, and predictions based on global demographic projections.
The 10 most frequently diagnosed cancers for men and women (combined) by percent of cancer sites and number of new cases in 2022 include:
For women, the cancer most often diagnosed was at the breast site. It was also the leading cause of death from cancer, the CA study noted, adding that lung and colorectal cancer cases and deaths in women followed breast cancer.
For men, lung cancer was the top cancer diagnosed in terms of cases and deaths, ahead of prostate and colorectal cancer for new cases.
Geographic HDI Affects Cancer of Citizens
The geographic areas with the highest distribution of new cancer cases and mortality rates in 2022, according to the CA paper, are:
Asia: 49.2% of cases, 56.1% of deaths.
Africa: 5.9% of cases, 7.8% of deaths.
Oceania: 1.4% of cases, 0.8% of deaths.
Euro: 22.4% of cases, 20.4% of deaths.
Americas: 21.2% of cases, 14.9% of deaths.
The WHO/IARC report also associated a country’s human development index (HDI)—a measure of health, longevity, and standard of living—with the likelihood of its residents developing cancer, USA Today reported.
“From a global perspective, the risk of developing cancer tends to increase with increasing HDI level. For example, the cumulative risk of men developing cancer before age of 75 years in 2022 ranged from approximately 10% in low HDI settings to over 30% in very high HDI settings,” the researchers wrote in their CA paper.
This suggests that a lack of resources to diagnose and treat cancer can hinder response and treatment.
In a news release, the WHO pointed out examples of what it termed “striking cancer inequity by HDI.”
“Women in lower HDI countries are 50% less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than women in high HDI countries, yet they are at much higher risk of dying of the disease due to late diagnosis and inadequate access to quality treatment,” said medical epidemiologist Isabelle Soerjomataram, MD, PhD, Deputy Head of the Cancer Surveillance Branch, WHO/IARC, in the news release.
Additionally, lung cancer-related resources were four to seven times more likely to be offered in a high-income country than a lower-income country, the WHO noted.
“WHO’s new global survey sheds light on major inequalities and lack of financial protection for cancer around the world, with populations—especially in lower income countries—unable to access the basics of cancer care,” said Bente Mikkelsen, MD, Director of the WHO’s Department of Noncommunicable Diseases, in the news release.
Current State of Pathology Demand
Is the pathology industry prepared for a global cancer burden? Hardly.
In “Examining the Worldwide Pathologist Shortage,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report found that demand for pathology services is growing faster than the number of pathologists available to meet that demand. This is true for the United States and most other nations. Consequently, efforts are underway to more accurately measure the number of pathologists practicing in each country. Early data support the claim of an inadequate number of pathologists.
Thus, aligning clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology resources with cancer projections is especially important in light of the WHO/IARC’s recent report which suggests the number of cancer diagnoses and different types of cancer will increase dramatically in coming years.
The data could be helpful to diagnostic leaders seeking evidence to support training of more anatomic pathologists and expansion of AP laboratories, where cancer is most often confirmed and reported.
Shortage could disrupt the ability of clinical laboratories in hospitals and health systems to run certain tests for bloodstream infections
US clinical laboratories may soon experience a “disruption of availability” of BACTEC blood culture media bottles distributed by Becton Dickinson (BD). That’s according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which issued a Health Alert Network (HAN) Health Advisory to all clinical laboratory professionals, healthcare providers and facility administrators, and other stakeholders warning of the potential shortfall of critical testing supplies.
“This shortage has the potential to disrupt patient care by leading to delays in diagnosis, misdiagnosis, or other challenges in the clinical management of patients with certain infectious diseases,” the CDC stated in the health advisory.
The CDC advises healthcare providers and health departments that use the bottles to “immediately begin to assess their situations and develop plans and options to mitigate the potential impact of the shortage on patient care.”
The advisory notes that the bottles are a key component in continuous-monitoring blood culture systems used to diagnose bloodstream infections and related conditions, such as endocarditis, sepsis, and catheter-related infections. About half of all US laboratories use the BD blood culture system, which is compatible only with the BACTEC bottles, the CDC advisory states.
Infectious disease specialist Krutika Kuppalli, MD (above), Chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and a Medical Officer for COVID-19 Health Operations at the World Health Organization, outlined the potential impact of the shortage on healthcare providers and clinical laboratories. “Without the ability to identify pathogens or [their susceptibility to specific antibiotics], patients may remain on broad antibiotics, increasing the risk of antibiotic resistance and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea,” she told STAT. “Shortages may also discourage ordering blood cultures, leading to missed infections that need treatment.” (Photo copyright: Loyola University Health System.)
FDA Advises Conservation of Existing BACTEC Supplies
The CDC advisory followed a July 10 notice from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that also warned healthcare providers of “interruptions in the supply” of the bottles. The supply disruption “is expected to impact patient diagnosis, follow up patient management, and antimicrobial stewardship efforts,” the FDA’s letter states. “The FDA recommends laboratories and healthcare providers consider conservation strategies to prioritize the use of blood culture media bottles, preserving the supply for patients at highest risk.”
Hospitals have been warned that the bottle shortage could last until September, STAT reported.
BD issued a press release in which BD Worldwide Diagnostic Solutions President Nikos Pavlidis cast blame for the shortage on an unnamed supplier.
“We understand the critical role that blood culture testing plays in diagnosing and treating infections and are taking all available measures to address this important issue, including providing the supplier our manufacturing expertise, using air shipments, modifying BD manufacturing schedules for rapid production, and collaborating with the US Food and Drug Administration to review all potential options to mitigate delays in supply,” Pavlidis said. “As an additional stopgap measure, our former supplier of glass vials will restart production to help fill the intermittent gap in supply.”
Steps Clinical Laboratories Can Take
The CDC and FDA both suggested steps that clinical laboratories and other providers can take to conserve their supplies of the bottles.
Laboratories should strive to prevent contamination of blood cultures, which “can negatively affect patient care and may require the collection of more blood cultures to help determine whether contamination has occurred,” the CDC advised.
In addition, providers should “ensure that the appropriate volume is collected when collecting blood for culture,” the advisory states. “Underfilling bottles decreases the sensitivity to detect bacteremia/fungemia and may require additional blood cultures to be drawn to diagnose an infection.”
Laboratories should also explore alternative options, such as “sending samples out to a laboratory not affected by the shortage.”
The FDA advised providers to collect blood cultures “when medically necessary” in compliance with clinical guidelines, giving priority to patients exhibiting signs of a bloodstream infection.
In an email to STAT, Andrew T. Pavia, MD, Professor of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of Utah, offered examples of situations where blood culture tests are unnecessary according to clinical guidelines.
“There are conditions like uncomplicated community acquired pneumonia or skin infections where blood cultures are often obtained but add very little,” he told STAT. “It will be critical though that blood cultures are obtained from patients with sepsis, those likely to have bloodstream infections, and very vulnerable patients.”
Hospitals Already Addressing Shortage
STAT reported that some hospitals have already taken measures to reduce the number of tests they run. And some are looking into whether they can safely use bottles past their expiration dates.
Sarah Turbett, MD, Associate Director of Clinical Microbiology Laboratories at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, told STAT that her team tested bottles “that were about 100 days past their expiration date to see if they were still able to detect pathogens with the same efficacy as bottles that had not yet expired. They saw no difference in the time to bacterial growth—needed to detect the cause of an infection—in the expired bottles when compared to bottles that had not expired.”
Turbett pointed to a letter in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infection in which European researchers found that bottles from a different brand “were stable for between four and seven months after their expiration dates,” STAT reported.
During a Zoom call hosted by the CDC and the IDSA, hospital representatives asked if the FDA would permit use of expired bottles. However, “a representative of the agency was not able to provide an immediate answer,” STAT reported.
With sepsis being the leading cause of death in hospitals, these specimen bottles for blood culture testing are essential in diagnosing patients with relevant symptoms. This is a new example of how the supply chain for clinical laboratory instruments, tests, and consumables—which was a problem during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic—continues to be problematic in unexpected ways.
Taking a wider view of supply chain issues that can be disruptive to normal operations of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups, the market concentration of in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers means fewer vendors offering the same types of products. Consequently, if a lab’s prime vendor has a supply chain issue, there are few options available to swiftly purchase comparable products.
A separate but related issue in the supply chain involves “just in time” (JIT) inventory management—made famous by Taiichi Ohno of Toyota back in the 1980s. This management approach was designed to deliver components and products to the user hourly, daily, and weekly, as appropriate. The goal was to eliminate the cost of carrying large amounts of inventory. This concept evolved into what today is called the “Lean Manufacturing” method.
However, as was demonstrated during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, manufacturers and medical laboratories that had adopted JIT found themselves with inadequate numbers of components and finished products.
In the case of the current shortage of BD blood culture media bottles, this is a real-world example of how market concentration limited the number of vendors offering comparable products. At the same time, if this particular manufacturer was operating with the JIT inventory management approach, it found itself with minimal inventories of these media bottles to ship to lab clients while it addressed the manufacturing problems that caused this shortage.
Settlement is a reminder to all clinical laboratories that state and federal DOJs and AGs are willing to file actions against genetic testing companies that intentionally mislead the public
California’s Attorney General, in cooperation with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), announced a recent settlement with CRI Genetics regarding deceptive trade practices. The at-home genetics testing company will have to pay $700,000 in civil penalties and according to the Santa Monica Daily Press, “will be barred from a wide range of deceptive practices to settle charges from the Federal Trade Commission and the California Attorney General that the company deceived users about the accuracy of its DNA reports.”
Santa Monica, Calif.-based CRI Genetics (CRI), which also does business as OmniPGx, offers DNA saliva-swab test kits that are analyzed by a third party laboratory to return customers ancestry data, health information, optimal nutritional guidelines, and potential allergies. The company’s website states a guaranteed 8-week turn around for the kits.
The original complaint against CRI alleged the company used misleading marketing practices by claiming its DNA tests are more accurate and detailed than their competitors, such as Ancestry DNA and 23andMe. CRI also claimed their ancestry data was more than 90% accurate and could determine ancestry dating back 50 generations.
In addition, the company stated its algorithm for matching DNA was patented, which it was not, according to the complaint.
The complaint also alleged the CRI website contained deceitful information and was formatted to appear independent but included inflated reviews and false testimonials.
“CRI Genetics could have found legitimatewaysto market its services. Unfortunately, in its pursuit of growth and profits, the company repeatedly misled consumers. The FTC and my office took notice, we investigated, and we are delivering results today,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta (above) in a press release. (Photo copyright: State of California Department of Justice.)
Alleged Deceptive Business Practices
According to court documents, CRI manipulated customers into purchasing add-on services and forced consumers to click through a myriad of pop-up pages to lure them into purchasing more products. Customers were informed they would have a chance to review their orders before being charged but were immediately billed. Consumers then had to go through a lengthy and often confusing process to obtain refunds for returned items.
“Based on the facts and violations of law alleged in this Complaint, the FTC has reason to believe that Defendant has violated or is about to violate laws enforced by the Commission because, among other things, Defendant engaged in the unlawful conduct over a period of four years, willfully and knowingly, despite having knowledge of hundreds of consumer complaints and refund requests, as well as inquiries by the Better Business Bureau regarding their deceptive practices and only ceased its unlawful activities after the FTC notified Defendant of its pending investigation,” the court filings state.
“Our settlement not only holds CRI Genetics accountable for its past misconduct, it also aims to ensure that CRI Genetics doesn’t engage in similar misconduct going forward,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in the press release. “I want to thank our federal counterparts at the FTC for their continued partnership and commitment to ensuring that all businesses play by the same rules.”
In addition to the $700,000 fine, CRI is obligated to change its practices by:
Ceasing to make misrepresentations about its testing and analysis services.
Not using deceptive tactics to sell its products, represent endorsements, or in billing practices.
Accurately disclosing its website billing practices.
Disclosing any sharing or usage of genetic data for purposes besides the services the consumer purchases.
Refraining from offering the sale of any DNA information testing product or service.
“Today’s action continues the FTC’s crackdown on deceptive reviews, dark patterns, and baseless claims around algorithmic solutions,” said Samuel Levine, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, in the press release. “We are proud to partner with California on this important matter and will continue to carefully scrutinize claims around biometric information technologies.”
This settlement serves as a reminder to all genetic testing firms and clinical laboratories that state and federal Departments of Justice and state Attorney Generals are willing to file actions against genetic testing organizations that intentionally mislead the public. It is also useful for lab managers to stay aware of the lengths some genetic testing companies will go to deceive consumers and that regulatory agencies are noticing egregious practices.
