Mar 19, 2018 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
The Joint Commission’s recent alteration to the Introduction to Leadership (LD) Standard LD.04.03.09 makes it easier for off-site and independent reference laboratories to service CLIA-hospitals and other CLIA-approved healthcare facilities
Anatomic pathologists working for reference laboratories can now provide diagnostic services to hospitals, critical-access hospitals, and ambulatory care facilities in the US based on the organization’s Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) status, rather than the usual credentialing and privileging. The Joint Commission (TJC) made the change effective January 2018.
According to a TJC press release, “Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) regulations 42 CFR 493.1351 through 493.1495 outline specific and rigorous competency requirements for laboratory personnel, including requirements for pathology services and its subspecialties. But because pathologists practicing in the US are required to comply with these requirements, Joint Commission-accredited organizations that seek the services of pathologists within independent reference laboratories (that comply with CLIA regulations) can safely presume that the pathologists are qualified and competent to perform all diagnostic services within their pathology practice—thus making an additional credentialing and privileging process unnecessary.”
In an interview with Dark Daily, Heather Hurley, Executive Director, The Joint Commission, and Ron Quicho, Associate Project Director and Standards Development Director at TJC, explained the reasons behind this change. “With the current CLIA requirements, the previous standard was adding unnecessary burdens and regulatory overhead to hospitals and ambulatory care organizations—especially as outsourcing continues to increase within the testing market. This update helps to reduce these burdens and streamline testing,” Hurley noted.
Quicho added, “The Joint Commission continually evaluates its standards and survey process to ensure that we are providing an accreditation service that is of the highest quality and value. That said, we made the decision to update the standards based on feedback from stakeholders and customers.”
Ron Quicho, Associate Project Director and Standards Development Director (left), and Heather Hurley, Executive Director (right), The Joint Commission, believe these updated standards will benefit clinical laboratories and hospitals alike. But they note, “Anytime the pathologist provides professional services and consultation in the same laboratory where the specimen was collected or prepared, credentialing and privileging would be required. The exception for credentialing and privileging only applies when pathology services are provided off-site, such as at a reference laboratory.” (Photo copyrights: LinkedIn/The Joint Commission.)
Joint Commission Reduces ‘Unnecessary Burden’ on Hospitals, Ambulatory Care Facilities
Reference testing and CLIA have been a common part of the diagnostics and medical laboratory landscape for decades. According to Quicho, the key components of The Joint Commission’s decision include:
- Increasing numbers of independent practitioners and consultants;
- Reference laboratories often seek pathology services from another laboratory for certain testing and screening. As such, it is unclear if the credentialing and privileging requirements extend to these secondary pathology services, since they may also be providing the interpretation;
- It would be virtually impossible to credential and privilege all pathologists at a reference laboratory whose services result in patient care decisions, since interpretations are made not only in anatomical (surgical) pathology but in many areas of clinical pathology; and,
- Reference laboratories employ hundreds of pathologists and healthcare facilities and cannot be sure of who provides interpretation on specimens that are sent out.
It is important to understand that the exclusions in this latest TJC update only apply when testing is performed offsite of the ordering facility. In their press release, TJC stated, “A reference laboratory is a laboratory contracted for testing that is owned and operated by an organization other than the organization referring the testing … When the pathologist provides his or her professional service, including consultation in the same laboratory or organization where the specimen was collected or prepared, credentialing and privileging is required.”
TJC Change Helps Clinical Laboratories and Hospitals Alike
Hurley points out that the January 2018 edition of TJC’s “Comprehensive Accreditation Manuals” already includes the updated standard and that participating ambulatory care, critical access hospitals, and hospitals were updated regarding the changes. The 2018 print editions will also include this change.
She also points out that exclusion from the standard’s requirements does not prevent hospitals from still requiring credentialing or privileging for their internal compliance processes or regulations. Quicho also emphasizes the importance of continuing to meet all CLIA requirements surrounding competencies, training, and personnel qualifications.
The TJC update should result in less action required by both clinical laboratories and hospitals alike—a welcome change for a market in a state of near-constant flux due to healthcare reform and increased regulation. The reasoning behind the decision also highlights current trends amongst pathology groups and clinical laboratories concerning scaling through consolidation and outsourcing among hospitals, ambulatory care organizations, and critical care providers.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
Now in Effect: Change to Requirements for Credentialing, Privileging of Independent Pathologists
Credentialing and Privileging of Independent Pathologists
The Joint Commission No Longer Requires Credentialing and Privileging of Independent Pathologists—Four Things to Know
Mar 2, 2018 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Liquid biopsy tests hold much promise. But inconsistencies in their findings provoke scrutiny and calls from researchers for further development before they can be considered reliable enough for diagnostic use
Many commercial developers of liquid biopsy tests tout the accuracy and benefits of their diagnostic technology. However, there are an equal number of medical laboratory experts who believe that this technology is not yet reliable enough for clinical use. Critics also point out that these tests are being offered as Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs), which are internally developed and validated and have not undergone regulatory review.
Dark Daily has published several e-briefings on researchers who have sent the same patient samples to different genetic testing labs and received back materially different test results. Now, a new study by Johns Hopkins University concludes that liquid biopsy technology “must improve” before it should be relied upon for diagnostic and treatment decision making.
‘Certification for Medical Laboratories Must Improve’
Liquid Biopsy is the term for drawing whole blood and looking for cancer/tumor cells circulating in the blood stream. This is one factor in the imprecision of a liquid biopsy. Did the blood sample drawn actually have tumor cells? After all, only a limited number of tumor cells, if present, are in circulation.
Researchers at The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine know this and recently compared results of two liquid biopsy tests to determine which one would be more beneficial for patients. They published their findings in the December issue of JAMA Oncology.
Gonzalo Torga, MD (above left), and Kenneth J. Pienta, MD (above right), are the two Johns Hopkins Medicine doctors who conducted the recent study into the efficacy of liquid biopsy laboratory developed tests (LDTs) offered by different medical laboratory companies. They published their findings in JAMA Oncology. (Photos copyright: Johns Hopkins.)
To perform the study, researchers collected blood samples from 40 patients with metastatic prostate cancer and sent the same patient samples to two different Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) licensed College of American Pathologists (CAP) accredited laboratories. The labs then performed DNA next-generation sequencing on the samples following the directions of the two liquid biopsy manufacturers.
In reporting the DNA findings and results from the two medical laboratory companies, researchers discovered that the results completely matched in only three of the 40 patients! The Johns Hopkins researchers are concerned that patients could be prescribed certain cancer treatments based on which lab company’s liquid biopsy test their physician orders, instead of an accurate identification of the unique mutations in their tumors.
“Liquid biopsy is a promising technology, with an exceptional potential to impact our ability to treat patients, but it is a new technology that may need more time and experience to improve,” Gonzalo Torga, MD, Postdoctoral Fellow and Instructor at Johns Hopkins, and the lead author of the study, told Forbes. “We can’t tell from these studies which laboratory’s panel is better, but we can say that certification for these laboratories must improve.”
Unlocking New View of Tumors
Two commercial tests were used for the study:
Guardant360 from Guardant Health, Inc., uses digital sequencing to analyze genomic data points at the single molecular level. It examines 73 genes, including all National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) listed genes. The test searches for DNA fragments among billions of cells and digitally tags each fragment. This process unlocks a view of tumors that is not seen with tissue biopsies, which helps doctors prescribe the best treatment options for a particular patient.
“As a simple blood test, it provides physicians with a streamlined, cost-effective method to identify genomic alterations that can comprehensively influence a patient’s therapy response,” Helmy Eltoukhy, PhD, co-founder and Chief Executive Officer at Guardant Health, told MDBR.
“The only way of keeping ahead of those diseases and tracking those mutations has been through surgery, through doing a tissue biopsy and physically cutting a piece of the tumor out and sequencing it,” Eltoukhy noted in an interview with Xconomy. “What we’re able to do is essentially get the same, or sometimes better performance to tissue biopsy, but through two teaspoons of blood.”
According to the Guardant Health website, it takes just 14 days for a full report from Guardant360 to reach the ordering physician. In addition, the blood test provides samples with an adequate level of cell-free DNA to test 99.8% of the time and reduces errors and false positives found in standard sequencing methods by 1,000 times. It is common for samples used for tissue sequencing to have insufficient DNA for testing 20% to 40% of the time.
“We believe that conquering cancer is at its core a big data problem, and researchers have been data-starved,” explained Eltoukhy in VentureBeat. “Our launch of the world’s first commercial comprehensive liquid biopsy sparked a boom in cancer data acquisition. Every physician who orders one of our tests, and every patient whose tumor DNA we sequence, adds to this larger mission by improving our understanding of this complex disease.”
PlasmaSELECT-R64, manufactured by Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), evaluates a targeted panel of 64 genes that have biological and functional relevance in making treatment decisions. PGDx announced the expanded version of its PlasmaSELECT assay in March of 2017.
“We are proud to launch the revolutionary PlasmaSELECT 64 expanded assay just six months after we introduced the most accurate, clinically actionable liquid biopsy tumor profiling assay to the market,” said Doug Ward, Chief Executive Officer at PGDx, in a press release. “This update is the first liquid biopsy assay that includes MSI (microsatellite instability) testing as a biomarker for high tumor mutational load, thereby providing cancer patients and their oncologists with information on whether they might be candidates for immuno-oncology therapies. The ability to generate DNA tumor profiling non-invasively using blood or plasma offers many advantages and makes genomic testing more accessible and usable.”
Regulations of LDTs Could be Needed to Improve Liquid Biopsy Tests
There are pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals who believe the technology behind liquid biopsies is not yet reliable enough for clinical use. The tests are being offered as LDTs, which are internally developed and validated, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows LDTs to be sold without regulatory reviews at this time. However, there are discussions regarding if and how to regulate LDTs, the outcome of which could impact how clinical laboratories are allowed to market the LDTs they develop.
Clearly, liquid biopsies are still in their relatively early stages of development. More testing and evaluation is needed to determine their efficacy. However, their potential to revolutionize cancer detection and care is obvious and a strong motivator for LTD developers, which means there will be future developments worth noting.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
Oncologists, Beware: Expensive Liquid Biopsy Tests Produce Conflicting Results
One Patient, Two Cancer DNA Tests, Two Different Results
Liquid Biopsy Results Differed Substantially Between Two Providers
Cancer Screening Firm Guardant Health Raises $360 Million to Sequence Tumor DNA of 1 Million Patients
Guardant Health Launches Guardant360 Blood Test in US
With $100M, Guardant Health to Expand Reach of Blood Test for Cancer
Personal Genome Diagnostics’ Expanded PlasmaSELECT 64 Is First Liquid Biopsy Pan-Cancer Profiling Panel to Include MSI Analyses for Immuno-Oncology
‘Liquid Biopsy’ Picks up Cancer Biomarkers in Blood, Study Finds
FDA Reveals New Approach to Laboratory Developed Tests
Using Extracellular Vesicles, Researchers Highlight Viability of Liquid Biopsies for Cancer Biomarker Detection in Clinical Laboratories
Oct 18, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Digital Pathology, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
The Joint Commission opposed the Medicare proposal, and patient advocate groups say rescinding it is a setback for hospital transparency
Powerful interests arrayed against greater transparency in the performance of hospitals, physicians, and medical laboratories have stopped a proposed Medicare program that would have allowed the public to see the results of hospital inspections.
Stopped in its tracks was an effort by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to make hospital accreditation inspection reports available for public viewing. Opposition to this program led CMS to withdraw its plan for heightened transparency.
CMS originally called the proposal “groundbreaking” in a National Public Radio (NPR) article. That’s because it would have enabled consumers to view reports that private accreditation organizations, such as The Joint Commission, complete after each inspection. Inspection reports contain information on errors and problems found during hospital surveys. CMS’ push for more transparency in hospital inspections is consistent with the healthcare industry’s trend toward open sharing of healthcare quality, price, and other data.
“We are proposing changes relating to transparency of accrediting organizations survey reports and plans of correction of providers and suppliers,” CMS officials wrote in a proposed rule published on April 28.
CMS Pulls Back Proposal to Make Hospital Survey Reports Public
But it was not to be. After receiving comments, CMS officials stated in early August that the agency had pulled back the proposal.
“CMS is committed to ensuring that patients have the ability to review the findings used to determine that a facility meets the health and safety standards required for Medicare participation. However, we believe further review, consideration, and refinement of this proposal is necessary to ensure that CMS establishes requirements, consistent with our statutory authority, that will inform patients and continue to support high quality care,” noted a CMS fact sheet.
Agencies Find Problems in Hospitals That Accreditors Do Not, CMS Declares
It’s against federal law for CMS to release data related to hospital inspections, Becker’s Hospital Review reported. And, as part of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), clinical laboratories must participate in inspections to ensure they qualify for Medicare and Medicaid payments. However, the inspection reports of the nation’s medical laboratories are not made public.
So, what motivated CMS to make healthcare organizations’ inspection information public? CMS noted that private accreditation organizations miss serious provider problems that state inspectors find in follow-up visits to hospitals, ProPublica explained.
In fact, state agency reviews of 103 hospitals in 2014 found 41 serious deficiencies, including 39 missed by the accreditors, noted the NPR article.
The chart above based on Johns Hopkins research was compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics and reported by The Washington Post. It shows that medical errors are now the third leading cause of death in the US. (Photo copyright: The Washington Post.)
“Right now, the public has very little information about the places where they’re putting their life on the line, and that’s just not acceptable. If [they are] a good place, what are they afraid of?” Rosemary Gibson, Senior Advisor at The Hastings Center, stated in the NPR article.
Reaction from Accreditors and Consumer Groups Differs
The Joint Commission opposed the CMS proposal. And, now, patient safety advocacy groups are disappointed about the decision by Medicare officials to rescind the proposed program.
“We believe the proposal will have significant detrimental consequences on our nation’s ability to continually improve the delivery of healthcare services,” stated Mark Chassin, MD, FACP, MPP, MPH, Joint Commission President and Chief Executive Officer, in a June letter to CMS published partially in an HCPro blog post.
HCPro, a firm that aids organizations in accreditation, credentialing, and other needs, noted the following Joint Commission concerns about publicly shared survey reports in the blog post:
- Providers may be less likely to be open about opportunities for improvement;
- Accreditors could struggle to create new standards;
- The number of non-accredited facilities may increase;
- Accreditation may be devalued; and,
- Costs to providers and accreditors would likely rise.
The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ), another accreditation option for hospitals, also expressed concerns with the CMS proposal, according to the ProPublica report.
“Knowing that survey [inspection] reports are public knowledge will only incentivize hospitals and other healthcare entities to go back to the days of ‘hiding’ quality of care issues from accreditors, rather than working with us to improve the quality and safety of care rendered to patients,” CIHQ advised in the ProPublica article.
The Leapfrog Group, which bills itself as an advocate of hospital transparency, called the reversed proposal “a disappointing setback for healthcare transparency.”
In a statement, Leah Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Leapfrog Group, noted, “We are disappointed to learn that the agency that runs Medicare (CMS) has reversed course on its proposal to require private accrediting organizations, such as the Joint Commission, to publicly release reports of problems they found in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. The public deserves full transparency on how the healthcare industry performs.”
Clearly the public is calling for increased transparency in healthcare. As are many organizations and industry journals, such as the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), which presented a national award to Ellen Gabler, an investigative reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, for her work covering weaknesses in inspections for clinical laboratories. (See Dark Daily, “Journalists Take Home Top National Awards for Their Work Covering Theranos and the Clinical Laboratory Industry,” May 16, 2016.)
Some Accreditation Information Available Online
So, for the time being, it appears that what is found during hospital inspections will stay within the inspection report and will not become available to the general public. However, with consumers expecting greater transparency and higher levels of service in all aspects of healthcare, the interest in public access to the quality performance of hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups will only increase.
Meanwhile, for patients interested in existing resources about provider quality, The Joint Commission has an online “find a gold star healthcare organization” quality check. Also, the American College of Surgeons publishes an online search for accredited facilities. And, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers an online search for CLIA accredited labs.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Secret Data on Hospital Inspections May Become Public At Last
Proposed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Rule
Changes to the Application and Reapplication Procedures for National Accrediting Organizations
CMS Backs Off Proposal to Make Hospital Accredited Investigations Public; Five Things to Know
Accreditors Can Keep Their Hospital Inspection Reports Secret, Feds Decide
Joint Commission Comments on Proposed CMS Transparency Rule
Disappointing Setback for Healthcare Transparency
Journalists Take Home Top National Awards for Their Work Covering Theranos and the Clinical Laboratory Industry
Oct 2, 2017 | Laboratory Hiring & Human Resources, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Research conducted by Kalorama suggests the popularity of retail clinics represents a trend towards newer healthcare models that challenge existing models of care, and which could severely impact hospitals, clinical laboratories, and pathology groups
In recent years, pathologists and medical laboratory managers have watched as retail clinics housed in drug and grocery stores became a go-to service for healthcare customers seeking relief from minor illnesses. However, to market research company Kalorama, retail clinics also are a “game-changer” that could pose a threat to healthcare providers if their growth remains unchecked.
At risk are health systems and office-based physicians, along with the clinical laboratories and pathology groups that serve them. This would happen if patients shy away from primary care doctors in favor of cheaper, faster, medical care. However, as retail clinics expand the services they provide, they also could become an important source of orders for certain types of medical laboratory tests.
Kalorama defines retail clinics as, “healthcare centers that provide basic and preventative care in a retail setting; excluded are crisis and acute care centers; urgent care centers; emergency facilities; and wellness centers.” According to Kalorama’s data, “in 2016, total US retail clinic sales are estimated at more than $1.4 billion, an increase of 20.3% per year from $518 million in 2010.”
This increased use of retail clinics is a mixed blessing. On one hand, easy accessibility, low-wait times, and flexibility combined with lower costs for basic care is a boon for certain patients. On the other hand, this emergent healthcare model requires that traditional healthcare facilities address the impact of retail clinics on traditional practices, patient care, and regulatory standards.
Here are five reasons why retail clinics could threaten traditional healthcare models:
Retail Clinics Disrupt the Normal Healthcare Delivery Environment
Retail clinics are designed for immediate treatment of symptoms and vaccinations, not in-depth examination or long-term healthcare relationships between physician and patient. However, because retail clinics are a convenient low-cost option for patients, they become direct competition for full-service. Why visit a primary care physician (PCP) when you can receive off-hour care at lower prices and with faster wait times?
Based on data from peer-reviewed journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the graph above illustrates the huge growth of retail clinics over just the past 10 years, which is expected to continue. (Image copyright: Accenture Consulting.)
There is a rising fear among PCPs that the quick fix of retail clinic services will translate into poorer overall health for patients who fail to establish permanent long-term healthcare connections. This fear is validated by an American Medical Association (AMA) report that states, “only 39% of retail clinic users report having an established relationship with a primary care physician, which contrasts to about 80% of the general population reporting such a relationship.”
Retail Clinics Increase Competition for Primary Care Practices
Rather than competing with emergency departments, retail clinics directly compete with primary care clinics, according to Kalorama and the AMA. Staffed primarily by nurse practitioners and physician assistants, retail clinics treat symptoms of acute and easily identifiable health issues. There is growing concern that this limits opportunity for patients to receive more comprehensive healthcare that includes identification and treatment of chronic diseases.
And though competition in the healthcare market is good, physicians worry that retail clinics may push smaller stand-alone clinics out of business. The Kalorama report explains that “ultimately, medical practices are businesses that rely upon a steady flow of [patients] for their success.” When primary care facilities close due to loss of patients, it can create immediate healthcare gaps in communities.
Retail Clinics Could Increase Strain on Medical Laboratories and Pathology Groups
Kalorama’s data shows that retail clinics could place strain on medical laboratories and pathology practices. The study notes, “retail clinics are becoming relatively large users of point-of-care (POC) tests, clinical chemistry, and immunoassay laboratory tests and vaccines.” Kalorama’s report states, “the combined sales of these three types of products to retail clinics reached $240 million” in 2015, reflecting a 26% per year growth in testing since 2010. Projections from Kalorama suggest further increases in retail clinic test ordering in years to come.
The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) advisory boards, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Commission on Office Laboratory Accreditation (COLA) all have expressed concerns about the rise of retail clinic testing. COLA’s 2017 Spring Newsletter states that the increased use of retail clinics could lead to unnecessary testing, and increasing use of “non-laboratory personnel for laboratory testing.”
The COLA newsletter also warns that pathologists and clinical laboratory managers “should expect to see, over time, a steady increase in the menu of diagnostic testing offered by retail clinics.” COLA suggests that pathologists and laboratory scientists will experience increased demand from retail clinics for their services and expertise, but that because retail clinics often require high-volume, fast-paced testing without the benefit of full clinical laboratories (both in terms of staff and equipment) there is potential for retail clinic testing to fall short of industry standards.
Retail Clinics Fragment Health Records
According to an article in AMA Wire, the AMA House of Delegates (HOD) established guidelines for retail clinics that focus on continuity of medical records and the safeguarding of patient care. The guidelines state that retail clinics “must produce patient visit summaries that are transferred to the appropriate physicians and other healthcare providers in a meaningful format that prominently highlights salient patient information.” The fear, according to the AMA, is that the fragmenting of medical records may bring harm to patients via miscommunication that undermines patient-physician relationships and complicates oversight in treatment plans.
The Kalorama report echoes this sentiment. It states that physicians often take a negative view of retail clinics because of the lack of communication between retail clinics and primary care practices, citing a lack of cooperation or “unwillingness or inability on the part of convenience clinics to share medical information about patients with primary care providers.”
Retail Clinics Are Expanding Their Reach
Despite the fact that the AMA Council on Medical Services 2017 report on delivery reform recommends that retail clinics limit the scope of their care, expansion of retail clinic services has gone unchecked in many areas according to the Kalorama report. AMA policy states that retail clinics must have a “well-defined and limited scope of clinical services,” and the AMA’s 2017 guidelines state that “retail health clinics should neither expand their scope of services beyond minor acute illnesses … nor expand their scope of services to include infusions or injections.”
As retail clinics open around the country and expand their offerings there is a call for increased regulation of retail clinics to check that growth. COLA states that retail clinics are positioning themselves to play a major role in the delivery of primary care services. And the Kalorama report suggests that the trend towards retail clinic use will continue to rise, creating both challenges and opportunities for providers, clinical laboratories, pathologists, and healthcare policy makers who will be required to address the disruption to their businesses.
-Amanda Warren
Related Information:
Retail Clinics 2017: The Game-Changer in Healthcare
Report 7 of The Council on Medical Service: Retail Health Clinics
COLA’s Insights Spring 2017: The Rise of Retail Medicine
The Advance of the Retail Health Clinic Market: The Liability Risk Physicians May Potentially Face When Supervising or Collaborating with Other Professionals
Primary Care Practice Response to Retail Clinics
Retail Clinics are Poised to Offer More Health Services, Participate in ACOS, and Offer Expanded Menu of Clinical Pathology Laboratory Tests
Retail Clinics Continue to Shape Local Healthcare Markets
More Medical Laboratory Testing Expected as Retail Clinics Change Delivery of Routine Healthcare Services
Top-5 Diagnostics Trends Identified by Kalorama Will Impact In Vitro Diagnostics Manufacturers, Medical Laboratories in 2017
UnitedHealth’s Plans to Build More MedExpress Urgent Care Centers Is a Sign of Strong Consumer Demand and Could Be an Opportunity for Clinical Laboratories
Apr 3, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Report states IVD companies are focusing on core lab, seeking China FDA approval, and targeting urgent care
Several of the same powerful trends reshaping healthcare and clinical laboratory services are having equally significant influence on in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers. In particular, the consolidation of hospitals and physicians, as well as the emergence of new sites of service—such as urgent care centers and retail clinics—are motivating IVD companies to tailor new diagnostic systems to the unique needs of these entities.
Kalorama, a division of MarketResearch.com, has released its list of Top-Trends that will affect IVD developers in 2017. IVDs are at the heart of the medical laboratory industry. Thus, these reports are critical to keeping clinical laboratory managers and pathology groups informed on anything that could affect the production, voracity, and availability of diagnostic testing. (more…)
