Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should consider this another example of how CMS is taking forward steps to encourage value-based payment arrangements throughout the health system
With the sky-high cost of many prescription drugs and gene therapies, it was only a matter of time before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would seek to link reimbursement for them to patient outcomes.
A recent CMS proposed rule (CMS-2842-P) concerning value-based purchasing (VBP) for prescription drugs covered by Medicaid encourages payers to engage in Medicaid state value-based purchasing (aka, pay-for-performance) arrangements for expensive prescription drugs. This rule may have implications for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups if it were extended to cover companion diagnostics linked to expensive therapeutic drugs and gene therapies.
CMS also intents the proposed rule to help drug manufacturers ease roadblocks to contracting with payers—including Medicaid—a CMS fact sheet explained.
Federal officials are looking to reimburse healthcare providers for prescribing drugs that are shown to work best on patients that truly need them, while also incentivizing pharmaceutical manufacturers to created drugs “of high patient value,” stated Laffer Healthcare Intelligence, a Nashville, Tenn. healthcare investment firm, in an email to its intelligence service subscribers.
In a press release announcing the proposed rule, Seema Verma, CMS Administrator, said “We are creating opportunities for drug manufacturers to have skin in the game through payment arrangements that challenge them to put their money where their mouth is.”
Old Regulations Don’t Address Value, Expensive Gene Therapies
According to CMS, for 30 years federal regulations have favored the “volume of drugs” sold over the “quality of drugs.” Simultaneously, during the past three years the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four gene therapies with many more “in the development pipeline,” Verma wrote in the journal Health Affairs. “While the lifesaving impact of these often-curative therapies are profound, their costs are unprecedented,” she stated.
CMS’ new rule proposes to define value-based purchasing as “an arrangement or agreement intended to align pricing and/or payments to evidence-based measures and outcomes-based measures,” Verma added.
Companion Diagnostic: Molecular and Genetic Testing
For clinical laboratories, the case CMS makes for therapeutic drugs could be applied to expensive molecular diagnostics and genetic testing. CMS may base reimbursement on how accurately and how fast a lab test can enable a diagnosis. Also, payment could be linked to a lab’s report and guidance to the ordering provider in selecting a therapy that makes a difference in the patient’s outcome.
“This is exactly the concept of the companion diagnostic,” said Robert Michel, editor-in-chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report. “Take, for example, a $5,000 genetic cancer test that that stages a $500,000 cancer prescription drug. Patients who will not benefit from the drug will not get it. And the $5,000 lab test may keep, say, 10 people from getting a drug that wouldn’t work for them. Thus, the $50,000 in lab tests could save $5 million in prescription drug costs,” he explained.
For its part, Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland-based creator of Zolgensma, said the proposed CMS changes are “an important first step,” and helpful to the company’s “access strategy” in the US, BioPharma Dive reported.
Healthcare experts envision that deals struck under the new proposed CMS rule will focus on gene therapies and expensive drugs, MedPage Today reported.
“Measuring outcomes is costly; it takes time, and everyone has to come up with a way to do it. So, if a drug costs $50, it’s not worth going to every single patient (in research). If the drug costs $500,000, maybe it’s worth it … figuring out if the drug worked. That’s why people talk about it in the context of gene therapies,” Alexander Dworkowitz (above), Partner, Manatt Health, New York, told MedPage Today. (Photo copyright: Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP.)
According to the Laffer Healthcare Intelligence analysis email, CMS’ 137-page proposed rule is “very broad,” but focuses on three themes:
“First, CMS wants to establish an official definition for VBP models to accelerate development of drug pay-per-value programs.
“Second, CMS want to restrict the amount of opioids doctors can prescribe.
“Third, very subtle changes are proposed that negatively affect the PBM (pharmacy benefit management) industry.”
CMS’ proposal also includes standards aimed at fighting opioid prescription fraud and misuse in Medicaid drug programs, noted Fierce Healthcare.
Transparent Drug Prices
Medical laboratory leaders may want to monitor the progress of this proposed rule. In addition to value-based payment, the rule advances price transparency by clearing the way to sharing prices of therapeutic drugs and how they improve patient care, while also lowering costs.
Meanwhile, a refresh of lab information technology to enable authorization of genetic and molecular tests by payer also may prove worthwhile.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
Insurance industry claims new federal price transparency regulations cost each payer as much as $13.6 million in set up and maintenance costs
Price transparency in hospital, clinical laboratory, and other service provider costs marches ever closer to reality for America’s healthcare consumers. Meanwhile, some insurers and hospital groups are working to block implementation of federal rules they argue will confuse consumers and potentially lead to higher costs.
The first is a Proposed Rule, titled, “Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule” (CMS-9915-P) that would require payers to make public on their websites negotiated rates for in-network providers and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers. Insurers also would be required to make an online “tool” available to members that would provide consumers with out-of-pocket cost estimates for “all covered healthcare items and services.” The 60-day public comment period for this rule went into effect November 15, 2019.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may want to closely monitor ongoing efforts by payers and hospital groups to block these rules, since any changes will extend to their services, as well as extend price transparency to most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage.
Will Transparency Lead to Higher Healthcare Costs?
In its story on insurer claims, FierceHealthcare reported that the rule would require payers to disclose a “staggering” amount of data, leading to implementation costs 26 times more than the Trump administration’s $510,000 estimate. To comply with the federal rule, an insurer will spend as much as $13.63 million on setup and maintenance. That prediction is based on an economic analysis from economic consulting firm Bates White, which conducted the survey on behalf of The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
“Some plans have indicated they would be forced to run two sets of tools—one designed to meet member shopping needs and another implemented only to meet the requirements of the proposed rule,” the BCBSA told FierceHealthcare.
Meanwhile, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) argued in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma that cost-sharing liability estimates—which are not a price quote for care—could “lead to consumer confusion and frustration.” The ACAP also asserts the transparency plan could inadvertently lead to higher healthcare cost increases.
“In the absence of quality data, consumers may determine that high cost equates to higher value, select the higher-cost providers, and ultimately drive up medical expenses, especially in circumstances where the consumer’s out-of-pocket costs have been met,” wrote ACAP Chief Executive Officer Margaret A. Murray.
“We have long supported efforts to make quality and pricing information more accessible, understandable, and actionable for consumers,” the ACHP wrote. “But they need real-time, patient-specific information tied to individual coverage benefits, not a massive published list of prices that may only frustrate consumers and likely increase costs over time.”
Hospital Associations and Healthcare Systems Bring Lawsuit Against HHS
In December 2019, several hospital associations and healthcare groups filed a lawsuit to block next year’s implementation of the hospital price transparency rule. The plaintiffs included the:
These healthcare organizations and providers joined together to argue that HHS lacks the statutory authority to require and enforce public disclosure of individually negotiated rates between commercial health insurers and hospitals. They also say consumers are likely to be confused by the information they receive.
“America’s hospitals and health systems stand with patients and are dedicated to ensuring they have the information needed to make informed healthcare decisions, including what their expected out-of-pocket costs will be,” said Rick Pollack (above), President and CEO, American Hospital Association, in a news release. “Instead of giving patients relevant information about costs, this rule will lead to widespread confusion and even more consolidation in the commercial health insurance industry.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
In its legal response, HHS contends that hospitals are adding to consumers’ confusion by failing to provide transparency.
“They do not dispute that consumers are casting about for accurate information about prices in a complex healthcare system, yet they rely on that same complexity as an affirmative reason to deprive patients of pricing information they need to figure out their out-of-pocket expenses,” HHS said in its brief.
DePaul University Professor Anthony LoSasso, PhD, who specializes in healthcare economics, admits to being “on the fence” regarding the pros and cons of transparency plans.
“I want to think that people can benefit from price transparency. But for a variety of reasons, people don’t look at pricing info even when it’s available,” LoSasso told WTTW News in Chicago.
Nevertheless, HHS vows to continue its push for price transparency.
“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary and National Spokesperson Caitlin Oakley told Reuters in a response to the hospital groups’ lawsuit.
In light of the government’s push to make healthcare pricing more transparent, clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders in hospitals and health systems would be wise to prepare for a future that includes price shopping by consumers.
In a separate study, HHS finds a 40% increase in sepsis cases, as more patients succumb to infections without effective antibiotics and antimicrobial drugs
Given the drastic steps being taken to slow the spread of the Coronavirus in America, it’s easy to forget that significant numbers of patients die each year due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB), other forms of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and in thousands of cases the sepsis that follows the infections.
The CDC’s website states that “more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the US each year, and more than 35,000 people die as a result.” And a CDC news release states, “on average, someone in the United States gets an antibiotic-resistant infection every 11 seconds and every 15 minutes someone dies.”
Those are huge numbers.
Clinical laboratory leaders and microbiologists have learned to be vigilant as it relates to dangerously infectious antimicrobial-resistant agents that can result in severe patient harm and death. Therefore, new threats identified in the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States report will be of interest.
Drug-resistant Microbes That Pose Severe Risk
The CDC has added the fungus Candida auris (C. auris) and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (a bacteria that can survive for a long time on surfaces) to its list of “urgent threats” to public health, CDC said in the news release. These drug-resistant microbes are among 18 bacteria and fungi posing a greater threat to patients’ health than CDC previously estimated, Live Science reported.
In 2013, the CDC estimated that about two million people each year acquired an antibiotic-resistant (AR) infection that killed as many as 23,000. However, in 2019, the CDC reported that those numbers were low and that the number of deaths due to AR infections in 2013 was about twice that amount. During a news conference following the CDC announcement, Michael Craig (above), a Senior Adviser for the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Coordination and Strategy Unit said, “We knew and said [in 2013] that our estimate was conservative … and we were right,” Live Science reported. In 2019, CDC reported 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections annually with more than 35,000 related deaths in the US alone. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
The CDC considers five threats to be urgent. Including the
latest additions, they are:
Dark Daily has regularly covered the healthcare industry’s ongoing struggle with deadly fungus and bacteria that are responsible for hospital-acquired infections (HAI) and sepsis. This latest CDC report suggests healthcare providers continue to struggle with antimicrobial-resistant agents.
Acinetobacter Threat Increases and C. auris
a New Threat since 2013
Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, a bacterium that
causes pneumonia and bloodstream and urinary tract infections, escalated from
serious to urgent in 2013. About 8,500 infections and 700 deaths were noted by the
CDC in 2017.
C. auris, however, was not addressed in the 2013
report at all. “It’s a pathogen that we didn’t even know about when we wrote
our last report in 2013, and since then it’s circumvented the globe,” said Michael
Craig, Senior Adviser for the CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Coordination and
Strategy Unit, during a news conference following the CDC announcement, Live
Science reported.
Today, C. auris is better understood. The fungus
resists emerging drugs, can result in severe infections, and can be transmitted
between patients, CDC noted.
By year-end, CDC tracking showed 988 cases in the US.
More Patients Getting Sepsis as Antibiotics Fail: HHS
Study
In a separate study published in Critical Care Medicine, a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) found that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi are resulting in more people acquiring sepsis, a life-threatening condition, according to an HHS news release.
Sepsis increased by 40% among hospitalized Medicare patients
from 2012 through 2018, HHS reported.
“These (untreatable infections) are happening here and now in the United States in large numbers. This is isn’t some developing world thing. This isn’t a threat for 2050. It’s a threat for here and now,” Cornelius “Neil” Clancy, MD, Associate Chief of Veterans Affairs Pittsburg Health System (VAPHS) and Opportunistic Pathogens, told STAT.
It is troubling to see data about so many patient deaths
related to antibiotic-resistant infections and sepsis cases when the world is
transfixed by the Coronavirus. Nevertheless, it’s important that medical laboratory
leaders and microbiologists keep track of how the US healthcare system is or is
not responding to these new infectious agents. And, to contact infection
control and environmental services colleagues to enhance surveillance, ensure
safe healthcare environments and equipment, and adopt appropriate strategies to
prevent antibiotic-resistant infections.
As CMS price transparency rules go into effect, and demand grows for publishing provider charges, consumers are becoming aware of how widely healthcare prices can vary
With the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic saturating the news, it is easy to forget that clinical laboratories regularly conduct medical tests for influenza, the common cold, and other illnesses, most of which are affordable and covered by health insurance. So, how did a common throat culture and blood draw result in a $25,865 bill?
That was the question a New York City woman asked after a
doctor’s visit for a sore throat that resulted in a five-figure charge. This
should not simply be dismissed as another example of hidden prices in clinical
laboratory testing or the true cost of medical procedures shocking a healthcare
consumer. The issue is far from new.
For example:
An Indiana girl’s snake bite at summer camp in 2019 resulted in a $142,938 bill, which included $67,957 for four vials of antivenin and $55,578 for air ambulance transport, reported Kaiser Health News (KHN);
In 2019, Dark Daily highlighted a New York Times article showing the insurer-negotiated price of a common blood test could range from $11 to $952 in different major cities;
In 2018, Dark Daily spotlighted a Kaiser Health News story about a $48,329 bill for outpatient allergy testing; and
In 2013, Dark Daily reported on a patient’s $4,317 bill for blood work done at a Napa Valley medical center, which a national lab would have performed for just $464.
Prices Vary Widely Even Within Local Healthcare Markets
As the push for price transparency in healthcare increases, exorbitant patient bills—often tied to providers’ chargemaster pricing—add to that momentum. Consumers now recognize that prices can vary widely for identical healthcare procedures, including clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology group tests and procedures.
However, on January 1, 2021, price transparency will get a major boost when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) final rule requiring hospitals to post payer-negotiated rates for 300 shoppable services goes into effect. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should be developing strategies to address this changing healthcare landscape.
Until price transparency is the norm, examples of outrageous pricing are likely to continue to make headlines. For example, National Public Radio’s (NPR) December 2019 “Bill of the Month,” titled, “For Her Head Cold, Insurer Coughed Up $25,865,” highlighted a recent example of healthcare sticker shock.
New York city resident Alexa Kasdan’s sore throat resulted in a $28,395.50 clinical laboratory bill (of which her insurer paid $25,865.24) for a “smorgasbord” of DNA tests aimed at explaining her weeklong cold symptoms. NPR identified the likely causes for the sky-high charges. In addition to ordering DNA testing to look for viruses and bacteria, Kasdan’s doctor sent her throat swab to an out-of-network lab, with prices averaging 20 times more than other medical laboratories in the same zip code. Furthermore, the lab doing the analysis, Manhattan Gastroenterology, has the same phone number and locations as her doctor’s office, NPR reported.
In contrast, NPR learned that LabCorp, Kasdan’s in-network laboratory provider, would have billed her Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota insurance plan about $653 for “all the ordered tests, or an equivalent.”
Ranit Mishori, MD, MHS, FAAFP (above), Professor of Family Medicine at the Georgetown University School of Medicine and Senior Medical Advisor for Physicians for Human Rights, maintains patients should not hesitate to question doctors about the medical tests they order for them. “It is okay to ask your doctor, ‘Why are you ordering these tests, and how are they going to help you come up with a treatment plan for me?’” Mishori told NPR. “I think it’s important for patients to be empowered and ask these questions, rather than be faced with unnecessary testing, unnecessary treatment and also, in this case, outrageous billing.” (Photo copyright: Primary Care Collaborative.)
Hospitals Can ‘Jack-up’ Prices
The Indiana girl’s snake bite at summer camp last year became another example of surprisingly high medical bills. Nine-year-old Oakley Yoder of Bloomington, Ind., was bitten on her toe at an Illinois summer camp. The total bill for treating the suspected copperhead bite was $142,938, which included $67,957 for four vials of antivenin and $55,578 for air ambulance transport, KHN reported.
The summary of charges her parents received from Ascension St. Vincent Evansville hospital included $16,989.25 for each vile of anti-venom drug CroFab, five times as high as the average list price for the drug. Until recently, KHN reported, CroFab was the only antivenom available to treat pit viper bites, which created a monopoly for the drug maker’s expensive-to-manufacture product. Though the average list price for CroFab is $3,198, KHN noted hospitals can “jack-up the price.”
While Yoder’s family had no out-of-pocket expenses thanks to a supplemental insurance policy through the summer camp, Yoder’s father, Joshua Perry, JD, MTS, Professor of Business Law and Ethics at Indiana University Kelley School of Business, knows his family’s outcome is unusual.
“I know that in this country, in this system, that is a
miracle,” he told KHN.
The push for healthcare price transparency is unlikely to
wane. Clinical laboratory leaders in hospitals and health networks, as well as
pathologists in independent clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups,
should plan for a future in which consumers demand the ability to see pricing
information before obtaining services, and regulations require it.
