Financial losses for hospitals and health systems due to cancelled procedures and coronavirus expenses will lead to changes in healthcare delivery, operations, and clinical laboratory test ordering
COVID-19 is reshaping how people work, shop, and go to school. Is healthcare the next target of the coronavirus-induced transformation? According to two experts, the COVID-19 pandemic is pushing hospitals and health systems toward a “fundamental and likely sustained transformation,” which means clinical laboratories must be prepared to adapt to new provider needs and customer demands.
Burik and Fisher called attention to the staggering $50 billion-per-month loss for hospitals and health systems that was first revealed in an American Hospital Association (AHA) report published in May. The AHA report estimated a $200 billion loss from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, due to increased COVID-19 expenses and cancelled elective and non-elective surgeries.
Adding to the financial carnage is the expectation that patient volumes will be slow to return. In “Hospitals Forecast Declining Revenues and Elective Procedure Volumes, Telehealth Adoption Struggles Due to COVID-19,” Burik said, “Healthcare has largely been insulated from previous economic disruptions, with capital spending more acutely affected than operations. But this time may be different since the COVID-19 crisis started with a one-time significant impact on operations that is not fully covered by federal funding.
“Providers face a long-term decrease in commercial payment, coupled with a need to boost caregiver and consumer-facing digital engagement, all during the highest unemployment rate the US has seen since the Great Depression,” he continued. “For organizations in certain locations, it may seem like business as usual. For many others, these issues and greater competition will demand more significant, material change.”
A Guidehouse analysis of a Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) survey, suggests one-in-three provider executives expect to end 2020 with revenues at 15% below pre-pandemic levels, while one-in-five of them anticipate a 30% or greater drop in revenues. Government aid, Guidehouse noted, is likely to cover COVID-19-related costs for only 11% of survey respondents.
“The figures illustrate how the virus has hurled American medicine into unparalleled volatility. No one knows how long patients will continue to avoid getting elective care or how state restrictions and climbing unemployment will affect their decision making once they have the option,” Burik and Fisher wrote. “All of which leaves one thing for certain: Healthcare’s delivery, operations, and competitive dynamics are poised to undergo a fundamental and likely sustained transformation.”
As a result, the two experts predict these pandemic-related changes to emerge:
Payer-Provider Complexity on the Rise; Patients Will Struggle. As the pandemic has shown, elective services are key revenues for hospitals and health systems. But the pandemic also will leave insured patients struggling with high deductibles, while the number of newly uninsured will grow. Furthermore, upholding of the hospital price transparency ruling will add an unwelcomed spotlight on healthcare pricing and provider margins.
Best-in-Class Technology Will Be a Necessity, Not a Luxury. COVID-19 has been a boon for telehealth and digital health usage, creating what is likely to be a permanent expansion of virtual healthcare delivery. But only one-third of executives surveyed say their organizations currently have the infrastructure to support such a shift, which means investments in speech recognition software, patient information pop-up screens, and other infrastructure to smooth workflows will be needed.
“Through all the uncertainty COVID-19 has presented, one thing hospitals and health systems can be certain of is their business models will not return to what they were pre-pandemic,” Guidehouse Partner Chuck Peck, MD (above), a former health system CEO, said in a statement. “A comprehensive consumer-facing digital strategy built around telehealth will be a requirement for providers. Moreover, shifting hardware and physical assets to the cloud, and use of robotic process automation, has proven to be successful in improving back-office operations in other industries. Providers will need to follow suit.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should track these developments and respond appropriately to meet the changing needs of the hospitals and physicians they serve with diagnostic testing services. (Photo copyright: Athens Banner-Herald.)
The Tech Giants Are Coming. Both major retailers and technology stalwarts, such as Amazon, Walmart, and Walgreens, are entering the healthcare space. In January, Dark Daily reported on Amazon’s roll out of Amazon Care, a 24/7 virtual clinic, for its Seattle-based employees. Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) is adding to a healthcare portfolio that includes online pharmacy PillPack and joint-venture Haven Healthcare. Meanwhile, Walmart is offering $25 teeth cleaning and $30 checkups at its new Health Centers. Dark Daily covered this in an e-briefing in May, which also covered a new partnership between Walgreens and VillageMD to open up to 700 primary care clinics in 30 US cities in the next five years.
Work Location Changes Mean Construction Cost Reductions. According to Guidehouse’s analysis of the HFMA COVID-19 survey, one-in-five executives expect some jobs to remain virtual post-pandemic, leading to permanent changes in the amount of real estate needed for healthcare delivery. The need for a smaller real estate footprint could reduce capital expenditures and costs for hospitals and healthcare systems in the long term.
Consolidation is Coming. COVID-19-induced financial pressures will quickly reveal winners and losers and force further consolidation in the healthcare industry. “Resilient” healthcare systems are likely to be those with a 6% to 8% operating margins, providing the financial cushion necessary to innovate and reimagine healthcare post-pandemic.
Policy Will Get More Thoughtful and Data-Driven. COVID-19 reopening plans will force policymakers to craft thoughtful, data-driven approaches that will necessitate engagement with health system leaders. Such collaborations will be important not only during this current crisis, but also will provide a blueprint for policy coordination during any future pandemic.
As Burik and Fisher point out, hospitals and healthcare systems emerged from previous economic downturns mostly unscathed. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the exception, leaving providers and health systems facing long-term decreases in commercial payments, while facing increased spending to bolster caregiver- and consumer-facing engagement.
“While situations may differ by market, it’s clear that the pre-pandemic status quo won’t work for most hospitals or health systems,” they wrote.
The message for clinical laboratory managers and surgical pathologists is clear. Patients may be permanently changing their decision-making process when considering elective surgery and selecting a provider, which will alter provider test ordering and lab revenues. Independent clinical laboratories, as well as medical labs operated by hospitals and health systems, must be prepared for the financial stresses that are likely coming.
Holmes’ lawyers maintain the former CEO of Theranos has not waived right to be charged by indictment and therefore argue the added charge is ‘unconstitutional’ and should be dismissed
Clinical laboratory leaders needing a break from nonstop coronavirus pandemic news will be interested to learn a familiar name is again making headlines. Disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes—who went from paper billionaire to criminal defendant—is now facing a 12th felony fraud charge, with the additional count tied to a patient’s blood-test result.
Holmes founded the blood testing company in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford University. Though Theranos reached a peak valuation of $9 billion in 2015, according to Investopedia its unicorn-startup status began unraveling that same year when a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) investigation exposed the company’s massive deceptions and questionable practices related to its finger-prick blood-testing technology.
Holmes and codefendant Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former Theranos President and Chief Operating Officer, claimed Theranos had developed a medical technology that could run thousands of clinical laboratory tests using a finger-prick blood test that would return results in two hours and at a price that was 50% of Medicare’s fees for lab tests.
sanctions from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, investor lawsuits, consumer lawsuits, and a settlement with Walgreens over claims about Theranos’ Edison portable blood analyzer, CNBC reported. Theranos ceased operations in September 2018.
Elizabeth Holmes is seen above entering the Northern District of California courthouse with attorneys Kevin Downey (left) and Lance Wade (right) of the law firm Williams and Connolly. (Photo copyright: Jason Doiy/ALM)
The 12th Felony Charge Against Elizabeth Holmes
Earlier in 2018, David L. Anderson, US Attorney for the Northern District of California indicted Holmes and Balwani on 11 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Now, an additional wire fraud charge has been added to that list. The 12th felony charge was included in Superseding Information federal prosecutors filed with the court on May 8. Superseding Information is a charging document that does not require a grand jury proceeding.
In the filing, the latest allegation of fraud is alleged to have occurred on October 12, 2015, in the states of California and Arizona and is described as a “telephone call from Patient B.B. to Theranos regarding laboratory blood test results.”
The Superseding Information states: “Knowing that the accuracy and reliability of Theranos test results was questionable and suspect, Holmes and Balwani oversaw the electronic wiring of test results to patients, including persons known to the Attorney for the United States as Patients B.B, E.T., and M.E. These wires … travelled between one state and another.”
The amended charging document also more than doubles the length of time the pair are alleged to have conspired to defraud investors, adds additional categories of alleged victims, and revises the dates of two of the other prior wire fraud charges, changing them from 2014 to 2015.
“In particular, Holmes and Balwani knew that Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests, including but not limited to bicarbonate, calcium, chloride, cholesterol/HDL/LDL, gonorrhea, glucose, HbA1c, hCG, HIV, LDH, potassium, PSA, PT/INR, sodium, testosterone, TSH, vitamin D (25-OH), and all assays conducted on Theranos’ TSPU [Theranos Sample Processing Unit] version 3.5, including estradiol, prolactin, SHBG, thyroxine (T4/free T4), triiodothyronine, and vitamin B-12,” the Superseding Information states.
According to Law.com, Holmes’ lawyers at Williams and Connolly responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Superseding Information. Because grand jury proceedings have been suspended in the Northern District of California since mid-March due to COVID-19, they argue that Holmes, who hasn’t waived the right to be charged by grand jury indictment, is unable to be arraigned. They maintain the prosecutors’ actions violate her rights under the US Constitution and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 7, which requires crimes punishable by a prison sentence of more than a year to be charged by indictment unless the defendant waives that right.
“Because Ms. Holmes does not waive prosecution by indictment, convening an arraignment on this information would be pointless and a waste of the Court’s time because no arraignment could actually occur,” her lawyers wrote in their motion. “The Court should dismiss this unconstitutional information without scheduling an arraignment.”
On May 26, prosecutors filed their opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. They maintained that US District Judge Edward Davila should either deny the defense request outright or hold off ruling until a “reasonable time after the Court lifts the suspension of grand jury hearings.”
They wrote, “Defendants’ claim that an information must be ‘dismissed immediately’ because it is not the constitutionally required indictment proves too much,” adding, “Criminal charges are initiated all the time through preliminary proceedings like a complaint or an information. They are not ‘patently unconstitutional merely because a defendant has indicated she will not waive her right to be prosecuted by indictment.”
COVID-19 Delays Court Proceedings
Holmes’ trial originally was set to begin in August, but the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the case being postponed to October 27, reported CNBC. According to Davila, “We’re in unchartered waters and unchartered territories. We need to make sure the environment is safe for all parties, including the jury that’s called to hear the matter.”
The Theranos scandal continues to serve as a reminder to clinical laboratory leaders
and pathology groups that questionable or deceptive business practices eventually will draw the attention of federal regulators, prosecutors, and consumers, and that the penalty for fraud can be severe. The frustration for medical laboratory professionals and pathologists is that it generally takes years for federal investigators to bring charges against such frauds.
Previously unreported email messages and documents paint vivid picture of public health laboratory officials’ dismay and frustration over testing delays
Between late January and early March, Clinical laboratory leaders watched with dismay as federal government missteps crippled the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) rollout of its COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the early days of the pandemic. The resulting lack of testing capacity enabled the novel coronavirus’ spread across the United States.
This first part of Dark Daily’s two-part e-briefing covers how investigators at the Washington Post (WP) have produced a timeline describing the CDC initial failure to produce a reliable laboratory test for COVID-19 and the regulatory hurdles that blocked medical laboratories from developing their own tests for the virus. The WP’s report is based on previously unreleased email messages and other documents reviewed by the WP, as well as the newspaper’s exclusive interviews with medical laboratory scientists and officials involved.
A New York Times report on the federal government’s initial review of the testing kit failure pinned the blame on sloppy practices at CDC laboratories in Atlanta and a lack of expertise in commercial manufacturing. However, the WP reported that COVID-19 testing kits were delayed due to a “glaring scientific breakdown” at the central lab, created when the CDC facilities that assembled the kits “violated sound manufacturing practices” that resulted in cross contamination of testing compounds.
The US and other countries have criticized China for a lack of transparency about the virus’ emergence, which came to light on December 31, 2019, when China reported a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) timeline. A week later, Chinese authorities identified the pneumonia-like illness as being caused by a new novel coronavirus.
In the US, the first case of COVID-19 was found January 21 in a Washington State man who had traveled to Wuhan. But in the weeks that followed, the US government’s inability to establish a systematic testing policy became the catalyst for the virus’ ultimate spread to more than two million people, notes the CDC website.
ProPublica, which conducted its own investigation into the early stages of the government’s coronavirus response, blamed the failures on “chaos” at the CDC and “an antiquated public health system trying to adapt on the fly.”
The CDC’s first mistake may have been underestimating the danger COVID-19 posed to public health in this country. During a January 15 conference call, CDC scientists assured state and county public health officials that the agency was developing a COVID-19 diagnostic test which soon would be available, but which may not be needed “unless the scope gets much larger than we anticipate right now,” reported the WP.
A week later, an interview with CNBC, President Trump said, “We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”
CDC scientists designed their test in seven days, which, according to the WP investigators, is “a stunningly short period of time for a healthcare system built around the principles of medical quality and patient safety, not speed.” But when those initial CDC-made tests arrived at a New York City public health laboratory on February 8, lab technicians discovered the COVID-19 assays often indicated the presence of the coronavirus in samples that the lab’s scientists knew did not contain the virus.
When the scientists informed Lab Director Jennifer Rakeman, PhD, Assistant Commissioner, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, her response, according to the WP, was “Oh, s—. What are we going to do now?”
That night, Director Jill Taylor, PhD, Director of New York State’s Wadsworth Center public health reference laboratory, emailed state health officials, stating, “There is a technical problem in one of the reagents which invalidates the assay and will not allow us to perform the assay,” reported the WP. “I’m sorry not to have better news.”
Scott Becker (above), Executive Director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL), voiced his concerns about the CDC’s flawed COVID-19 test kits in an email to a CDC official, reported the WP. “The states and their governors are going to come unglued,” Becker wrote, adding, “If the CDC doesn’t get ahead of this, it will be a disaster.” (Photo copyright: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post.)
‘The Silence from CDC is Deafening’
On February 10, Joanne Bartkus, PhD, then-Lab Director of the Minnesota Health of Department, wrote to APHL Executive Director Scott Becker: “The silence from CDC … is deafening. What is going on?” reported the WP.
By the end of February, the Associated Press (AP) reported that only 472 patients had been tested for COVID-19 nationwide. By comparison, South Korea, which identified its first case of COVID-19 on the same day as the US, was testing 1,000 people per day.
A WHO spokesperson told the WP that, “… no discussions occurred between WHO and CDC (or other US government agencies) about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the US.” When the CDC’s original COVID-19 test kit failed, there may not have been a Plan B. This may explain why the opportunity to contain COVID-19 through surveillance testing was lost during the weeks it took to design a fix for the CDC test and loosen regulations so clinical laboratories could develop their own tests.
As medical laboratory scientists and clinical laboratory leaders know, the lack of early COVID-19 testing was a public health failure and painted a false picture of the virus’ spread. Nearly five months after the first case of the virus was confirmed in the US, testing capacity may only now be outpacing demand.
Click here to read part two of our coverage of the Washington Post’s investigation.
Even as some states lift stay-at-home orders, clinical laboratories and pathology groups face uncertainty about how quickly routine daily test referrals will return to normal, pre-pandemic levels
Although strokes and heart attacks do not take vacations, a large and growing number of patients with serious health issues who—in normal times—would require immediate attention are not contacting providers to get needed care. Instead, they are avoiding hospital emergency rooms and clinical laboratories for fear they’ll contract the COVID-19 coronavirus.
Starting in early March, hospitals nationwide suspended elective surgeries and procedures and reduced non-COVID-19 inpatient care to make beds available for the predicted on-rush of COVID-19 patients. However, in parts of the country, the predicted high demand for hospital beds and ventilators failed to materialize. Additionally, due to shelter-in-place orders, patients in many states postponed routine office visits with their primary care physicians.
The collective collapse in the number of elective services provided by hospitals, and the fall-off in patients visiting their doctors, is crushing the financial stability of the nation’s clinical laboratory industry.
In, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR) reported on the revenue challenges facing clinical pathology groups and clinical laboratories. Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, a revenue cycle management company, told TDR that starting in the third week of March, labs suffered a steep decline in routine testing. By the end of March, that fall-off in revenue ranged from 44% for some AP specimens to 70% to 80% for some specialty AP work. During these same weeks, XIFIN’s data showed clinical labs experienced a drop in routine testing volume of 58%, hospital outreach testing declined by 61%, and molecular lab volume went down by 52%.
Can Clinical Laboratories Hang on Financially Until COVID-19 Goes Away?
Though most states have not met the nonbinding criteria recommended by the Trump administration for reopening, nearly 40 governors in early May began loosening stay-at-home orders, reported CNN, including allowing elective medical procedures to resume.
Patients may make up for lost time by returning to doctors’ offices for medical laboratory tests and other COVID-19-delayed procedures, and as this happens, clinical laboratories may experience a surge in routine test orders from doctors’ offices and hospital admissions once stay-at-home orders are lifted and fear of COVID-19 has passed.
According to an article published on Axios, a survey of 163 physicians conducted by SVB Leerink—an investment firm that specializes in healthcare and life sciences—found that “roughly three out of four doctors believe patient appointments will resume to normal, pre-coronavirus levels, no earlier than July, and 45% expect a rebound to occur sometime between July and September.” If so, the financial squeeze facing clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and other medical and dental professionals may continue to loosen.
Christopher Freer, DO (above), an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx and Director of Emergency Medicine at RWJBarnabas Health, told CNBC that emergency departments are seeing patients with severe issues, such as stroke and appendicitis, but that those with milder symptoms appear to be staying away. “Even with coronavirus, we still have healthy people who get an illness and need to go to the emergency room,” he said. “Heart attacks don’t stop.” (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Hospital Finances Are Being Particularly Stressed by Loss of Patients
The impact of stay-at-home orders on hospital systems, in particular, has been dramatic. CNBC reported that RWJBarnabas Health, an 1l-hospital 22-laboratory health system in New Jersey that has 11 emergency departments, totaled just 180 emergency room visits per day during a mid-April weekend, a sharp decline from their 280-per-day-average.
A recent Washington Post article paints an even bleaker picture. Clinicians in the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, and China anecdotally report a “silent sub-epidemic of people who need care at hospitals but dare not come in,” the article states, noting people with symptoms of appendicitis, heart attacks, stroke, infected gall bladders, and bowel obstructions are avoiding hospital emergency rooms.
“Everybody is frightened to come to the ER,” Mount Sinai Health System cardiovascular surgeon John Puskas, MD, told the Post. Though his 60-bed cardiac unit had been repurposed to care for COVID-19 patients, Puskas said the New York hospital system was seeing “dramatically fewer” cardiac patients.
Concerned that patients may be ignoring signs of heart attack or stroke rather than go to a hospital, the American College of Cardiology launched the “CardioSmart” campaign, which urges anyone experiencing heart symptoms to get prompt treatment and to continue routine appointments, using telehealth technology when available.
“Hospitals have safety measures to protect you from infection,” the CardioSmart website states. “Getting care quickly is critical. You’ll get better faster, and you’ll limit damage to your health.”
However, David Brown, MD, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, argues the number of people having heart-related issues is unlikely to have dropped during the pandemic.
“Strokes and heart attacks don’t take a vacation just because there’s a pandemic,” Brown told The Boston Globe. “They’re still happening. They just aren’t happening as much inside the hospital, which is a major concern to me.”
Many healthcare professionals are worried about the long-term effect from pandemic-delayed preventative and elective procedures.
“The big question is are we going to see a lot more people that have bad outcomes from heart disease, from stroke, from cancer because they’ve put off what they should have had done, but were too afraid to come to the hospital?” Providence St. Joseph Health CEO Rod Hochman, MD, told CNBC.
Hochman, who is Chair-elect of the American Hospital Association (AHA), maintains the aftereffects of people putting off elective surgeries and screening procedures like colonoscopies and mammograms may be felt for years to come.
“We’re possibly going to see a blip in other disease entities as a consequence of doubling down on COVID-19,” he told CNBC.
In clinical laboratories, COVID-19 testing may have somewhat helped offset the drop in routine testing volume. However, the pandemic’s overall financial costs to labs and pathology groups will likely be felt for months to years, as patients slowly return to healthcare providers’ offices and hospitals.
‘Aerosol and Surface Stability’ study shows that the virus can remain infectious in aerosol form for hours and on surfaces for days
By now, clinical laboratory workers, microbiologists, and phlebotomists should be fully aware of the potential for transmission on surfaces of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the novel coronavirus that causes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report revealed that the coronavirus “was identified on a variety of surfaces in cabins of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infected passengers up to 17 days after cabins were vacated on the Diamond Princess, but before disinfection procedures had been conducted,” the New York Post reported. That means the virus can survive on surfaces significantly longer than CDC previously believed.
But did you know a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found that SARS-CoV-2 can also survive in the air for many hours, potentially allowing aerosolized transmission of the virus as well?
The NEJM study also showed that the stability of SARS-CoV-2 to survive on surfaces and in aerosolized form mirrors the stability of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) that caused the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003.
This is critically important information for clinical laboratory professionals in open-space laboratories, phlebotomists collecting medical laboratory specimens, and frontline healthcare workers who come in direct contact with potentially infected patients. They should be aware of every potential COVID-19 transmission pathway.
Hospital infection control teams will be particularly
interested in the possibility of airborne transmission, as they often visit
infected patients and are tasked with tracking both the source of the infection
as well as individuals who may be exposed to sick patients.
The NEJM study, titled “Aerosol and Surface Stability of SARS-CoV-2 as Compared with SARS-CoV-1” was conducted by scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Princeton University, and University of California, Los Angeles. The researchers concluded that SARS-CoV-2 remains in the air “up to three hours post aerosolization.”
FREE Webinar | What Hospital and Health System Labs Need to Know About Operational Support and Logistics During the COVID-19 Outbreak Wednesday, April 1, 2020 @ 1PM EDT — Register now
They also found the virus was detectable for up to four
hours on copper and up to 24 hours on cardboard. The scientists concluded SARS-CoV-2
can remain on plastic and stainless-steel surfaces for two to three days,
though the amount of the virus on surfaces decreases over time.
“Our results indicate that aerosol and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is plausible, since the virus can remain viable and infectious in aerosols for hours and on surfaces up to days,” the study states. “These findings echo those with SARS-CoV-1, in which these forms of transmission were associated with nosocomial spread and super-spreading events, and they provide information for pandemic mitigation efforts.”
But Can COVID-19 Be Caught Through Air?
However, as noted in Wired, the researchers did not clearly state that infected persons can spread COVID-19 to others in the same airspace. Some experts have pointed out that there is a difference between a virus that can exist as an aerosol—defined as a liquid or solid suspended in gas under only limited conditions—and the measles virus, for example, which the CDC estimates “can live for up two hours in an airspace where the infected person has coughed or sneezed.”
“While the researchers tested how long the virus can survive
in aerosols suspended in the air, they didn’t actually sample the air around
infected people,” Wired noted. “Instead, they put the virus into a
nebulizer and puffed it into a rotating drum to keep it airborne. Then, they
tested how long the virus could survive in the air inside the drum.”
Neeltje van Doremalen, PhD, a research fellow at National Institutes of Health (NIH) and researcher at the NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, who coauthored the NEJM study, cautioned against an overreaction to this latest research. On Twitter she wrote, “Important: we experimentally generated [COVID-19] aerosols and kept them afloat in a drum. This is not evidence of aerosol transmission.”
Nonetheless, the World House Organization (WHO) took note of the study’s findings and on March 16, 2020, announced it was considering “airborne precautions” for healthcare workers, CNBC reported in its coverage of a virtual press conference on March 16, 2020, led by Maria Van Kerkhove, MS, PhD, Technical Lead for WHO’s Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Task Force.
Van Kerkhove emphasized that health officials were
monitoring results from other studies investigating how environmental
conditions such as humidity, temperature, and ultraviolet light affect
the disease and its ability to live on different surfaces.
“When you do an aerosol-generating procedure like in a medical care facility, you have the possibility to what we call aerosolize these particles, which means they can stay in the air a little bit longer,” said Maria Van Kerkhove, MS, PhD (above), Technical Lead for WHO’s Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) Task Force during a virtual press conference, CNBC reported. “It’s very important that healthcare workers take additional precautions when they’re working on patients and doing these procedures,” she added. [Photo copyright: World Health Organization/YouTube.)
To Be or Not to Be an Airborne Pathogen
Stanley Perlman, MD, PhD, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Iowa, believes aerosol transmission ultimately will be found not to play a large role in COVID-19 transmission.
“I think the answer will be, aerosolization occurs rarely, but not never,” Perlman told STAT. “You have to distinguish between what’s possible and what’s actually happening.”
In an NEJM editorial, Perlman expanded on those thoughts. “Although specific anti-coronaviral therapies are still in development, we now know much more about how to control such infections in the community and hospitals, which should alleviate some of this fear,” he wrote. “Transmission of [SARS-CoV-2] probably occurs by means of large droplets and contact and less so by means of aerosols and fomites, on the basis of our experience with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. Public health measures, including quarantining in the community as well as timely diagnosis and strict adherence to universal precautions in healthcare settings, were critical in controlling SARS and MERS. Institution of similar measures will be important and, it is hoped, successful in reducing the transmission of [SARS-CoV-2].”
An NIH news release announcing the SARS-CoV-2 stability study highlighted two additional observations:
“If the viability of the two coronaviruses is
similar, why is SARS-CoV-2 resulting in more cases? Emerging evidence suggest
that people infected with SARS-CoV-2 might be spreading virus without
recognizing, or prior to recognizing, symptoms. That would make disease control
measures that were effective against SARS-CoV-1 less effective against its
successor.
In contrast to SARS-CoV-1, most secondary cases
of virus transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appear to be occurring in community
settings rather than healthcare settings. However, healthcare settings are also
vulnerable to the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, and the stability of
SARS-CoV-2 in aerosols and on surfaces likely contributes to transmission of
the virus in healthcare settings.”
Clearly, the scientific community has not agreed on
aerosolization as a definite source of infection. Nevertheless, clinical
laboratory workers in settings where potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 exists
should take precautions against airborne transmission until scientists can
definitively determine whether this latest coronavirus can be acquired through
the airborne transmission.
