Experts blame insurance regulators for not ensuring the adequacy of healthcare networks that include hospital-based physicians, such as pathologists and radiologists
According to a recent study, clinical laboratories, anatomic pathologists, radiologists, and anesthesiologists top the list of providers who bill patients for the difference between what they charge for their services and a hospital’s contracted reimbursement rates.
This so-called “balance-billing” not only causes hardship for patients and consumers already shouldering a larger portion of their healthcare costs, but poses a public relations concern for service providers across the US healthcare industry as well.
Following public outcry from patients who received care at
what they believed to be in-network medical facilities, only then to be surprised
by bills from their care providers for the remaining balance not covered by
their insurance, the practice of balance billing has drawn increased scrutiny from
state and federal officials.
Medical Laboratory
Charges Top Reason for Surprise Bills
In their report, NORC notes that of those surveyed, 57% (567 individuals) acknowledged receiving a surprise medical bill they thought would be covered by their health insurance.
When asked about the network status of the doctor who
provided care during the episode related to the surprise bill, 79% responded
that charges were not for doctors being out-of-network for their insurance
plan. Medical laboratory-related charges were near the top of reasons patients
received surprise bills, with 51% of individuals receiving bills related to “a
laboratory test, like a blood test.”
Such surprise medical bills received frequent coverage in
2018. This has led many states to enact or discuss legislation to address the
practice and offer cost protections for patients.
Thus far, however, little change to existing regulations and
contract systems has been enacted to protect patients or help laboratories and
other service providers offer alternative payment solutions for patients.
There also are few requirements for insurance providers to verify
that plans include sufficient numbers of in-network service providers when
offering plans to consumers.
“Many news stories on ‘surprise’ billing blame physicians, because the bill is sent from the doctor’s office or billing company. But the insurance industry is the real culprit, in concert with insurance regulators who have not acted to require network adequacy,” R. Bruce Williams, MD (left), President, College of American Pathologists (CAP), and Geraldine B. McGinty, MD (right), Chair of the American College of Radiology Board of Chancellors, wrote in STAT. (Photos copyrights: College of American Pathologists/Geraldine McGinty.)
States Move to Change
Trends While Patients Continue to Experience Bill Shock
States are beginning to address surprise billing concerns ahead of action by insurance regulators and the federal government. In December, the Arizona Department of Insurance issued a news release outlining the agency’s plan to allow for arbitration questions for surprise out-of-network bills.
And, California effectively banned out-of-network billing from groups within in-network facilities in 2017 with Assembly Bill 72. However, the state only finalized reimbursement rates for service providers and patients affected by surprise bills in January of this year according to Capital Public Radio.
Many of these state-level regulations do not account for the complexity of creating rules based on emergency or non-emergency care or the insurance providers in question. For example, Assembly Bill 72 does not apply to “Medicare, Medi-Cal, out-of-state plans, self-insured employer plans, or other products regulated by federal law,” according to a news release from the California Society of Anesthesiologists.
Finding Fair
Solutions for Both Patients and Care Providers
Speaking with Kaiser Health News about a report of a man in Texas receiving a $109,000 surprise bill related to treatment after a heart attack, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said, “This is a nationwide problem, and we need a nationwide solution. We have a system where the patient, the most vulnerable person of all those involved, is caught between the insurer and the healthcare provider … these problems are solvable.”
Modern Healthcarerecently covered how some hospitals are now requiring physicians to go in-network as a provision of their contracts. However, they also note this approach disadvantages physicians and shifts reimbursement negotiation power to insurers. Should hospitals take a similar approach with medical laboratory specialists, it could create similar concerns.
While surprise medical bills create added hardship for
patients and pose reputational and reimbursement concerns for clinical laboratories
and healthcare providers, creating regulations that establish effective
protections while also protecting the financials of service providers continues
to prove difficult.
Speaking with Modern Healthcare, Dan Sacco, Vice President for Strategic Affairs and Payer Relations at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, summarized concerns concisely, saying, “We’re trying to protect [consumers], but we’re also trying to be reasonable business partners as well.”
All labs face the challenge of coping with shrinking budgets and staffing shortages, which is why coaching, management observation, and continuous improvement initiatives are proving helpful to medical laboratories
It’s the biggest generational shift since baby boomers began working in clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. Across the nation, labs are watching their most experienced and knowledgeable medical technologists and other lab scientists retire. The need to train their replacements while maintaining peak productivity and controlling costs is motivating lab leaders to adopt powerful new management methods.
Innovative lab administrators and pathologists recognize that automation and the ability to leverage the increasing amounts of data produced by today’s innovative diagnostic technologies and assays can only go so far in helping to compensate for declining revenues.
This is why one trend is quietly gaining momentum. There are many medical laboratories, pathology groups, and other diagnostics providers working to help their lab staffs create a culture of continuous, meaningful improvement. The stakes are great. Not only is this essential for financial sustainability, it can be the source of competitive advantage with physicians, patients, and payers in today’s increasingly competitive diagnostic market.
This is why many medical laboratories are turning to continuous improvement systems such as Lean to increase personnel skills, reduce waste, and make the most out of shrinking budgets and margins. Yet, without a solid foundation of staff trained in these methods and a framework of processes to encourage improvement, lean laboratory managers often struggle to see consistent, significant improvements.
Optimizing Staff Performance and Developing Improvement Processes with Coaching and Management Observation
Performance Coaching and Management Observation offer powerful tools for laboratory managers to reinforce improvement efforts. They encourage the success of personnel, leverage existing personnel to meet growing demands while maintaining service levels, and establish an effective foundation for Lean execution.
Benefits of effective coaching and management observation sessions for laboratories include:
Enhancement of laboratory manager performance and skills;
Improved retention of skilled labor and consistent improvement of personnel skills through individualized assessment and improved communication;
Establishing a method of creating and maintaining a culture of continuous improvement, while empowering staff across all levels of lab operations; and,
Creating a competitive edge on laboratories struggling to implement Lean processes and other optimizations in response to increased workloads, reduced staff, and tighter budgets.
Stephen Stone (left), Managing Director, Argent Global Services, and, Rita D’Angelo, PhD (right), President and CEO, D’Angelo Advantage, spoke at Lab Quality Confab in 2018 on the benefits of coaching and management observation sessions for clinical laboratories and implementing continuous improvement systems using Lean Production Methods. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
“While many laboratories are familiar with management observation because of competency testing, few laboratories use coaching and management observation as part of their Lean efforts.” Stephen Stone, Managing Director at Argent Global Services told Dark Daily. “Coaching and management observation offers laboratories an effective means to not only increase throughput using existing staffing and encourage sustainable growth, but also increase retention of existing skilled personnel and reduce hiring costs.”
Speaking at Lab Quality Confab in Oct. 2018, Stone highlighted why these later benefits are increasingly important to laboratories. Citing data from LabTestingMatters and the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), he reported that while the job market for medical technologist and laboratory technician openings should increase by roughly 11,300 openings in 2018, fewer than 5,000 individuals are graduating each year from accredited training programs.
Lab Supervisor Retirements Projected to Exceed Staff Retirements
Of possibly greater concern, he goes on to point out, is that projected retirement rates for supervisors are higher than those of staff. This means laboratories which fail to focus on staff development and retention could face further issues in both leadership and staffing shortages should trends continue.
“Investing in and empowering your staff will improve productivity, improve quality, improve safety, and help laboratories to work toward goals as a cohesive team,” Rita D’Angelo, PhD, President and CEO at D’Angelo Advantage, LLC, told Dark Daily. “As a result, costs and waste drop significantly. Coaching and management observation alongside a culture of continuous improvement can help labs to overcome many of the staffing and budget obstacles faced today.”
The webinar will include essential coaching skills to help laboratory managers pass on the skills to serve as Lean champions to personnel and establish the foundation and structure for a lasting culture of improvement within the laboratory.
C-Level laboratory leadership, laboratory directors, managers and supervisors, and key members of continuous improvement teams also can use the interactive Q/A session following the webinar to gain answers to questions and concerns directly facing their laboratories’ efforts to develop continuous improvement processes or implement Lean methodologies.
(To register for this critical Jan. 16th webinar, click here. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/performance-coaching-and-management-observations-to-improve-productivity-and-efficiency-strengthening-the-skills-of-management-to-execute-a-lean-lab-transformation-2-2/.)
Experts say medical laboratories must overcome staffing challenges and develop a culture of continual inspection readiness
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups will be entering 2019 facing not only financial upheaval from Medicare Part B fee cuts and narrowing payer networks, but also an increasingly rigorous and ever-evolving regulatory environment.
Although the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) requirements have not undergone major changes since debuting in 1992, the medical laboratory industry has become more complex and technology-laden, resulting in old rules being applied to emerging technologies.
“People can get lulled into this sense that we know what standards are and we’re meeting them, but what has happened is the rules haven’t really changed—the industry has,” says Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), Senior Consultant for Accumen, a lab quality improvement company in San Diego, CA. “Technology is now jumping ahead so fast that keeping up with it and understanding how the rules are going to be applied is challenging.”
Anne T. Daley, MS, CMQOE, CSSBB, CLC, MT, DLM (left), and Nora L. Hess, MBA, MT(ASCP), PMP (right), are Senior Consultants with Chi Solutions, an Accumen company. Together, they have extensive first-hand experience guiding clinical laboratories through the rigid and rigorous process of achieving inspection-ready status. (Photo copyrights: Chi Solutions, Inc.)
Why being ‘Inspection Ready’ Can Improve Performance and Increase Revenue
Striving to be “inspection ready” should be the goal of every clinical laboratory and pathology group. However, Daley notes labs typically operate with staffs that are stretched thin by retirements, illnesses, staff shortages, or ancillary demands on administrators’ time, caused by system-wide initiatives that range from electronic health record (EHR) rollouts to integration and consolidation of other labs.
“Most hospital laboratories are staffed at a level where they are working hard just to meet the daily patient care needs,” Daley says. “You add in all these additional projects and something has to give.”
In today’s challenging environment, Hess says laboratories that consistently perform well during the inspection process share several characteristics, including the following:
a culture of quality across the laboratory; and,
an emphasis on inspection readiness.
“They make inspection readiness a consistent focus across the entire laboratory,” Hess notes. “It becomes part of the calendar. It becomes part of what they talk about all the time. It is a part of their decision-making. It is hardwired into who they are and what they do … successful laboratories are making this part of their day-to-day activities, so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle and it doesn’t get back-burnered.”
Hess and Daley note the types of deficiencies cited by accreditation agencies tend not to vary much from year to year. Testing personnel competency and proficiency testing are common themes, annually ranking high on top-10 lists of deficiencies found. However, laboratory directors increasingly are being singled out for issues related to qualifications and performance of responsibilities.
(To register for their Dec. 13th webinar or to order a DVD, click here. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/make-your-lab-assessment-ready-in-2019-know-the-most-common-deficiencies-in-accreditation-and-certification/).
As the public gains awareness of the role clinical laboratories play in modern healthcare, increased engagement and understanding of the technology underlying many of these advances could create risk for labs without transparent reporting protocols to both patients and the public
In recent years, consumers have continually raised the bar in their expectation of quality when they interact with the healthcare system. Not only do patients expect providers—including clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups—to improve regularly over time, but the public has even less tolerance for medical errors of any type. Thus, a recent NPR story is one more warning to the medical laboratory profession that it should be devoting resources and effort to improving quality.
Today’s healthcare consumers and patients are more educated about and involved in the care process than ever before. While the exact science and skills may not interest the general public, the technologies underpinning much of the shift toward personalized medicine (AKA, precision medicine) are the same technologies that created the always-connected, digital lifestyles seen around the world.
With this, comes a level of scrutiny and questioning from the public that clinical laboratories or anatomic pathology groups would not have experienced even just a decade ago.
Mounting Scrutiny of Medical Laboratories and Healthcare Professionals
A recent segment on NPR’s “All Things Considered” highlighted this trend and questioned the quality control standards behind many of the procedures powering current testing. The segment also questioned the impact quality control has on the quality of biobanks used to research and create future technologies and tests.
Atul Butte, PhD (above), Director of the Institute of Computation Health Sciences at the University of California-San Francisco, presents an alternate side to Compton and Friedberg’s views in the NPR article. “I am not a believer in garbage-in, garbage out at all,” he said. “I know that no one scientist, no one clinician or pathologist is perfect … But, I’d rather take 10 or 100 so-called mediocre data sets and find out what’s in common, then to take one who says they’re perfect at doing this kind of measurement.” (Photo copyright: Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle.)
When data and previous research powers much of the innovation taking place across the modern healthcare landscape, the accuracy of said data would seem critical. Yet, without standards in place, there’s not always safeties by which to verify sample integrity and other critical concerns.
Late last year, Dark Daily reported on a study published in PLOS ONE from Radboud University in the Netherlands questioning the accuracy of more than 30,000 published scientific studies that contained misidentified or contaminated cell lines. Guidelines, such as those created for IHR and FISH HER2 testing, provide standards intended to prevent such issues from occurring or detecting them when they do occur.
Quality versus Quantity: A Gamble Worth Taking?
Apart from challenges with healthcare reform and the regulatory landscape surrounding precision medicine, medical laboratories also must struggle with the challenges of gleaning and maintaining useful, accurate information from an ever-growing trove of data produced by analyzers and assays.
Yet, these mediocre datasets include the results of tests that carried a potentially significant impact on patient lives. In the first two weeks of February alone, both the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and The Telegraph published stories related to erroneous testing related to cancer and the potential impact on the clinical laboratories involved and the patients tested.
Increased coverage shows that the world is watching what goes on in medical laboratories, hospitals, and data centers as healthcare continues to evolve. Clinical laboratories must move forward with this in mind or risk pushback and questioning from the public. Transparency regarding standards, and reporting information to patients surrounding testing or concerns, might effectively address this rising trend.
“We are moving faster and faster and faster as this whole precision medicine train is moving down the track,” Tim Allen, MD, Laboratory Director at the University of Texas Medical Branch Department of Laboratory Services, told NPR. “I suspect standardization of these things is going to become a reality much quicker than I would have expected even a few years ago.”
That quality control issues in anatomic pathology are considered newsworthy by no less than NPR is a sign of increased public attention to the quality of lab testing. The story was written to educate the public about the gap that exists in the quality control of anatomic pathology testing. All of this is consistent with the trend for providers to be transparent and report their quality metrics to the public, including patients.
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.
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.)
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.
