The precipitous drop in COVID-19 testing leaves clinical lab leaders wondering, “What comes next?” So it’s time to pivot—again.
When the pandemic hit in March 2020, clinical labs faced a sudden halt in routine testing, and many were able to shift quickly to COVID-19 test offerings. Fast forward one year: with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, SARS-CoV-2 testing in clinical laboratories has rapidly declined. In the United States, COVID-19 testing dropped from two million per day in January 2021 to only about one million by March.
Now labs are having to adapt again, leading forward-looking lab managers and directors to ask:
What will be the new balance between testing for SARS-CoV-2 and routine diagnostics?
Should my clinical laboratory even continue testing for coronavirus?
Where is the best opportunity to generate revenue now?
How do I transition my lab effectively—and efficiently—to best serve patients and the healthcare industry as a whole?
This white paper, Repurposing Your Lab’s Leftover COVID-19 Samples: Building New Revenue and Better Patient Outcomes Through Collaboration with Life Science, answers these questions and more. It explores how the rapid decline in SARS-CoV-2 testing affects molecular laboratories and the life sciences industry as a whole and offers opportunities for drug developers and labs to work together in new and beneficial ways.
Biospecimens present a win-win proposition for both the clinical lab and life sciences industries
As researchers on the life-science side study coronavirus and other diseases, the value of accumulated biosamples is being reevaluated. UCSF Professor Scott VandenBerg, MD, PhD, draws the connection: “Biospecimens are important because they allow researchers to better understand the causes of diseases and evaluate potential therapies.” Labs have always retained biospecimens, but COVID-19 has spotlighted their value.
Drugmakers are expected to prioritize the development of therapeutics for new patient cohorts, such as long-haul COVID-19 patients while verifying the fidelity of biomarkers used to identify and treat comorbidities. Data generated from analysis of leftover COVID-19 samples that labs can provide could dramatically accelerate this process.
This white paper examines how molecular laboratories can generate new revenue while also contributing to the greater good of society. One primary way to achieve both is to harvest more value from samples through new relationships with life science companies and biobanks. In these new business arrangements, labs would also benefit because instead of paying to dispose of their leftover COVID-19 specimens as regulated medical waste, they could biobank them at little to no cost.
Table of Contents—Chapters at a glance
This 24-page white paper, Repurposing Your Lab’s Leftover COVID-19 Samples: Building New Revenue and Better Patient Outcomes Through Collaboration with Life Sciences, includes the following main chapters:
Chapter 1: COVID-19 Testing: What’s Next After the Rapid Ramp Up and Sudden Decline?
While many labs initially lost revenue when routine testing crashed with the pandemic shutdown, the seemingly unending demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing helped labs rally as they pivoted from traditional diagnostics to COVID-19 testing. Some labs reported exceptional year-over-year revenue growth. At least 48% of clinical labs adopted new testing methodologies or automation to meet the demands of COVID volumes, and many startup and pop-up labs were launched, pointing to a significant investment in COVID testing alone. This chapter examines where we are now and what might be ahead now that COVID-19 testing is winding down.
Chapter 2: Looking Beyond COVID-19 Testing to Find Residual Value and Revenue in Collected Specimens
To stay profitable and relevant, every clinical and molecular laboratory’s short-term and long-term strategic planning must consider the evolving nature of the pandemic. This chapter covers what labs should consider as they evaluate how to repurpose their COVID-related assets, including equipment, molecular testing platforms, and COVID-19 specimens themselves.
Chapter 3: Key Points of Molecular Laboratory Diversification into Biobanking
Biobanking can be a positive thing for labs—for example, to supplement revenue, advance research, and lead to other business development in the lab services space. But it also has its challenges. This chapter discusses both the potential benefits of biobanking and the hurdles labs can face, including regulations, logistical difficulties, consent, collecting and managing samples, and building relationships with industry and research partners.
Chapter 4: The Role of LIMS in Biobanking
Questions often surround the value of a sample, such as: How was the sample collected from the patient? How was it stored? Is the label still secure? When will the sample expire and no longer be considered valuable for research? For labs trying to organize their samples and have at-a-glance answers to questions about them, a proper laboratory information management system (LIMS) or laboratory information system (LIS) streamlines the process. This chapter covers what lab managers and directors should consider as they look to strengthen their quality systems to validate and verify their samples and tests.
The Dark Intelligence Group is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we’ll only use your personal information to administer your account and to provide the products and services you requested from us. From time to time, we would like to contact you about our products and services, as well as other content that may be of interest to you. In exchange for providing this free content, we may share your information with the companies whose content you choose to view. By accessing the white paper, you’re agreeing to the above.
You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information on how to unsubscribe, our privacy practices, and how we are committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, please review our Privacy Policy.
Wait times blamed on the Irish National Health System’s ‘overstretched’ services and ‘under-resourced’ commitment to cancer genetic testing done by medical laboratories
Histopathologists in the UK and anatomic pathologists in the US understand the important role predictive genetic testing can play in helping patients understand their risk for certain types of breast, bowel, and ovarian cancers. While timely access to cancer testing may be routine in the United States, a report out of Ireland reveals patients in that country’s government-run healthcare system may have to wait up to two years or more for genetic counseling and testing.
UK Patients in Need of Genetic Services Are Switching from Public to Private Healthcare
While early access to genetic testing can provide opportunities for preventative treatments or earlier diagnosis of cancer, many patients in Ireland with a family history of cancer must wait months or years for genetic services. UCC Nursing Professor and Physiologist Josephine Hegarty, PhD, lead author of the ICS report, stated in a news release that “public cancer genetic services are overstretched. Waiting lists exist at every point on the pathway for people who need genetic services.”
She added, “Many patients spoken to seemed to abandon the waiting for overstretched public services in favor of paying for private testing and treatment.”
While the ICS report’s survey sample size was small—154 patients, family members, or members of the public—the data revealed:
One in seven respondents waited 13-24 months and one in 27 waited over 24 months for counseling and testing appointments.
Many people had changed from the public health system to private healthcare to speed up access to genetic testing.
The cumulative waiting time from referral to counseling, testing, receipt of genetic test results, and onwards to screening, surveillance, or prophylactic treatments [aka, preventive healthcare] can be up to four years, which patients see as time lost in terms of cancer prevention and early intervention.
Barriers to Genetic Services Affect Treatment Decisions
A separate survey of 52 healthcare professionals highlighted barriers for accessing services with six in 10 respondents saying they are under-resourced and four in 10 concerned about access to follow-up surgery for patients deemed to be at high risk.
In the ICS news release, breast cancer patient Margaret Cuddigan said genetic testing was not available to her at diagnosis.
“In those 13 months waiting for a result, I went through chemotherapy, a lumpectomy, and radiotherapy on my breast, only for a double mastectomy to be required once the BRCA mutation was known. Had I known this earlier, my course of treatment could have been very different,” Cuddigan said.
“I had to postpone a radiation treatment to go up to Dublin from Cork to do the genetic test, as it would have taken up to another 12 months in Cork, and then I waited over four months for the results. Once I received the news of the gene mutation, I had to navigate a path of risk-reducing surgeries,” she noted, adding, “I researched and sought out a surgeon myself.”
Long Waits for Genetic Testing Are Common in Single-Payer Healthcare
The waiting list for genetic cancer testing has long been an issue in Ireland. A 2017 article in the Irish Examiner, titled, “Woman Faces 18-month Wait for Vital Cancer Test,” brought to light the 18-month waiting time for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation testing for breast cancer. While the COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated the backlog of cancer treatment services, such issues are not new in single-payer healthcare systems.
Across the Irish Sea in Great Britain, some patients have experienced delays of six months before getting cancer test results. In “Shortage of Histopathologists in the United Kingdom Now Contributing to Record-Long Cancer-Treatment Waiting Times in England,” Dark Daily reported how prolonged wait times for cancer test results in the United Kingdom’s National Health Service are one disadvantage of a government-run, single-payer health system. With limited funds, frequently the government health program under invests in certain clinical services. It is not until several years later that the underinvestment reveals itself in the form of lengthy wait times.
Meanwhile, it is cancer patients and their families who pay the price for underinvestment because delays in their cancer test results then delay timely treatment decisions. This is particularly true when an immediate start of therapy for an aggressive form of cancer is imperative.
ICS Executive Director, Advocacy and External Relations, Rachel Morrogh, argues the solution is prioritizing cancer prevention within the Health Service Executive, which runs Ireland’s national healthcare system.
“The reality is the focus must be on urgent care, but we’re missing chances to keep people healthy (through genetic testing),” Morrogh told the Irish Independent. “We can prevent four in 10 cancers, but we have to prioritize prevention. There needs to be a significant investment and the expansion of capacity across all the follow-on services that someone with a genetic risk of cancer may need, focusing on the development of a dedicated and resourced pathway for them.
Irish Cancer Society’s Director of Advocacy and External Affairs Rachel Morrogh (above left with Donal Buggy, Director of Services, Delivery and Innovation at ICS) maintains that “Patients [in the Irish healthcare system] need a dedicated group of multi-disciplinary doctors following them so that they can be offered options and psycho-oncology support when they need it.” She added, “The government must now listen to patients and those working in our hospitals and provide more resourcing and staffing.” (Photo copyright: Irish Examiner.)
The ICS report found that limited access to timely genetically-guided health and oncology services is the result of multiple barriers to care.
“It is apparent from engaging directly with service users that waiting lists exist at every point on the pathway for people who need genetic [cancer testing] services,” the report states. “For those who may have a genetic risk of cancer, the wait times for access to [genetic cancer] testing alone (before counselling treatment, prophylactic surgery, etc.) can be up to two years. Barriers to accessing cancer genetic services include costs of tests, long processing time for referrals to tests, restrictive referral criteria, and difficulty in accessing information on cancer genetic services.”
In the forward she wrote for the ICS report, ICS Chief Executive Officer Averil Power said her organization would continue its push for improved access to genetic testing services. “Government needs to not only expand capacity for testing and counselling, but also ensure that the follow-on services that are needed by people diagnosed with a genetic risk of cancer are in place and can be accessed swiftly.”
The ICS report is another reminder to histopathologists in the UK—as well as anatomic pathologists in the US—that a single-payer healthcare system comes with its own flaws and access-to-care issues.
Pregnant former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes makes her first court appearance in 15 months as pre-trial maneuvering continues in court case involving clinical laboratory tests
During pre-trial hearings for the August fraud trial of former Theranos CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, federal prosecutors signaled that the accuracy of Theranos’ blood tests will be center stage in their arguments. This latest installment in the continuing saga of defunct medical laboratory testing company Theranos took place when a now-pregnant Holmes made her first in-person court appearance in 15 months.
Clinical laboratory scientists have watched with interest as the often-delayed fraud trial inched closer to its new August 31 start date. After being delayed multiple times by the COVID-19 pandemic, United States District Court Judge Edward Davila ruled in March that the trial would be postponed from mid-July to late August due to Holmes’ pregnancy. She is due to give birth in July.
Do Prosecutors Lack Proof Theranos’ Blood Testing Technology Is Inaccurate?
As Dark Dailypreviously reported, Holmes faces 12 counts of wire fraud charges for alleged false claims that Theranos created a revolutionary technology for performing a wide range of clinical laboratory tests using a tiny amount of blood.
In its 2015 investigative report, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) alleged Theranos had not disclosed publicly that the vast majority of its tests were performed with traditional machines purchased from Siemens AG and other companies, not its so-called breakthrough proprietary technology.
The recent three-day hearing provided Holmes’ attorneys and federal prosecutors with an opportunity to present arguments regarding what evidence can be presented at the upcoming trial.
According to the WSJ article, Holmes’ defense team is trying to block the government from calling patients and medical professionals to testify about the accuracy of Theranos’ blood test results. At the hearing, attorney Amy Saharia, a Williams and Connolly LLP partner, maintained prosecutors lack scientific proof Theranos tests were inaccurate. She called this lack of scientific evidence a “gigantic hole” in the government’s case.
“This trial is going to be a sprawling mess of irrelevant, prejudicial evidence,” she told the court, the WSJ reported.
Saharia added, “We have all become very familiar with testing this year. Testing involves many different variables,” CNBC reported. “What the government offers is without scientific basis, they have to establish Theranos technology was responsible for erroneous results. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was because of Theranos technology.”
Pregnant Elizabeth Holmes (above), who is due to give birth in July, is seen entering the courtroom for a pretrial hearing in San Jose, Calif., in the US government’s fraud case against the former Theranos CEO. In the hearing, federal prosecutors indicated the accuracy of Theranos’ clinical laboratory tests will be at the center of their arguments. (Photo copyright: Mercury News.)
Defense Tries to Block Pathologists’ Testimony
During the second day of hearings, federal prosecutors responded to defense attorneys’ efforts to block clinical pathologist Stephen Master, MD, PhD, from testifying. Defense attorneys argued the government is using Master as a “parrot” and argue his views on Theranos’ blood tests are “based on emails and customer complaints” not personal familiarity with the tests, CNBC reported. Master is Division Chief and Director, Metabolic and Advanced Diagnostics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and an Associate Professor of Pathology and Laboratory at University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine.
Assistant US Attorney Robert Leach, however, said, “Miss Holmes went out, told the world and told investors: we have tests with the highest accuracy rate,” adding that testimony from their expert witness “puts the lie to that,” CNBC reported.
Before Theranos was dissolved in 2018, Holmes rose to rock star status in Silicon Valley. She graced magazine covers, rubbed elbows with VIPs, and became known for her Steve Jobs-like signature black turtleneck.
Holmes’ presentation, Michel noted, was met with suspicion as her credibility with the media and clinical laboratory scientists eroded. “Holmes did not fool many in the audience.”
One clinical chemist who attended the AACC meeting said, “I came to see scientific data about this remarkable technology that could do up to 70 medical laboratory tests on a single drop of capillary blood. Instead, I heard her talk about the new corporate strategy at Theranos, including the details as to how their analyzer works. The data that followed had nothing to do with anything but their new analyzer.”
Prosecutors Claim Fraud Paid for Holmes’ Extravagant Lifestyle
Holmes’ celebrity status helped fuel Theranos’ rapid valuation growth, which reached a high of $10 billion in 2015. But her gold-plated lifestyle became a point of contention during the recent pre-trial hearing. Prosecutors maintained that Theranos’ fraud propelled Holmes’ extravagant spending.
“In addition to her salary, the company provided for her luxurious travel on private jets and expensive lodging,” Assistant US Attorney John Bostic told CNBC. “The point here is the so-called success of Theranos was entirely the product of fraud.”
But according to CNBC, the judge “pushed back” on the government’s argument, stating Holmes’ benefits likely were on par with other CEOs. “What’s the value that she’s at the Four Seasons or a Motel 6?” the judge asked the prosecutors.
CNBC reported the two sides also sparred over whether jurors will learn about Holmes’ private text messages and regulatory reports.
Holmes and former Theranos President and Chief Operating Officer Ramesh Balwani have both pleaded not guilty. Balwani will face a separate trial after Holmes’ court case concludes.
Clinical laboratory scientists will watch with interest as the Holmes and Balwani trials finally get under way, since the accuracy of Theranos’ blood tests will be under the microscope along with Holmes’ participation in the alleged fraud.
Acceptance of digital pathology and whole-slide imaging is now almost universal among academic health center pathology departments and the nation’s largest pathology companies
Across the United States, many private practice anatomic pathology groups now recognize that digital pathology is the path forward for the entire profession. During the past decade, most academic pathology departments and large pathology lab companies have incorporated digital pathology (DP) and whole-slide imaging (WSI) into many of their labs’ daily activities.
However, in community hospital-based anatomic pathology groups, there have been barriers to even the partial adoption of digital pathology. The two biggest barriers are well-known and discussed frequently at conferences and in the literature.
Some Pathologists Reluctant to Give Up Light Microscopes
One recognized barrier to wider adoption of DP is the reluctance of many long-serving pathologists to give up their familiar light microscopes and glass slides so they can make the transition to reading pathology images on a computer screen. These pathologists remain loyal to the tools and workflows that have served them well throughout their careers.
They generally oppose their group’s move to digital pathology when the subject is discussed in partner meetings and strategic retreats. Since many pathology groups require 100% of partners or shareholders to approve major business decisions, even one recalcitrant and stubborn pathologist-partner can block the motion to adopt digital pathology that is supported by most partners.
The second barrier is the fully-loaded cost to acquire, validate, implement, and use a digital pathology system with whole-slide imaging. A full-featured scanner can cost $250,000 or more and acquiring all the software, systems, and tools needed by a group to fully incorporate digital pathology into daily workflow can easily total $500,000 to $1,000,000.
This substantial commitment of a pathology group’s capital can trigger the same intense debates as the original question of whether the pathologists in the group should adopt DP and WSI. And, not surprisingly, in most pathology groups the same dynamics come into play when votes are tallied on the motion for the pathology group to commit the funds necessary to acquire a digital pathology system, the scanners, and associated tools.
Just one or two partner holdouts can block the decision to spend the money, despite that most of the pathologist partners are ready to make the commitment.
More Community Pathology Groups Considering Digital Pathology
Yet, the momentum in favor of adopting DP and WSI continues to build. “Those pathology labs that are early adopters report multiple clinical and financial benefits. These can include generating positive financial outcomes—including the ability to attract new clients, increasing case referrals, and generating new sources of revenue to the group. In turn, the increased revenue can allow the group to increase pathologist compensation,” said Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report.
Every day, more anatomic pathologists in the United States use a digital pathology system with a workstation (like above) to view whole-slide images and manage their daily caseload. Most academic center pathology departments use digital pathology, as do many of the nation’s largest pathology lab companies. (Photo copyright: WizardHealth.)
“We are in a time when health insurers are hammering away at the reimbursement paid to anatomic pathologists,” Michel continued. “Year after year, payers cut reimbursement for technical component and professional component services. They exclude many pathology groups from payer networks. That is why more community pathology groups are recognizing several important benefits with the use of DP and WSI that can increase a pathology group’s revenue and boost its pathologist compensation.
Community Pathology Groups Can Use Digital Pathology to Add Value
Equally important, there are specific ways that digital pathology and whole-slide imaging increase the value of the clinical services pathologists deliver to their client physicians. These dual benefits of DP are often overlooked—or not discussed—when community pathology groups conduct their annual retreats and debate the key points of when to adopt—and how to fund—a digital pathology system for their group. These benefits range from giving physicians a faster diagnostic answer on their cancer cases to helping the group’s subspecialist pathologists get more case referrals from physicians in other states.
“It’s important for all surgical pathologists to recognize several realities in today’s pathology marketplace,” Michel noted. “First, almost every sector in healthcare is digitizing itself. Reinforcing this trend is the federal government’s mandates for interoperability across EHRs, HISs, and LISs. Any private pathology group practice that lags in its adoption of digital capabilities and digital images will find itself falling farther and farther behind as physicians switch their case referrals to other pathology labs that have converted to digital pathology and whole-slide images.
“Second, pathology groups that adopt DP and WSI put themselves in a position to build market share in their service region, while at the same time increasing case referrals for their in-house subspecialist pathologists from throughout the United States,” Michel continued. “Also, when the histology is done locally, the local pathology group can deliver faster diagnostic answers and provide digital images as appropriate to referring physicians and hospitals in that region without the need to transport glass slides by couriers.
“Third—and this is an often-overlooked benefit of digital pathology—the local pathology group with DP and WSI can recruit today’s graduating pathology residents and fellows who have trained on DP and WSI. These new pathologists typically limit their job search to pathology groups that have gone digital,” Michel noted. “Millennial pathologists trained with digital images in their residency program. They are eager to work with the automated image analysis algorithms now coming to market.”
On Thursday, May 27, at 1:00 PM EDT, Keith Kaplan, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Corista (left), Andrew Evans, MD, Medical Director of Laboratory Medicine at Mackenzie Health (center left), William DeSalvo, President of Collaborative Advantage Consulting and Manager of Histology Operations at Sonora Quest Laboratories in Tempe, Ariz. (center right), and Lisa-Jean Clifford, COO and Chief Strategy Officer at Gestalt Diagnostics (right) will present “Adopting Digital Pathology on a Budget: Getting Started, Knowing What’s Feasible, and Funding Your DP from Overlooked Sources.” Anatomic pathologists, clinical laboratory directors, laboratory managers, clinical pathologists, and laboratory technicians will gain a critical understanding of which components a fully integrated digital pathology system requires, the differences between your lab’s existing LIS and a digital pathology system, budget-minded approaches to buying the components of a digital pathology system and implementing them in a stepwise fashion, and much more! (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
Recognizing the significant capital investment needed to acquire and deploy digital pathology and WSI, one goal of the webinar’s panel of experts is to identify ways that pathology groups can go digital on a budget. “We will do our best to identify different ways that pathology groups with limited financial resources can get into digital pathology,” said Keith Kaplan, MD, Chief Medical Officer at Corista in Concord, Mass., who will chair the upcoming webinar. “This may be the first public presentation where there is candid information about different financial strategies that your pathology group can utilize to acquire the scanners, the DP systems, and the associated tools needed for a full conversion to daily digital pathology.”
Don’t overlook how your participation in this webinar can be the foundation for helping your pathology group practice develop a timely, cost-effective path forward to introduce digital pathology and whole-slide imaging. Use of DP and WSI can become an important factor in helping your group offset payer prices cuts, develop new clients and sources of revenue, and increase pathologist compensation.
Click HERE to register today (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/adopting-digital-pathology-on-a-budget/). Make sure to have your pathology practice administrator and your histology manager join you for this important webinar.
CMS says it is responding to hospitals’ plea for relief from burdensome reporting requirements, but not altering federal price transparency laws
Despite federal price transparency law that went into effect January 1 after a year-long court battle, some hospitals continue to balk at sharing their payer-negotiated rates for healthcare goods and services—including medical laboratory testing—claiming a variety of challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine distribution, and other difficulties, Modern Healthcare reported.
This requirement was originally part of the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule (84 FR 65524), passed in 2019 during the Trump administration, which required hospitals to “establish, update, and make public a list of their standard charges for the items and services that they provide,” including clinical laboratory test prices. This reporting requirement did not sit well with the AHA.
In a statement, Ashley Thompson, Senior Vice President for Public Policy Analysis and Development for the American Hospital Association, said, “This policy will require hospitals to divert critically needed resources during this historic pandemic to administrative tasks that will not benefit patients.” She added, “We do not believe CMS has the authority to compel the disclosure of these terms and our legal challenge remains ongoing.”
However, if the new proposed rule goes into effect, CMS would no longer expect hospitals to report the rates they have negotiated with each Medicare Advantage plan, RevCycleIntelligence reported.
“Hospitals are often the backbone of rural communities—but the COVID-19 pandemic has hit rural hospitals hard, and too many are struggling to stay afloat,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra (above) said in an announcement, RevCycleIntelligence reported. “This rule will give hospitals more relief and additional tools to care for COVID-19 patients and it will also bolster the healthcare workforce in rural and underserved communities.” (Photo copyright: Modern Healthcare.)
CMS Relieving a Burden, Not Eliminating a Requirement
In the fact sheet, CMS wrote that it “is proposing to repeal the requirement that a hospital report on the Medicare cost report the median payer-specific negotiated charge that the hospital has negotiated with all of its MA organization payers, by MS-DRG (Medicare-severity diagnosis related group), for cost reporting periods ending on or after January 1, 2021. CMS estimates this will reduce administrative burden on hospitals by approximately 64,000 hours.”
Experts noted that CMS is attempting to reduce providers’ administrative burdens, while keeping federal price transparency requirements in effect.
“The repeal of this requirement more falls into the bucket of easing hospitals’ burden as opposed to the agency’s stance on hospital price transparency,” Caitlin Sheetz, Director and Head of Analytics at ADVI Health, LLC, told Fierce Healthcare.
Still, the recent CMS action could be a sign that price transparency requirements for hospitals will not intensify, she added. “I would think it is very unlikely that [CMS] would put out a rule that is easing up hospital administrative burden [and] they would then ramp up audits for the hospital price transparency rule.”
AHA Supports CMS’ Latest Proposed Rule on Hospital Reporting
The AHA said the new proposed rule moves in the right direction.
In a statement, Tom Nickels, Executive Vice President of the AHA, said, “We have long said that privately negotiated rates take into account any number of unique circumstances between a private payer and a hospital and their disclosure will not further CMS’ goal of paying market rates that reflect the cost of delivering care.” He added, “We once again urge the agency to focus on transparency efforts that help patients access their specific financial information based on their coverage and care.”
Though federal price transparency rules are evolving, medical laboratories are encouraged to accept that consumer demand is one powerful force driving this trend. Thus, clinical laboratories that currently make it easy for patients to see the prices for common medical laboratory tests in advance of service should gain competitive advantage from this feature over time.
