News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Former FDA Director to Speak at Executive War College on FDA’s Coming Regulation of Laboratory Developed Tests

Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, will discuss what clinical laboratories need to know about the draft LDT rule, FDA memo on assay reclassification, and ISO-13485 harmonization

Many clinical laboratories anxiously await a final rule from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is expected to establish federal policies under which the agency will regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs). The agency released a proposed rule on Oct. 3, 2023, setting a Dec. 4 deadline for submission of comments. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget received a draft of the final rule less than three months later on March 1, 2024.

“Given how fast it moved through HHS, the final [rule] is likely pretty close” to the draft version, wrote former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, in a post on LinkedIn. Gottlieb and other regulatory experts expect the White House to submit the final rule to Congress no later than May 22, and perhaps as soon as this month.

But what will the final rule look like? Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics, suggests that it is too soon to tell.

Stenzel, who retired from the FDA last year, emphasized that he was not speaking on behalf of the federal agency and that he adheres to all FDA confidentiality requirements. He formed a new company—Grey Haven LLC—through which he is accepting speaking engagements in what he describes as a public service.

“I’m taking a wait and see approach,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD (above), former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics, in an interview with Dark Daily. “The rule is not finalized. The FDA received thousands of comments. It’s my impression that the FDA takes those comments seriously. Until the rule is published, we don’t know what it will say, so I don’t think it does any good to make assumptions.” Clinical laboratory leaders will have an opportunity to learn how to prepare for FDA regulation of LDTs directly from Stenzel at the upcoming Executive War College in May. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)

FDA’s History of LDT Regulation

Prior to his five-year stint at the agency, Stenzel held high-level positions at diagnostics manufacturers Invivoscribe, Quidel Corporation, Asuragen, and Abbott Laboratories. He also directed the clinical molecular diagnostics laboratory at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina. In the latter role, during the late 1990s, he oversaw development of numerous LDTs, he said.

The FDA, he observed, has long taken the position that it has authority to regulate LDTs. However, since the 1970s, after Congress passed the Medical Device Amendments to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the agency has generally exercised “enforcement discretion,” he said, in which it declined to regulate most of these tests.

At the time, “many LDTs were lower risk, small volume, and used for specialized needs of a local patient population,” the agency stated in a press release announcing the proposed rule. “Since then, due to changes in business practices and increasing ability to ship patient specimens across the country quickly, many LDTs are now used more widely, for a larger and more diverse population, with large laboratories accepting specimens from across the country.”

Clinical Labs Need a Plan for Submission of LDTs to FDA

The FDA proposed the new rule after Congress failed to vote on the VALID Act (Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act of 2021), which would have established a statutory framework for FDA oversight of LDTs. Citing public comments from FDA officials, Stenzel believes the agency would have preferred the legislative approach. But when that failed, “they thought they needed to act, which left them with the rulemaking path,” he said.

The new rule, as proposed, would phase out enforcement discretion in five stages over four years, he noted. Labs would have to begin submitting high-risk tests for premarket review about three-and-a-half years from publication of the final rule, but not before Oct. 1, 2027. Premarket review requirements for moderate- or low-risk tests would follow about six months later.

While he suggested a “wait and see” approach to the final rule, he advises labs that might be affected to develop a plan for dealing with it.

Potential Lawsuits

Stenzel also noted the likelihood of litigation in which labs or other stakeholders will seek to block implementation of the rule. “It’s a fairly widespread belief that there will be a lawsuit or lawsuits that will take this issue through the courts,” he said. “That could take several years. There is no guarantee that the courts will ultimately side with the FDA.”

In “Perfect Storm of Clinical Lab and Pathology Practice Regulatory Changes to Be Featured in Discussions at 29th Annual Executive War College,” Dark Daily covers how the forces in play will directly impact the operations and financial stability of many of the nation’s clinical laboratories.

Stenzel is scheduled to speak about the LDT rule during three sessions at the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostic, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management conference taking place on April 30-May 1 in New Orleans.

He acknowledged that it is a controversial issue among clinical laboratories. Many labs have voiced opposition to the rule as well as the Valid Act.

Currently in retirement, Stenzel says he is making himself available as a resource through public speaking for laboratory professionals and other test developers who are seeking insights about the agency.

“The potential value that I bring is recent experience with the FDA and with stakeholders both inside and outside the FDA,” he said, adding that during his presentations he likes “to leave plenty of time for open-ended questions.”

In the case of his talks at the Executive War College, Stenzel said he anticipates “a robust conversation.”

He also expects to address other FDA-related issues, including:

  • A recent memo in which the agency said it would begin reclassifying most high-risk In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) tests—those in class III (high risk)—into class II (moderate to high risk).
  • The emergence of multi-cancer detection (MCD) tests, which he described as a “hot topic in the LDT world.” The FDA has not yet approved any MCD tests, but some are available as LDTs.
  • A new voluntary pilot program in which the FDA will evaluate LDTs in situations where the agency has approved a treatment but has not authorized a corresponding companion diagnostic.
  • An FDA effort to harmonize ISO 13485—a set of international standards governing development of medical devices and diagnostics—with the agency’s own quality system regulations. Compliance with the ISO standards is necessary to market products in many countries outside the US, particularly in Europe, Stenzel noted. Harmonization will simplify product development, he said, because manufacturers won’t have to follow two or more sets of rules.

To learn how to prepare for the FDA’s future regulation of LDTs, clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend Stenzel’s presentations at this year’s Executive War College. Visit here to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.

—Stephen Beale

Related Information:

FDA Proposes Rule Aimed at Helping to Ensure Safety and Effectiveness of Laboratory Developed Tests

Proposed Rule Webinar: Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests (webinar transcript)

Proposed Rule Webinar: Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests (slides)

FDA Proposed Rule on Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests

CDRH Announces Intent to Initiate the Reclassification Process for Most High Risk IVDs

Questions and Answers about Multi-Cancer Detection Tests Oncology Drug Products Used with Certain In Vitro Diagnostics Pilot Program

CMS Proposes a New Rule That Would Shift Many Procedures from High-Cost Inpatient Healthcare Settings to Lower-Cost Outpatient Ambulatory Surgical Centers

If the proposed rule becomes final, it may shift some inpatient medical laboratory testing away from hospital labs and to independent clinical laboratories

Medical laboratories in hospitals and health systems already feel the pinch of less test orders originating from their own emergency departments (ED). Now, more tests associated with inpatient care might also shift away from hospital labs due to a new proposed rule from the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) that would move 1,740 specific procedures from inpatient care settings to outpatient ambulatory surgical centers (ACS).

Further, the proposed rule would completely phase out the “inpatient only” (IPO) list of services over a three-year transitional period, with total elimination of the IPO list by Calendar Year (CY) 2024.

If finalized as written, the rule (CMS-1736-P) would have a negative impact on the finances of hospitals laboratories as more patients get their care in outpatient settings instead of their local hospitals.

Conversely, hospital outreach labs that service ambulatory surgical centers and other outpatient settings could have an opportunity to pick up more medical laboratory test referrals.

The proposed rule, titled, “Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs; New Categories for Hospital Outpatient Department Prior Authorization Process; Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule: Laboratory Date of Service Policy; Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating Methodology; and Physician-Owned Hospitals,” was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2020, and is open for comments until 10/05/2020.

Its summary reads: “This proposed rule would revise the Medicare hospital outpatient prospective payment system (OPPS) and the Medicare ambulatory surgical center (ASC) payment system for Calendar Year (CY) 2021 based on our continuing experience with these systems.

“In this proposed rule, we describe the proposed changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the payment rates for Medicare services paid under the OPPS and those paid under the ASC payment system.

“Also, this proposed rule would update and refine the requirements for the Hospital Outpatient Quality Reporting (OQR) Program and the ASC Quality Reporting (ASCQR) Program. In addition, this proposed rule would establish and update the Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating beginning with the CY 2021; remove certain restrictions on the expansion of physician-owned hospitals that qualify as ‘high Medicaid facilities,’ and clarify that certain beds are counted toward a hospital’s baseline number of operating rooms, procedure rooms, and beds; and add two new service categories to the OPD [Outpatient Department] Prior Authorization Process.”

Moving from Highest Cost Settings to Lower Cost Settings

In the big picture, these changes can save Medicare money. By shifting procedures for Medicare patients from the highest cost settings—hospital inpatient—to lower cost settings, such as outpatient ambulatory surgical centers, and by eliminating the inpatient-only list, physicians have more leeway to determine for themselves whether a patient needs to be hospitalized for any given procedure.

In “Do Hospitals Have a Target on their Back?” healthcare coding and reimbursement consultant, Terry Fletcher, an editorial board member with ICD10monitor, wrote, “Last year, CMS proposed removing certain services from the inpatient-only list and making them available on an outpatient basis, which it said would help lower costs.

“According to the proposal, ambulatory surgical centers would get a payment increase of 2.6%, and CMS estimated total payments to them for 2021 will be about $5.45 billion, an increase of $160 million from this year,” she added.

Fewer Referrals for Inpatient Lab, More for Hospital Outreach Labs

The impact of the proposed rule is predictable—price shopping will ensue, which is what Medicare wants. Thus, with the removal of the inpatient-only procedure list, the clinical laboratories of hospitals and health systems will likely see a reduction in inpatient test orders. But clinical laboratories participating in hospital outreach programs may see an increase in test orders, as doctors transition to more outpatient procedures.

This seemingly simple shift may be more complicated than it appears, however, for both patients and labs. “In general, any routine test is going to be more expensive at a hospital,” Jean Pinder, founder and CEO of ClearHealthCosts, told Cleveland.com.

There may be other concerns as well. Convenience, insurance coverage, and physician recommendations often influence patient decisions about clinical laboratories.

Compares prices for common clinical laboratory and imaging tests charged
The chart above, taken from the article by Cleveland.com, “compares prices for common clinical laboratory and imaging tests charged by an independent lab and local hospitals. These are charges that a person would pay without insurance reimbursements. Some University Hospitals prices in the chart differ from those on its website because some prices reflect inpatient, hospital-based services. Many factors can affect [a patient’s] final out-of-pocket costs, including health insurance coverage and individual aspects of your medical treatment.” (Graphic and caption copyright: Cleveland.com.)

Change Is the Only Constant

The entire healthcare industry is undergoing change that is unlikely to end any time soon. Clinical laboratory managers who stay aware of trends in the industry and remain informed on regulatory changes, and who look for opportunities as the business landscape evolves, will have the best chance for guiding their labs to success.

That would certainly be true if CMS is able to publish a final rule that shifts a large number of procedures away from inpatient care and categorizes them as outpatient procedures.

Dava Stewart

Related Information:

CMS Proposed Rule (CMS-1736-P) Medicare Program

Do Hospitals Have a Target on their Back?

PAMA Price Reporting Update: Insights to Help Prepare to Meet the Requirement

;