This exciting program, feature presentations by top-performing laboratories, hospitals, and pathology groups on their successes with Lean, Six Sigma, and Rapid Process Improvement techniques. Themes this year include breakthroughs in blending Lean with automation in the high-volume core chemistry/hematology laboratory, using middleware to drive real-time decision-making, innovation in the use of histology automation with Lean methods, along with more success stories of quality systems in blood banking, microbiology, and informatics. Plus a variety of presentations on coming changes in laboratory accreditation and licensure that will incorporate quality systems, including ISO:15189 Medical Laboratories. (more…)
Here in Chicago at the huge HIMSS meeting, people are paying attention to lab testing
Dateline: Chicago, IL-Most physicians, nurses, and other healthcare workers are quite familiar with the “Five Rights of Medication.” If one innovative healthcare company is successful, soon all these folks will be equally familiar with the newly-articulated “Five Rights of Laboratory Testing,” which emphasizes that every patient is entitled to receive the proper benefits from laboratory testing.
Sunquest Information Systems, Inc has launched a campaign to promote the Five Rights of Laboratory Testing. The goal is to increase awareness among all healthcare workers of the need to exercise vigilance when ordering laboratory tests and using laboratory test data in patient care decisions.
Incident serves as a reminder that all clinical laboratories can be just one mistake away from reporting erroneous results to a number of doctors and patients
In May, more than 400 patients who agreed to take the Galleri multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood test from GRAIL—a California-based biotechnology company that is owned by genetic technology developer Illumina—received letters falsely suggesting they had cancer, according to the Financial Times which broke the news.
The Times reported that a software error had caused GRAIL’s telemedicine provider PWNHealth, which is owned by Everly Health Solutions, to send an erroneous letter to 408 patients misinforming them that “they had a signal in their blood suggesting they could have cancer.”
In a statement, GRAIL said the letters were “in no way related to or caused by an incorrect Galleri laboratory test result” and that “the letters were inadvertently triggered by a PWNHealth software configuration issue, which had now been disabled,” Financial Times reported.
GRAIL, which stated that more than half of the people who received the letters hadn’t even had blood drawn for the test, also added that “no patient health information has been disclosed or breached due to this issue, and no patient harm or adverse events have been reported,” the Financial Times noted.
Nevertheless, it’s not hard to imagine the effect the letters had on those people. No clinical laboratory wants national headlines as a consequence of an error that causes incorrect test results to be reported to doctors and patients. How to prevent such occurrences is a challenge to all clinical laboratory managers.
According to GRAIL, its Galleri multicancer early detection test “can detect a signal shared by more than 50 cancer types and predict the tissue type or organ associated with the signal. At least 45 of these cancers lack recommended screening tests in the US today.” Clinical laboratories that draw the blood sample for the genetic test ship the collection kit directly to GRAIL’s laboratory for processing. (Photo copyright: GRAIL.)
What Went Wrong
PWNHealth said in a statement that the letters were sent due to “a misconfiguration of our patient engagement platform used to send templated communications to individuals,” CBS News reported.
Financial Times reported that the letters were issued from May 10-18, and on May 19 PWNHealth informed GRAIL of the problem. “We addressed the underlying problem within an hour of becoming aware of it and have implemented additional processes to ensure it does not happen again,” PWNHealth said. “In partnership with GRAIL, we started contacting impacted individuals within 36 hours.”
The software configuration fault was deactivated by PWNHealth, and GRAIL notified affected individuals via phone, email, and regular mail until all had been informed of the error, GRAIL said.
Though GRAIL reacted quickly, there has been fallout caused by the letters. Insurer confidence may have been damaged.
According to Financial Times, customers of life insurance company MassMutual and another unnamed insurer had “been affected” by the erroneous letters. As a result, MassMutual had suspended a pilot program and the unnamed insurer was “reviewing its relationship” with GRAIL.
About GRAIL and the Galleri Liquid Biopsy Test
GRAIL was founded in 2015 in San Francisco, California, with the goal of detecting early-stage cancer. They developed the Galleri liquid biopsy test which requires only one blood sample and can “detect a signal shared by over 50 types of cancer with 99.5% specificity and predict the cancer signal origin with high accuracy to help guide next steps,” according to the company’s website.
The $949 test can only be obtained by a doctor’s prescription. At this time it is not covered by insurance, Healthnews reported.
According to a GRAIL Galleri fact sheet, “All cells—cancer and healthy ones—shed DNA, which is called cell-free DNA (cfDNA), into the bloodstream. … After a blood sample is taken at a healthcare provider’s office or at a GRAIL partner laboratory, the Galleri test uses the power of next-generation sequencing and machine-learning algorithms to analyze cfDNA methylation patterns.
“The test uses these methylation patterns to determine if a cancer signal is present and, if so, predict the tissue type or organ where the cancer signal originated.
“If a cancer signal is detected, a healthcare provider will determine next steps for diagnostic evaluation, which may include personal and family health history, physical examination, and guideline directed evaluation(s) including lab work and imaging.”
Flashback to Another Notable Lab Error
This is not the first time inaccurate genetic test results have been sent out to patients.
In 2017, Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, covered how genetic test developer Invitae Corporation had reported inaccurate genetic test results for up to 50,000 patients over a period of 11 months from September 2016 to July 2017.
In a statement, Invitae said the error occurred “because of the unique characteristics of how we we’re testing for the MSH2 Boland inversion, our quality control checks did not catch omission of the components of the assay. … As soon as the omission was recognized and relevant components returned to the assay, it once again performed properly. We have added two separate quality controls to ensure this issue will not reoccur.”
Negative Online Reviews Hurt Businesses including Clinical Laboratories
In its article, Status Labs references a 2021 PEW Research survey which found that “More than eight-in-10 US adults (86%) say they get news from a smartphone, computer, or tablet ‘often’ or ‘sometimes,’ including 60% who say they do so often. This is higher than the portion who get news from television, though 68% get news from TV at least sometimes and 40% do so often. Americans turn to radio and print publications for news far less frequently, with half saying they turn to radio at least sometimes (16% do so often) and about a third (32%) saying the same of print (10% get news from print publications often).”
Status Labs also cited studies showing the impact of negative press online. One study by Trustpilot showed that 90% of consumers said they will not frequent a business that has a bad reputation.
Another study by the University of Pennsylvania found that “negative reviews, messages, or rumors hurt product evaluations and reduce purchase likelihood and sales.”
Vigilance Is the Key
Clinical laboratory leaders are keenly aware that a lab’s reputation can make or break its business. This incident involving GRAIL and its telemedicine provider PWNHealth is a reminder that vendors providing services to medical laboratories can be a source of problems ranging from breaches of protected health information (PHI) to misstatements or misreporting of clinical laboratory test results.
Thus, it behooves lab managers to constantly monitor information leaving the lab, and to ensure all test results sent to patients and doctors are valid and accurate.
The speakers also noted that labs must learn to work collaboratively with payers—perhaps through health information technology (HIT)—to establish best practices that improve reimbursements on claims for novel genetic tests.
Harnessing the ever-increasing volume of diagnostic data that genetic testing produces should be a high priority for labs, said William Morice II, MD, PhD, CEO and President of Mayo Clinic Laboratories.
“There will be an increased focus on getting information within the laboratory … for areas such as genomics and proteomics,” Morice told the keynote audience at the Executive War College on Wednesday.
“Wearable technology data is analyzed using machine learning. Clinical laboratories must participate in analyzing that spectrum of diagnostics,” said William Morice II, MD, PhD (above), CEO and President of Mayo Clinic Laboratories. Morice spoke during this week’s Executive War College.
Precision Medicine Efforts Include Genetic Testing and Wearable Devices
For laboratories new to genetic testing that want to move it in-house, Morice outlined effective first steps to take, including the following:
Determine and then analyze the volume of genetic testing that a lab is sending out.
Research and evaluate genetic sequencing platforms that are on the market, with an eye towards affordable cloud-based options.
Build a business case to conduct genetic tests in-house that focuses on the long-term value to patients and how that could also improve revenue.
A related area for clinical laboratories and pathology practices to explore is their role in how clinicians treat patients using wearable technology.
For example, according to Morice, Mayo Clinic has monitored 20,000 cardiac patients with wearable devices. The data from the wearable devices—which includes diagnostic information—is analyzed using machine learning, a subset of artificial intelligence.
In one study published in Scientific Reports, scientists from Mayo’s Departments of Neurology and Biomedical Engineering found “clear evidence that direct seizure forecasts are possible using wearable devices in the ambulatory setting for many patients with epilepsy.”
Clinical laboratories fit into this picture, Morice explained. For example, depending on what data it provides, a wearable device on a patient with worsening neurological symptoms could trigger a lab test for Alzheimer’s disease or other neurological disorders.
“This will change how labs think about access to care,” he noted.
For Payers, Navigating Genetic Testing Claims is Difficult
While there is promise in genetic testing and precision medicine, from an administrative viewpoint, these activities can be challenging for payers when it comes to verifying reimbursement claims.
“One of the biggest challenges we face is determining what test is being ordered. From the perspective of the reimbursement process, it’s not always clear,” said Cristi Radford, MS, CGC, Product Director at healthcare services provider Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, located in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Radford also presented a keynote at this year’s Executive War College.
Approximately 400 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are in place to represent the estimated 175,000 genetic tests on the market, Radford noted. That creates a dilemma for labs and payers in assigning codes to novel genetic tests.
During her keynote address, Radford showed the audience of laboratory executives a slide that charted how four labs submitted claims for the same high-risk breast cancer panel. CPT code choices varied greatly.
“Does the payer have any idea which test was ordered? No,” she said. “It was a genetic panel, but the information doesn’t give us the specificity payers need.”
In such situations, payers resort to prior authorization to halt these types of claims on the front end so that more diagnostic information can be provided.
“Plans don’t like prior authorization, but it’s a necessary evil,” said Jason Bush, PhD, Executive Vice President of Product at Avalon Healthcare Solutions in Tampa, Florida. Bush co-presented with Radford.
[Editor’s note: Dark Daily offers a free webinar, “Learning from Payer Behavior to Increase Appeal Success,” that teaches labs how to better understand payer behavior. The webinar features recent trends in denials and appeals by payers that will help diagnostic organizations maximize their appeal success. Click here to stream this important webinar.]
Payers Struggle with ‘Explosion’ of Genetic Tests
In “UnitedHealth’s Optum to Offer Lab Test Management,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, covered Optum’s announcement that it had launched “a comprehensive laboratory benefit management solution designed to help health plans reduce unnecessary lab testing and ensure their members receive appropriate, high-quality tests.”
Optum sells this laboratory benefit management program to other health plans and self-insured employers. Genetic test management capabilities are part of that offering.
As part of its lab management benefit program, Optum is collaborating with Avalon on a new platform for genetic testing that will launch soon and focus on identifying test quality, streamlining prior authorization, and providing test payment accuracy in advance.
“Payers are struggling with the explosion in genetic testing,” Bush told Executive War College attendees. “They are truly not trying to hinder innovation.”
For clinical laboratory leaders reading this ebriefing, the takeaway is twofold: Genetic testing and resulting precision medicine efforts provide hope in more effectively treating patients. At the same time, the genetic test juggernaut has grown so large so quickly payers are finding it difficult to manage. Thus, it has become a source of continuous challenge for labs seeking reimbursements.
Heath information technology may help ease the situation. But, ultimately, stronger communication between labs and payers—including acknowledgement of what each side needs from a business perspective—is paramount.
As 3D printing technology gains acceptance with pharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories could see increased demand for pharmacogenomic testing
Will physicians someday “print” prescription drugs for patients in-office? It sounds like science fiction, but research being conducted at the University College London (UCL) indicates the capability may be closer than we think, and it could bring about a new type of collaboration between clinical laboratories, ordering physicians, and pharmacies.
UCL’s new 3D technique, which it calls “volumetric 3D printing,” is intended to enable the pharmaceutical industry to tailor drug dosage, shape/size, and release to an individual patient’s needs and preference. A key element of precision medicine.
According to GlobalData Healthcare, 3D printing also can “significantly reduce cost, wastes, and economic burden as printers only deposit the exact amount of raw materials required.”
3D printing may enable pharmaceutical companies to address gender and racial disparities in prescription drug manufacturing through a developing technology that could have implications for clinical laboratory testing. Fred Parietti, PhD (above), co-founder and CEO of Multiply Labs, a technology company that develops robotics for precision medicine pharmaceuticals, told 3D Natives, “Currently, medications are developed especially for white adult men, which means that all women and children have an excessive prescription for their bodies. This fact underlines the importance of the advent of personalized medicines, as well as highlighting the individuality of each patient, since the error in the dosage of certain active ingredients can even lead to the malfunctioning of some treatments.” (Photo copyright: Multiply Labs.)
.
Increased Demand for Pharmacogenomic Testing
Though 3D printing of prescription drugs is not directly in the clinical laboratory/pathology space, it is noteworthy because it shows how technological advancements are progressing that actualize the ability to deliver precision medicine care to individual patients.
In turn, this could increase physician/patient demand for pharmacogenomic tests performed by clinical laboratories. The test results would be used by treating physicians to determine proper dosages for their individual patients prior to ordering 3D-printed drugs.
Being able to provide medication tailored to patients’ specific needs could bring about a revolution in pharmaceutical manufacturing. If 3D printed prescription drugs become mainstream, the demands could affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries as well.
How Far Are We from Mass Production of 3D Printed Drugs?
The first and only 3D printed pharmaceutical drug on the American market is Spritam (levetiracetam) an anti-epileptic drug developed by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals, according to Medical Device Network. It received FDA clearance under the name Keppra in 1999.
Headquartered in Blue Ash, Ohio, Aprecia’s patented ZipDose manufacturing process allows 3D-printed pills to hold a larger dosage and dissolve rapidly. They currently have the only FDA process-validated 3D printing platform for commercial-scale drug production. They are leading the way on this new 3D technology and others are following suit.
FabRx, a start-up 3D printing company developed by academic researchers in 2014 at the University College London, released its first pharmaceutical 3D printer for personalized medicine called M3DIMAKER according to LabioTech.eu. The system is “controlled by specialized software, allowing the selection of the required dose by the pharmacist according to the prescription given by the clinician,” the company’s website notes.
The technology also allows for additional customization of pills, including the application of Braille for visually impaired patients, and printing of Polypills, which combine more than one drug into a single pill.
Other company’s developing 3D printing of pharmaceuticals, according to LabioTech.eu, include:
Germany’s Merck: currently in clinical trials of 3D printing medication with the goal of reaching large scale production.
China’s Triastek: which holds “41 patents that account for more than 20% of global 3D printing pharmaceuticals applications.”
We are still far away from large scale production of drugs using 3D printing, but that doesn’t mean it should not be on clinical laboratory leaders’ radar.
The rise of 3D printing technology for precision medicine could lead to big changes in the pharmaceutical world and alter how patients, providers, and clinical laboratories interact. It also could increase demand for pharmacogenomic testing to determine the best dosage for individual patients. This breakthrough shows how one line of technology research and development may, as it reaches clinical use, engage clinical laboratories.
