Ongoing federal regulatory push for EHR interoperability requires medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to have strategies for ensuring seamless interfaces with providers and hospitals
Make the program more flexible and less burdensome;
Emphasize measures that require the exchange of health information between providers and patients; and,
Incentivize providers to make it easier for patients to obtain their medical records electronically.
“We’re excited to make these changes to ensure care will focus on the patient, not on needless paperwork,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma stated in the news release. “We’ve listened to patients and their doctors who urged us to remove the obstacles getting in the way of quality care and positive health outcomes. Today’s final rule reflects public feedback on CMS proposals issued in April and the agency’s patient-driven priorities of improving the quality and safety of care, advancing health information exchange and usability, and removing outdated or redundant regulation on healthcare providers to make way for innovation and greater value.” (Photo copyright: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)
According to a CMS fact sheet, key provisions of the overhaul include:
The rule finalized an EHR reporting period to a minimum of any continuous 90-day period in each of calendar years 2019 and 2020 for new and returning participants attesting to CMS or their State Medicaid agency;
For the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program, the rule finalized a new performance-based scoring methodology consisting of a smaller set of objectives that CMS states will provide a more flexible, less-burdensome structure, allowing eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) to place their focus back on patients;
CMS finalized two new e-Prescribing measures related to e-prescribing of opioids (Schedule II controlled substances); and,
Beginning with an EHR reporting period in CY 2019, all eligible hospitals and CAHs under the Medicare and Medicaid PI programs will be required to use the 2015 Edition of Certified EHR Technology;
CMS finalized changes to measures, including removing certain measures CMS believes do not emphasize interoperability and the electronic exchange of health information.
According to CMS, about 3,300 acute care hospitals and 420 long-term care hospitals will be subject to the final rule, which takes effect October 1. Obviously, medical laboratories servicing these healthcare organizations will be similarly affected.
Rebranding More than a Name Change
Healthcare Informatics analyzed the 2,593-page final rule explaining that the “core emphasis” of the meaningful use overhaul is “on advancing health data exchange among providers.”
The initial proposal in April, according to Healthcare Informatics, invited stakeholder feedback through a request for information on the possibility of revising CMS’ “Conditions of Participation” for hospitals by requiring providers to electronically transfer medically necessary information following a patient discharge or transfer. The final rule, however, did not include that change.
Instead, the CMS Fact Sheet on the rule states the April request for information was “to obtain feedback on positive solutions to better achieve interoperability, or the sharing of healthcare data between providers, which will inform next steps in advancing this critical initiative.”
Rebranding meaningful use is CMS’s first step in implementing core pieces of the Administration’s MyHealthEData Initiative to strengthen interoperability. In remarks during the ONC Interoperability Forum in Washington, DC, CMS Administrator Seema Verma described the rebranding decision as “much more than a name change” and signaled future CMS actions.
“It is a change in direction for the programs—from programs that support the adoption of health IT, to programs that promote interoperability and patient access to data,” she explained. “To avoid payment reductions and gain incentives, doctors and hospitals will have to give patients electronic access to their health records. We are also considering whether CMS should require—as a condition of participation in the Medicare program—that providers share data with patients in a universal electronic format and hope to share more information on that soon.”
The recent changes follow passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which included a provision relaxing meaningful-use requirements. Though the legislation affects only hospitals and outpatient Medicaid providers, Robert Tennant, Director of Health Information Technology Policy for the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), declared the revision a “huge win” for providers.
“I don’t think the government recognized how difficult it would be to move from stage 1 to stage 2 to stage 3 [meaningful use] requirements and the significant costs involved,” Tennant stated told Modern Healthcare. “We hope that it signals an interest in Congress in having the administration and HHS (Federal Health and Human Services) not make these quality reporting programs so onerous that it results in large swaths of providers not being successful.”
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should be aware that interoperability between their laboratory information systems and the EHRs of providers and hospitals continues to be important. Although the term “Meaningful Use” is to be supplanted by “Promoting Interoperability,” the ability to move patient health information seamlessly among providers continues to be a major goal of this country’s healthcare system.
Defamation, libel, harassment, and causing emotional distress are some of the charges patients who launched online negative review campaigns are defending themselves against in court
Healthcare systems, surgeons, family practitioners, clinical laboratories, anatomic pathologists—none are immune to receiving negative online reviews from patients who believe they’ve been damaged by their caregivers. And these reviews can have such an impact on practice revenues, doctors and hospitals have begun suing patients for damages caused by harmful online reviews. And they are winning.
Several notable cases involve high-profile healthcare systems. One such lawsuit involved the Cleveland Clinic. A patient who claimed a 2008 prostate surgery left him impotent and incontinent due to negligence on the part of the surgeon launched a negative campaign that spanned a decade, USA Today reported.
David Antoon, a retired Air Force Colonel, filed a malpractice lawsuit against urologist, Jihad Kaouk, MD, and the Cleveland Clinic. Antoon alleged Kaouk was not present in the operating room during his surgery, even though he insisted that only Kaouk perform the procedure. Antoon also claimed the Cleveland Clinic’s urology department did not have the proper credentials to operate the robotic device used during his surgery.
In addition to filing the lawsuit, Antoon complained to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the State Medical Board of Ohio.
However, Antoon also vented his frustrations on social media, as well as sending e-mails to Kaouk, which the doctor felt were threatening and made him concerned about the situation escalating. “What would be next—showing up at my door?” Kaouk asked during the criminal trial against Antoon. “That’s what we feared.”
Jihad Kaouk, MD (above), a urologist with the Cleveland Clinic, giving testimony atCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court during a lawsuit involving patient David Antoon, a retired Air Force Colonel. Kaouk and the Cleveland Clinic prevailed in that lawsuit and the State Medical Board of Ohio closed a five-year investigation into Kaouk without reprimanding him. (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Antoon posted unfavorable online comments about Kaouk for a decade. The urologist eventually petitioned the court, which granted him a civil stalking protective order against Antoon. It banned Antoon from contacting the doctor. Nevertheless, the day after that order was granted, Antoon posted another bad review about Kaouk on Yelp and urged people to avoid Kaouk when seeking medical care.
Antoon was later arrested on felony charges of menacing by stalking, telecommunications harassment, and violating a protection order. He faced up to one year in prison if indicted. In addition to spending two days in jail, he paid $40,000 for a defense attorney and a $50,000 bond after being arrested. He also agreed to pay $100 as part of a plea deal.
Above is David Antoon (left), Col USAF Ret, and Don Malarcik (right), an attorney with Malarcik, Pierce, Munyer, and Will in Akron, Ohio. Malarcik argued that “the Yelp review doesn’t violate the protection order because Antoon did not make direct contact with Kaouk,” Cleveland.com reported. (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Other Lawsuits Against Patients Involving Social Media
Joon Song, MD, PhD, a New York City area gynecologist sued patient Michelle Levine over critical reviews she left about his practice on several online sites. Though Levine removed her posts from the sites after being sued, Song wants her to pay $1 million in legal fees and damages. The doctor accused Levine of defamation, libel, and causing emotional distress. Sound familiar?
Two Scottsdale, Ariz., doctors—Albert Carlotti, MD, and Michelle Cabret-Carlotti, MD, DDS,—successfully sued patient Sherry Petta for defamation after she posted negative statements about the doctors online. After filing a complaint with the Arizona Medical Board and clashing with Carlotti over access to her medical records, Petta posted unfavorable reviews about the practice on several online sites and created a website to warn others about Carlotti. The doctors claimed the statements Petta made were untrue and portrayed them in a false light. A jury agreed and awarded the doctors $12 million, which was later vacated on appeal.
Cleveland cosmetic surgeon Bahman Guyuron, MD, sued a former patient after she posted adversarial reviews on several online review sites about her dissatisfaction with a nose job. The patient, who remains unidentified, alleges that Guyuron acted in an untrustworthy and unprofessional manner, that she received no follow-up care, and that Guyuron urges people to post erroneous positive reviews online. She also claims that there was no informed consent to the procedure and that her nose is now twice as large as before.
Guyuron is seeking monetary damages, an injunction against the patient to prevent her from posting negative reviews about him online, and an order to remove all existing statements about him from the Internet.
Clinical Laboratories Vulnerable to Negative Reviews
Healthcare is complicated and positive outcomes can never be guaranteed. When patients do not get satisfaction by complaining to the doctors and facilities, they may seek other ways to be heard. And negative comments made on social media and online review websites can harm the reputations and businesses of physicians and medical facilities.
“It would be great if the regulators of hospitals and doctors were more diligent about responding to harm to patients, but they’re not, so people have turned to other people,” Lisa McGiffert, former head of the Consumer Reports Safe Patient Project, told USA Today. “This is what happens when your system of oversight is failing patients.”
However, Ryan Lorenz, Petta’s attorney warns consumers to be aware of the consequences of posting critical online reviews, especially if they post factually inaccurate information. “Make sure what you are saying is true—it has to be truthful,” he told USA Today.
Similar situations can arise in the clinical laboratory industry as well. There were multiple postings on Yelp in 2014 and 2015 by patients criticizing blood-testing company Theranos regarding discordant test results they’d received from Theranos’ lab, which Dark Daily covered in multiple e-briefings.
Trust is the hardest thing to earn, the easiest thing to lose, and once gone, can be impossible to get back. Clinical laboratories are just as susceptible to negative reviews as hospitals and doctors.
Worse yet, labs can be drawn into lawsuits simply because they service the hospital systems and caregivers involved. Preparing in advance for this possibility should be on every clinical laboratory manager’s do list.
As federal regulatory agencies continue to push transparency, hospitals, medical labs, anatomic pathology groups, and other healthcare providers must develop strategies for remaining competitive and maintaining patient volume
More price transparency continues to be a goal of Medicare officials. Some clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may be unaware of a proposed rule issued by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in April that would require hospitals to post prices online as early as this January 1, 2019.
This action is a definitive demonstration of how the federal healthcare program continues to scrutinize how healthcare organizations communicate with patients and post their prices. This pressure on healthcare systems and individual providers extends to the clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that support them. Without a plan to address these changes, medical laboratory test volume and practice revenues can be severely impacted.
Recent coverage from RevCycleIntelligence indicates that this trend is only just getting started.
“When you go to receive a healthcare service, there are always going to be situations where you can’t know what the costs will be, especially around emergency situations and some acute situations,” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma told RevCycleIntelligence. “But for a lot of us, we’re going in for planned procedures. You should be able to know what it’s going to cost you.”
In April 2018, CMS posted a proposed rule that requires hospitals to post standard service rates online and update their pricing lists at least annually starting January 1, 2019. While many healthcare organizations currently report pricing to state boards and other online directories, this rule, if enacted, could make it easier for consumers to source reliable pricing information before obtaining care.
“We are concerned that challenges continue to exist for patients due to insufficient price transparency. Such challenges include patients being surprised by out-of-network bills for physicians—such as anesthesiologists and radiologists who provide services at in-network hospitals—and patients being surprised by facility fees and physician fees for emergency room visits. We also are concerned that chargemaster data are not helpful to patients for determining what they are likely to pay for a particular service or hospital stay,” the CMS proposed rule states.
In the proposed rule that references out-of-network bills, pathologists should have been included as a hospital-based physician service—such as anesthesiologists and radiologists—that submits bills to patients for care provided in the hospital. Pathology practice administrators may want to review the specific language of the proposed rule to understand how hospitals served by the pathology group will be required to post prices.
“If you’re buying a car or pretty much anything else, you’re able to do some research,” Seema Verma (above), Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told RevCycleIntelligence. “You’re able to know what the quality is. You’re able to make comparisons. Why shouldn’t we be able to do that in healthcare? Every healthcare consumer wants that.” (Photo copyright: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)
Transparency Concerns Lead to Additional Questions from CMS
Alongside the proposed rule, CMS also is issuing a request for information (RFI) to give healthcare experts an opportunity to:
Demonstrate the impact of current proposals; and,
Make recommendations to further align the proposal with both the needs of healthcare organizations and service providers as well as the cost-reduction goals of CMS.
Key questions, according to RevCycleIntelligence, include:
How should “standard charges” be defined (e.g., average or median rates for chargemaster items; average or median rates for groups of services commonly billed together as determined by the hospital; or average discount off the chargemaster amount across all payers)?
What types of information would help patients understand hospital prices and patient financial responsibility? How should hospitals use this information to inform patients and decision-making?
Should healthcare providers be required to tell patients about their out-of-pocket costs for a service prior to care delivery? Should providers even play a role in informing patients of out-of-pocket costs?
Should CMS require providers to give patients information on what Medicare pays for a service?
How should CMS enforce healthcare price transparency requirements? Should hospitals have to attest to meeting requirements?
Implications for Healthcare Services and Diagnostics Providers
RevCycleIntelligence reports that between CMS rules and bills introduced by Senators, an increase in healthcare transparency pricing is likely. These requirements will continue to apply pressure to clinical laboratories, anatomic pathology groups, and other diagnostics providers.
Much like the importance of communicating value to the new wave of payer and physician partnerships emerging around the country, transparency will offer an opportunity to communicate value to consumers.
However—particularly for high-margin services and assays—laboratories must create strategies to address pricing transparency and communicate the value of their services if they hope to maintain volumes and financial integrity at existing levels.
A study conducted by Johns Hopkins University researchers and published in The American Surgeon also highlights benefits that transparency might hold outside of simple regulatory compliance.
Analyzing data from six ambulatory care centers from 2016, they found that five out of six reported increases in both patient volume and revenue after adopting price transparency. Half of the centers also reported a reduction in administrative burden—a concern that medical laboratories must also address as streamlining operations and optimizing efficiency becomes a core part of successful lab operation in the face of healthcare reform.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should develop a strategy for addressing new transparency requirements. That strategy should include ways to effectively communicate their value to both healthcare providers and consumers. Should the CMS proposed rule progress to a final rule, failure to address pricing transparency may result in enforcement and compliance concerns—a critical issue for laboratories already facing tighter markets and increased regulatory and payer scrutiny.
As consumers increasingly choose physicians and service providers based on other people’s feedback on review websites, Internet-based customer service programs are becoming critical business tools for clinical laboratories and pathology groups
Clinical laboratory managers are becoming increasingly aware that negative reviews on anonymous online review sites, such as Yelp and others, can negatively impact revenues.
Official sources and surveys, such as Medicare’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS), already provide information and ratings on healthcare service providers. However, recent coverage in Healthcare Dive highlights how consumers are finding the narrative reviews on websites such as Yelp more accessible and relatable. And, that these reviews focus on the criteria consumers find most important.
“We’re moving to a health system where patient ratings are becoming more important, [one] where top-down ratings are really inaccessible to patients and probably not that useful,” Yevgeniy Feyman, PhD, told Healthcare Dive. Feyman, along with Paul Howard, PhD, co-authored the Manhattan Institute report, “Yelp for Health.”
In the report, they examined the correlation between Yelp reviews of New York hospitals and objective measures of hospital quality. “We find that higher Yelp ratings are correlated with better-quality hospitals and that they provide a useful, clear, and reliable tool for comparing the quality of different facilities as measured by potentially preventable readmission rates (PPR), a widely accepted metric,” they stated.
This is a significant finding for clinical laboratory administrators and pathologists. It demonstrates that how patients review their provider experiences does align with objective measures of provider quality that may be public, but are not as easy for consumers to find as websites like Yelp, Healthgrades, and others.
Online Reviews: A Metric for Determining Healthcare Value and Quality?
Andrea Ducas, Senior Program Manager with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), told Healthcare Dive the primary considerations patients use to pick providers include:
“Treats patients with respect;
“Accepts insurance;
“Shares in decision-making;
“Responsiveness to phone calls; and,
“Professional skill.”
Research into how patients find/choose their physicians conducted by OnePoll and commissioned by Binary Fountain determined that, of more than 1,000 adults surveyed:
“95% of respondents regard online ratings and reviews as ‘somewhat’ to ‘very’ reliable;
“75% of Americans say online ratings and review sites have influenced their decision when choosing a physician; and,
“30% of consumers share their own healthcare experiences via social media and online ratings and review sites.”
Common research sources listed by respondents included:
“Given that the majority of quality measures out there … aren’t really that accessible for patients, this is a very good proxy,” Feyman told U.S. News in a report on physicians’ concerns about the use and popularity of review sites.
“[T]he emphasis placed on a small number of patient opinions—far fewer patients leave reviews than are treated in a typical health system—makes it harder for doctors to do their job for fear of a career-harming bad review. And a few negative posts from disgruntled patients could unfairly skew public perception—and eventually, a provider’s bottom line,” U.S. News noted.
Despite this, Luther Lowe, Yelp’s Senior Vice President of Public Policy and Government Affairs, assured Healthcare Dive they have processes to “filter spam and quell suspicious activity daily.”
Online reviews recently played an important role in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) exposé on Theranos, which Dark Daily covered in 2016. Investigative reporter John Carreyrou (above) used Yelp to locate patients who reported negative experiences with specific healthcare services and practices. He described how he used the platform during a presentation to the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ) in April 2018. Click on this link to watch a video of Carreyrou’s presentation. (Photo copyright: Association of Healthcare Journalists.)
Negative Reviews: A Critical Concern for Medical Laboratories
Consumers continue to use Internet platforms to both share ratings and compare information on healthcare professionals and the clinical laboratories supporting them. Thus, to prevent damage from negative reviews, labs must actively monitor feedback, pursue inaccurate information posted online, and encourage consumers to provide positive feedback and opinions.
According to data from Alexa, Yelp is the 32nd most visited website in the United States. Yelp’s own data reports that more than 150-million reviews have been added to the site since its inception 13 years ago.
And, Yelp categorizes 7% of the reviewed businesses as “health-related.”
Between easy-to-access information distributed online and an increased push for transparency, clinical laboratories and other healthcare service providers must work to take charge of the narrative created about their businesses and encourage positive feedback on these developing platforms.
Failing to do so could cost laboratories the physicians’ practices they service.
“There are some providers who are trying to get ahead of the curve and post reviews directly on their website,” Ducas told Healthcare Dive. “Another thing they can do is encourage their patients to read some reviews online and invite them to leave feedback. That’s a radical invitation but it’s certainly something they can do.”
As healthcare customers increasingly turn to review sites for feedback about healthcare facilities and the service providers supporting them, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups must focus on their Internet presence and respond quickly to any negative review feedback with great customer service.
Growing interest in more transparency for the prices of prescription drugs is reflected in a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that highlights disparities in pharma prices for patients, pharmacies, and payers
However, while reference pricing and pricing databases help savvy patients compare prices across a range of procedures, much about pharmaceutical pricing remains shrouded in mystery. This is why calls for greater transparency in how prescription drugs are priced are increasing as well.
The Trump administration, state governments, and advocacy groups have each targeted drug costs as a problem in the current healthcare system. And a March 2018 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) may further fuel the fires facing big pharma.
Overpayments and the Silence Behind Them
Analyzing 9.5 million claims from Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart over the first half of 2013, researchers found that approximately 23% of all claims involved overpayments—situations in which the co-pay charged to the patient exceeded what the insurer paid the pharmacy to fill the prescription.
While data from 2013 might not reflect the current state of pharmaceutical pricing, the study brings exposure to trends in both politics and media coverage surrounding the industry.
The study authors found that overpayments totaled $135-million in 2013. Generic medications saw a higher portion of overpayments with more than one in four generic prescriptions costing patients more than what payers paid the pharmacy. However, in the 6% of claims involving branded medication, overpayments were nearly twice as high with an average overpayment of $13.46 per claim.
The researchers also cited data from a National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA) survey of 628 pharmacies in which 49% claimed to have seen 10-50 occurrences of “clawback fees” in the past month. A further 35% reported seeing more than 50 clawback fees in the past month. These “fees” are part of contractual obligations that payers can use to recoup such overpayments to pharmacies.
Other contractual arrangements, such as “gag clauses” (AKA, non-disclosure agreements), wherein pharmacists cannot disclose to patients when their copay exceeds the cost of filling the prescription without coverage, have garnered coverage in the media.
The Hill recently outlined efforts from senators to stop this practice for both traditional insurance plans and Medicare Advantage and Part D participants. “Americans have the right to know which payment method—insurance or cash—would provide the most savings when purchasing prescription drugs,” Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) told The Hill.
Rebates, Secretive Deals, and Red Tape in Government Crosshairs
Rebates are another contested aspect of current pricing models. Traditionally, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) serve as a middleman between pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies to negotiate prices and maintain markets. PBMs negotiate deals for insurers in the form of rebates. Insurers, however, are using these savings to offer lower premiums, rather than forwarding the savings directly to the customer.
UnitedHealthcare unveiled plans to pass these rebates directly to consumers in early March, The Hill reported.
In a press release, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex M. Azar II stated, “Today’s announcement by UnitedHealthcare is a prime example of the movement toward transparency and lower drug prices for millions of patients that the Trump Administration is championing. Empowering patients and providers with the information and control to put them in the driver’s seat is a key part of our strategy … to bring down the price of drugs and make healthcare more affordable.” (Photo copyright: Washington Post.)
The Trump Administration also recently outlined their new “American Patients First” plan for reducing drug prices and out-of-pocket costs for patients.
Key elements of their proposed approach include:
Eliminating gaming of regulations, such as the Risk Evaluation and Mitigating Strategies (REMS) requirements manufacturers use to avoid sending samples to creators of generics;
Restricting rebates through Anti-Kickback Statue revisions; and,
Eliminating gag clauses or clawback fees.
However, pharma industry coverage of the plan is mixed. MarketWatch sees little to worry about, predicting, “[the plan] isn’t expected to hurt drug makers or pharmacy-system middlemen.” Meanwhile, Forbes claims, “[the plan] represents a sea of change in pharmaceutical pricing policy, one that will have a significant effect on drug prices in the future.”
Anatomic pathology groups, medical laboratories, and other diagnostics providers can view this as yet another example of healthcare providers trying to shore up financials and protect profits by protecting sensitive pricing information, as the industry faces increasing scrutiny. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, these latest trends emphasize the role that transparency is likely to play—and how clinical laboratories will be impacted—as healthcare reform progresses, both in terms of public relations and regulatory requirements.
Operational efficiencies, strong management teams, and successful outreach business are key clinical laboratory success in today’s era of mergers and acquisitions
Fierce economic headwinds are taking aim at the entire pathology industry, as shrinking Medicare reimbursement rates, shifting federal regulations and compliance requirements, and changing care models squeeze profit margins and threaten valuations of most clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups.
The reimbursement rate changes mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), which took place January 1, 2018, loom as the most immediate danger to the long-term financial health and viability of medical diagnostic laboratories.
“Medicare reimbursement rates to labs providing essential testing services are estimated to drop by $670 million this year, and additional reductions scheduled for 2019 and 2020 will cut payments by nearly 30% for many tests critical to caring for Medicare beneficiaries,” noted Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), in “Patient Care Is Put to the Test as Clinical Laboratory Services Are Hit With a One-Two Punch in Rate Cuts,” an article she penned for the ACLA website.
“For some labs, such as rural hospitals and labs serving patients in skilled nursing facilities—which already have significantly higher operating costs—this could be a death knell that would precede a devastating loss of patient access to necessary testing services,” she concluded.
Assessing Financial Solvency to Survive Impending Mergers and Acquisitions
The ACLA has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for what it called a “flawed and misguided” implementation of the law. For now, however, the roll out of reimbursement rates cuts will continue, an ACLA blog post reports.
As a result, post-PAMA pressures combined with other factors are forcing clinical laboratory leaders to consider their strategic options, including:
Reorganizing;
Restructuring;
Merging/consolidating with another laboratory; and,
Selling.
As GenomeWeb pointed out prior to PAMA’s implementation, “All clinical labs in the U.S.—from the largest reference labs to in-hospital labs to physician-practice labs—will be touched by the changes to varying degrees.” The future, GenomeWeb predicts, “may be a market with fewer independently operated small and regional labs, as well as fewer outreach labs owned by hospitals. Instead, such operations could become part of [Quest Diagnostics’] and LabCorp’s networks.”
This changing landscape means laboratories need to be assessing their financial solvency and maximizing their valuation even if they are not currently candidates for either side of the merger and acquisition equation. Failing to anticipate and respond to unfolding changes could leave laboratory executives courting a financial reckoning.
One speaker is Vicki DiFrancesco, Chief Strategy Officer, XIFIN, San Diego. DiFrancesco has an insider’s understanding of mergers and acquisitions and 25 years of executive leadership experience. Prior to joining XIFIN, DiFrancesco served as President and CEO of Pathology Inc., the West Coast’s premier women’s health laboratory, which was acquired by LabCorp in March 2016.
The other speaker is David Nichols, Founder and President at Nichols Management Group (NMG) in York Harbor, Maine. NMG provides laboratory consulting services for healthcare organizations. Since its founding in 1988, NMG has provided expertise in improving overall effectiveness and in implementing such strategies as sales force development, market planning, compliance/financial auditing, and in selected cases, hands-on management responsibilities by working onsite with senior personnel in each area of need.
During their 90-minute presentation, you will learn:
Market factors creating financial challenges for your laboratory;
How revenue compression and compliance issues are driving merger and acquisition activity;
Steps to optimizing your lab’s reimbursements, a key to improving financial performance;
Revenue cycle management’s importance as a valuation driver;
Strategies to significantly improve your market position;
Components of an effective compliance program and why compliance is so important to laboratory valuation;
Value drivers that attract buyers, such as profitable growth, a strong compliance program, competent management teams, EBITDA, cash flow and gross margins; and,
Specific challenges that should be addressed in any merger or consolidation plan.
David Nichols (left), Founder and President at Nichols Management Group (NMG); and Vicki DiFrancesco, Chief Strategy Officer, XIFIN, will share vital insights and share critical strategies that clinical laboratories can immediately use to drive valuations and prepare for current and future financial challenges. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
To register for this critical webinar, use this link (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/product/the-pathway-to-driving-valuation-for-your-laboratory-your-roadmap-to-achieving-success-and-how-to-sustain-growth-despite-a-changing-lab-environment/.)
Despite the financial pressure on many existing laboratories, the medical laboratory industry continues to play a vital role in the healthcare system, with clinical laboratory tests guiding more than 70% of all medical decisions made by healthcare providers, according an ACLA fact sheet.
The industry also contributes more than $100 billion in annual economic impact and produces more than 622,400 jobs. While the role of diagnostic laboratories will continue to grow in an era of personalized medicine, only laboratories that optimize their strategic position in response to the changes taking place may be left standing when the predicted industry consolidation is complete.
