Bioeasy stands behind the accuracy of its coronavirus test kits and, in a statement, questioned whether they were being used correctly
How accurate are the SARS-CoV-2 test kits being offered by different in vitro diagnostics companies, as well as the internally-developed COVID-19 tests developed by individual medical laboratories, both here in the United States and in other countries? It’s a question that has not been addressed by the news media nor by healthcare regulators.
That
is why a recent news story reported complaints by authorities in several
European countries that COVID-19 tests they had purchased were “unreliable.”
The source of the COVID-19 test kits was a Chinese company.
On Wednesday, government officials in China announced that manufacturers of test kits for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, can no longer export their tests unless China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has licensed and registered those tests, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported.
China issued the new rules after receiving complaints from buyers in Europe about the quality and accuracy of tests kits and other products, including personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, and infrared thermometers, SCMP wrote. Previously, Chinese exporters were required only to have CE certification to indicate that their goods conformed to the health and safety standards required for sale in the European Economic Area, SCMP added.
In a joint statement issued March 31, China’s Ministry of Commerce, General Administration of Customs (GAC), and the National Medical Products Administration said the new rule applies to all companies seeking to export test kits, face masks, protective clothing, ventilators, and infrared thermometers.
Spain
Discontinues Use of Rapid Diagnostic Tests from Bioeasy
The new rules came after health authorities in Spain stopped using a rapid diagnostic test (RDT) kit that required a nasopharyngeal (NP) swab to collect specimens to diagnose patients for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, saying the test kits from Shenzhen Bioeasy Biotechnology were unreliable. Turkey also rejected the Shenzen Bioeasy test kits after finding similar problems, according to The Middle East Eye. Ukraine and Georgia also bought kits from Bioeasy, according to published reports.
The low accuracy rate of the Bioeasy coronavirus test kits raises questions about the rapid rate of development for new tests in the United States and worldwide, said Michael Noble, MD, FRCPC, Chair of the University of British Columbia (UBC) Clinical Microbiology Proficiency Testing program and the UBC Program Office for Laboratory Quality Management, in Vancouver.
“There’s
an inherent problem with building a test during a crisis,” Noble said in an
interview with Dark Daily. “Clinical laboratory test developers are
being forced into building tests in a hurry, and the highest likelihood is that
they will fail because these tests take a lot of time if the aim is to get them
right.
“When
a company or a lab feels the need to go too fast, it is likely to take
shortcuts,” he added. “And every time a shortcut is taken, an opportunity for
error is created.
“Also,
the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may be going too fast to issue
emergency use authorizations (EUAs). If laboratory test developers and the FDA
go too fast, then both could make mistakes,” Noble noted.
“The lesson for labs in the United States and everywhere is you can’t go too fast and you don’t want to go too slow either,” Michael Noble, MD (above), Chair of the University of British Columbia Clinical Microbiology Proficiency Testing Program, told Dark Daily. “Instead, you need to proceed as quickly as you can, but also take as long as you need to ensure you follow all the steps accurately.” (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Bioeasy
Questions Whether Tests are Being Used Correctly
On
March 27, SCMP reported that Shenzhen Bioeasy would send new kits to
ensure that “patients get the best diagnostics” and to “ensure the test kits’
sensitivity and specificity.” The company also raised questions about whether
the tests were used properly and promised to send a video explaining how those
administering the tests should collect specimens using NP swabs.
“As
it [is a] rapid test kit, following the protocol is very important,” the
company added, according to SCMP.
Last
week, Zhu Hai, a manager at
Shenzen Bioeasy, said reports that the test kits had a low accuracy rate were
untrue, SCMP reported. A more detailed explanation would be given via
official Chinese government channels, he added.
Shenzen
Bioeasy also issued a statement about the tests, saying, “The production export
of our CE products to Spain has been done according [to] regulations. All
Bioeasy COVID-19 rapid test [kits] are officially CE-IVD approved, so we are free
to [export] and sell in [the EU],” SCMP reported.
The company exported 337,000 tests to South Korea and more than 420,000 test kits to at least 10 countries, including Italy, Qatar, and Ukraine, the company added. It had five million such kits under production, the company said.
Spain
Purchased More than Half a Million Bioeasy Test Kits
One
of the first publications to report the inaccuracy problems was El País, a Spanish
language daily newspaper in Madrid.
The
Shenzen Bioeasy tests functioned much like pregnancy tests, the newspaper
wrote. Once the sample is taken, the NP swab is diluted and placed into a
cartridge with a lined test strip showing whether the result is positive,
negative, or invalid. “The tests detect the presence of antigen and the result is obtained in 10
or 15 minutes,” El País wrote.
Based
in part on a claim that the medical laboratory test kits have an 80% accuracy
rate, the government purchased 640,000 kits to screen health workers and the
elderly. If the Chinese tests were of sufficient quality, negative or doubtful
results would require a confirmatory molecular diagnostics test, the
newspaper added.
The
Chinese embassy in Spain also responded, saying on Twitter on March 26 that
the country’s National Medical Products Administration had not approved the
tests, and that they were not included in the medical supplies the Chinese
government sent to Spain, SCMP reported. “The Chinese Ministry of
Commerce offered Spain a list of approved suppliers, in which Shenzhen Bioeasy
Biotechnology was not included,” the embassy added.
After
the low accuracy rates were reported, the Spanish government said it ordered
€432 million (US$468 million) worth of medical supplies from China, 5.5 million
test kits, 550 million face masks, and 950 ventilators, SCMP added. But
none of the kits in this order were from Shenzen Bioeasy, the government said.
SCMP quoted Professor Leo Poon
Lit-man, BSc, MPhil, DPhil, FFPH, an expert in the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus
who helped design a testing protocol for the COVID-19 illness, and who is a
Professor and Division Head of the Division of Public Health Laboratory
Sciences at The University of Hong Kong. A claim of 80% accuracy
for a test using nasal swabs was perplexing, because such tests are known to be
inaccurate, Poon said. “It would be dangerous if it’s used on a large scale,
since patients who are supposed to be positive might not be detected,” he
added.
Pathologists
and clinical laboratory scientists know there are many reasons why a clinical
laboratory test can be unreliable or inaccurate. For example, during the
production of a batch of tests, one step in the manufacturing process may have
gone awry and that problem was not detected before those tests were shipped to
a medical laboratory.
Unfortunately,
when lab tests are proved to be “unreliable” or inaccurate, the public or the
medical laboratory profession seldom learn the reasons for these problems and
what steps were taken to resolve them.
This is an opportunity for top-producing sales reps from medical laboratories, anatomic pathology groups, and lab vendors to achieve national recognition at the upcoming Executive War College
Nominations are now open for The Dark Report’s 5th
Annual National Lab Sales Excellence Awards. This awards program recognizes
those laboratory sales professionals who exceed sales goals and successfully
help their lab organization win new clients and expand market share.
Nominating applications are available at Executive War College/5th Annual National Lab Sales Excellence Awards and should be submitted by the sales professional’s sales manager based on the sales rep’s 2019 performance. Winners will receive an all-expense paid trip to New Orleans for the 25th Annual Executive War College on Lab and Pathology Management on April 28-29.
Each winner will also receive a check for $2,000!
“This is the fifth year for this first and only national recognition program in the United States for sales professionals involved in the clinical laboratory profession,” stated Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report. “It’s important for our industry because it shows the leaders and pathologists in other labs that, despite negative trends in the lab marketplace, there are sales professionals who continue to generate substantial volumes of new clients, new specimens, and new revenue for the clinical labs and pathology groups they represent.
“Moreover, as the sales team in your lab learns what some of
their top-performing peers have accomplished, it raises the bar and motivates
them to achieve more and reach for stretch goals that benefit them personally
and contribute to the success of the lab that they represent,” emphasized
Michel.
“Each year, the winners of the National Lab Sales Excellence
Award tell us that this recognition was not only important for them, but that
their hospital CEO and senior administrators took notice and it raised the
profile of the lab throughout the entire hospital because of the national
recognition for the accomplishments of the lab’s top sales producer. In some
cases, the local newspapers picked up the story and reported it—another
positive benefit for the lab in the community. Some award winners report that
just the news coverage of the award led to new accounts from physicians who
wanted the top service these lab sales professionals deliver.”
Winners are selected in each of three categories that represent
the major sectors of the lab testing marketplace. The sectors are:
Hospital Laboratory Outreach;
Independent Clinical/Anatomic Pathology
Laboratory (including molecular and genetic testing); and
Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report, is shown above with Tammy W. Mullen, Sales Representative with HealthLab in Aurora, Ill., a full-service, pathologist-directed clinical laboratory that is part of Northwestern Medicine. Mullen received her award during the 2019 Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management in New Orleans. Each year, Laboratory Sales professionals are recognized for their achievements with the National Lab Sales Excellence Award. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Nominations for National Lab Sales Excellence Awards
“We are asking that the sales managers and sales VPs of
these sales reps nominate their top candidates. Nominations of these
high-achieving medical lab industry sales professionals for the National Lab
Sales Excellence Award are being accepted now. Details and the nominating form
are available by clicking here
or by copy and pasting this URL into your web browser: https://www.executivewarcollege.com/lab-sales-excellence-award-contest/.
To be considered, nominee applications should encompass
actual sales results, feedback from nominating managers, and references from
clients. Lab sales professionals will also be judged on other variables, such
as:
The competitive environment;
Compliance with all state and federal
regulations; and
Ethical behavior.
“A panel of judges will evaluate each nomination,” noted
Michel. “These are individuals with their own impressive track record in sales
and marketing. They understand the techniques of ethical selling, the unique
aspects of marketing laboratory tests, and how much effort is required to build
the number of clients, specimen volume, and revenue from assigned territories.”
It’s the medical laboratory industry’s first and only National Laboratory Sales Award program. Sales representatives employed by clinical laboratories, anatomic pathology groups, specialty molecular and genetic testing lab companies, in vitro diagnostics companies, and laboratory information technology companies will be competing for national recognition as The Dark Report announces the winners of its 5th annual National Lab Sales Excellence Awards during the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management, which takes place April 28-29, 2020, in New Orleans. (Image copyright: The Dark Report.)
2020 Lab Sales Awards to Be Announced on April 29 in New
Orleans
Nominations for the National Lab Sales Achievement Award are
to be submitted to the offices of The Dark Report by Friday, March 20,
2020. Winners in each of the three categories will be notified by April 3 to
allow them time to make arrangements to travel to New Orleans to be at the
Executive War College for the award ceremony.
“Lab CEOs and hospital/health network lab administrators should recognize how having a winner from their sales team can turbo-charge their entire clinical laboratory sales program,” observed Michel. “By their nature, the 20% of the sales reps in your marketing program who do 80% of the business are highly competitive. We’ve had the sales vice presidents who nominated their top sales producer tell us, a year later, that having a National Lab Sales Excellence Award winner motivated the entire sales team, and that their lab saw substantial increases in specimen volume and revenue because other sales reps wanted to step up to the plate and show what they could produce.”
Michel also took the time to address the long-standing
popular wisdom in the clinical laboratory industry that every lab wants to keep
its top sales producers under wraps, because if competitors knew how much new
lab business they were generating, competitors would recruit them away.
“This is one of those clinical lab industry widely-held beliefs that
needs to disappear,” he explained. “The reality is that, in every community,
competing labs (and competing sales reps) always know who the top producers
are. Good lab leaders know how to retain their top performers and one way to do
that is to boost their reputations and recognize their sales achievements by
nominating these high-energy, result-driven producers for the unique
recognition that comes from the National Lab Sales Excellence Award.”
Lab CEOs, administrators, Sales VPs, and Sales Managers—you can click here to get the nominating form for the 5th Annual National Lab Sales Excellence Awards (or by pasting this URL into your browser: http://www.executivewarcollege.com/wp-content/uploads/National-Lab-Sales-2020-Nomination-Form_02-13-2020.pdf).
Online reputation management is increasingly becoming a critical function that all providers, including clinical laboratories, must address or risk losing revenue
Recent surveys cite growing evidence that Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) and online review sites such as Yelp (NYSE:YELP) are swiftly becoming healthcare consumers’ preferred sources for researching doctors, hospitals, medical laboratories, and other medical service providers.
Healthcare consumers are using the Internet to review information
on healthcare providers prior to visits. More important, data show a majority
of Americans share their healthcare experiences publicly online following
visits with providers.
This should serve as a wakeup call for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that have not developed effective social media strategies, as they are clearly among the health services being evaluated.
More than half of Americans (51%) reported sharing their healthcare experiences online, an increase of 65% over just one year ago;
Among Millennials (people born between 1981 and 1996) that number jumps to 70%, a 94% increase over last year;
70% of Americans overall say online ratings and reviews influenced their choices of physicians and facilities;
More than 40% of respondents admitted they researched doctors online even after being referred to them by another healthcare professional.
“The survey results underscore the significance of online ratings and reviews as online reputation management for physicians becomes ever-more important in today’s healthcare environment,” said Aaron Clifford, Senior Vice President of Marketing at Binary Fountain, in a statement. “As patients are becoming more vocal about their healthcare experiences, healthcare organizations need to play a more active role in compiling, reviewing, and responding to patient feedback if they want to compete in today’s marketplace.”
Healthcare Dive also noted that Millennials are likely to consider online reviews and ratings of healthcare professionals to be trustworthy.
97% of 24- to 34-year-olds report believing
online comments are reliable;
While 100% of the 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed felt
similarly.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory administrators should
consider the two findings above as evidence that a major change has already
happened in how the younger generations look for—and select—their hospitals,
their physicians, and their clinical laboratory providers. Thus, every
pathology group and clinical laboratory should have a business strategy for
managing the Internet presence of their labs. Failure to do so means that
competing labs that do a good job of managing their Internet presence will be
more successful at winning the lab testing business of Gen Xers (born
1965-1980), Millennials (Gen Y, born 1981-1996), and Gen Z (born 1997-2009).
In addition, the survey discovered that the most important
qualities consumers look for in a doctor are:
Friendly and caring attitudes;
Physicians’ ability to answer questions; and
Thoroughness of examinations.
Those polled reported the most frustrating issues when
dealing with healthcare professionals were:
Office wait times;
Cost and payment concerns;
Wait times for exam and medical laboratory
results; and
Scheduling appointments.
It’s All in a Word
Earlier this year, Healthcare Dive also reported on research that examined online reviews and their content conducted by Penn Medicine. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania used digital tools and data analytics to help healthcare providers better understand and improve the patient experience.
The researchers analyzed 51,376 online reviews about 1,566
hospitals posted on Yelp over a 12-year period. They published their findings in
the Journal
of General Internal Medicine (JGIM).
They concluded the word most often found in positive Yelp
reviews was “friendly.” Their example of how positive review writers used this word:
“The doctors, nurses, and X-ray technician who helped me out were all so cool
and friendly. It really restored my faith in humanity after I got hit on my
bike.”
Other words the researchers commonly found in good online
reviews include “great, staff, and very.”
“Told” was the word most often found in negative reviews. The
researchers’ example: “I constantly told them that none of that was true and
the nurse there wouldn’t believe me.” It appears from the JGIM study
that Millennials often felt healthcare professionals did not listen to them.
The researchers identified “worst, hours, rude, said, no and
not” as other words often found in negative reviews.
“As providers, we need to take a moment to think about how we talk in hospitals, but also what patients are hearing,” said lead author of the Penn Medicine study Anish Agarwal, MD, Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. “I may say something, but the way it’s heard and interpreted and then processed within patients when they’re going through a vulnerable time can be different.” (Photo copyright: University of Pennsylvania.)
Half of Millennials Prefer Internet Research and Online
Virtual Healthcare
Another survey conducted by Harmony Healthcare IT, a health data management firm based in South Bend, Ind., found that more millennials are researching the Internet for medical advice in lieu of actual doctor visits.
PC Magazine reported Harmony Healthcare IT’s survey found:
73% of Millennials reported following medical
advice found online instead of going to a doctor; and
93% reported researching medical conditions
online in addition to a doctor visit.
The survey also found that 48% of millennials trust online
resources for medical information and that 48% prefer virtual doctor office
visits over in-person visits.
In addition, 24% of this age group have gone five or more years without a physical and 57% prefer high-deductible health plans (HDHPs).
“With an emphasis on convenience, low cost, and technology, it will be interesting to see how this generation helps shape the future of health and how both patients and providers will adapt to those changes along the way,” Harmony Healthcare IT wrote in a blog post.
The results of these surveys illustrate why clinical laboratories
and anatomic pathology groups must have a social media strategy for managing
their reputations and presence on the Internet, especially where Millennials
are concerned.
That strategy should include easy and informative ways for
patients to learn about medical laboratory services, pricing of lab tests,
quality of work, and methods consumers can use to leave online feedback and
receive responses to their comments.
Sale of respected laboratory information system company may be an early sign that investors believe clinical laboratories and pathology groups are ready to upgrade their LISs and add needed capabilities
In the past 10 years there has been little disruption to the
laboratory
information systems (LIS) market that clinical
laboratories and anatomic
pathology groups use. Yet, over that same 10-year period, almost every
hospital and physician group practice adopted an electronic
health system (EHR), primarily because of federal financial incentives that
encouraged such adoption.
For medical
laboratories and pathology groups, this widespread—nearly
universal—adoption of EHRs by the nation’s hospitals and physicians was
disruptive. Labs were required to expend resources building digital interfaces
to the EHRs of their parent hospitals and client physicians to support
electronic test ordering and test reporting.
However, because that wave of EHR adoption is now over,
clinical labs and pathology groups have an opportunity to assess the current
state of the health
information technology (HIT) that they use daily, primarily in the form of
the classic laboratory information system that handles nearly all the primary
functions needed to support testing and other operational needs.
This opportunity to help medical laboratories enhance and/or
upgrade the capabilities of their laboratory information systems may be one
motivation behind the recent sale of a well-known LIS company.
Private Equity Firm Buys Orchard Software
On Oct. 7, 2019, Orchard Software Corporation of Carmel,
Ind., announced its acquisition by Franciscan Partners, a private equity firm
based in San Francisco.
Orchard Software, founded in 1993, has grown steadily over
the past 20 years, primarily by serving physician office laboratories,
community hospital labs, and independent clinical laboratory companies. With each
stage of growth, Orchard added functionality to its LIS and related software
offerings and moved up-market to serve larger hospitals and larger labs.
The purchase price and the terms of the sale were not
announced. Orchard’s Founder, President and CEO, Rob Bush, will retire. The new
CEO is Billie Whitehurst, who came to Orchard from Netsmart Technologies, where she was Senior
Vice President. The remainder of Orchard’s management team will be kept in
place.
“Francisco Partners will provide capital and expertise to enable Orchard to grow at a faster pace and continue to develop its newer web-based products in an industry that has lagged behind in adoption of cloud-based software,” says Rob Bush (above), Orchard Software’s Founder and exiting CEO, in a press release. (Photo copyright: Twitter.)
Is the LIS Market Heating Up?
What makes the purchase of Orchard by a multi-billion-dollar
private equity company noteworthy is the fact that it is the first significant
transaction in the LIS sector probably since the mid-2000s, which saw several
significant mergers and acquisitions.
Other acquisitions or investments involving LIS companies
need to happen before it would be appropriate to say that investor interest in
the LIS sector is heating up. However, it is accurate to say that many
professional investors will be watching to see whether Franciscan Partners
succeeds with its investment in Orchard Software. If Orchard’s revenue and
operating profits increase substantially in the next few years, that may
encourage other investors to look for LIS companies and products that they can
buy.
If this were to happen, that would be a positive development
for both clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups, because these
investors would have a motive to add new functions and capabilities to their
LIS products. It would also wake up a sector of lab information technology that
has been relatively quiet for several years.
How medical laboratories can show value through process improvement methods and analytics will be among many key topics presented at the upcoming Lab Quality Confab conference
Quality management is the clinical laboratory’s best strategy for surviving and thriving in this era of shrinking lab budgets, PAMA price cuts, and value-based payment. In fact, the actions laboratories take in the next few months will set the course for their path to clinical success and financial sustainability in 2020 and beyond.
But how do medical laboratory managers and pathologists address these challenges while demonstrating their lab’s value? One way is through process improvement methods and another is through the use of analytics.
Clinical pathologists, hospital lab leaders, and independent lab executives have told Dark Daily that the trends demanding their focus include:
Ensuring needed resources and appropriate tests,
while the lab is scrutinized by insurance companies and internally by hospital
administration;
“Our impact on patient care, in many cases, is very
indirect. So, it is difficult to point to outcomes that occur. We know things
we do matter and change patient care, but objectively showing that is a real
struggle. And we are being asked to do more than we ever had before, and those
are the two big things that keep me up at night these days,” he added.
This is where process improvement methods and analytics are
helping clinical laboratories understand critical issues and find opportunities
for positive change.
“You need to have a strategy that you can adapt to a changing landscape in healthcare. You have to use analytics to guide your progress and measure your success,” Patricia Nortmann, System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare, Erlanger, Ky., told Dark Daily.
Clinical Laboratories Can Collaborate Instead of Compete
Prior to a joint venture with TriHealth in Cincinnati, St. Elizabeth lab leaders used data to inform their decision-making. Over about 12 years preceding the consolidation of labs they:
Implemented front-end automation outside the core area and in the microbiology lab.
“We are now considered a regional reference lab in the state
of Kentucky for two healthcare organizations—St. Elizabeth and TriHealth,”
Nortmann said.
Thanks to these changes, the lab more than doubled its
workload, growing from 2.1 million to 4.3 million outreach tests in the core
laboratory, she added.
Christopher Doern, PhD (left), Director of Microbiology and Associate Professor of Pathology at Virginia Commonwealth University Health System; Patricia Nortmann (center), System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare; and Joseph Cugini (right), Manager Client Solutions at Health Network Laboratories, will present practical solutions and case studies in quality improvement and analytics for clinical laboratory professionals at the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab, October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Using Analytics to Test the Tests
Clinical laboratories also are using analytics and information technology (IT) to improve test utilization.
At VCH Health, Doern said an analytics solution interfaces
with their LIS, providing insights into test orders and informing decisions
about workflow. “I use this analytics system in different ways to answer
different questions, such as:
How are clinicians using our tests?
When do things come to the lab?
When should we be working on them?
“This is important for microbiology, which is a very delayed
discipline because of the incubation and growth required for the tests we do,”
he said.
Using analytics, the lab solved an issue with Clostridium
difficile (C diff) testing turnaround-time (TAT) after associating it with
specimen transportation.
Inappropriate or duplicate testing also
can be revealed through analytics. A physician may reconsider a test after discovering
another doctor recently ordered the same test. And the technology can guide
doctors in choosing tests in areas where the related diseases are obscure, such
as serology.
Avoiding Duplicate Records While
Improving Payment
Another example of process
improvement is Health Network Laboratories (HNL) in Allentown, Pa. A team there established an enterprise master patient index (EMPI) and implemented digital tools to find and eliminate
duplicate patient information and improve lab financial indicators.
“The system uses trusted sources of data to make sure data is clean and the lab has what it needs to send out a proper bill. That is necessary on the reimbursement side—from private insurance companies especially—to prevent denials,” Joseph Cugini, HNL’s Manager Client Solutions, told Dark Daily.
HNL reduced duplicate records in its database from 23% to
under one percent. “When you are talking about several million records, that is
quite a significant improvement,” he said.
Processes have improved not only on the billing side, but in
HNL’s patient service centers as well, he added. Staff there easily find
patients’ electronic test orders, and the flow of consumers through their
visits is enhanced.
Learn More at Lab Quality Confab Conference
Cugini, Doern, and Nortmann will speak on these topics and more during the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab (LQC), October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. They will offer insights, practical knowledge, and case studies involving Lean, Six Sigma, and other process improvement methods during this important 2-day conference, a Dark Dailynews release notes.
Register for LQC, which is produced by Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, online at https://www.labqualityconfab.com/register, or by calling 512-264-7103.
Kaiser
Health News (KHN) recently
reported on investigations by the OIG into hospitals allegedly offering
unusually high salaries and other perks to specialists because they attract highly
profitable business.
Wheeling, KHN reported, paid one anesthesiologist $1.2
million per year, which, Rau notes, is higher than the salaries of 90% of the
pain management specialists around the country. Rau went on to describe how
Wheeling also paid one obstetrician-gynecologist $1.3 million per year, and a
cardiothoracic surgeon $770,000 per year along with 12 weeks of vacation time.
In each of those cases, the whistleblower who prompted the qui tam investigation reported
that the specialists’ various departments were frequently in the red, reported KHN.
“The problem, according to the government, is that the
efforts run counter to federal self-referral bans and anti-kickback laws that
are designed to prevent financial considerations from warping physicians’
clinical decisions,” wrote Rau.
Wheeling not only contests the lawsuits brought against it,
but also has filed a countersuit against the whistleblower. KHN said the
hospital claims “its generous salaries were not kickbacks but the only way it
could provide specialized care to local residents who otherwise would have to
travel to other cities for services such as labor and delivery that are best
provided near home.”
“We are confident that, if this case goes to a trial, there will be no evidence of wrongdoing—only proof that Wheeling Hospital offers the Northern Panhandle Community access to superior care, [and] world class physicians and services,” KHN reported Gregg Warren (above), Vice President of Marketing and Public Relations at Wheeling Hospital, saying in a statement. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
OIG’s Fraud and Abuse Laws: A Roadmap for Physicians
The KHN article mentions
five laws the OIG lists on
its website that are particularly important for physicians to be aware of. They
include the:
False Claims Act: states that it’s illegal to file false Medicare or Medicaid claims.
Anti-Kickback Statute: states that paying for referrals is illegal, that physicians can’t provide free or discounted services to uninsured people, and that money and gifts from drug and device makers to physicians are prohibited.
Stark Law(physician self-referral): says that referrals to entities with whom the physician has a familial or financial relationship are off-limits.
Exclusion Statue: describes who cannot participate in federal programs, such as Medicare.
Civil Monetary Penalties Law: authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which operates the OIG, to impose penalties in cases of fraud and abuse that involve Medicare or Medicaid.
“Together, these rules are intended to remove financial
incentives that can lead doctors to order up extraneous tests and treatments
that increase costs to Medicare and other insurers and expose patients to
unnecessary risks,” KHN said.
Other Hospitals Under Investigation
Wheeling Hospital is not the only healthcare institution
facing investigation. The Dallas
Morning News (DMN) reported on a case involving Forest
Park Medical Center (FPMC) in Dallas that resulted in the conviction of
seven defendants, including four doctors. Prosecutors outlined the scheme in
court, saying that FPMC illegally paid for surgeries.
“Prosecutors said the surgeons agreed to refer patients to
the Dallas hospital in exchange for money to market their practices,” DMN
reported, adding “Patients were a valuable commodity sold to the highest
bidder, according to the government.”
One of the convicted physicians, Michael Rimlawi, MD,
told DMN, “I’m in disbelief. I thought we had a good system, a fair
system.” His statement may indicate the level to which some healthcare
providers at FPMC did not clearly understand how anti-kickback laws work.
“The verdict in the Forest Park case is a reminder to
healthcare practitioners across the district that patients—not payments—should
guide decisions about how and where doctors administer treatment,” US Attorney Erin Nealy Cox told DMN.
Know What Is and Is Not a Kickback
Both the Wheeling Hospital investigation and the Forest Park
Medical Center case make it clear that kickbacks don’t always look like
kickbacks. Becker’s Hospital Review
published an article titled “Four
Biggest Anti-Kickback Settlements Involving Hospitals in 2018” that details
cases in which hospitals chose to settle.
These four incidents involved hospitals in Tennessee,
Montana, Pennsylvania, and New York. This demonstrates that kickback schemes
take place nationwide. And they show that violations of the Stark Law, the
False Claims Act, and the Anti-Kickback Statute can happen in numerous ways.
Whether in a clinical laboratory or an enterprisewide health
network, violating laws written to prevent money—rather than appropriate
patient care—from being the primary motivator in hiring decisions, may result
in investigation, charges, fines, and even conviction.
“If we’re going to solve the healthcare pricing problem,
these kinds of practices are going to have to go away,” Vikas Saini, MD, President
of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts
nonprofit that advocates for affordable care, told KHN.
Though these recent OIG investigations target hospitals,
clinical laboratory leaders know from past experience that they also must be
vigilant and ensure their hiring practices do not run afoul of anti-kickback
legislation.
