Nov 29, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Medical laboratories today struggle to submit clean claims and be promptly and adequately reimbursed as health insurers institute burdensome requirements and audit more labs
Across the nation, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups of all sizes struggle to get payment for lab test claims. Veteran lab executives say they cannot remember any time in the past when medical laboratories were challenged on the front-end with getting lab test claims paid while also dealing on the back-end with ever-tougher audits and unprecedented recoupment demands.
These issues center upon the new policies adopted by the Medicare program and private health insurers that make it more difficult for many clinical laboratories to be in-network providers, to obtain favorable coverage guidelines for their tests, and to have the documentation requested when auditors show up to inspect lab test claims. This is true whether the audit is conducted by a Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) or a team from a private health insurer.
Source of Financial Pressure on Medical Laboratories in US
Another source of financial pressure on medical laboratories in the United States today is the ongoing increase in the number of patients who have high-deductible health plans—whether from their employer or from the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace (AKA, health exchanges). The individual and family annual deductibles for these plans typically start at around $5,000 and go to $10,000 or more. Many labs are experiencing big increases in patient bad debt because they don’t have the capability to collect payment from patients when they show up in patient service centers (PSCs) to provide specimens.
Some of these developments make it timely to ask the question: Is it a trend for payers to gang up on clinical laboratories and pathology groups and make it tougher for them to be paid for the lab tests they perform? Multiple factors can be identified to support this thesis.
“Is it a coincidence that, in recent years, so many payers are initiating numerous requirements that add complexity to how labs submit claims for lab tests and how they get paid?” asked Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC. Faherty was formerly Executive Vice President, Administration, with BioReference Laboratories, Inc. “I can track four distinct developments that, collectively, mean that fewer lab claims get paid, expose clinical laboratories to extremely rigorous audits with larger recoupment demands, and heighten the risk of fraud and abuse allegations due to use of contract or third-party sales and marketing representatives who represent independent medical lab companies.”
Faherty described the first of his four developments as prior-authorization requirements for molecular and genetic tests. “Health insurers are reacting to the explosion in molecular and genetic testing—both in the number of unique assays that a doctor can order and the volume of orders for these often-expensive tests—by establishing stringent prior-authorization requirements,” he noted.
More Prior-Authorization Requirements for Molecular, Genetic Tests
“At the moment, many clinical lab companies and pathology groups are attempting to understand the prior-authorization programs established by Anthem (which became effective on July 1) and UnitedHealthcare (which became effective on November 1),” explained Faherty. “Just these two prior-authorization programs now cover as many as 80 million beneficiaries. There are plenty of complaints from physicians and lab companies because the systems payers require them to use are not well-designed and quite time-consuming.
“One consequence is that many lab executives complain that they are not getting paid for genetic tests because their client physicians are unable to get the necessary prior authorization—yet the lab decides to perform the test to support good patient care even though it knows it won’t be paid.”
Richard Faherty (left), CEO, RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., will moderate this critical webinar. Joining him will be Rina Wolf (center), Vice President, Commercialization Strategies, Consulting and Industry Affairs, XIFIN, Inc., and Karen S. Lovitch (right), JD, Practice Leader, Health Law Practice, Mintz Levin, PC, Washington, DC. The webinar takes place Wednesday, December 6, 2017, at 2 p.m. EST; 1 p.m. CST; 12 p.m. MST; 11 a.m. PST. Click here to register. (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Payers Checking on How Clinical Laboratories Bill, Collect from Patients
Faherty’s second trend involves how medical lab companies are billing and collecting the amounts due from patients. “Most payers now pay close attention to how clinical laboratories bill patients for co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket amounts that are required by the patients’ health plans,” he commented. “Labs struggle with this for two reasons.
“One reason is the fact that tens of millions of Americans currently have high-deductible health insurance plans,” said Faherty. “In these cases, medical laboratories often must collect 100% of the cost of lab testing directly from the patients. The second reason is the failure of many independent lab companies to properly and diligently balance-bill their patients. This puts these labs at risk of multiple fraud and abuse issues.”
Many Medical Lab Companies Undergoing More Rigorous Audits by Payers
Faherty considers trend number three to be payers’ expanding use of rigorous audits of lab test claims. “In the past, it was relatively uncommon for a clinical lab company or pathology group to undergo audits of their lab test claims,” he observed. “That has changed in a dramatic way. Today, the Medicare program has increased the number of private auditors that visit labs to inspect lab test claims. At the same time, private health insurers are ramping up the number and intensity of the audits they conduct of lab test claims and substantially increasing their demands for recoupment without audit.
“One consequence of these audits is that medical laboratories are being hit with substantial claims for recoupment,” noted Faherty. “I am aware of multiple genetic testing companies that have been hit with a Medicare recoupment amount equal to two or three years of the lab’s annual revenue. Some have filed bankruptcy because the appeals process can take three to four years.”
Are Contract Lab Sales Reps More Likely to Offer Physicians Inducements?
Faherty’s fourth significant trend involves the greater use of independent contractors that handle lab test sales and marketing for clinical lab companies. “This trend affects both labs that use third-party lab sales reps and labs that don’t,” he said. “Labs that use contract sales and marketing representatives do not have direct control over the sales practices of these contractors. There is ample evidence that some independent lab sales contractors are willing to pay inducements to physicians in exchange for their lab test referrals.
“This is a problem in two dimensions,” noted Faherty. “On one hand, clinical lab companies that use third-party sales contractors don’t have full control over the marketing practices of these sales representatives. Yet, if federal and state prosecutors can show violations of anti-kickback and self-referral laws, then the lab company is equally liable. In certain cases, government attorneys have even gone after executives on a personal basis.
“On the other hand, I am hearing lab executives complain now that a substantial number of office-based physicians are so used to various forms of inducement offered by third-party sales representatives that the lab’s in-house sales force cannot convince those physicians to use their lab company without a comparable inducement. If true, this is a fundamental shift in the competitive market for lab testing services and it puts labs unwilling to pay similar inducements to physicians at a disadvantage.”
These four trends describe the challenges faced by every clinical laboratory, hospital laboratory outreach program, and pathology group when attempting to provide lab testing services to office-based physicians in a fully-compliant manner and be paid adequately and on time by health insurers.
Why Some Labs Continue to Be Successful and What They Can Teach You
These four trends may also explain why many medical lab companies are dealing with falling revenue and encountering financial difficulty. However, there continue to be independent lab companies that have consistent success with their coding, billing, and collections effort. These labs put extra effort into aligning their business practices with the requirements of the Medicare program and private health insurers.
To help pathologists and managers running clinical laboratory companies, hospital lab outreach programs, and pathology groups improve collected revenue from lab test claims and to improve lab compliance, Pathology Webinars, LLC, is presenting a timely webinar, titled, “How to Prepare Your Lab for 2018: Essential Insights into New Payer Challenges with Lab Audits, Patient Billing, Out-of-Network Claims, and Heightened Scrutiny of Lab Sales Practices.” It takes place on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 2:00 PM EDT.
Three esteemed experts in the field will provide you with the inside scoop on the best responses and actions your clinical lab and pathology group can take to address these major changes and unwelcome developments. Presenting will be:
· Rina Wolf, Vice President, Commercialization Strategies, Consulting and Industry Affairs, XIFIN, Inc. in San Diego; and,
· Karen S. Lovitch, JD, Practice Leader, Health Law Practice, Mintz Levin, PC, in Washington, DC;
· Moderating will be Richard Faherty of RLF Consulting LLC, and formerly with Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
Special Webinar with Insights on How Your Lab Can Collect the Money It’s Due
To register for the webinar and see details about the topics to be discussed, use this link (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://pathologywebinars.com/how-to-prepare-your-lab-for-2018-essential-insights-into-new-payer-challenges-with-lab-audits-patient-billing-out-of-network-claims-and-heightened-scrutiny-of-lab-sales-practices/).
This is an essential webinar for any pathologist or lab manager wanting to improve collected revenue from lab test claims and to improve lab compliance. During the webinar, any single idea or action your lab can take away could result in increasing collected revenue by tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of dollars. That makes this webinar the smartest investment you can make for your lab’s legal and billing/collection teams.
—Michael McBride
Related Information:
How to Prepare Your Lab for 2018: Essential Insights into New Payer Challenges with Lab Audits, Patient Billing, Out-of-Network Claims, and Heightened Scrutiny of Lab Sales Practices
Risk, Compliance, Pay—A Juggling Act for Labs
Continued ‘Aggressive Audit Tactics’ by Private Payers and Government Regulators Following 2018 Medicare Part B Price Cuts Will Strain Profitability of Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups
Threats to Profitability Causing Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups to Take on Added Risk by Entering into ‘Problematic’ Business Relationships and Risky Pricing Plans
Payers Hit Medical Laboratories with More and Tougher Audits: Why Even Highly-Compliant Clinical Labs and Pathology Groups Are at Risk of Unexpected Recoupment Demands
‘Death by 1,000 Knives’ Could Be in Store for Clinical Laboratories, Pathology Groups Not Prepared to Comply with New Medicare Part B Regulations
Nov 27, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
November workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 to forward-thinkers among clinical laboratories, IVD manufacturers, and lab IT vendors offered many examples where clinical laboratory diagnostics can add value and improve patient outcomes
DATELINE: ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico—Here in this mile-high city, a special Project Santa Fe Workshop devoted to teaching the principles of Clinical Lab 2.0 attracted an impressive roster of innovators and forward-thinkers in clinical laboratory medicine. In attendance were leaders from a select number of the nation’s first-rank health systems and hospitals, along with executives from In Vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers, lab IT companies, other lab service companies, attendees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from institutions in Canada, Germany, Israel, India, and the UK.
Their common goal was to learn more about the emerging clinical and business model for medical laboratories known as “Clinical Lab 2.0.” A key objective of the workshop was to help those lab leaders in attendance develop strategic action plans for their own lab organizations, so as to take advantage of the insights coming from the vast information streams generated by their clinical laboratories. These services would be in support the evolving needs of health systems, hospitals physicians, and health insurers to more effectively provide integrated patient-centered clinical care.
Medical Laboratories Can Use Clinical Lab 2.0 as a Path to Adding Value
Clinical Lab 2.0 is the clinical and business model of the future for medical laboratories, assert the developers of this concept. “Clinical Lab 2.0 describes the attributes needed by all medical laboratories that want to succeed in a healthcare system organized to provide precision medicine, keep people out of hospitals, and where providers—including labs—are reimbursed based on the value they provide,” stated Khosrow Shotorbani, CEO of TriCore Reference Laboratories, one of the organizers of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop.
“Clinical Lab 2.0 is the path medical labs will need to follow if they are to continue providing relevant lab testing services and generate the reimbursement necessary for them to maintain a high level of clinical excellence and financial stability going forward,” he added. “This is the next generation of medical laboratory organization and operation.”
Lab 1.0 Was Lab Clinical/Business Model for 50 Years
For more than 50 years, Clinical Lab 1.0 was the model for labs,” noted James Crawford, MD, PhD, Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Laboratory Services at Northwell Health Laboratories and an organizer of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop. “Lab 1.0 is transactional, focusing on generating high quality analytical data on specimens received, but without assembling these data into integrative clinical care programs. In the simplest sense, Clinical Lab 1.0 focused on generating ever-greater numbers of specimens to drive down average cost-per-test, while maximizing revenue in a fee-for-service system.
This chart shows the attributes of Clinical Lab 1.0 and compares those to the attributes of Clinical Lab 2.0. Lab 1.0 is transactional and based on increasing test volume to lower costs and maximize fee-for-service revenue. Clinical Lab 2.0 is integrative in ways that add value to lab testing services. (Graphic copyright Project Santa Fe.)
“But fee-for-service payment is going away,” he said. “Increasingly, clinical laboratories will be paid based on the value they provide. This payment can be in the form of bundled reimbursement, as a per-member-per-month payment, or as a share of the budgeted payment made to a health system, an accountable care organization (ACO), or a multispecialty provider network. As these alternative forms of provider payment become dominant, to earn a fair share of reimbursement, all medical laboratories will need a clinical strategy to deliver lab testing services that measurably contribute to improved patient outcomes while reducing the overall cost of care. This requires looking at medical laboratories’ contribution to effective delivery of the full dollar of the healthcare spend, not just the three-cents-on-the-dollar representing laboratory testing.”
Innovators in Clinical Laboratory Industry Identify New Ways to Add Value
There are already a handful of innovative clinical laboratory organizations that have clinical experience in moving past the Lab 1.0 paradigm of reporting an accurate test result within the accepted turnaround time. Leaders within these labs are collaborating with physicians and frontline care givers specifically to help them better utilize lab tests in ways that directly improve the speed and accuracy of the overall diagnostic sequence, as well as achieving therapeutic optimization as rapidly as possible. These collaborations are tracking the improvement in patient outcomes while demonstrating how better use of lab tests can lower the total cost per episode of care.
During the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop, case studies were presented demonstrating how clinical laboratory leaders are taking the first steps to practice Clinical Lab 2.0 so as to achieve added value with medical laboratory tests. The case studies included:
· A project to improve diagnosis and treatment of sepsis at Geisinger Health System.
· A project at Henry Ford Health to collaborate with physicians to more appropriately utilize lab tests and build consensus in support of a new lab test formulary.
· A multi-hospital initiative at Northwell Health to collaborate with physicians and nurses in the use of creating testing to make earlier, more accurate diagnoses of acute kidney injury during inpatient admissions, and better guide decisions to treat.
· A partnership involving TriCore Reference Laboratory and certain health insurers in New Mexico where the laboratory—using lab test data (some generated by emergency room testing) and other clinical data—alerts the insurers to women who are pregnant, thus allowing the insurers to provide timely guidance to the women’s care teams with the goal of improving prenatal care.
The Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop convened on November 13-14 in Albuquerque, N.M. A broad spectrum of innovative professionals from the five Project Santa Fe member laboratories (above) were there to teach the lessons learned from their first successful efforts to collaborate with physicians and create added value from medical laboratory diagnostics. Other attendees included progressive lab leaders from several of the nation’s most prominent health systems, along with thought leaders from the IVD, lab software, and lab association sectors. (Photo copyright Project Santa Fe.)
Project Santa Fe Workshop: A Well-Attended Lab ‘Think Tank’
Participants attending the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop included hospital lab administrators, pathologists, and clinical laboratory industry executives. The importance of this workshop is reflected in the educational grants and financial support provided by leading in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, lab IT companies, and other lab industry vendors. The lab industry vendors included:
· Abbott Laboratories
· ARUP Laboratories
· Beckman Coulter
· DiaSorin
· MedSpeed
· Roche Diagnostics
· Siemens Healthineers
· Sysmex
Also providing educational grants and similar support were:
· American Clinical Laboratory Association
· CAP Today
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
· Mayo Medical Laboratories
· The Dark Report
Project Santa Fe was launched in 2016 by clinical lab leaders from five of the nation’s most respected integrated health systems:
· TriCore Reference Laboratories;
· Henry Ford Health;
· Geisinger Health;
· Kaiser Permanente Northern California; and,
· Northwell Health.
Described as a think-tank venture, the organizers are committed to implementing projects that demonstrate how lab tests can be used in ways that add value, and then publish the resulting projects, along with data about improved patient outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs, in peer-reviewed journals. Multi-institutional studies will be required to validate the findings and outcomes from the added-value clinical collaborations initiated at the different medical laboratory organizations participating in Project Santa Fe.
Another primary goal is to share the lessons learned from these innovative projects with other like-minded pathologists, lab administrators, and lab managers. In May, Project Santa Fe organizers led a one-day workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The workshop in Albuquerque on November 13-14 was the second learning opportunity available to medical laboratory professionals. A November 2018 workshop is planned.
—Robert L. Michel
Related Information:
Project Santa Fe Workshop
Improving American Healthcare through “Clinical Lab 2.0”: A Project Santa Fe Report
Laboratory 2.0: Changing the Conversation
CEO Describes Characteristics of the Clinical Lab 2.0 Model: Five Health System Labs Using Project Santa Fe To Demonstrate Value
Moving to Clinical Lab 2.0: Deliver More Value! Get Paid More Dollars!
Lab Innovators Advocate Need for Clinical Lab 2.0: Lab 1.0 Is the Low-Paid Commodity Lab, While Lab 2.0 Gets Paid More for the Value It Contributes
Using the Laboratory Value Pyramid and Clinical Lab 2.0 to Position Your Lab to Add Value in the Era of Population Health, Precision Medicine, and Value-Based Payment
Nov 22, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Industry analysts speculate that Apple might be planning to enter the EHR and healthcare related markets by transforming mobile technologies into gateway devices connected to providers’ EHR systems and patient data
Imagine a mobile device that monitors vitals while connected in real-time to healthcare providers, electronic health records (EHR), and clinical laboratories. One that measures the physical condition and emotional state of the user by casting light onto skin, and then records and transmits it with a swipe of the touch screen. Would such an innovation change how patients expect to interact with their providers? And how physicians, anatomic pathologists, and medical laboratories receive data from their patients? Certainly.
This is why US patents recently granted to Apple have caught the attention of industry analysts. Some speculate that the tech giant is planning to enter the mobile healthcare monitoring device, EHR, and healthcare data storage markets, as reported at Becker’s Health IT and CIO Review and Patently Apple.
How this would affect medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups remains to be seen. But where Apple goes, industries follow. Thus, it’s worth following the company’s activities in the healthcare market.
Bringing Clinical Data, Medical Laboratory Test Results, to iPhone
Mobile devices launched the era of consumer-grade fitness wearables. It’s not uncommon for a smart phone or watch to capture and store a range of health data generated by users. This can include everything from heart rate and sleeping patterns to dietary logs and fertility tracking. But, to date, much of that healthcare data is user generated and does not integrate in any meaningful way with the majority of EHR systems. Nor does it enable communications with primary care providers or diagnostic services—such as medical laboratories or pathology groups.
This may soon change.
According to a CNBC report, a unit at Apple is “in talks with developers, hospitals, and other industry groups about bringing clinical data—such as detailed lab results and allergy lists—to the iPhone, according to a half-dozen people familiar with the team.”
The report states that Apple:
· “Wants the iPhone to become the central bank for health information;
· “Is looking to host clinical information, such as labs and allergy lists, and not just wellness data; and,
· “Is talking with hospitals, researching potential acquisitions, and attending health IT industry meetings.”
Christina Farr, the report’s author, predicts that Apple could be preparing to apply its music industry model to the healthcare industry by, “Replacing CDs and scattered MP3s with a centralized management system in iTunes and the iPod—in the similarly fragmented and complicated landscape for health data.”
Former National Coordinator of Health IT for the Department of Health and Human Services, Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM, rather enthusiastically noted the significance of the move, stating, “If Apple is serious about this, it would be a big f—ing deal.”
At a special event in September, Apple COO Jeff Williams (above) announced Stanford Medicine’s Apple Heart Study, which uses “data from Apple Watch to identify irregular heart rhythms, including those from potentially serious heart conditions like atrial fibrillation,” and, according to Williams, “notify users.” This is just one of several healthcare-related study collaborations Apple is exploring. It is not known if Apple is looking to collaborate with medical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Apple.)
Apple’s History with Healthcare Related Technology
Taken as a single event, these speculations might not convince industry leaders. However, Apple’s long-term investments and acquisitions show a clear trend toward integrating healthcare data into the Apple ecosystem.
Healthcare IT News noted that from 2014 to 2017 Apple:
· Unveiled three different APIs—HealthKit, ResearchKit, and CareKit—designed to help capture, analyze, communicate, and integrate healthcare data with the Apple iOS and watchOS ecosystems;
· Hired several MDs, including: Stephen Friend, MD; Rajiv Kumar, MD; Mike Evans, MD; Ricky Bloomfield, MD; and Sumbul Ahmad Desai, MD; and,
· Engaged with the Argonaut Project and Health Gorilla (a centralized hub of healthcare data and information) suggesting a shift from wearables and basic device-based biometrics toward in-depth reporting, interoperability, and access to third-party healthcare data repositories—such as those in a person’s EHR or medical laboratory portal.
The Future of EHRs or Another Failed Attempt at Innovation?
Apple isn’t the only company to attempt such a system. Other efforts include Microsoft’s Health Vault and Google’s now shuttered Google Health. Another CNBC article notes that Amazon is also researching healthcare related options. “The new team is currently looking at opportunities that involve pushing and pulling data from legacy electronic medical record systems,” stated Farr. “The group is also exploring health applications for existing Amazon hardware, including Echo and Dash Wand.”
However, where most services fail to gain traction is user engagement. After all, if a system isn’t widely used or fails to offer benefits over existing systems, patients and service providers are not likely to go through the process of switching systems. Speaking with CNBC, Micky Tripathi, President and CEO of the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative notes, “At any given time, only about 10% to 15% of patients care about this stuff. If any company can figure out engagement, it’s Apple.”
According to comScore, 85.8-million people over the age of 13 already own an iPhone in the US. The upcoming facial recognition features on Apple’s iPhone X might also provide the added security needed for those questioning the safety of their data. Should Apple succeed, communicating data between clinical laboratories, physicians, and patients might be both convenient and fast. More importantly, it might be the universal platform that finally provides health data access across the entire care continuum, while simultaneously improving access to providers and empowering healthcare consumers.
Of course, this is a few years from reality. But, we can speculate … would innovative medical laboratories have their patients’ lab test data hosted in the Cloud in such a way that patients and providers could access it securely, along with other protected clinical records?
Imagine how this would enable patients to have their complete medical record traveling with them at all times.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
Could Apple Be Taking a Bite Out of EHRs?
Could Amazon or Apple Actually Make a Dent In the EHR Market?
Apple Extends Its Reach into Healthcare
Electronic device that computes health data
Apple Is Quietly Working on Turning Your iPhone Into the One-Stop Shop for All Your Medical Info
Wait! What? Amazon and Apple Eye Building EHRs
Apple Is Working with This Small Start-Up to Change How We Track Our Health
Timeline: How Apple Is Piecing Together Its Secret Healthcare Plan
Amazon Has a Secret Health Tech Team Called 1492 Working on Medical Records, Virtual Doc Visits
With Apple Consulting Argonaut Project on Health Records, Interoperability Could Get the Push It Needs
Apple Enlists Help of Startup Health Gorilla to Add Diagnostic Data to iPhones
Nov 20, 2017 | Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
FDA is streamlining how new diagnostic tests are approved; encourages IVD companies to focus on ‘qualifying biomarkers’ in development of new cancer drugs
It is good news for the anatomic pathology profession that new insights into the human immune system are triggering not only a wave of new therapeutic drugs, but also the need for companion diagnostic tests that help physicians decide when it is appropriate to prescribe immunotherapy drugs.
Rapid advances in precision medicine, and the discovery that a patient’s own immune system can be used to suppress chronic disease, have motivated pharmaceutical companies to pursue new research into creating targeted therapies for cancer patients. These therapies are based on a patient’s physiological condition at the time of diagnosis. This is the very definition of precision medicine and it is changing how oncologists, anatomic pathologists, and medical laboratories diagnose and treat cancer and other chronic diseases.
Since immunotherapy drugs require companion diagnostic tests, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) developers and clinical laboratory and pathology group leaders understand the stake they have in pharma companies devoting more research to developing these types of drugs.
New cancer drugs combined with targeted therapies would directly impact the future of anatomic pathology and medical laboratory testing.
Targeted Therapies Cost Less, Work Better
Targeted therapies focus on the mechanisms driving the cancer, rather than on destroying the cancer itself. They are designed to treat cancers that have specific genetic signatures.
One such example of a targeted therapy is pembrolizumab (brand name: Keytruda), a humanized antibody that targets the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor. The injection drug was primarily designed to treat melanoma. However, the FDA recently expanded its approval of Keytruda to include treatment of tumors with certain genetic qualities, regardless of the tumor’s location in the body. It was the first time the FDA has expanded an existing approval.
In a Forbes article, David Shaywitz, MD, PhD, noted that pembrolizumab had “an unprecedented type of FDA approval … authorizing its use in a wide range of cancers.” Shaywitz is Chief Medical Officer of DNAnexus in Mountain View, Calif.; Visiting Scientist, Department of Biomedical Informatics at Harvard Medical School; and Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Cancers with high mutational burdens respond to the therapy because they are more likely to have what Shaywitz calls “recognizable novel antigens called mutation-associated neoantigens, or MANAs.” Such cancers include melanomas, non-small cell lung cancer, some rare forms of colorectal cancers, and others.
Such therapies require genetic sequencing, and because sequencing is becoming faster and less expensive—as is the analysis of the sequencing—the information necessary to develop targeted therapies is becoming more accessible, which is part of what’s motivating pharma research.
Biomarkers and Traditional versus Modern Drug Testing and Development
At the same time pharma is developing new immunotherapies, the FDA is recognizing the benefit of faster approvals. In an FDA Voice blog post, Janet Woodcock, MD, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the FDA, wrote, “In the past three years alone, [we have] approved more than 25 new drugs that benefit patients with specific genetic characteristics … and we have approved many more new uses—also based on specific genetic characteristics—for drugs already on the market.”
In his Forbes article, Shaywitz notes that pembrolizumab’s development foreshadows a “More general trend in the industry,” where the traditional phases of drug testing and development in oncology are becoming less clear and distinct.
Along with the changes to drug development and approval that precision medicine is bringing about, there are also likely to be changes in how cancer patients are tested. For one thing, biomarkers are critical for precision medicine.
However, pharmaceutical companies have not always favored using biomarkers. According to Shaywitz, “In general, commercial teams tend not to favor biomarkers and seek to avoid them wherever possible.” And that, “All things being equal, a doctor would prefer to prescribe a drug immediately, without waiting for a test to be ordered and the results received and interpreted.”
In July, just weeks after expanding its approval for Keytruda, the FDA approved a Thermo Fisher Scientific test called the Oncomine Dx Target Test. A Wired article describes it as “the first next-generation-sequencing-based test” and notes that it “takes a tiny amount of tumor tissue and reports on alterations to 23 different genes.”
Thermo Fisher’s Oncomine DX Target Test (above) is the first multi-drug next-generation sequencing test approved by the FDA. The test is a companion diagnostic for lung-cancer drugs made by Novartis and Pfizer. (Caption and photo copyright: Thermo Fisher Scientific.)
Unlike pembrolizumab, however, the Oncomine Dx Target Test did not enjoy fast-track approval. As Wired reported, “Getting the FDA’s approval took nearly two years and 220,000 pages of data,” in large part because it was the first test to include multiple genes and multiple drugs. Thus, according to Joydeep Goswami, PhD, President of Clinical Next Generation Sequencing at Thermo Fisher, “That put the technology under extraordinary scrutiny.”
FDA Encouraging Use of Biomarkers in Precision Medicine Therapies
The FDA, however, is taking steps to make that process easier. Woodcock noted in her FDA Voice blog post that the agency is actively encouraging drug developers to “use strategies based on biomarkers.” She added that the FDA currently “works with stakeholders and scientific consortia in qualifying biomarkers that can be used in the development of many drugs.”
Additionally, in a column he penned for Wired, Robert M. Califf, MD, former Commissioner of the FDA, states that the organization has “begun to lay out a flexible roadmap for regulatory approval.” He notes, “Given the complexity of NGS [next-generation-sequencing] technology, test developers need assurance as well, and we’ve tried to reduce uncertainty in the process.”
Regulations that assist IVD developers create viable diagnostics, while ensuring the tests are accurate and valid, will be nearly as important in the age of precision medicine as the therapies themselves.
All of these developmental and regulatory changes will impact the work done by pathologists and medical laboratories. And since precision medicine means finding the right drug for the individual patient, then monitoring its progress, all of the necessary tests will be conducted by clinical laboratories.
Faster approvals for these new drugs and tests will likely mean steep learning curves for pathologists. But if the streamlined regulation process being considered by the FDA works, new immunoassay tests and targeted therapies could mean improved outcomes for cancer patients.
—Dava Stewart
Related Information:
How Precision Medicine, Immunotherapy Are Influencing Clinical Trial Design for Cancer Drugs
Pharma Cooperates to Achieve Precision Medicine
The Startling History Behind Merck’s New Cancer Blockbuster
Two Recent Scientific Advances Underscore an Encouraging Future for Precision Medicine at FDA
Fast, Precise Cancer Care Is Coming to a Hospital Near You
Biomarker Trends Are Auspicious for Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories
Precision Healthcare Milestone Reached as Food and Drug Administration Clears New Multi-Marker Medical Laboratory Test to Detect Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Genetic Tests and Precision Medicine Start to Win Acceptance by Some Payers; Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories Have Opportunity as Advisors
Nov 17, 2017 | Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations
Ongoing research at the University of Washington promises new methods for identifying and cataloging large numbers of cells quickly, which could lead to more individualized treatments in support of precision medicine initiatives
Researchers have found a new method for identifying specific cell types by groups, a breakthrough that some experts say could lead to new and more accurate methods for diagnosing and treating disease in individual patients, and new tools for fighting cancer and other chronic diseases. If this happens, both clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology labs would benefit from this technology.
A study published in the journal Science titled, “Comprehensive Single-Cell Transcriptional Profiling of a Multicellular Organism,” describes advances in cataloging cells that are much faster than the traditional method of using a microscope. The research is still in the experimental stage, but it is being hailed as both exciting and promising by experts in the field.
Barcoding Large Numbers of Cells for Viewing Simultaneously
To test their method, researchers from the University of Washington (UW) sequenced each cell of an individual Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode). Nematodes are transparent roundworms that have been extensively studied making them ideal for the UW study, since much information exists about their cellular structure.
The researchers developed a strategy they dubbed “single-cell combinatorial indexing RNA sequencing,” or “sci-RNA-seq” for short, to profile the transcriptomes of nuclei. A New York Times article on the study describes sci-RNA-seq as a kind of barcoding that shows which genes are active in each cell.
“We came up with this scheme that allows us to look at very large numbers of cells at the same time, without ever isolating a single cell,” noted Jay Shendure, PhD, MD, Professor of Genome Sciences at the University of Washington.
The UW researchers used sci-RNA-seq to measure the activity in 42,035 cells at the same time. Once all of the cells were tagged, or barcoded, the researchers broke them open so the sequences of tags could be read simultaneously.
“We defined consensus expression profiles for 27 cell types and recovered rare neuronal cell types corresponding to as few as one or two cells,” wrote the researchers in their published study.
Because such a rich body of research on nematodes exists, the researchers could easily compare the results that got to those procured in previous studies.
Jay Shendure, MD, PhD (above), Professor of Genomic Sciences at the University of Washington, and an Investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, was just a graduate student when his work with genetics led to the development of today’s next-generation gene sequencing technologies. His new cell-type identification technology could eventually be used by clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to diagnose disease. (Photo copyright: Howard Hughes Medical Institute.)
One Giant Leap for Medical Diagnostics
Identifying cell types has been a challenge to the medical community for at least 150 years. It is important for scientists to understand the most basic unity of life, but it has only been in the last few years that researchers have been able to measure transcriptomes in single cells. Even though the research so far is preliminary, the scientific community is excited about the results because—should the methods be refined—it could mean a great leap forward in the field of cell-typing.
However, the study did not identify all of the cell types known to exist in a nematode. “We don’t consider this a finished project,” stated Shendure in a New York Times article.
Nevertheless, researchers not associated with the study feel confident about the promise of the work. Cori Bargmann, PhD, a neurobiologist and Torsten N. Wiesel Professor at The Rockefeller University, and an Investigator for the Howard Hughes Medical Institute from 1995 to 2016, states that the results “will be valuable for me and for the whole field,” adding, “Of course, there’s more to do, but I am pretty optimistic that this can be solved.”
“The ability to measure the transcriptomes of single cells has only been feasible for a few years, and is becoming an extremely popular assay,” wrote Valentine Svensson, predoctoral fellow et al, of EMBL-EBI in the UK, in a paper titled, “Exponential Scaling of Single-Cell RNA-Seq in the Last Decade.” He added, “Technological developments and protocol improvements have fueled a consistent exponential increase in the numbers of cells studied in single cell RNA-seq analyses.” The UW research represents another such improvement.
Human Cell Atlas—Understanding the Basis of Life Itself
There are approximately 37-trillion cells in the human body and scientists have long believed there are 200 different cell types. Thus, there is an enormous difference between a nematode and a human body. For medical science to benefit from these studies, massive numbers of human cells must be identified and understood. Efforts are now underway to catalog and map them all.
The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) is an effort to catalog all of those disparate cell types. The mission of HCA is “To create comprehensive reference maps of all human cells—the fundamental units of life—as a basis for both understanding human health and diagnosing, monitoring, and treating disease.”
According to HCA’s website, having the atlas completed will impact our understanding of every aspect of human biology, from immunologic diseases to cancer. Aviv Regev, PhD, of the Broad Institute at MIT, who also is an Investigator with the HHMI and is co-chair of the organizing committee at the Human Cell Atlas notes, “The human cell atlas initiative will work through organs, tissues, and systems.”
One of the many complications of creating the atlas is that the locations of cells vary in humans. “The trick,” Regev noted in the New York Times article, “is to relate cells to the place they came from.” This would seem to be at the heart of the UW researchers’ new method for “barcoding” groups of cells.
Just as sequencing the entire human genome has brought about previously unimagined advances in science, so too will the research being conducted at the University of Washington, as well as the completion of the Human Cell Atlas Project. It is possible that pursuing the goal of quickly identifying and cataloging cells will lead to advances in anatomic pathology, and allow medical laboratory scientists to better interpret genetic variants, ultimately bringing healthcare closer to the delivery of true precision medicine.
—Dava Stewart
Related Information:
Comprehensive Single-Cell Transcriptional Profiling of a Multicellular Organism
A Speedier Way to Catalog Human Cells (All 37 Trillion of Them)
Exponential Scaling of Single-Cell RNA-Seq In the Last Decade
Human Cell Atlas
Genetic Fingerprint Helps Researchers Identify Aggressive Prostate Cancer from Non-Aggressive Types and Determine if Treatment Will Be Effective
Big Data Projects at Geisinger Health Are Beginning to Help Physicians Speed Up Diagnosis and Improve Patient Care
Biomarker Trends Are Auspicious for Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories
Pathologists and Clinical Laboratories May Soon Have a Test for Identifying Cardiac Patients at Risk from Specific Heart Drugs by Studying the Patients’ Own Heart Cells
Nov 15, 2017 | Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Pathology, Management & Operations
Onboard cooling system ensures samples remain viable for medical laboratory analysis after three-hour flight across Arizona desert
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups could soon be receiving blood samples and tissue specimens through the air by medical drone. The technology has been tested successfully in Europe, which Dark Daily reported in July. Now, Johns Hopkins University Medicine (JHUM) has set a record in America for the longest distance drone delivery of viable medical specimens.
In a project to demonstrate the viability of using drones to transport medical laboratory specimens, the Johns Hopkins University team flew a drone with specimens more than 161 miles across the Arizona desert. The goal is to bring autonomous medical delivery drones a step closer to transforming how specimens get transported across long distances, according to a Johns Hopkins press release.
A previous Johns Hopkins study in 2015 proved common and routine blood tests were not affected when medical laboratory specimens were transported in up to 40-minute flights on hobby-sized drones. This latest research provides evidence that unmanned aircraft may be able to successfully and quickly shuttle medical specimens even longer distances between remote hospitals and medical laboratories.
Transporting Clinical Laboratory Samples by Air Can Save Lives
In conducting its most recent study, Johns Hopkins researchers obtained paired chemistry and hematology samples from 21 adults (84 samples in total). One sample from each pair was held at a drone test range in a car with active cooling. Remaining samples were flown for three hours in a drone with a Johns Hopkins-designed onboard payload-cooling system to maintain temperature control in the hot desert environment.
A temperature-controlled specimen transport container (above) designed by the Johns Hopkins University research team ensured the blood samples remained cooled and were viable for testing after the three-hour drone flight in the Arizona heat. The project demonstrated the viability of using drones to transport medical laboratory specimens. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins Medicine.)
After the 161-mile flight, all samples were transported 62 miles by car to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., for testing. Flown and not-flown paired samples showed similar results for red blood cell, white blood cell and platelet counts, and sodium levels, among other results. Only glucose and potassium levels revealed minor but statistically significant differences in results.
Pathologist Timothy Amukele, MD, PhD (above), led a team of researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine that set a new distance delivery record for medical drones after successfully transporting human blood samples 161 miles across the Arizona desert. The test flight adds to the growing evidence that unmanned aircraft may be the most effective way to quickly transport blood and other medical samples to clinical laboratories. (Photo copyright: Johns Hopkins Medicine.)
In a report of the findings published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology (AJCP), the research team concludes that long drone flights at high temperature “do not appear to affect the accuracy of 17 of the 19 test types in this study.” However, they note, “Time- and temperature-sensitive analytes such as glucose and potassium will require good pre-planning and stringent environmental controls to ensure reliable results.”
The John Hopkins team believes their achievement adds to mounting evidence that drone transportation can transform the delivery of clinical laboratory specimens.
“We expect that in many cases, drone transport will be the quickest, safest, and most efficient option to deliver some biological samples to a laboratory from rural or urban settings,” stated Timothy Kien Amukele, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor of Pathology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the paper’s senior author, in a Johns Hopkins Magazine article.
“Getting diagnostic results far more quickly under difficult conditions will almost certainly improve care and save more lives,” Amukele added.
Full Drone Delivery Network Operating Over Switzerland
Medical drones are rapidly moving from demonstration projects to active use. As Dark Daily previously reported, Switzerland is establishing a delivery network of medical drones in the city of Lugano. In March 2017, drone logistics system developer Matternet, based in Menlo Park, Calif., received authorization from the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCO) for full operation of drone logistics networks over densely populated areas in Switzerland. Working in partnership with Swiss Post (Switzerland’s postal service) and the Ticino EOC hospital group, Matternet successfully completed roughly 100 drone transport test flights between two of Ticino EOC’s hospitals in Lugano.
Another major player in medical drone delivery is Zipline, a Silicon Valley-based drone delivery company that since October 2016 has flown more than 14,000 flights in Rwanda, delivering 2,600 units of blood. The company’s foothold in Africa expanded in August when Tanzania announced it was partnering with Zipline to launch the “world’s largest drone delivery service to provide emergency on-demand access to critical and life-saving medicines.” Tanzania will establish four distribution centers that will use more than 100 drones to make up to 2,000 flights a day.
The emergence of medical drones not only could speed up diagnoses for patients in remote regions of the world and rural communities, but also could revolutionize anatomic pathology specimen deliveries to clinical laboratories in urban areas by providing a faster, more reliable and lower-cost delivery option than third-party couriers using ground transportation.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Study Sets New Distance Record for Medical Drone Transport
Drone Transport of Chemistry and Hematology Samples Over Long Distances
Using Drones to Transport Blood Samples Could Speed Diagnosis, Treatment
Drone Carrying Blood Samples Travels 160 Miles in Arizona Desert to Set New Record
Matternet Unveils the Matternet Station
Tanzania Announces World’s Largest National Drone Delivery Network Partnering with Zipline
Drones Used to Deliver Clinical Laboratory Specimens in Switzerland
