The remarkably low number of influenza diagnoses makes it possible for clinical laboratories to stay focused on COVID-19
One positive note for clinical laboratories this winter is the fact that the number of biological samples being submitted for influenza (flu) testing have dropped significantly. This has given medical laboratories more resources for processing COVID-19 tests.
According to a feature published in Nature, the number of samples being submitted to medical laboratories for flu testing has dropped by 61%. More surprisingly, the number of positives has dropped by 98%. The combined flu/COVID-19 “twindemic” that some medical experts feared could crush our healthcare system has not materialized—yet, the Washington Examiner reported.
“In any given winter, hospitals are taxed by the flu,” Brian Garibaldi, MD, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist and Medical Director of the Johns Hopkins Biocontainment Unit told the Washington Examiner. “There’s always a concern that our emergency departments will be overwhelmed, and ICU capacity will be strained [due to the concurrence of flu and COVID-19 outbreaks], particularly with people who have coexisting conditions that then get influenza.”
The 2019-2020 flu season ended earlier than usual, likely because of precautions put in place in the spring to combat the coronavirus pandemic. Most years, the seasonal flu in the US peaks in February and trails off by May, Nature reported in “How Coronavirus Lockdowns Stopped Flu in Its Tracks.”
“Seasonal flu cases in the northern hemisphere usually peak in February and tail off by the end of May,” Nature wrote. “This year, unusually, lab-confirmed cases of influenza dropped precipitously in early April, a few weeks after the coronavirus pandemic was declared on 11 March. The data comes from tests of more than 150,000 samples from national influenza laboratories in 71 countries that report data to FluNet, a global surveillance system.”
Government Leaders and Health Experts Remain Concerned
Despite that encouraging data point, public health experts and political leaders were still concerned. In September, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey said, “The overlap of COVID-19 and flu season presents a perfect storm, and we aren’t taking any chances. We are approaching this fall with a proactive mindset and plan of action to limit the impact of the flu and preserve hospital resources,” the Washington Examiner reported.
The caution was certainly warranted. A normal flu season strains resources, but a severe flu season coupled with a global pandemic could have been disastrous. Luckily, Ducey’s “perfect storm” did not materialize.
Data from the World Health Organization’s FluNet Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System was used by Nature to develop the graphic above. It illustrates how the number of positive Influenza specimens in 2019-2020 declined compared to the previous two years. Some experts believe this is due to protocols implemented to combat the COVID-19 coronavirus by hospitals and clinical laboratories. (Graphic copyright: Nature.)
Why Is There Less Influenza?
So, why is there less flu and other respiratory infections?
Epidemiologist Lisa Lockerd Maragakis, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine and Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Johns Hopkins Health System, told U.S. News, widespread business and school closures provide fewer opportunities for influenza to spread. “We commonly see flu spread in communities, schools, businesses and through travel each year, so those changes are likely keeping the flu away.”
However, this may have a negative effect as well. Eili Klein, PhD, Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, warns that “Because of the current restrictions and precautions everyone is taking this season, far fewer people will be infected or exposed to the flu virus, and therefore won’t become immune to certain strains of the virus. So, the number of people who may have more severe infections next year is likely to be greater because immunity will be lower,” the Washington Examiner reported.
Other Viral Infections Also in Decline Due to COVID-19 Precautions, Vaccines
Masking, frequent handwashing, and social distancing certainly played a role in reducing the number of cases of flu reported this year. But influenza is not the only disease that saw reductions. “In Hong Kong, compared with previous years, the number of chickenpox cases dropped by about half to three-quarters,” Nature reported. “In April, cases of measles and rubella were their lowest, globally, since at least 2016, according to data available so far.”
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, some public health officials were concerned that the decline in influenza cases was actually related to a lack of testing. “However, renewed efforts by public health officials and clinicians to test samples for influenza resulted in adequate numbers tested and detection of little to no influenza virus,” the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported.
Another factor in the lower numbers of flu cases could be due to the fact that more people have gotten vaccinated this year. More than 188 million flu vaccines were distributed in 2020, an increase compared to the 169 million given in 2019.
“Flu vaccination in the community started earlier this year, as recommended by the CDC, and our community physicians report that vaccine uptake has been higher than usual,” Marie-LouiseLandry, MD, Clinical Virologist, Professor of Laboratory Medicine and of Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Director of the Clinical Virology Laboratory at Yale School of Medicine, told Healthline.
It may also be that influenza diagnoses are fewer because people are not seeking treatment. Hospitals at or beyond capacity due to the pandemic, or fear of contracting COVID-19, may have motivated people with flu-like symptoms to stay home rather than seek treatment. However, most healthcare experts agree that public health measures to fight COVID-19 are likely the larger reason there is less flu.
“Public health measures such as movement restrictions, social distancing, and increased personal hygiene likely had an effect on decreasing influenza and other respiratory virus transmissions,” the World Health Organization (WHO) told Nature.
What About the Next Flu Season?
Experts are more conflicted regarding what all of this means for coming flu seasons. Some experts think that because there’s less flu this year, there will be less immunity next year, and severe illness will result. Others are more optimistic and hope that some strains of flu will disappear, which could mean less flu in the immediate future. It’s not a simple prediction to make.
Even if the low flu numbers this year mean some strains do not survive, it is unlikely that will remain the case. “I am sure that flu will come back with a vengeance at some stage in the future,” Robert Ware, PhD, a biostatistician, clinical epidemiologist, and Professor of Biostatistics with Griffith University in Queensland, Australia, told Nature.
Thus, clinical laboratories should remain vigilant for future influenza outbreaks. Hopefully by then the COVID-19 pandemic will have peaked and labs will be able to reallocate testing resources appropriately.
This fourth edition of the annual event will be held virtually with free registration for pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals
In its fourth year, stakeholders in the clinical laboratory community have promoted thought leadership around the Lab Industry at the Project Santa Fe Foundation’s Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop. Clinical Lab 2.0 (CL 2.0) which identifies new opportunities for medical labs to add value as the healthcare industry transitions from fee-for-service to value-based delivery models. But how does this concept apply during the era of COVID-19? That’s a key question participants will discuss at the 2020 Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop, a virtual event scheduled for Oct. 26-27 with a focus on Population Health.
“This workshop will help all clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists to better understand, ‘How do we manage a pandemic, identifying high risk pool, where are the care gaps, and how do we better manage in the future proactively?’” said Khosrow Shotorbani, MBA, MT (ASCP), co-founder of the CL2.0 initiative and a regular speaker at the Executive War College, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. He is President and Executive Director of the Project Santa Fe Foundation, the organization that promotes the Clinical 2.0 Movement.
The coronavirus pandemic has “truly elevated the value of the clinical laboratory and diagnostics as one essential component of the care continuum,” he noted. “The value of the SARS-CoV-2 test became immense, globally, and the mantra became ‘test to trace to treat.’”
Project Santa Fe Foundation’s website defines Clinical Laboratory 2.0 as an effort to demonstrate “the power of longitudinal clinical lab data to proactively augment population health in a value-based healthcare environment.” The “goals are to improve the clinical outcomes of populations, help manage population risk, and reduce the overall cost of delivering healthcare,” the CL 2.0 website states.
“It’s about harnessing lab test results and other data that have predictive value and can help us proactively identify individuals that need care,” explained Shotorbani. “In the context of population health or value-based care, our labs potentially can utilize the power of this data to risk-stratify a population for which we are responsible or we can identify gaps in care.”
Clinical Lab 2.0 and the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic
In the context of COVID-19, “Clinical Lab 2.0 argues that there is a hidden universe of value that can help augment what happens between COVID-19 testing and COVID-19 tracing to convert this reactive approach—meaning we wait for the person to get ill—versus considering who may be most at risk if they were to become infected so that our clinical laboratories can help caregivers create proactive isolation or quarantine strategies,” he added.
Shotorbani then explained how clinical laboratories have data about comorbidities such as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and immunosuppression that are associated with more serious cases of COVID-19. “This clinical lab data can be harnessed, associated with demographic and risk data such as age and zip codes to help physicians and others identify patients who would be most at risk from a COVID-19 infection,” he noted.
“Historically, the primary focus of a clinical laboratory was very much on the clinical intervention, contacting the care manager physician, and identifying who’s at risk,” he said. But with COVID-19, Shotorbani sees opportunities to forge relationships with public health specialists to encourage what he describes as “consumer engagement.”
“As medical laboratory professionals, we must evolve to accommodate and support the needs of consumers as they take a more active role in their health,” he continued. “This is moving past simply providing lab test results, but to then be a useful diagnostic and therapeutic resource that helps consumers understand their health conditions and what the best next steps are to manage those conditions.”
Khosrow Shotorbani (above) is President, Executive Director, of the Project Santa Fe Foundation and one of the leaders of the Clinical Laboratory 2.0 movement. He is hopeful that the prominent role of medical laboratories in responding to the coronavirus pandemic will lead to an ongoing “seat at the table” in the higher echelons of healthcare organizations. In normal times, “we reside in basements, and we’re done when we release a result,” he said during an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “COVID-19 was a kick in the rear to get us upstairs to the C-suite, because healthcare CEOs are under the gun to demonstrate more SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity.” Looking ahead, “we want to make sure that our clinical laboratories stay in that seat and design a future delivery model above and beyond COVID-19, maybe even help health systems, hospitals, and other providers drive their strategies.” (Photo copyright: Albuquerque Business First.)
“None of these are pathologists or come from the lab,” Shotorbani said. “They represent the C-suite and higher organization constituents. These are the healthcare executives who are dealing with their organization’s pain points. As clinical labs, we want to align ourselves to those organizational objectives.”
Pathologist Mark Fung, MD, PhD, will then present a CL 2.0 model for managing COVID-19 or other infectious disease pandemics, followed by a response from the other panelists. Fung is Vice Chair for Population Health in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Larner College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. He is also on the Project Santa Fe Foundation (PSFF) board of directors.
“Lab 2.0 is a thought leadership organization,” Shotorbani said. “We are developing a template and abstract of this model of clinical laboratory services that other labs can follow while applying some of their own intuition as they make it operational.”
Day Two to the CL 2.0 workshop will feature case studies from the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and Geisinger Health in Danville, Pa., followed by a discussion with eight PSFF directors. Then, Beth Bailey of TriCore Reference Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., will preside over a crowdsourcing session with participation from audience members.
Free Registration for Clinical Laboratories
This will be the first Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop to be held virtually and registration this year will be free for members of the clinical laboratory community, Shotorbani said. In the past “there has been a hefty tuition to get into this because it’s a very high-touch workshop, especially for senior leaders. But given the critical topic that we’re facing, we felt it was important to waive the cost.”
The Fourth Annual Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop is partnering this year with the American Society for Clinical Pathology (ASCP), which will provide the software platform for hosting the event, he said. In addition to the live conference sessions, registrants will have access to prerecorded presentations from past workshops. Content will be viewable for six months following the event.
Register for this critical event by clicking here, or by placing this URL in your browser (https://projectsantafefoundation.regfox.com/clinical-lab-20-workshop).
Though lenders and landlords may be willing to renegotiate terms, communication is key, the lawyers suggest
COVID-19 has vastly increased demand for clinical laboratory testing. But at many labs, the pandemic has caused much damage to the bottom line. Due to numerous factors—including reductions in elective procedures and increased operating costs—many independent lab companies have seen a 30% to 60% cut in revenue, says attorney Richard S. Cooper, JD, of McDonald Hopkins, a law firm that represents more than 350 medical laboratories across the US.
“Some of that was offset where clinical laboratory companies took on COVID testing. But in our experience, it was a partial offset at best,” he said in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. Cooper is co-chair of the firm’s National Healthcare Practice Group.
To address these challenges, the firm has advised lab companies to take a hard look at their:
operations,
market conditions,
supplier relationships,
lender agreements, and
other elements of their businesses.
Lab executives, he says, should consider steps to reduce expenses or increase revenues, such as increasing prices if conditions permit. In extreme cases, medical laboratories may have to consider:
Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
Consensual out-of-court restructuring, or
Buyouts.
“I think lenders have been willing to work with borrowers, but I don’t think this has been a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” Richard S. Cooper, JD (above), co-chair of the National Healthcare Practice Group at McDonald Hopkins, told Dark Daily. “Lenders are going to look at borrowers that were struggling before the whole COVID-19 situation with a more critical eye. Lenders seem to be more willing to work with borrowers that were doing well, but then were hit with a temporary hiccup.” (Photo copyright: McDonald Hopkins.)
Cooper, and colleague Jason M. Smith, JD, elaborated on these points during the interview. Smith is chair of the Commercial Finance Group. “The vast majority of my work is representing either lenders or borrowers in credit relationships,” Smith explained.
Dealing with Lenders
For many lab companies facing financial distress, the most important action, the lawyers suggest, may be to review loan or credit agreements and get a better understanding of the lab’s obligations. Then, the lab can approach lenders for potential relief, such as deferred payments or temporary adjustments to reporting requirements.
Either way, “communication is key,” Smith said, adding that labs should first “come up with projections and cashflow analyses and figure out which of those requirements they are not going to be able to meet.”
Then, Smith added, labs should reach out proactively. “Lenders generally don’t like surprises,” he said. “They’re going to be a lot more willing to work with you when they find out about any issues directly from you, as opposed to after receiving financial statements and discovering the issues for themselves.”
Ultimately, clinical lab companies may be able to negotiate better terms, not only with financial institutions, but also with landlords, Cooper said. For example, labs may ask for rent abatement or payment deferrals. These steps “may reduce or eliminate the need to cut back on staff,” Cooper said, “which may be less disruptive of operations.”
When dealing with lenders, Cooper advises against a “Let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” approach. Instead, labs should try “concrete, smaller lists of things that are really important. That’s the best way to come up with a reasonable ask for your lenders and have them take you seriously.”
When to Call Your Lawyer
Cooper says lawyers can play two different roles in these negotiations. “It’s important that lab executives discuss with their lawyers any potential violations of lease and lending documents, what the obligations are, and what the potential legal impact may be.” He added, “Labs should engage and discuss with a lawyer who’s experienced in those areas to understand how lenders and financial institutions might be willing to accommodate the lab’s financial situation by suspending or temporarily modifying the terms of those documents.”
Jason M. Smith, JD (above), chair of the Commercial Finance Group at McDonald Hopkins, told Dark Daily, “Clinical laboratory companies could approach their lender and/or landlord directly. You don’t necessarily need a lawyer to do that. On the other hand, a lot of clients prefer that their lawyer at least participate in any dialogue with the landlord and lender. But it’s not absolutely necessary. So, the lawyer can be an information resource or an active participant in negotiating.” (Photo copyright: McDonald Hopkins.)
The Bankruptcy Option
Clinical laboratory companies that are in serious financial trouble may have to consider drastic measures, such as bankruptcy. In a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Cooper explains, you can continue to operate under supervision of the court while restructuring the business and renegotiating terms with lenders. But “there’s always a stigma attached to any kind of restructuring filing,” he said. “It’s public and it can raise questions among your suppliers and customers as to whether you’re sustainable. So, it would be more of a last measure.”
A more preferable course, he says, may be to negotiate a consensual out-of-court workout in which creditors agree to extend repayment terms or reduce debt.
A Good Time for Buyouts?
Another option for distressed lab companies may be buyouts. “We are starting to see a pickup in [merger and acquisition] activity,” Cooper says. “Some of it is normal activity not necessarily driven by financial distress. There’s a company that’s attractive in the marketplace and buyers are interested in that laboratory.”
In other situations, he noted, clinical laboratories might not feel compelled to sell, but “they want to become part of a larger platform with better capital resources to help them withstand the COVID-19 scenario and future market-altering events.”
Cooper continued, “there are other labs that basically say, ‘We’re not going to make it on our own. We need to find a buyer. We need to find capital.’ And then, of course, there are buyers that see market opportunities in labs which are available for acquisition that otherwise might not have been, and perhaps on more favorable terms.”
Some labs, he says, may wait for their revenues to recover, so they can “go to market in a stronger position.” But, “there clearly will be some labs out there that will be available, and available at a lower price than they would have been pre-COVID.”
Regardless of which path a financially-distressed clinical lab company chooses to take as a way to resolve the situation, it is best to take the initiative to consult with experienced attorneys, CPAs, and other advisors while there is still time to negotiate different solutions with lenders, landlords, mortgage companies, and others.
Though experts say an antigen test is not as accurate as PCR tests, its low cost, ease of use, and widespread availability make it a boon for clinical labs performing COVID-19 testing
As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, explained on Face the Nation, “this kind of technology is a real game changer … it’s a very rapid test that could be used in a doctor’s office. Doctors now have about forty thousand of these Sofia machines already installed in their offices … you do a simple nasal swab and the test itself scans for the antigens that the virus produces.
“The test is about 85% sensitive. So, let’s say a hundred people come into a doctor’s office who have COVID-19, eighty-five of them are going to be able to be tested positive with this test very quickly. It’s a cheap test. It’ll probably be about five dollars a test and you can get a result within five minutes … you’re getting a very fast result and you can start to take action immediately.
“The company itself said that they’re going to be able to produce about two hundred thousand of these tests starting right away. But in several weeks, they’ll be able to produce up to 1.5 million a week. So, this dramatically expands our testing capacity as long as doctors are able to run these tests in their offices.”
In an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD (above), said, “These antigen-based tests aren’t as reliable, meaning they’re not as sensitive. So, they’re going to miss some patients who have COVID. But in the hands of a doctor who already has a high index of suspicion that the patient may have the disease … they allow you to dramatically expand testing. And they’re very cheap. They’re very easy to perform. And again, most doctors have these machines already in their offices.” (Photo copyright: US Food and Drug Administration.)
Other LDTs That Have Received EUAs
Here’s a look at other laboratory-developed tests from major manufacturers that have received emergency-use authorizations from the FDA:
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s m2000 RealTime system, which is installed in about 200 US medical laboratories, the company says. It can run up to 470 patient samples in 24 hours. As of a May 11 statement, the company said it had shipped more than two million tests in the US.
This test is designed for use with Abbott’s Alinity m system, which the company describes as its “most advanced laboratory molecular instrument,” with the ability to run up to 1,080 tests in 24 hours, according to a press release.
This is a rapid test designed for use with the ID Now system, a compact portable instrument for point-of-care settings such as urgent care clinics. As of May 11, Abbott said it had shipped more than 1.7 million tests in the US, and that it planned to increase manufacturing capacity to two million tests per month.
However, the test has encountered some stumbling blocks. On May 14, the FDA issued an alert stating that the ID Now COVID-19 test could produce inaccurate negative results. This came after researchers at NYU Langone Health, Northwell Health, and Cleveland Clinic reported problems with the test, according to MedTech Dive. Abbott issued a statement suggesting that the problems were due to improper sample collection and handling, however, the FDA said that Abbott had agreed to conduct post-market studies to identify the cause of the false negatives and suggest remedial actions.
This is a qualitative test designed to detect the presence of IgG antibodies following a SARS-CoV-2 infection. The FDA authorized use of the assay on Abbott’s Architect i2000SR system in April, and then followed up with a May 11 EUA for its use on the Alinity i system. In a statement, Abbott said it planned to ship 30 million tests globally starting in May.
In a March statement, the FDA touted this as the first point-of-care COVID-19 test to receive an EUA. The company estimates the detection time as approximately 45 minutes. It is designed for use with Cepheid’s GeneXpert Dx diagnostic software and GeneXpert Infinity systems, which have nearly 5,000 US installations, according to a Cepheid statement.
This test runs on Hologic’s Panther system, which, according to a Hologic press release, can provide results in about three hours and run more than 1,000 tests per day. The company claims that more than 1,000 Panther systems are installed in US labs, and that it expects to produce an average of one million tests per week.
Ortho’s antibody test is designed for use with its VITROS XT 7600, 3600, 5600, and ECi/ECiQ immunodiagnostic systems, which, the company says are installed in more than 1,000 US labs. The Total Reagent Pack is a qualitative test that detects the presence of all antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.
On April 24, Ortho announced it had received another FDA EUA, this one for its Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test, which detects the presence of IgG antibodies. In a statement, the company said it expects to produce “several million” IgG tests per month.
This test is designed for use with Roche’s cobas 6800 and 8800 systems. The 6800 can process up to 384 results in an eight-hour shift, Roche says, compared with 1,056 results for the 8800 model. The company says results are available in about 3.5 hours. In a statement, Roche said it planned to ship 400,000 tests per week.
Roche describes this as a qualitative antibody test that can be used on cobas e series immunoassay analyzers. Testing time is 18 minutes. As of May 19, the test was live at more than 20 US labs, “with plans in the next several weeks to increase to more than 200 commercial and hospital lab sites with the ability to perform millions of tests per week,” the company stated in a press release.
It’s likely the FDA will continue to issue emergency-use authorizations as the agency receives more applications from IVD manufacturers.
Physicians and clinical laboratories that do business with other healthcare providers who have been denied enrollment in Medicare or had their enrollment revoked are under increased scrutiny
Efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) to crack down on fraud could soon be bolstered by artificial
intelligence (AI) tools, placing new pressure on medical
laboratories and anatomic pathology groups to ensure that their billing
practices are fully compliant with current federal “affiliations” regulations.
This is why, last October, CMS issued a Request
for Information (RFI) seeking feedback from vendors, providers, and
suppliers about the potential use of AI tools to identify cases of fraud,
waste, and abuse in billing for healthcare services. Statements from CMS
indicate that the agency plans to deepen its investigation into the affiliations
physicians and clinical laboratories have with healthcare providers that been
involved in fraudulent behavior within the Medicare program.
At present, CMS uses a variety of approaches to spot
improper claims, the RFI notes, including the use of human medical reviewers.
However, this is a costly process that allows review of less than 1% of claims.
AI tools would increase the speed and accuracy of those investigations
exponentially.
The RFI notes that AI technology could “help CMS identify
potentially problematic affiliations upon initial screening and through continuous
monitoring. One example would be a new tool or technology that would allow
easy, seamless access to state and local business ownership and registration
information that could improve CMS’ line-of-sight to potentially problematic
business relationships.”
In a blog post on the federal agency’s website, CMS Administrator Seema Verma (above) wrote that “Advanced analytics and artificial intelligence can perform rapid analysis and comparison of large-scale claims data and medical records that could allow for more expeditious, seamless and accurate medical review, and ultimately, improved payment accuracy.” [Photo copyright: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)
CMS’ New Affiliations Rule Affects Clinical Laboratories
Our sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR),
provided in-depth coverage of this rule, which allows CMS “to revoke or deny
enrollment if it finds that a provider’s or supplier’s current or previous
affiliations pose an undue risk of fraud.” (See TDR, “Labs
Must Respond to New CMS Anti-Fraud Rule,” October 14, 2019.)
“For too many years, we have played an expensive and
inefficient game of ‘whack-a-mole’ with criminals—going after them one at a
time—as they steal from our programs,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma
said in a
statement about the new rule. “These fraudsters temporarily disappear into
complex, hard-to-track webs of criminal entities, and then re-emerge under
different corporate names. These criminals engage in the same behaviors again
and again.”
As TDR reported, the rule defines four “disclosable
events” that trigger the disclosure requirements:
Uncollected debt to Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP;
Payment suspension under a federal healthcare program;
Exclusion by the Office of Inspector General from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP; and
Termination, revocation, or denial of Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP enrollment.
If disclosure is required, CMS described five definitions of
an affiliation, using a five-year look-back:
Direct or indirect ownership of 5% or more in another organization;
A general or limited partnership interest, regardless of the percentage;
An interest in which an individual or entity “exercises operational or managerial control over, or directly conducts” the daily operations of another organization, “either under direct contract or through some other arrangement;”
When an individual is acting as an officer or director of a corporation; and
Any reassignment relationship.
One interesting consequence of these definitions is that
individuals or companies that invest and own an interest in a provider
organization that has one or more “disclosable events” would be flagged by the
provider at time of enrollment or re-enrollment in the Medicare program. Over
the years, some very prominent private equity companies have been investors and
owners of medical laboratory companies that owed money to Medicare or entered
into civil settlements with the federal government where the full amount of the
alleged overpayments was not recovered and the provider neither admitted nor
denied guilt. These affiliations would need to be disclosed and could be used
by CMS to deny enrollment in the Medicare program.
“Lab companies that engage in fraud and abuse—often paying illegal inducements to physicians to encourage them to order medically-unnecessary tests—distort the lab testing marketplace and capture lab test referrals that would otherwise go to compliant clinical labs and pathology groups,” stated Robert Michel, Editor-In-Chief of The Dark Report. “So, honest labs will recognize how the new rule can help suppress various types of fraud that constantly plague the clinical lab industry.” (See TDR, “Is New Medicare Affiliation Rule Good, Bad, or Ugly?” November 4, 2019.)
Other AI Applications in Healthcare
The CMS RFI also suggests other areas in which artificial
intelligence could help identify fraudulent activity, including real-time monitoring
of electronic
health records (EHR), risk
adjustment data validation (RADV) audits, and value-based payment systems.
“These tools hold the promise of more expeditious, seamless
and accurate review of chart documentation during medical review to ensure that
we are paying for what we get and getting what we pay for,” the RFI states.
“However, concerns about potential improper payments and bad actors remain. We
need to determine whether innovative new strategies, tools, and technologies
presently exist that can increase data accuracy and integrity and consequently
reduce improper payments.”
Clinical laboratories should not be surprised by any of this.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly becoming vital
tools in today’s modern healthcare system. Nevertheless, lab leaders should
closely monitor CMS’ use of these technologies to root out fraud, as labs are
often caught up in their investigations.
