The trade association is publicly promoting the benefits of biomarker testing and AI’s benefits to diagnostics
One of the core tenets to getting federal lawmaker support for business is to tell them what an industry does. In that vein, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) has released a new promotion that highlights applications of companion diagnostics, rapid whole genome sequencing, drug screening, biomarker testing, and infectious disease management.
One of the end goals? To sway Congress to take action against proposed reimbursement cuts to clinical lab test rates.
The ACLA campaign, known as the “Power of Knowing,” took center stage during a panel discussion at the ACLA Annual Meeting, held Feb. 27 in Washington, DC. One objective, panelists said, is to draw attention to the profession’s role in prevention and early detection of diseases, according to report from Medtech Insight.
“The association is working hard to demonstrate to policymakers the value of clinical laboratory testing through the Power of Knowing as they make policy decisions on reimbursement and clinical laboratory infrastructure that’s necessary for robust patient access to these innovative diagnostics,” said panel moderator Elyse Oveson, according to Medtech Insight. Oveson serves as ACLA chief of advocacy operations.
In March 2024, ACLA released digital ads urging Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA), which would have prevented a 15% cut in Medicare reimbursement for approximately 800 laboratory tests.
“A sustainable reform of the Medicare payment system for clinical laboratory services is vital to protect and enhance patient care, foster innovation, and ensure the stability of clinical laboratories nationwide,” ACLA president Susan Van Meter said at the time.
“If patients don’t have their biomarkers profiled for them at diagnosis and again at progression, there’s a very real chance that they would be put on the incorrect therapy that could lead to them having real harm in their health. So, we view biomarkers as critical,” said Nikki Martin (above), senior director of precision medicine initiatives for the LUNGevity Foundation, during the 2025 ACLA Annual Meeting. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Martin told attendees that biomarker tests should be part of the standard of care in lung cancer diagnosis, Medtech Insight reported. These tests analyze blood or other patient samples to identify molecules associated with specific diseases.
“For patients with non-small cell lung cancer, biomarkers are everything,” said Martin during the panel discussion. Many patients with advanced metastatic cancer, she said, “are not receiving comprehensive biomarker testing, and if they’re not, then they’re at risk of having much worse outcomes.”
Edelmayer discussed progress in developing biomarker tests for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. “The momentum is palpable among the research community,” she said. “We’re now starting to see the shift into implementation and more types of tools and technologies being available to clinicians to help patients.”
However, Edelmayer acknowledged that progress in developing Alzheimer’s tests and treatments has been slow.
“There’s never going to be a single test to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. “We recognize that it’s going to be a combination approach.”
New Video Campaign
The campaign’s latest advertising is summed up in a 90-second sizzle reel in which clinical laboratory leaders discuss various ways in which the profession supports healthcare.
One theme in the video is the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the profession. “AI-enabled diagnostics are tools that use machine learning to analyze vast amounts of data from patient records to genomic profiles,” said Kate Sasser, PhD, chief scientific officer of Tempus, in the video. “These systems can recognize patterns in the data that humans may not easily see and help clinicians detect diseases earlier and more accurately.”
“By harnessing these cutting-edge tools, we can move closer to a world where treatments are no longer one size fits all but are instead tailored to the unique genetic and molecular profile of each patient,” said Elias Zerhouni, MD, president and vice chairman of OPKO Health, in a recent video produced as part of the ACLA’s Power of Knowing campaign.
The campaign website includes additional videos as well as downloadable graphics that can be shared on social media.
“Previously … CDC developed tests for emerging pathogens and then shared those tests with others, and then after that, commercial labs would develop their own tests,” Shah told CNN. “That process took time. Now with these new arrangements, commercial labs will be developing new tests for public health responses alongside CDC, not after CDC.”
In a news release announcing the contract, ARUP Laboratories also characterized the move as a shift for the agency.
“The new contract formalizes ARUP’s relationship with the CDC,” said Benjamin Bradley, MD, PhD, medical director of the ARUP Institute for Research and Innovation in Infectious Disease Genomic Technologies, High Consequence Pathogen Response, Virology, and Molecular Infectious Diseases. “We continue to expand our capabilities to address public health crises and are prepared to scale up testing for H5N1, or develop other tests quickly, should the need arise.”
“To be clear, we have no evidence so far that this [bird flu] virus can easily infect human beings or that it can spread between human beings easily in a sustained fashion,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at Brown University School of Public Health, told CNN. “If it did have those abilities, we would be in a pandemic.” Clinical laboratory leaders will recall the challenges at the CDC as it developed its SARS-CoV-2 test early in the COVID-19 pandemic. (Photo copyright: Brown University.)
Missouri Case Raises Concerns
The first human infection of HPAI was reported in late March following a farmer’s “exposure to dairy cows presumably infected with bird flu,” the CDC stated in its June 3, 2024, bird flu Situation Summary. That followed confirmation by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of an HPAI outbreak in commercial poultry flocks in February 2022, and the CDC’s confirmation of the first known infections in dairy herds reported on March 25, 2024.
Concerns about the outbreak were heightened in September following news that a person in Missouri had been infected with the virus despite having no known contact with infected animals. CNN reported that it was the 14th human case in the US this year, but all previous cases were in farm workers known to be exposed to infected dairy cattle or poultry.
In a news release, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) revealed that the patient, who was not identified, was hospitalized on Aug. 22. This person had “underlying medical conditions,” DHSS reported, and has since recovered and was sent home. Both DHSS and the CDC conducted tests to determine that the virus was the H5 subtype, the news release states.
At present, the CDC states that the public health risk from the virus is low. However, public health experts are concerned that risks could rise as the weather gets cooler, creating opportunities for the virus to mutate “since both cows and other flu viruses will be on the move,” CNN reported.
Concerns over CDC Testing and FDA Oversight
In the months immediately following the first human case of the bird flu virus, Nuzzo was among several public health experts sounding an alarm about the country’s ability to ramp up testing in the face of new pathogens.
“We’re flying blind,” she told KFF Health News in June, due to an inability to track infections in farmworkers. At that time, tests had been distributed to approximately 100 public health labs, but Nuzzo and other experts noted that doctors typically order tests from commercial laboratories and universities.
KFF reported that one diagnostics company, Neelyx Labs, ran into obstacles as it tried to license the CDC’s bird flu test. Founder, CEO, and lead scientist Shyam Saladi, PhD, told KFF that the federal agency had promised to cooperate by facilitating a license and a “right to reference” CDC data when applying for FDA authorization but was slow to come through.
While acknowledging the need for testing accuracy, Greninger contended that the CDC was prioritizing caution over speed, as it did in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. “The CDC should be trying to open this up to labs with national reach and a good reputation,” he told KFF.
Another problem, KFF reported, related to the FDA’s new oversight of laboratory developed tests (LDTs), which is causing labs to move cautiously in developing their own tests.
Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH (above), Director of the Pandemic Center and Professor of Epidemiology at the Brown University School of Public Health co-authored a June 2024 analysis in Health Affairs that called on the CDC to develop “a better testing playbook for biological emergencies.” The authors’ analysis cited earlier problems with the responses to the COVID-19 and mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) outbreaks.
If global surveillance networks have detected a novel pathogen, the authors advise, the US should gather information and “begin examining the existing testing landscape” within the first 48 hours.
Once the pathogen is detected in the US, they continued, FDA-authorized tests should be distributed to public health laboratories and the CDC’s Laboratory Response Network (LRN) laboratories within 48 hours.
Advocates of this approach suggest that within the first week diagnostics manufacturers should begin developing their own tests and the federal government should begin working with commercial labs. Then, within the first month, commercial laboratories should be using FDA-authorized tests to provide “high throughput capacity.”
This may be good advice. Experts in the clinical laboratory and healthcare professions believe there needs to be improvement in how novel tests are developed and made available as novel infectious agents are identified.
Prior to that, however, the FDA had already announced its intention to issue a proposed rule giving the agency regulatory oversight of LDTs.
“The FDA has continually supported the passage of the VALID Act by Congress,” attorney Charles Dunham IV, a Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig LLP in Houston, told Dark Daily. “In fact, there is speculation that the VALID Act will be attached to the Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act as it moves through Congress.”
“The FDA may not actually proceed with promulgating rules to regulate LDTs if it is concerned it will not be successful in court if the rules are challenged, which would happen,” said attorney Charles Dunham IV (above), a Shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, LLP. Clinical laboratory leaders can learn more from Dunham during a panel discussion at next week’s 2023 Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans. (Photo copyright: Greenberg Traurig LLP.)
Arguments For and Against FDA LDT Regulation of LDTs
Supporters of the VALID Act contend that putting LDTs under FDA regulation will lead to improved patient safety and less review for low-risk tests. Their argument is that LDTs should undergo the same FDA review and approval process as other medical devices.
Hospital laboratory managers and pathologists—particularly in academic medical center laboratories—have largely opposed FDA regulation of LDTs. They prefer to keep the current setup under which lab-developed tests are validated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). They argue that FDA intervention will slow down development of new tests.
In response, an FDA official indicated during the American Clinical Laboratory Association’s (ACLA) annual meeting on March 1 that the federal agency plans to issue a proposed rule to regulate LDTs, BioWorld reported. That rulemaking has not yet emerged. It’s possible the FDA will wait and see what happens in Congress with the VALID Act.
“Some legal experts have suggested that one significant new legal challenge FDA may face is the Supreme Court’s West Virginia v. EPA decision last summer that limited the ability of the EPA to cap power plant emissions by regulation due to the EPA’s lack of explicit congressional authority to do so,” said Gee, who also will appear on the Executive War College legal panel next week.
“The West Virginia v. EPA ruling provides support for those in the clinical lab industry who point to the FDA’s lack of clear statutory authority to regulate LDTs and therefore fundamentally disagree with FDA’s longstanding position that LDTs are medical devices subject to FDA’s authority to regulate,” he added.
Actions Clinical Laboratory Managers Can Take
Clinical laboratory managers who want to share their thoughts about the future of LDT regulation may want to take one or both of the following actions:
Contact their representatives in Congress.
Find out whether any trade associations they belong to have taken a position on the VALID Act.
Clinical laboratory professionals should monitor the VALID Act’s progress while also paying attention to industry groups and manufacturers that support or oppose the bill.
Doing so will provide a clearer indication of who has the most to gain or lose should the legislation be passed. Pathologists and medical laboratory managers should also remain alert for further efforts by the FDA to issue proposed rulemaking to regulate LDTs.
Organizations representing clinical laboratories and other critical healthcare providers urged Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act by January 1, 2023, to prevent deep cuts in reimbursements
Lessons about the essential role of clinical laboratories during a pandemic was the central theme in a significant publication released recently. The authors were the presidents of two of the nation’s largest healthcare companies and their goal was to connect the value clinical labs delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic to the financial threat labs face should the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) fee cuts coming to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) be implemented.
In an article for RealClearPolicy, healthcare executives William G. Morice II, MD, PhD (left), CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, and Matt Sause (right), President of Roche Diagnostics North America wrote, “Without PAMA reform, labs could face drastically reduced reimbursement for commonly performed lab tests for a host of diseases.” (Photo copyrights: Mayo Clinic Laboratories/Roche Diagnostics.)
IVD Companies and Clinical Laboratories Sound Alarm
Morice and Sause warn that—without PAMA reform—the nation’s vital medical laboratories will face “drastically reduced reimbursement” for commonly performed lab tests for diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Reimbursement cuts may cause clinical labs serving “the most vulnerable and homebound” to reduce services or close, they noted.
“To emerge from nearly three years of a pandemic by sending the signal that austerity is our nation’s health policy when it comes to testing and diagnostics would be a significant mistake,” they wrote.
“If the proposed cuts to reimbursements for diagnostic tests are allowed to take effect, disparities caused by challenges with accessing diagnostic tests will likely grow even further,” the authors continued.
However, they added, “The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act [SALSA] would reform PAMA to require accurate and representative data from all laboratory segments that serve Medicare beneficiaries to be collected to support a commonsense Medicare fee schedule that truly represents the market.”
How PAMA Affects Clinical Laboratory Reimbursements
PAMA, which became law in 2014, was aimed at marrying Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) reimbursement rates to rates medical laboratories receive from private payers, the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) explained in a news release.
But from the start, in its implementation of the PAMA statute, the methods used by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to collect data on lab test prices paid by private payers—which were the basis for calculating new lab test prices for the Medicare program—were criticized by many laboratory professionals and other health experts.
Critics frequently pointed out that several types of clinical laboratories were excluded from reporting their private payer lab test prices. Thus, the data collected and used by CMS did not accurately represent the true range of prices paid for clinical lab tests by private health insurance plans, said lab industry groups.
CMS regulations “exclude most hospital outreach laboratories and physician office laboratories from data collection. This approach depresses median prices and has led to deep cuts to lab reimbursement. Many tests were cut up to 30% in 2018 when the new system went into effect,” the America Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) noted in a statement.
On September 8, just weeks after publication of the article authored by Morice and Sause, 26 organizations representing clinical laboratories and diagnostics manufacturers sent a letter to Congressional leaders. In it they described the financial impact on labs due to the current law’s omission of some outreach and physician office lab testing, and they urged the passage of the SALSA legislation.
“The significant under-sampling led to nearly $4 billion in cuts to those labs providing the most commonly ordered test services for Medicare beneficiaries,” the organizations wrote in their letter. “For context, the total CLFS spend for 2020 was only $8 billion.”
Reimbursement Cuts to Lab Tests are Coming if SASLA Not Passed
“Without Congressional action, beginning on Jan. 1, 2023, laboratories will face additional cuts of as much as 15% to some of the most commonly ordered laboratory tests,” the NILA said.
“Enactment of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA/H.R. 8188/S.4449) is urgently needed this year, to allow laboratories to focus on providing timely, high quality clinical laboratory services for patients, continuing to innovate, and building the infrastructure necessary to protect the public health,” NILA added.
In an editorial she wrote for Clinical Lab Products, titled, “Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation,” Kristina Martin, Clinical Pathology Operations Director, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medicine said, “The SALSA legislation provides a permanent, pragmatic approach to evaluating the CLFS, eliminating huge swings, either positive or negative as it pertains to Medicare reimbursement. It also allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of data to be collected from a broader sampling of laboratory sectors.”
Uses statistical sampling for widely available tests performed by a “representative pool of all clinical laboratory market segments.”
Introduces annual “guardrails” aimed at creating limits for reductions as well as increases in CLFS rates.
Excludes Medicaid managed care rates since they are not true “market rates.”
Gives labs the option to exclude mailed remittances from reporting if less than 10% of claims.
Eases clinical labs’ reporting requirements by changing data collection from three years to four.
Make Your Views Known
Proponents urge Congress to act on SALSA before the end of the year. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who want to express their views on SALSA, test reimbursement, and the importance of access to medical laboratory testing can do so through Stop Lab Cuts.org. The website is sponsored by the ACLA.
Survey respondents can give their opinions about the proposed VALID and VITAL acts
Two bills are pending in Congress, and each is written to change the current regulatory scheme for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) and in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs). The bills go by the acronyms of the VALID Act and VITAL Act. Many clinical laboratories offering LDTs today may be unaware of the details within each bill as currently written.
That existing regulatory arrangement will change if one of the two pending bills in Congress were to pass and be signed into law. That proposal is known as the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act, or VALID Act. It is a bipartisan, 245-page bill that proposes FDA oversight of LDTs and is making its way through both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
A smaller, seven-page counterproposal is also before the Senate called the Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act, or VITAL Act. The VITAL Act would keep LDTs under CLIA but mandate updates to CLIA’s rules to account for modern tests.
Readers: Are you in favor of more or less regulation of LDTs? Take this quick survey and let us know what you think. Dark Daily wants to know your thoughts about LDT oversight. Click here to take our six-question survey. Results of this survey will be reported in a coming Dark Daily e-briefing.
Alert pathologists and clinical laboratory managers know that behind every bill proposed in Congress is a party with a vested interest that brought the issue to a senator or representative. Once enacted into law, a new bill changes the status quo, generally to the benefit of the private interests that requested that bill. This is true of both the VALID Act and the VITAL Act.
The table at the bottom of this briefing compares the provisions of each act and is current as of March 28.
Who Opposes VALID Act?
The VALID Act is garnering more attention than the VITAL Act.
On March 22, the American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) sent out an email message urging its members to oppose the VALID Act.
“Let your legislators know that that if VALID becomes law, your institution and other hospitals and small commercial laboratories could be forced to stop providing LDTs,” wrote Patricia Jones, PhD, DABCC, FACB, Chair of AACC’s Policy and External Affairs Core Committee. The AACC has long criticized the VALID Act..
On the other side of the debate, Philadelphia-based The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit that in part analyzes publics policy, has come out in support of the VALID Act’s proposed requirements.
Two bills are pending in Congress about the future of LDT regulation.
“Although the [current] LDT regulatory process offers labs significant flexibility and enables a more rapid response to public health needs when no FDA-cleared or -approved test exists, the relative lack of oversight for LDTs puts the health of patients at risk,” Pew wrote in an October 2021 report on LDTs.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association also supports the VALID Act, as do many manufacturers of in vitro test kits and large commercial labs. Proponents also believe FDA regulation is needed for IVCTs because they are similar to medical devices and bring with them patient safety concerns.
The American Clinical Laboratory Association and the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) have not taken formal positions on the VALID Act.
Congress Could Roll VALID Act into MDUFA Vote to Win Passage
There may be an effort to attach the VALID Act to the authorization vote for the Medical Device User Fee Agreement V (MDUFA), according to a February health legislation alert from law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld based in Washington.
MDUFA funding provides resources to the FDA’s medical device review program. Congress is set to receive final MDUFA V recommendations in April.
Nineteen healthcare and lab industry groups, including the American Medical Association, AACC, AMP, and NILA, sent a joint letter to four Congress members on Feb. 23 requesting they deliberate the VALID Act separately and not as part of MDUFA.
Again, please complete this survey and tell us what you think about FDA regulation of LDTs, as defined in the VALID Act, compared to continuing LDT oversight via a modernized CLIA in the VITAL Act.
—Scott Wallask
Comparison of VALID Act and VITAL Act
VALID Act
VITAL Act
Full act name
Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act
Verified Innovative Testing in American Laboratories Act
Bill numbers
House Bill H.R.4128 Senate Bill S.2209
Senate Bill S.1666
Sponsors
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) , Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), Rep. Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
Provisions
Developers shall apply for premarket approval of IVCTs if there is insufficient evidence of analytical validity or clinical validity or if it’s reasonably possible an IVCT will cause serious adverse health effects.
Applications shall include a summary of test data and scientific evidence to support analytical and clinical validity of the test.
Through a technology certification, developers can submit an IVCT to the FDA for review, and if granted, the certification allows them to develop similar tests without going back for review each time.
The FDA must establish a program for rapid review of breakthrough IVCTs that provide effective treatment of life-threatening diseases
The federal government should work to ensure that regulatory oversight of laboratory tests does not limit patient access, impede innovation, or limit a test’s sustainability as a result of being unduly burdensome or beyond the fiscal capacity of the laboratory to reasonably validate and perform.
No aspects of LTDs shall be regulated under the FDA.
No later than 180 days after enactment of the bill, the secretary of health and human services shall report to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions about recommendations to update clinical lab regulations and provide an assessment of LDT use during the 2020 pandemic response.
Exemptions
IVCTs being marketed before the VALID Act goes into effect
Low-risk tests
IVCTs that are granted emergency use
No new exemptions
Review timelines
The FDA shall make a decision no later than 90 days after an application is submitted.
No new requirements noted.
Sources: VALID Act and VITAL Act bills. Information is current as of March 28, 2022.
