News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Thirty US Congress Members Ask HHS To Send COVID-19 Testing Funds Directly to Clinical Laboratories

US Representatives want clinical laboratories to have better support for their increased efforts to expand testing for the coronavirus

On June 8, Congressmen Tom Reed (NY-23), Scott Peters (CA-52), and 28 other members of the US House of Representatives sent a letter to Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar requesting that funds from the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (H.R.266) be sent directly to clinical laboratories that have heavily invested in increasing their COVID-19 testing capacity.

In their letter, the Representatives wrote, “As you are aware, the recently enacted Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (PPPHCE Act) invests $25 billion in the [Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF)], including $11 billion for states, localities, territories, and tribes, to enhance all aspects of COVID-19 testing capacity. This funding is in addition to the funds already appropriated to the PHSSEF under the CARES Act.

“While laboratories are eligible, along with other providers, for these funds,” they continued, “there have been no federal funds specifically designated for the laboratories that have stepped up in this public health crisis and have made significant investments to expand access to COVID-19 testing despite 40-60 percent reductions in regular commercial volume due to the economic lockdowns.

“As laboratories work to maintain their investments in critical resources for testing platforms, reagents, swabs, and PPE, as well as hiring, training, and overtime pay for the laboratory workforce, we urge HHS to direct a portion of funding that has not already been allocated towards these efforts. These funds will ensure that labs can continue to rapidly scale up diagnostic and antibody testing, particularly for healthcare workers, first responders, and other Americans on the frontlines of this pandemic,” concluded the Representatives.

ACLA President Made Similar Plea for Direct Funding to Clinical Laboratories

As Dark Daily reported in “Federal Government Is Sending Nearly $11 Billion to States for COVID-19 Clinical Laboratory Testing and Testing-Related Activities,” in April, Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), sent a similar letter to Azar urging the HHS to provide some of the stimulus money directly to clinical laboratories.

“In order to deliver accurate, reliable results for patients at a national scale, we must allocate funding to support [clinical laboratories’] expanded efforts,” she said in a statement following an April 27 meeting at the White House.

In her letter, Khani wrote, “It is essential that HHS allocate $10 billion from the fund to support labs’ further expansion of testing capacity to fulfill the testing needs of all of the states and to protect the lives and livelihood of all Americans.

“Further,” she continued, “HHS should note that investing in the nation’s laboratories will not only enhance testing capacity in the short-term, but it also will allow the country to benefit from a robust testing infrastructure for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.”

President Trump signed H.R.266 into law on April 24. It includes $25 billion earmarked for research, development, validation, manufacturing, purchasing, administering, and expanding capacity for COVID-19 testing. According to the language of H.R.266, that includes, “tests for both active infection and prior exposure, including molecular, antigen, and serological tests, the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of tests, testing equipment and testing supplies, including personal protective equipment needed for administering tests, the development and validation of rapid, molecular point-of-care tests, and other tests, support for workforce, epidemiology, to scale up academic, commercial, public health, and hospital laboratories, to conduct surveillance and contact tracing, support development of COVID-19 testing plans, and other related activities related to COVID-19 testing.”

“As the demand for testing continues to grow, clinical laboratories need dedicated funding to plan for challenges that lie ahead. Strong federal coordination and leadership is essential, and we’re looking forward to working with HHS to ensure that laboratories have the resources necessary to continue to expand our role at the forefront of the nation’s response,” said Julie Khani (above), President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), in a press release following the June 8 letter sent to HHS by 30 members of Congress requesting funds from H.R.266 be sent directly to clinical laboratories. Khani will be speaking on federal policies now impacting clinical laboratories at the upcoming 25th annual Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management in New Orleans on July 14-15. (Photo copyright: ACLA.)

Financial Struggles for Hospitals and Clinical Laboratories

This new round of stimulus funding comes at a time when many providers and clinical laboratories are struggling financially, despite the influx of COVID-19 patients.

“Across the country, laboratories have made significant investments to expand capacity, including purchasing new platforms, retraining staff, and managing the skyrocketing cost of supplies. To continue to make these investments and expand patient access to high-quality testing in every community, laboratories will need designated resources. Without sustainable funding, we cannot achieve sustainable testing,” said Khani in an ACLA statement.

As the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic evolves, federal regulations, as well as emergency funding for COVID-19 testing that is provided by federal legislation, will evolve in unexpected ways. For that reason, clinical laboratory leaders will want to closely track announcements by such federal agencies as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration as decisions are made about how to assign the $25 billion authorized in H.R.266 for “testing.”

—Stephen Beale

Related Information:

Reps. Reed and Peters Lead 28 House Members in Calling on HHS to Allocate Additional Federal Support to Clinical Laboratories for COVID-Testing

Reed Leads Members in Requesting More Widespread COVID-19 Testing

Amid Growing Demand for Testing, Lawmakers Call on HHS to Designate Resources for Clinical Laboratories

The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act: Summary of Key Health Provisions

H.R.266 – Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act

Special Bulletin: HHS Announces How it Will Distribute Additional Funds to Providers Under CARES Act

What Clinical Diagnostic Laboratories and Manufacturers Need to Know about the CARES Act

Latest Updates on the CARES Act Public Health and Social Service Emergency Fund

Lab Test Volumes Plummet as Patients Put Off Care

COVID-19 Bonanza: Stimulus Hands Health Industry Billions Not Directly Related to Pandemic

$75B Relief Bill Provides ‘Much-Needed Lifeline’ to For-Profit Hospitals

7 Healthcare-Related Items You May Have Missed in the $2T Coronavirus Stimulus Package

Coronavirus Strains Cash-Strapped Hospitals, Could Cause Up to 100 to Close Within A Year

ACLA Statement on Expanding Access to Testing

ACLA Letter to HHS on PHSSEF Direct COVID19 Test Funding

Federal Government Is Sending Nearly $11 Billion to States for COVID-19 Clinical Laboratory Testing and Testing-Related Activities

Federal Government Is Sending Nearly $11 Billion to States for COVID-19 Clinical Laboratory Testing and Testing-Related Activities

Questions remain, however, over how much of the funding will actually reach hospital and health system clinical laboratories

For many cash-strapped clinical laboratories in America, the second round of stimulus funds cannot come soon enough. Thus, lab leaders are encouraged by news that Congress’ $484-billion Paycheck Protection Program and Healthcare Enhancement Act (H.R.266) includes almost $11 billion that will go to states for COVID-19 testing. But how much of that funding will reach the nation’s hospital and health system clinical laboratories?

Dark Daily previously reported on the deteriorating financial conditions at clinical and pathology laboratories nationwide. (See, “COVID-19 Triggers a Cash Flow Crash at Clinical Labs Totaling US $5.2 Billion in Past Seven Weeks; Many Labs Are at Brink of Financial Collapse,” May 4, 2020.) This critical situation is the result of a severe decline in the flow of specimens for routine testing to medical laboratories which, at the same time, are struggling with increasing costs to meet the demand for COVID-19 testing.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the new influx of money to the states on May 18. In a news release outlining the initiative, the HHS said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will deliver $10.25 billion to states, territories, and local jurisdictions to expand testing capacity and testing-related activities.

To qualify for the additional funding, governors or “designee of each State, locality, territory, tribe, or tribal organization receiving funds” must submit to HHS its plan for COVID-19 testing, including goals for the remainder of calendar year 2020, to include:

  • “Number of tests needed, month-by-month to include diagnostic, serological, and other tests, as appropriate;
  • “Month-by-month estimates of laboratory and testing capacity, including related to workforce, equipment and supplies, and available tests;
  • “Description of how the resources will be used for testing, including easing any COVID-19 community mitigation policies.”
“As the nation cautiously begins the phased approach to reopening, this considerable investment in expanding both testing and contact tracing capacity for states, localities, territories, and tribal communities is essential,” said CDC Director Robert R. Redfield, MD, in the HHS statement. “Readily accessible testing is a critical component of a four-pronged public health strategy—including rigorous contact tracing, isolation of confirmed cases, and quarantine.” (Photo copyright: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.)

Funding Should Go Directly to Clinical Laboratories, Says ACLA

The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), argues the funding needs to go directly to clinical laboratories to help offset the “significant investments” labs have made to ramp up testing capacity during the pandemic.

“Direct federal funding for laboratories performing COVID-19 testing is critical to meet the continued demand for testing,” ACLA President Julie Khani, MPA, said in a statement. “Across the country, laboratories have made significant investments to expand capacity, including purchasing new platforms, retraining staff, and managing the skyrocketing cost of supplies. To continue to make these investments and expand patient access to high-quality testing in every community, laboratories will need designated resources. Without sustainable funding, we cannot achieve sustainable testing.”

Some States Are Increasing Testing, While Others Are Not

Since the first cases of COVID-19 were reported in January, the United States has slowly but significantly ramped up testing capacity. As reported in the Washington Post, states such as Georgia, Oklahoma, and Utah are encouraging residents to get tested even if they are not experiencing coronavirus symptoms. But other states have maintained more restrictive testing policies, even as their testing capacity has increased.

“A lot of states put in very, very restrictive testing policies … because they didn’t have any tests. And they’ve either not relaxed those or the word is not getting out,” Ashish Jha, MD, MPA, Director of the Harvard Global Health Institute, told the Washington Post. “We want to be at a point where everybody who has mild symptoms is tested. That is critical. That is still not happening in a lot of places.”

Meanwhile, Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp continue to expand their diagnostic and antibody testing capabilities.

On May 18, Quest announced it had performed approximately 2.15 million COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tests since March 9 and had a diagnostic capability of 70,000 test each day. The company said it expected to have the capacity to perform 100,000 tests a day in June.

LabCorp’s website lists its molecular test capacity at more than 75,000 tests per day as of May 22, with a capacity for conducting at least 200,000 antibody tests per day. Unlike molecular testing that detects the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, antibody tests detect proteins produced by the body in response to a COVID-19 infection.

As states reopen, and hospitals and healthcare systems resume elective surgeries and routine office visits, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should begin to see a return to normal specimen flow. Nonetheless, the federal government should continue to compensate laboratories performing COVID-19 testing for the added costs associated with meeting the ongoing and growing demand.

—Andrea Downing Peck

Related Information:

HHS Delivers Funding to Expand Testing Capacity for States, Territories, Tribes

As Coronavirus Testing Expands a New Problem Arises: Not Enough People to Test

Quest Diagnostics Performs and Reports Results of 2.15 Million COVID-19 Diagnostic Tests and 975,000 Antibody Tests to Date

ACLA Statement on Expanding Access to Testing

COVID-19 Triggers a Cash Flow Crash at Clinical Labs Totaling $5.2 Billion in Past Seven Weeks; Many Labs Are at Brink of Financial Collapse

Shrinking Reimbursements and Increasingly Complex Regulations Will Squeeze Profits and Harm Valuations of Clinical Laboratories That Fail to Strengthen Their Strategic Positions

Operational efficiencies, strong management teams, and successful outreach business are key clinical laboratory success in today’s era of mergers and acquisitions

Fierce economic headwinds are taking aim at the entire pathology industry, as shrinking Medicare reimbursement rates, shifting federal regulations and compliance requirements, and changing care models squeeze profit margins and threaten valuations of most clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups.

The reimbursement rate changes mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA), which took place January 1, 2018, loom as the most immediate danger to the long-term financial health and viability of medical diagnostic laboratories.

“Medicare reimbursement rates to labs providing essential testing services are estimated to drop by $670 million this year, and additional reductions scheduled for 2019 and 2020 will cut payments by nearly 30% for many tests critical to caring for Medicare beneficiaries,” noted Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA), in “Patient Care Is Put to the Test as Clinical Laboratory Services Are Hit With a One-Two Punch in Rate Cuts,” an article she penned for the ACLA website.

“For some labs, such as rural hospitals and labs serving patients in skilled nursing facilities—which already have significantly higher operating costs—this could be a death knell that would precede a devastating loss of patient access to necessary testing services,” she concluded.

Assessing Financial Solvency to Survive Impending Mergers and Acquisitions

The ACLA has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for what it called a “flawed and misguided” implementation of the law. For now, however, the roll out of reimbursement rates cuts will continue, an ACLA blog post reports.

As a result, post-PAMA pressures combined with other factors are forcing clinical laboratory leaders to consider their strategic options, including:

  • Reorganizing;
  • Restructuring;
  • Merging/consolidating with another laboratory; and,
  • Selling.

As GenomeWeb pointed out prior to PAMA’s implementation, “All clinical labs in the U.S.—from the largest reference labs to in-hospital labs to physician-practice labs—will be touched by the changes to varying degrees.”  The future, GenomeWeb predicts, “may be a market with fewer independently operated small and regional labs, as well as fewer outreach labs owned by hospitals. Instead, such operations could become part of [Quest Diagnostics’] and LabCorp’s networks.”

This changing landscape means laboratories need to be assessing their financial solvency and maximizing their valuation even if they are not currently candidates for either side of the merger and acquisition equation. Failing to anticipate and respond to unfolding changes could leave laboratory executives courting a financial reckoning.

Pathway to Driving Valuation for Your Laboratory

To help clinical laboratory owners, CEOs, administrators, and pathologists understand the forces driving today’s mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures—and to guide their future decision-making—Dark Daily is presenting a new webinar at 1:30 p.m. EASTERN on Thursday, June 28, 2018, titled, “The Pathway to Driving Valuation for Your Laboratory: Your Roadmap to Achieving Success, and How to Sustain Growth Despite a Changing Lab Environment.”

One speaker is Vicki DiFrancesco, Chief Strategy Officer, XIFIN, San Diego. DiFrancesco has an insider’s understanding of mergers and acquisitions and 25 years of executive leadership experience. Prior to joining XIFIN, DiFrancesco served as President and CEO of Pathology Inc., the West Coast’s premier women’s health laboratory, which was acquired by LabCorp in March 2016.

The other speaker is David Nichols, Founder and President at Nichols Management Group (NMG) in York Harbor, Maine. NMG provides laboratory consulting services for healthcare organizations. Since its founding in 1988, NMG has provided expertise in improving overall effectiveness and in implementing such strategies as sales force development, market planning, compliance/financial auditing, and in selected cases, hands-on management responsibilities by working onsite with senior personnel in each area of need.

During their 90-minute presentation, you will learn:

  • Market factors creating financial challenges for your laboratory;
  • How revenue compression and compliance issues are driving merger and acquisition activity;
  • Steps to optimizing your lab’s reimbursements, a key to improving financial performance;
  • Revenue cycle management’s importance as a valuation driver;
  • Strategies to significantly improve your market position;
  • Components of an effective compliance program and why compliance is so important to laboratory valuation;
  • Value drivers that attract buyers, such as profitable growth, a strong compliance program, competent management teams, EBITDA, cash flow and gross margins; and,
  • Specific challenges that should be addressed in any merger or consolidation plan.

David Nichols (left), Founder and President at Nichols Management Group (NMG); and Vicki DiFrancesco, Chief Strategy Officer, XIFIN, will share vital insights and share critical strategies that clinical laboratories can immediately use to drive valuations and prepare for current and future financial challenges. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)

To register for this critical webinar, use this link  (or copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/product/the-pathway-to-driving-valuation-for-your-laboratory-your-roadmap-to-achieving-success-and-how-to-sustain-growth-despite-a-changing-lab-environment/.)

Despite the financial pressure on many existing laboratories, the medical laboratory industry continues to play a vital role in the healthcare system, with clinical laboratory tests guiding more than 70% of all medical decisions made by healthcare providers, according an ACLA fact sheet.

The industry also contributes more than $100 billion in annual economic impact and produces more than 622,400 jobs. While the role of diagnostic laboratories will continue to grow in an era of personalized medicine, only laboratories that optimize their strategic position in response to the changes taking place may be left standing when the predicted industry consolidation is complete.

—Andrea Downing Peck

Related Information:

The Pathway to Driving Valuation for Your Laboratory: Your Roadmap to Achieving Success, and How to Sustain Growth Despite a Changing Lab Environment

Patient Care Is Put to the Test as Clinical Laboratory Services Are Hit with a One-Two Punch in Rate Cuts

ACLA PAMA Lawsuit Complaint Against CMS

Recent NILA Report Highlights Harmful Impacts of Misguided PAMA Implementation on Labs and Seniors

The PAMA Effect: Consolidation of Clinical Labs Expected as Legislation Set to Take Effect

Conference Ends with Optimistic Outlook for Laboratories

Clinical Laboratory Testing: Life Saving Medicine Starts Here

American Clinical Laboratory Lawsuit Charges HHS Ignored Congress’ Intent When Collecting Market-Rate Data for 2018 Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule

In filing Monday, lawsuit seeks to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements and to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately

Many clinical laboratory executives will welcome the news that a lab industry trade association has filed a lawsuit in federal court in an effort to delay and fix the final rule for Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) private payer lab test market price reporting that Medicare officials used to lower prices on the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) that is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

In a lawsuit filed Monday, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) charged that the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ignored congressional intent and instituted a highly-flawed data reporting process when setting the 2018 CLFS rates under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.

The ACLA asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements, to withhold applying the new CLFS until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately. The CLFS is due to take effect on Jan. 1.

The lawsuit also seeks to vacate any actions that HHS made that were not in accordance with the PAMA law and to withdraw or suspend the final rule under PAMA. The case is American Clinical Laboratory Association v. Hargan, US District Court, District of Columbia, No. 1:17-cv-2645.

Final Prices for the 2018 Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule

Last month, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final CLFS rates and said at the time that it did so in compliance with the 2016 final rule implementing changes to the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule under PAMA section 216.

“We have repeatedly advised CMS that there are significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule, which fail to follow the specific commands of the PAMA statute,” said ACLA President Julie Khani in an ACLA press release. “Contrary to Congress’ intent, instead of reforming Medicare reimbursement rates to reflect the broad scope of the laboratory market, the Secretary’s final rule will disrupt the market and prevent beneficiaries from having access to the essential laboratory services they need.”

Shown above is Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) speaking at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May in New Orleans. In a press release announcing ACLA’s lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Khani emphasized that many clinical laboratories had advised officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about the “significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule” for private payer market price reported that CMS designed. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)

22 Healthcare Organizations Opposed Cuts to Clinical Laboratory Test Prices

The ACLA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and more than 20 other organizations had urged CMS to suspend implementation of the new CLFS rates, which are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The organizations cited concerns over the data-collection process used to establish the rates, and the fact that the rates would cause clinical laboratories to struggle financially and possibly close. If the rates set under PAMA affect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to clinical lab testing, the law would have the opposite effect of its intent.

To bring the lawsuit, ACLA retained Mark D. Polston, JD, of the Washington, DC, law firm of King and Spaulding. A specialist in representing healthcare systems seeking to navigate Medicare regulations, Polston is the former Chief Litigation counsel for CMS and specializes in complicated Medicare reimbursement litigation. Recently, he successfully challenged Medicare’s so-called “two-midnight” rule that imposed a 0.2% rate cut on hospitals billing for some patients.

Medicare Program Prohibited Most Medical Laboratories from Reporting

Contrary to Congress’ directives, most laboratories were prohibited from reporting private payer data under CMS’ market-rate data-collection process, ACLA said in a prepared statement. “As a result, CMS failed to protect access to laboratory services for Medicare beneficiaries. This flawed process could cause serious financial harm to potentially thousands of hospitals, independent and physician office laboratories, and make it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get access to medical testing, particularly in remote rural areas and in nursing homes that depend on laboratory testing services,” ACLA said.

In the lawsuit, ACLA alleged that more than 99.3% of hospitals were prohibited from reporting their market-rate data. It is believed that this is the first time this figure has been reported. In 2015, the lawsuit charged, more than 261,500 entities received Medicare payment for laboratory services but only 1,942 laboratories reported market-rate information in 2016 under the PAMA final rule. The 1,942 labs that reported market-rate data is about 0.7% of the total number of laboratories that serve Medicare beneficiaries, the lawsuit said.

Only 21 of 7,000 Hospital Laboratories Reported Data

“Moreover, contrary to Congress’ intent, the laboratories that did report information are not representative of the market as a whole,” the lawsuit added. “For example, although approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories billed Medicare for laboratory services in 2015—accounting for 24% of the Medicare payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule—no more than 21 hospital laboratories (and probably even fewer) reported information to the secretary, leaving hospital laboratories effectively unrepresented in the data collected by the secretary.

“Hospital laboratories are often the only laboratories available to patients in certain areas of the country, and the private payer rates they receive are often much higher than other laboratories, due to differences in competitive markets, volumes of services, and other factors,” the lawsuit charged.

The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication, provided a compelling example of the serious flaws in the market price study conducted by CMS. Writing about the state of Michigan, The Dark Report noted: “At Joint Venture Hospital Laboratory Network (JVHL), CEO John Kolozsvary said Michigan’s hospitals serve 70% of the office-based physicians in the state with outreach lab testing services. Included among these hospitals are the 120 JVHL member laboratory facilities.”

“Since our network, plus the outreach programs of another 25 or 30 hospitals, hold a significant share of outreach lab testing in Michigan, how can CMS conduct an accurate, representative market study of what private insurers pay for lab tests in Michigan if it doesn’t collect data on what private payers reimburse hospital lab outreach programs in Michigan?” stated Kolozsvary in his interview with The Dark Report.

Did CMS ‘Disregard and Violate’ PAMA Statute?

In the ACLA’s announcement of the lawsuit, Polston said, “CMS clearly disregarded and violated the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring commercial rate information to be reported and collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants. Instead, information was collected from less than 1% of US laboratories.”

In the press announcement, ACLA Board Chair Curt Hanson, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Mayo Medical Laboratories said, “This lawsuit reflects our obligation to those who are providing critical testing services, and to those millions of Americans who rely on the services our industry provides.” Others supporting the lawsuit include Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics.

Compliance with PAMA Law’s Statutory Requirements

In the lawsuit, ACLA seeks to require HHS to comply with the statutory requirements and to set aside the provisions in the final rule, “that unlawfully exempts thousands of laboratories from the reporting obligations that Congress imposed” under PAMA. A central feature of PAMA Section 216 is that laboratories must report market rate data so that HHS can ensure that Medicare reimbursement rates closely reflect the rates laboratories receive from private payers, the lawsuit said.

“ACLA was a strong supporter of Congress’ market-based reforms, which resulted in the most extensive changes to the system for reimbursing clinical laboratories since 1984,” the lawsuit said.

In challenging the final regulations, the lawsuit said HHS disregarded and violated, “the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring that all applicable laboratories report relevant data.”

Congress Specified Which Medical Laboratories Are Obligated to Report

“In imposing these requirements, Congress took care to specify which laboratories would be obligated to report market data to ensure that information would be collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants,” the lawsuit said. “Congress made clear that any ‘laboratory’ would be required to report data if, ‘with respect to its revenues under [the Medicare program], a majority of such revenues are from’ the Physician Fee Schedule or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule,” the lawsuit charged.

In promulgating the regulations, however, HHS, disregarded Congress’ instructions and “unreasonably and arbitrarily exempted significant categories and large numbers of laboratories that meet the statutory definition from the reporting requirements that Congress imposed,” the lawsuit said.

“The secretary’s final rule fatally undermines one of PAMA’s purposes, which is to require a broad spectrum of Medicare-participating laboratories to report market information to the secretary. Instead, in ultra vires (Latin for “beyond the powers”) fashion, the secretary has carved out large categories of laboratories—ultimately resulting in the exclusion of some 99.3% of the laboratory market—from the statutory reporting requirements,” the lawsuit charged. Ultra vires acts fall outside the authority of the organization in question.

In the lawsuit, the ACLA claims under:

count 1: ultra vires agency action not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority;

count 2: unreasonable construction of statute;

count 3: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, arbitrary and capricious action; and,

count 4: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, injunctive and declaratory relief.

Seeking an Injunction to Have HHS Secretary to Withhold or Suspend Final Rule

In its final section, “Prayer for Relief,” the lawsuit asks the court to vacate, “any agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” to require the Secretary of HHS to comply with the statutory requirements, “including faithfully implementing the statutory definition of ‘applicable laboratory;’” and enter an “injunction that (1) directs the Secretary to withdraw or suspend his final rule until such time as it can be brought into compliance with the statute, and (2) directs the Secretary to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until such time as the Secretary has made appropriate revisions to his final rule.” The lawsuit also asked the court to award to the ACLA “costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

—Joseph Burns

Related Information:

ACLA Files Lawsuit Challenging PAMA Rates

CMS Ignored Congressional Intent in Implementing New Clinical Lab Payment System Under PAMA, ACLA Charges in Suit

Quest Diagnostics Supports Suit Against HHS Charging That CMS Ignored Congressional Intent in Implementing New Clinical Lab Payment System

LabCorp Supports American Clinical Laboratory Association Lawsuit on PAMA Final Rule

For Top 20 Tests, CMS to Cut Payment by 28% in 2018-2020; Medicare officials move one step closer to destroying beneficiary access to lab tests: The Dark Report, October 9, 2017

Helping Medical Laboratories Add Value to Health Systems, Providers, and Payers by Moving from Clinical Lab 1.0 to Clinical Lab 2.0

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

;