By analyzing strains of the bacterium from a hospital ICU, the scientists learned that most infections were triggered within patients, not from cross-transmission
Tracking the source of Hospital-acquired infections (HAI) has long been centered around the assumption that most HAIs originate from cross-transmission within the hospital or healthcare setting. And prevention measures are costly for hospitals and medical laboratories. However, new research puts a surprising new angle on a different source for some proportion of these infections.
The study suggests that most infections caused by Clostridioides difficile (C. Diff), the bacterium most responsible for HAIs, arise not from cross-transmission in the hospital, but within patients who already carry the bacterium.
A researcher performed whole genome sequencing on 425 strains of the bacterium isolated from the samples and found “very little evidence that the strains of C. diff from one patient to the next were the same, which would imply in-hospital acquisition,” according to a UM news story.
“In fact, there were only six genomically supported transmissions over the study period. Instead, people who were already colonized were at greater risk of transitioning to infection,” UM stated.
Arianna Miles-Jay, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in The Snitkin Lab at the University of Michigan and Manager of the Genomic Analysis Unit at the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, performed the genomic sequencing. “By systematically culturing every patient, we thought we could understand how transmission was happening. The surprise was that, based on the genomics, there was very little transmission,” she said in the UM news story.
“Something happened to these patients that we still don’t understand to trigger the transition from C. diff hanging out in the gut to the organism causing diarrhea and the other complications resulting from infection,” said Evan Snitkin, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, and Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases at University of Michigan, in a UM news story. Medical laboratories involved in hospital-acquired infection prevention understand the importance of this research and its effect on patient safety. (Photo copyright: University of Michigan.)
Only a Fraction of HAIs Are Through Cross-Transmission
In the study abstract, the researchers wrote that “despite enhanced infection prevention efforts, Clostridioides difficile remains the leading cause of healthcare-associated infections in the United States.”
Citing data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HealthDay reported that “nearly half a million C. diff infections occur in the United States each year. Between 13,000 and 16,000 people die from the bacterium, which causes watery diarrhea and inflammation of the colon. Many of these infections and deaths have been blamed on transmission between hospitalized patients.”
The new study, however, notes that 9.3% of the patients admitted to the ICU carried toxigenic (produces toxins) C. diff, but only 1% acquired it via cross-transmission. The carriers, the study authors wrote, “posed minimal risk to others,” but were 24 times more likely to develop a C. diff infection than non-carriers.
“Our findings suggest that measures in place in the ICU at the time of the study—high rates of compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare personnel, routine environmental disinfection with an agent active against C. diff, and single patient rooms —were effective in preventing C. diff transmission,” Snitkin told HealthDay. “This indicates that to make further progress in protecting patients from developing C. diff infections will require improving our understanding of the triggers that lead patients asymptomatically carrying C. diff to transition to having infections.”
Recognizing Risk Factors
Despite the finding that infections were largely triggered within the patients, the researchers still emphasized the importance of taking measures to prevent hospital-acquired infections.
“In fact, the measures in place in the Rush ICU at the time of the study—high rates of compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare personnel, routine environmental disinfection with an agent active against C. diff, and single patient rooms—were likely responsible for the low transmission rate,” the UM news story noted.
One expert not involved with the study suggested that hospitals’ use of antibiotics may be a factor in causing C. diff carriers to develop infections.
“These findings suggest that while we should continue our current infection prevention strategies, attention should also be given to identifying the individuals who are asymptomatic carriers and finding ways to reduce their risk of developing an infection, like carefully optimizing antibiotic usage and recognizing other risk factors,” Hannah Newman, Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told HealthDay.
Snitkin, however, told HealthDay that other factors are likely at play. “There is support for antibiotic disruption of the microbiota being one type of trigger event, but there is certainly more to it than that, as not every patient who carries C. diff and receives antibiotics will develop an infection.”
Another expert not involved with the study told HealthDay that “many patients are already colonized,” especially older ones or those who have been previously hospitalized.
“A lot of their normal flora in their GI tract can be altered either through surgery or antibiotics or some other mechanism, and then symptoms occur, and that’s when they are treated with antibiotics,” said Donna Armellino, RN, Senior VP of Infection Prevention at Northwell Health in Manhasset, New York.
This research also demonstrates the value of faster, cheaper, more accurate gene sequencing for researching life-threatening conditions. Microbiologists, Clinical laboratory scientists, and pathologists will want monitor further developments involving these findings as researchers from University of Michigan and Rush University Medical Center continue to learn more about the source of C. diff infections.
Free at home clinical-laboratory testing for COVID-19 has been provided in the past, but this time the federal government wants to manufacture as many tests as possible in the US
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers may be interested to learn that the US market is about to be flooded with millions of at-home COVID-19 rapid tests. The federal government has contracted with 12 US-based test manufacturers to produce 200 million at-home self-tests aimed at detecting “currently circulating COVID-19 variants” through the end of this year, according to a US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) news release.
Federal officials want to head off “supply chain issues” that developed in the past with reliance on tests made overseas, and to address a possible COVID-19 surge during the fall and winter, the Associated Press (AP) reported.
In fact, 500 million tests have already been distributed through US government channels to long-term care facilities, schools, and low-income senior housing.
“Manufacturing COVID-19 tests in the United States strengthens our preparedness for the upcoming fall and winter seasons, reduces our reliance on other countries, and provides good jobs to hardworking Americans,” said Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell, JD (above), in an HHS news release. “ASPR’s investments in these domestic manufacturers will increase availability of tests in the future.” With the federal government preparing for what it expects to be a surge in demand for COVID-19 testing, clinical laboratories may want to track the CDC’s weekly reports on the number of positive COVID-19 cases as this year’s influenza season progresses. (Photo copyright: Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.)
In Vitro Diagnostics Test Makers Get Government Gigs
This is not the first time federal officials sent out free COVID-19 tests to consumers. According to the AP, more than 755 million tests went out to US households in previous efforts to fight the spread of infections. But unlike those tests, these tests will be manufactured entirely within the US.
The government’s latest wave of free tests is meant to “complement ASPR’s ongoing distribution of free COVID-19 tests to long-term care facilities, low-income senior housing, uninsured individuals, and underserved communities, with 500 million tests provided to date through these channels,” the HHS news release noted.
Both large and lesser-known in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers were selected by the federal government to receive funding. They include:
HHS advises people to take the test at the first sign of symptoms (fever, sore throat, runny nose, others), after coming into contact someone who has COVID-19, or prior to gathering with a group, as a preventative to spread of the coronavirus.
Reporting laboratories say existing antibodies work against the BA.2.86 variant.
The variant does not appear to be linked in the US with increasing infections or hospitalizations.
It is “unclear how easily BA.2.86 spreads” relative to other variants.
BA.2.86 has been detected in nine states: Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and in wastewater in New York and Ohio, as well as in other countries.
For week ending Sept. 23, the CDC reported the following statistics compared to the prior week:
19,079 COVID-19 hospitalizations, down 3.1%.
Total hospitalizations: 6.3 million.
2.7% of total deaths were due to COVID-19, up 8%.
COVID-19 test positivity rate was 11.6%, down 1.1%.
1.8% of emergency department visits were diagnosed with COVID-19, down 11.7%.
According to Verywell Health, BA.2.86 carries more than 30 mutations.
“Even with a lot of mutations, there are a lot of spots in the virus that can be recognized by our immune system, and there are many shared mutations as well. There will be some protection from new vaccine booster as well as prior infections,” Rajendram Rajnarayanan, PhD, Assistant Dean of Research and Associate Professor, Basic Sciences, Arkansas State University, told Verywell Health.
It’s worth noting that the common cold, influenza, SARS, and SARS-CoV-2 are all in the coronavirus family, and thus closely related with similar symptoms. It would not be a surprise that SARS-CoV-2 joins those other viruses as an endemic virus with a similar yearly cycle of infection rates.
If that happens, and no surge in infections appears that would motivate orders for the new COVID-19 at-home tests, the government may find itself with a lot of unused tests at the end of the year. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of this possibility and provides a website where people can check to see if their test has an extended expiration date.
Plus, folks who are tired of the pandemic may not respond at all to the government’s insistence to prepare for possible surges in infection rates.
“Whether or not people are done with it, we know the virus is there, we know that it’s circulating. We know, if past is prologue, it’ll circulate to a higher degree and spread, and cases will go up in the fall and winter seasons,” said Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell, JD, in the HHS new release. “Anticipating that that would be true again, or something similar, we want to make sure the American people have these tools.”
Clinical laboratories may want to prepare as well. Many people are not comfortable with at-home self-testing and prefer to have their local medical labs perform the tests.
When people receive COVID-19 testing at an out-of-network facility, federal law requires insurers to pay that clinical laboratory’s posted ‘cash price’ when negotiated prices have not previously been established
In the latest example that some COVID-19 testing companies are charging significantly higher prices than others, The New York Times (NYT) recently reported that one COVID lab company with “more than a dozen testing sites” throughout the US was charging $380 for a COVID-19 rapid test that can be purchased at many drug stores for $20. Sadly, this practice, the NYT also noted, is protected by federal law.
Media reporters and the lay public are not fully aware of the long-established clinical laboratory test payment modalities that govern the daily performance of tests ordered as part of regular healthcare. Thus, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit—along with tens of billions of federal dollars to pay for SARS-CoV-2 tests—it triggered a gold rush of people wanting to get into the clinical laboratory testing business specifically to make money.
It is the bad actors in this group who are tainting the entire clinical laboratory industry with often outrageous business practices that, at best, cross ethical lines—such as overpricing tests to consumers—and at worst, represent fraudulent behavior, such as inducing medically-unnecessary tests, then submitting claims for these tests.
Even as the pandemic appears to be waning, news outlets are reporting instances of insurers being charged higher “cash prices” for tests performed by out-of-network testing laboratories. Worse yet, federal law requires insurers to pay these exorbitant prices and they are not happy about it.
In-Network versus Out-of-Network Pricing
In its report, the NYT noted that the CARES Act (H.R. 748) requires insurers to pay whatever “cash prices” out-of-network labs post online, and that this is leading to “expensive coronavirus tests” that could ultimately be reflected in future “higher insurance premiums” charged to healthcare consumers.
One company the NYT highlighted in its report is GS Labs in Omaha, Neb., a provider of COVID-19 testing throughout the US. The testing company’s COVID-19 Pricing Transparency webpage lists these prices for the following COVID-19 tests:
“Insurers are obligated to pay cash price, unless we come to a negotiated rate,” Christopher Erickson, a GS Labs Partner, told the NYT.
Negotiate or ‘Pay the Provider’s Cash Price’
In Missouri, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City (Blue KC) has filed a lawsuit against GS Labs. “This action seeks a judgment declaring Blue KC and our members are not required to pay GS Labs’ unreasonable, inflated reimbursement demands,” according to a Blue KC news release.
However, section 3202 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act “specifies the process for private health insurance plan issuers to reimburse providers of COVID-19 diagnostic tests. Specifically, a reimbursement rate negotiated for such test prior to the public health emergency declared on January 31, 2020, continues to apply for the duration of the emergency. If a reimbursement rate was not negotiated prior to the emergency declaration, an issuer may either negotiate such rate or pay the provider’s cash price.”
In its own news release, GS Labs said it has “countersued Blue KC over the insurance company’s failure to pay $9.7 million for COVID tests covered by federal law.”
According to a legal expert who spoke with the NYT, GS Labs has grounds for its test charges due to the CARES Act. “Whatever price the lab puts on their public facing website, that is what has to be paid. I don’t read a whole lot of wiggle room in it,” said Sabrina Corlette, JD, Research Professor and Co-Director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.
“Unfortunately,” noted Loren Adler (above), Associate Director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, in a blog post, “this ‘cash price’ is not a market-determined price—it is irrelevant to patients because all options have to be made free to them by law, so there is little constraint on how high this is set by testing entities. Nor is there any reason for out-of-network entities to accept any less than this amount (other than a desire to contract in the future with the insurer for fear of a public relations backlash). Moreover, in theory the patient can still be surprise balance billed if the provider’s charge is higher than this ‘cash price,’ though it is unclear why any provider would list a ‘cash price’ lower than their charge.” (Photo copyright: The Brookings Institution.)
In his analysis, Adler suggested the law be revised to require commercial insurers to pay for COVID-19 testing at Medicare prices.
Patient Receives a $54,000 ‘Surprise’ Bill for COVID-19 Out-of-Network Test
The patient, Travis Warner, reportedly has insurance from Molina Healthcare through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace. After an employee at his company tested positive for COVID-19, Warner drove 30 miles outside of Dallas in search of COVID-19 testing sites. He eventually visiting an out-of-network free-standing emergency room in Lewisville where he received PCR diagnostic and rapid antigen tests. The results of the tests were negative for COVID-19. But the bill was a shock.
The total bill came to $56,384. Molina Healthcare paid its negotiated rate of $16,915.20 for the testing and facility fee, leaving Warner responsible for the remaining $54,000!
In the end, Warner did not have to pay the bill. Molina resolved the charge with SignatureCare and, in a statement to KHN, wrote, “This matter was a provider billing error, which Molina identified and corrected.”
For its part, SignatureCare Emergency Centers, with freestanding centers throughout Texas, said it has a “robust audit process” to flag errors and processed “thousands of records a day” at the height of the pandemic, according to KHN, which reported the business showing a $175 price for a COVID-19 test on its website.
“If the insurance company is paying astronomical sums of money for your care, that means in turn that you are going to be paying higher (insurance) premiums,” Adler told KHN.
Insurance Group Finds Price Gouging
“Price gouging on COVID-19 tests by certain providers continues to be a widespread problem,” according to a statement by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a national association representing insurers.
AHIP has studied COVID-19 test prices since April 2020. It released a survey earlier this year which found COVID-19 test prices were on average $130. However, AHIP also found that out-of-network providers charged “significantly higher” (more than $185) for more than half (54%) of COVID-19 tests (PCR, antigen, antibody) in March 2021—a 12% increase since 2020. More than 27% of COVID-19 tests in March 2021 were done out-of-network, a 6% increase since 2020.
However, in, “COVID-19 Lab Test Prices Give Some Health Plans ‘Indigestion’,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, wrote, “Interestingly, [AHIP] researchers reported that the share of COVID-19 tests claims submitted from ‘high-cost locations’—identified as hospitals and emergency departments—declined from 18% in the first three months of the pandemic to only 5% during the first three months of 2021.”
Niall Brennan, President and CEO of the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI), told KHN, “People are going to charge what they think they can get away with. Even a perfectly well-intentioned provision like [the CARES Act] can be hijacked by certain unscrupulous providers for nefarious purposes.”
Of course, most medical laboratories priced their tests fairly and have performed them in an efficient and professional manner during the pandemic. So, it is unfortunate to learn through AHIP’s survey findings and the media that some COVID-19 testing providers are posting prices that may confuse patients and affect their health insurance premiums.
Abbott sends the SARS-CoV-2 test results directly to patients’ smartphones, which can be displayed to gain entrance into areas requiring proof of COVID-19 testing
There is no greater example that COVID-19 is a major force for change in the clinical laboratory industry than the fact that—though the US federal government pays 50% of the nation’s total annual healthcare spend of $3.5 trillion—it recently spent $760 million to purchase 150 million COVID-19 tests from Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT), an American multinational medical devices and healthcare company headquartered in Abbott Park, Ill., “to expand strategic, evidence-based testing in the United States,” according to the company’s website.
In August, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) to Abbott for its BinaxNOW portable rapid-response COVID-19 antigen (Ag) test. The credit-card sized test costs $5 and can return clinical laboratory test results in minutes, rather than hours, days, or in some cases, weeks, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported.
The test includes a free smartphone app called NAVICA, which enables those tested to receive their test results directly on their mobile devices—bypassing the patient’s primary care physicians.
According to Abbott’s website, the app “allows people who test negative to get an encrypted temporary digital NAVICA Pass, similar to an airline boarding pass. NAVICA-enabled organizations will be able to verify an individual’s negative COVID-19 test results by scanning the individual’s digital NAVICA Pass to facilitate entry into facilities.”
This feature of Abbott’s new COVID-19 test is a good example of how quickly innovation in the medical laboratory testing profession is bringing new features and new capabilities to the marketplace. By marrying the SARS-CoV-2 test with the NAVICA Pass feature, Abbott hopes to deliver increased value—not just to physicians and their patients—but also to employers with employee screening programs and federal government programs designed to screen federal employees, as well as being used for screening travelers at airports and other transportation hubs.
Abbott appears to be banking that in the future such identification will be required to “enter organizations and other places where people gather,” as the company’s website states.
Testing Limited to CLIA-Certified Clinical Laboratories
An HHS news release announcing the government’s planned distribution of the BinaxNOW tests stated that “Testing will be potentially deployed to schools and to assist with serving other special needs populations.”
In the news release, Alex Azar, HHS Secretary, said, “By strategically distributing 150 million of these tests to where they’re needed most, we can track the virus like never before and protect millions of Americans at risk in especially vulnerable situations.”
The EUA adds that “Testing of nasal swab specimens using [BinaxNOW] … is limited to laboratories certified under CLIA that meet the requirements to perform high, moderate, or waived complexity tests. This test is authorized for use at the [point of care], i.e., in patient care settings operating under a CLIA Certificate of Waiver, Certificate of Compliance, or Certificate of Accreditation.”
The FDA’s EUA describes the BinaxNOW portable rapid-response COVID-19 antigen test (above) as “a lateral flow immunoassay intended for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid protein antigen from SARS-CoV-2 in direct nasal swabs from individuals suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first seven days of symptom onset.” The test costs $5 and Abbott sends results directly to the patient’s smartphone using the free NAVICA app included with the test. (Photo copyright: Abbott Laboratories.)
IVD Companies See Boom in COVID-19 Test Sales
Demand for COVID-19 testing has created opportunities for in vitro diagnostics (IVD) companies that can develop and bring tests to market quickly.
Recent issues of Dark Daily’s sister print publication—The Dark Report (TDR)—covered IVD companies’ second quarter (Q2) boom in sales of COVID-19 instruments and tests, while also noting a fall-off in routine clinical laboratory testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Abbott Laboratories saw molecular diagnostics sales increase 241% in Q2 driven by $283 million in sales of COVID-19 testing, while rapid diagnostic COVID-19 testing rose 11% on $180 million in sales in Q2, TDR reported, based on Abbott data.
“There is huge economic incentive for diagnostic companies to develop technologies that can be used to create rapid tests that are cheap to perform,” said Robert Michel, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of TDR and Dark Daily. “In this sense, COVID is a major force for change.”
“This new COVID-19 antigen test is an important addition to available tests because the results can be read in minutes, right off the testing card,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), in an FDA news release announcing the federal government’s $760 million purchase of 150 million Abbott BinaxNOW rapid-response antigen COVID-19 tests. “This means people will know if they have the virus in almost real-time. Due to its simpler design and the large number of tests the company anticipates making in the coming months, this new antigen test is an important advancement in our fight against the pandemic.” (Photo copyright: The New York Times.)
Thus, Abbott is determined to ensure this product launch is successful and that the test works as promised. According to a news release, “In data submitted to the FDA from a clinical study conducted by Abbott with several leading US research universities, the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card demonstrated sensitivity of 97.1% (positive percent agreement) and specificity of 98.5% (negative percent agreement) in patients suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider within the first seven days of symptom onset.”
“The massive scale of this test and app will allow tens of millions of people to have access to rapid and reliable testing,” said Joseph Petrosino, PhD, professor and chairman, Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, in the Abbott news release. “With lab-based tests, you get excellent sensitivity but might have to wait days or longer to get the results. With a rapid antigen test, you get a result right away, getting infectious people off the streets and into quarantine so they don’t spread the virus.”
Abbott has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in two manufacturing facilities where the tests will be made, John Hackett Jr, PhD, an immunologist and Abbott’s Divisional Vice President Applied Research and Technology, and lead scientist on the BinaxNOW project, told The Atlantic.
“Our nation’s frontline healthcare workers and clinical laboratory personnel have been under siege since the onset of this pandemic,” said Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, professor of Laboratory Medicine at University of California, San Francisco, in the Abbott news release. “The availability of rapid testing for COVID-19 will help support overburdened laboratories, accelerate turnaround times, and greatly expand access to people who need it.”
However, other experts are not so sure. In the Atlantic article, Michael Mina MD, PhD, Assistant Professor Epidemiology at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, voiced the need to test both asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people. “This is the type of [COVID-19] test we have been waiting for—but may not be the test.”
Nevertheless, the federal government’s investment is significant. Abbott plans to start shipping tens of millions of tests in September and produce 50 million tests per month starting in October, Forbes reported.
Shifting Clinical Laboratory Paradigms
BinaxNOW will be performed without doctors’ orders, in a variety of locations, and results go directly to patients’ smartphone—without a pathologist’s interpretation and medical laboratory report. This is new ground and the impact on non-CLIA labs, and on healthcare in general, is yet to be seen.
Clinical laboratory managers will want to monitor the rise of rapid-response tests that can be easily accessed, conducted, and reported on without physician input.
