Industry commenters point to a void since the federal government shuttered the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee
For readers wondering what has happened to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee (CLIAC), the bottom line is the panel has been terminated, causing a significant void for the lab industry at the federal level.
Dark Daily’s sibling brands, including The Dark Report, G2 Intelligence, and Today’s Clinical Lab, have been exploring various aspects about the demise of CLIAC.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed to G2 Intelligence that CLIAC was terminated as of March 31, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump intended to reduce federal advisory committees. The decision blindsided even those closest to CLIAC. Incoming committee chairman Jordan Laser, MD, revealed in an email to colleagues that he did not have more insight into CLIAC’s demise beyond media reports, G2 reported.
Since its founding in 1992, CLIAC has played an influential—though non-regulatory—role in shaping updates to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). The committee brought together pathologists, lab directors, public health leaders, and representatives from federal agencies such as the CDC, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Food and Drug Administration.
The federal government’s decision to eliminate CLIAC “risks stalling progress in laboratory medicine, which could ultimately hinder efforts to improve patient care,” CAP President Donald Karcher, MD, FCAP, told The Dark Report. (Photo copyright: College of American Pathologists.)
‘Critical Venue’ for Labs Has Been Eliminated
Industry groups are sounding alarms about what comes next. In an interview with Today’s Clinical Lab, Anthony Killeen, MD, PhD, president of the Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine (ADLM), said CLIAC was an important forum for medical lab scientists to discuss CLIA.
“[CLIAC] served as a critical venue for working through current problems with the rule and also for expert input on how new technologies—such as next-generation sequencing, digital pathology, and artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostics—should be assessed and integrated under CLIA,” Killeen said.
ADLM has formally urged Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to reverse the CLIAC decision. In a May letter, the association emphasized that CLIAC’s work was funded entirely through user fees paid by clinical laboratories rather than taxpayer dollars—a point many in the lab industry say underscores CLIAC’s value.
CAP President Wonders about Future Communication Gaps
The Dark Report noted that the disbanding of CLIAC may cost labs time in certain cases, a commodity that few diagnostic settings have in abundance.
“The absence of this advisory body may lead to gaps in communication and slower response times in addressing [industry] challenges,” Donald Karcher, MD, FCAP, president of the College of American Pathologists (CAP), told The Dark Report.
The absence of CLIAC raises uncertainty for clinical labs because federal agencies have lost a prime source to gather specialized input on complex scientific and operational issues facing the lab industry. Dark Daily’s partner brands will continue to track this matter closely. If you’re not a subscriber, you can check out The Dark Report’s insider coverage with a 14-day free trial.
However, effective communication can bring more harmony to medical lab managers and scientists when it comes to compliance
Depending on how lab professionals view it, clinical laboratory regulations can be characterized as a series of checklists to fill out or an opportunity to grow an organization.
Leaning into the latter option will preserve regulatory compliance while also ensuring the operational health of the clinical laboratory.
At the Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Kelly VanBemmel, MS, MB(ASCP)CM (above) pressed attendees to open the lines of communication between bench scientists and lab managers when it comes to clinical laboratory regulations. (Photo copyright: Scott Wallask.)
‘There’s a Gap’ in How Both Sides View Regulatory Compliance
VanBemmel spent her presentation aiming to bridge the rift between how bench scientists look at clinical laboratory regulations compared to the views of medical lab managers.
“There’s a gap between how staff experience regulations and how management does,” she noted. “Staff typically think of compliance as a checklist to do their jobs.” Managers, however, need to understand a wider compliance picture. She illustrated her point by comparing views on the following regulatory bodies.
Staff understand that the FDA clears tests and devices for use in non-research environments, though not all consumables or equipment are in that setting.
Managers understand that the FDA develops rules and guidance for CLIA complexity categorization.
Communication Leads to Common Ground with Clinical Laboratory Regulations
Given the above differences among managers and staff, VanBemmel explained that both sides must frequently talk to each other to fill in the missing details.
“When you’re in the thick of regulations, communication becomes critical,” she said.
For example, bench staff may feel it is solely their manager’s responsibility to comply with clinical laboratory regulations. Savvy lab leaders will point out non-compliant conditions—such as diagnostic analyzer malfunctions and sample cross contamination—over which bench staff have direct control, helping workers better understand their responsibility when it comes to compliance.
On the other hand, lazy communication from managers to their bench scientists can stunt compliance efforts. She recalled a prior supervisor who often answered questions about regulations by asking: What does the standard operation procedure state?
“That answer wasn’t particularly helpful,” VanBemmel recalled. “That made me think that my supervisor didn’t understand nuance.”
Thorough communication builds greater trust, and seasoned clinical laboratory professionals of all ranks will quickly recognize the compliance benefits when the worker-manager relationship gels.
Development of the Critical Values system redefined what STAT means in clinical laboratory testing turnaround times
Where did the concept of critical values and having clinical laboratories report them to referring physicians originate? How did the concept blossom into a standard practice in laboratory medicine? Given the importance of critical values, a lookback into how this aspect of laboratory medicine was developed is helpful to understand how and why this has become an essential element in the practice of medicine and an opportunity for labs to add value in patient care.
According to Stanford Medicine, critical/panic values are defined as “values that are outside the normal range to a degree that may constitute an immediate health risk to the individual or require immediate action on the part of the ordering physician.”
What you’ll read below is an insider’s account of the “birth of critical values reporting.”
According to Lundberg, an unaccompanied man was brought to the hospital in a coma and an examination revealed a laceration to his scalp. The patient was admitted to the neurosurgical unit where clinical laboratory tests were performed, including a complete blood count (CBC) analysis, urinalysis, and serum electrolytes. All the test results came back normal except the patient’s serum glucose (blood sugar level) which was 6 mg% in concentration.
“The hard-copy laboratory results were returned to the ward of origin within two hours of receipt of the specimens in the laboratory. However, the results were not noticed by the house officers who were busy with several other seriously ill patients. Ward personnel also failed to communicate the lab results to the responsible physicians,” Lundberg wrote.
When hospital staff did finally notice the test result the next morning glucose was immediately administered to the patient, but it was too late to prevent irreversible brain damage. The man soon passed away.
Following this incident, the hospital developed a “Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System.” The system generated new numbers that were termed “Panic Values.”
However, “critics complained that good doctors should never panic, so the name was changed to Critical Values,” Lundberg explained.
When any of these critical test values were out of the norm, “we required the responsible laboratory person to quickly verify the result and use the telephone (long before laboratory computers) to personally notify a responsible individual (no messages left) who agreed to find a physician who could quickly act on the result. All was documented with times and names,” he wrote.
“We understand that when a physician wants something, he/she wants it, no matter what. Well, in this patient-focused approach, the physician cannot have it, except as offered by the patient-focused approach, based on TAT [turnaround times of clinical laboratory tests],” wrote George Lundberg, MD (above), President and Chair of the Board of Directors of the Lundberg Institute, and Clinical Professor of Pathology at Northwestern University in an article he penned for the National Medical Journal of India (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group. Shows Dr. Lundberg in 2011 addressing the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management.)
New Clinical Laboratory Standards
Recognition of the urgency to adopt new hospital standards related to certain clinical laboratory test results came swiftly. In 1972, Lundberg was invited to publish an article explaining the new Critical Value Recognition and Reporting System in Medical Laboratory Observer.
According to Lundberg, “most laboratory tests that are done do not need to be done; the results are either negative, normal, or show no change from a prior result. But some are crucial.”
The original set of Critical Values included the following testing results:
The list of values were later expanded to include “vital values.” These values describe lab results for which “action” is important, but where timing is less urgent. Examples of vital values include:
Lundberg and his colleagues went on to redefine what constitutes a laboratory test and what renders a test successful. They discussed laboratory procedures with committees of clinicians, lab personnel and patients, and reorganized hematology, chemistry, and toxicology based on the turnaround time (TAT) of tests.
“We ‘started the clock’—any and all days/times 24×7—when a specimen arrived at some place within the laboratory, and stopped the clock when a final result was available somewhere in the laboratory,” Lundberg wrote in NMJI. “We categorized all tests as: less than one hour, less than four hours, less than 24 hours, and more than 24 hours, guaranteed, 24×7. As a trade-off, we abolished the concept of ‘STAT’ orders … NO EXCEPTIONS. The rationale of each TAT was the speed with which a result was needed to render proper medical care that mattered to the welfare of the patient, and, of course, that was technically possible.”
Since then, very little has changed for the Critical Values System over the past 50 years. The majority of values added have fallen under the “Vital” category and not the “Critical” category. Today, most health systems and clinical laboratories create their own internal processes and procedures regarding which values need to be reported immediately (critical), which values are not urgent (vital), and how those results should be handled.
FDA says the move will make it easier to gain authorization for other clinical laboratory tests to utilize at-home collection kits
In another sign of how diagnostic testing is responding to changing consumer preferences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted marketing authorization to LetsGetChecked for the company’s Simple 2 test for chlamydia and gonorrhea, which includes at-home collection of samples sent to the test developer’s clinical laboratories in the US and in Ireland.
This marks the first time the FDA has cleared a diagnostic test for either condition in which samples are collected at home. It’s also the first test with at-home sample collection to be authorized for any sexually transmitted infection (STI) other than HIV, the FDA said in a new release.
Samples are collected through a vaginal swab or urine sample. “Results are delivered online in approximately 2-5 days with follow-up virtual consultations and treatment available if needed,” the company press release states.
Previously authorized tests for the conditions required sample collection at the point of care. The company also offers telehealth and online pharmacy services.
“This authorization marks an important public health milestone, giving patients more information about their health from the privacy of their own home,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We are eager to continue supporting greater consumer access to diagnostic tests, which helps further our goal of bringing more healthcare into the home.” With this emphasis on at-home testing from the FDA, clinical laboratories in the US and Ireland will likely be processing more at-home collected samples. (Photo copyright: FDA.)
Simple 2 Process and Costs
Prior to collecting the sample, the user goes online to complete a questionnaire and activate the kit, the FDA news release notes.
LetsGetChecked, headquartered in New York City and Dublin, Ireland, says its US labs are CLIA– and CAP-certified. The company currently offers more than 30 at-home tests covering STIs, men’s health, women’s health, and COVID-19, at prices ranging from $89 to $249 per test.
The Simple 2 test costs $99, and is not covered by insurance, Verywell Health reported. Consumers can get discounts by subscribing to quarterly, semiannual, or annual tests.
New Regulatory Pathway
The FDA said it reviewed the test under its De Novo regulatory pathway, which is intended for “low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type,” according to the news release.
“Along with this De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls that define the requirements related to labeling and performance testing,” the agency stated. “When met, the special controls, in combination with general controls, provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for tests of this type.”
This creates a new regulatory classification, the agency said, that will make it easier for similar devices to obtain marketing authorization.
Citing data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the FDA news release states that chlamydia and gonorrhea are the most common bacterial STIs in the US. The CDC estimates that there were 1.6 million cases of chlamydia and more than 700,000 cases of gonorrhea in 2021.
“Typically, both infections can be easily treated, but if left untreated, both infections can cause serious health complications for patients, including infertility,” the news release states. “Expanding the availability of STI testing can help patients get quicker results and access to the most appropriate treatment, ultimately helping to curb the rising rates of STIs.”
Experts Praise the FDA’s Authorization of the Lab Test
STI experts contacted by STAT said they welcomed the FDA’s move.
“There are many people who would like to be tested for STIs who may not know where to go or who have barriers to accessing medical care,” said Jodie Dionne, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine in the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Division of Infectious Diseases. “If we are going to do a better job of reaching more sexually active people for STIs … we need to be creative about how to get them tested and treated in a way that is highly effective and works for them.”
Family physician Alan Katz, MD, a professor at the University of Hawaii John A Burns School of Medicine, told STAT that the Hologic assay is also used by clinicians who treat people in remote locations to diagnose STIs and is regarded as being highly accurate.
“This option is exceptionally useful for individuals who live in rural areas or are geographically distanced from a clinic where STI testing can be done and there is no telehealth option available,” he told STAT.
With this latest move, the FDA is recognizing that it is time to give consumers more control over their healthcare. This is a signal to clinical laboratories that they should be developing their own strategies and offerings that serve consumers who want to order their own tests. Of course, many states still require a physician’s signature on lab test orders, but that is likely to change over time.
McGonnagle’s involvement with medical laboratory medicine spans five decades and 38 years of support for the nation’s anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals
The presentation was made in front of 950 attendees. During the presentation, several of McGonnagle’s peers described the multiple ways that he regularly supports the profession of clinical laboratory medicine.
In 1986, McGonnagle was engaged by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to develop the concept of a new, tabloid-sized, color magazine to be called CAP Today. It was January 1987 when monthly publication of CAP Today formally commenced.
McGonnagle was again tapped by CAP to oversee production of another publication that was created in 1996. Since its inception, he has also been publisher of the Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
During last week’s Executive War College on Diagnostic, Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans, Bob McGonnagle (center right) was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award for his 38 years as Publisher of CAP Today, along with his innumerable contributions to advancing the clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology professions. McGonnagle is joined by Robert Michel, founder of the Executive War College on his right; Al Lui, MD, of Innovative Pathology Medical Group on his far right; and Stan Schofield of Compass Group on his left. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
38 Years as Publisher of CAP Today Magazine
But McGonnagle’s duties as publisher are just the starting point of the contributions McGonnagle has made to the House of Laboratory Medicine in the past 38 years. He is regularly seen at pathology and lab meetings, conferences, and workshops throughout the United States and overseas. As a speaker and moderator, he is much in demand. He is often asked to sit in during strategic retreats and think tanks organized by laboratory associations, lab organizations, and lab vendors.
During the presentation ceremony, three of McGonnagle’s peers offered insights and examples of his unstinting support of pathologists, lab managers, and companies serving medical laboratories. First to speak was Stan Schofield, Managing Principal at Compass Group and past CEO of NorDx Laboratories in Scarborough, Maine.
“Bob McGonnagle is excellent as a moderator for conferences, meetings, and conventions and will always say ‘yes’ when asked to serve,” Schofield observed. “He is quick to recognize and adapt to emerging issues. He processes information from various parts of the lab industry, then generates insights and information all can understand and use to the benefit of their respective labs and pathology groups.”
Next to speak was pathologist Al Lui, MD, President and Medical Director, at Innovative Pathology Medical Group in Torrance, California. Lui has been active on committees and initiatives of CAP for decades. “Recognition of Bob McGonnagle’s past and continuing contributions to the profession of pathology and laboratory medicine is long overdue,” he said.
McGonnagle as Farmer, Fan of Classical Music, and Oenophile
Lui then presented slides that showed the range of McGonnagle’s activities outside of his publishing responsibilities. For example, Bob is remote manager of two inherited family farms in Iowa that produce corn, soybeans, and cattle. His wife competes in equestrian events. They are wine aficionados and close personal friends with one of Napa Valley’s most respected vintners.
One key figure in McGonnagle’s publishing activities is the Editor of CAP TodaySherrie Rice. She has served in this role since 1987 and thus has collaborated with Bob for the 38 years of CAP Today’s publication. “His leadership of the periodicals department at the CAP has been brilliant and working alongside him for more than three decades has been the gift of a lifetime,” Rice noted.
Rice also described an underappreciated aspect of McGonnagle’s efforts as Publisher. “Bob constantly works to connect the IVD manufacturers and lab vendors with labs that need and benefit from these solutions,” she noted. “He is quick to recognize emerging technologies and help explain them with in-depth stories in CAP Today that help pathologists and lab managers better understand when such innovations are ready to be implemented.”
A Career That Spans Five Decades
As McGonnagle was handed his Lifetime Achievement Award, Robert Michel, Founder of the Executive War College and Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, made several observations. “Bob McGonnagle has all the hallmarks of a loyal friend. He is always willing to help and never asks for anything in return,” Michel noted. “He is discreet and trustworthy, with keen powers of observation and analysis. Our profession is blessed that his career and contributions have spanned five decades.”
All of Bob McGonnagle’s colleagues, friends, and associates are encouraged to use social media to send him congratulations and notes of appreciation for his 38 years of service as Publisher of CAP Today, and for his many contributions to the clinical laboratory and pathology professions.
Here are social media links where it would be appropriate to post comments about Bob McGonnagle, with best wishes, congratulations, and examples of his selfless support:
