Limited availability of COVID-19 clinical lab tests is major topic at federal briefings and news stories, yet many of nation’s labs are laying off staff and at point of closing
Cash flow at the nation’s clinical laboratories has crashed, with revenues down by more than $5 billion since early March. This is the biggest financial disaster for the nation’s clinical laboratory industry in its 100-year history and it couldn’t come at a worse time for the American public and the US healthcare system.
At the precise moment when the nation needs clinical laboratories to begin performing millions of tests for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, those same labs are watching their cash flow collapse.
Data from multiple sources gathered by The Dark Report, sister publication of Dark Daily, confirm that—beginning in early March and continuing through last week—clinical laboratories in the United States saw incoming flows of routine specimens decline by between 50% and 60%. During this same time, lab revenue fell by similar amounts.
Clinical Lab Industry Currently Losing $800 to $900 Million Weekly
To give this decline context, the healthcare system spends about $80 billion annually on medical laboratory testing. Thus, labs across the US generated about $1.5 billion in revenue each week during 2019 and into 2020. By April 5, the decline in routine lab specimen volumes reached 55% to 60%. Since then, the clinical lab industry now loses between $800 million and $900 million each week. Total revenue loss from previous levels is already estimated to be $5.2 billion, and it is growing by an additional $800 million to $900 million every week that patients stay away from hospitals and physicians’ offices.
In the eight weeks since the COVID-19 pandemic caused patients to cease coming to hospitals and visiting their doctors, incoming routine specimens and revenue fell by 60%, causing cumulative lost routine revenue of $5.2 billion for the clinical laboratory industry in the United States. Each week that the existing shelter-in-place directives are effective, labs lose another $800 million to $900 million. The Dark Report based these estimates on data provided by multiple companies working with lab billing/claims, middleware analytical solutions, and customer relationship management (CRM) and electronic health record (EHR) products. (Chart copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group, Inc.)
The recent dire financial condition of labs small and large has gone unremarked by federal healthcare officials at the daily White House COVID-19 Task Force briefings. National news sources have yet to report on this development and its implications for successfully expanding the availability and numbers of COVID-19 tests in response to the pandemic.
The rapid and deep decline in specimens and revenue is not limited to clinical laboratories. Biopsy cases referred to anatomic pathology groups have declined by 50% to 60%. Some subspecialty pathology labs saw case referrals drop by 80% or more.
The nation’s two biggest clinical laboratory companies confirmed similar declines in their normal daily flow of routine specimens. Both companies recently reported first-quarter earnings (which included the month of March).
Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp Each Disclose Volume Declines of 50% to 60%
During its Q1 2020 earnings conference call, Chairman, President, and CEO of Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), Steve Rusckowski, stated, “In April, volume declines continue to intensify as we are seeing signs that volume declines are bottoming out at around 50% to 60%.”
The drop-off in routine lab test referrals was the similar at LabCorp (NYSE:LH). “In our diagnostics business, at the end of the quarter, we experienced reductions in demand for testing of 50% to 55% versus the company’s normal daily levels,” explained Glenn Eisenberg, Executive Vice President and CFO during LabCorp’s Q1 2020 earnings call. “This reduction in demand impacted testing volume broadly but was more heavily weighted towards routine procedures.”
Interviews with independent clinical lab owners and the administrative directors of hospital and health system labs further confirm this rapid and dramatic decline in the number of routine specimens arriving in their labs. Fewer specimens mean fewer claims, which means less revenue to laboratories.
Two Different Financial Futures for ‘Have’ Labs and ‘Have Not’ Labs
What happens next to the clinical laboratory industry in the United States—and to its ability to continue ramping up the availability of adequate numbers of COVID-19 tests in major cities, small towns, and rural areas—will be a story of “haves” and “have nots.”
The “haves” are clinical labs that have access to money. These are publicly-traded lab companies, academic medical center labs, and the sophisticated labs of health networks that operate multiple hospitals. In each case, these organizations have capital reserves and access to loans that will probably enable them to sustain COVID-19 lab testing services at the large volumes required to respond to the pandemic.
clinical labs operated by community hospitals and rural hospitals that were not financially robust before the onset of the pandemic; and,
specialty lab companies that perform a specific number of proprietary diagnostic tests (and for which demand has collapsed as patients stopped seeing their doctors).
Medicare Led Payers in the ‘Lab Test Price Race to the Bottom’
Prior to the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the finances of the “have-not” labs were already shaky, with many on the verge of filing bankruptcy, closing, or selling to a bigger lab company. Much blame for the deteriorating finances at a large proportion of community lab companies, community hospital labs, and rural hospital labs can be attributed to the deep, multi-year price cuts to the Medicare Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule as mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA).
Medicare’s multi-year cuts to lab test prices were immediately copied by most state Medicaid programs. During this period, private payers followed Medicare’s lead and enacted their own deep cuts to the prices they paid labs for both routine tests and molecular/genetic tests.
That is why—when the pandemic intensified in early March—the 50% to 60% drop in specimens and revenue that hit these labs starved them of essential cash flow. When polled, the owners and directors of these labs acknowledge layoffs of the majority of their staff in all departments. They also reported substantial delays—both in submitted lab test claims and in getting payment for those claims—because claims-processing departments at the labs and private health insurers are understaffed due to shelter-in-place directives.
COVID-19 Test Revenue Helps Only Labs Performing Those Tests
Revenue from COVID-19 testing is helping certain labs offset the revenue loss from fewer routine specimens. XIFIN, Inc., a San Diego company that provides revenue cycle management (RCM) services for clinical laboratories and pathology groups, analyzed the lab test claims for COVID-19 rapid molecular tests. It determined that labs performing these tests are generating enough revenue from these test claims to equal about 20% of their pre-pandemic revenue.
The chart above was prepared by XIFIN, Inc., of San Diego and is based on the changes XIFIN observed in the volume of routine clinical laboratory test claims generated by client labs on a weekly basis. In the first two months of 2020, routine lab test claims ran at expected levels until the first week of March. During the rest of March, routine lab test claims declined by 60%. During April, incoming routine lab test claims remained 55% to 60% below pre-pandemic levels. The shaded area shows the number of COVID-19 test claims coming into clinical labs. XIFIN says COVID-19 test claims make up about 20% of the decline in routine test specimens for those labs performing COVID-19 tests. The Dark Report estimates that the clinical laboratory industry has lost $800 million to $900 million in routine test revenue each week since March 23. Weekly revenue losses will continue at this rate until patients begin visiting their physicians and hospitals again perform elective services. (Chart copyright: XIFIN, Inc.)
Many CLIA-certified community laboratories and hospital labs have the diagnostic instruments and experience to perform rapid molecular tests for COVID-19. But when contacted, they tell us that their suppliers do not ship them even minimal quantities of the COVID-19 kits, the reagents, and the consumables. Thus, they cannot meet the needs of their client physicians. Instead, they watch as these physicians refer COVID-19 tests to the nation’s largest labs. The supply shortage prevents these smaller labs from doing larger numbers of COVID-19 test for the patients in the communities they serve. It also prevents them from earning the revenues from COVID-19 testing that currently helps the nation’s “have” labs offset the decline in revenue from routine testing.
Congress, national healthcare policymakers, and state governors need to immediately address this situation. Each week that passes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the shelter-in-place directives drains another $800 million to $900 million in revenue from routine lab testing that previously flowed into the nation’s clinical laboratories.
‘Have-not’ Clinical Labs in Small Towns Will Quietly Shrink and Disappear
Without timely intervention and financial support, the nation’s network of ‘have not’ labs, which have so capably served towns away from big metropolitan centers and rural areas, will quietly begin shrinking. One at a time, labs in small towns will close or sell. Local lab facilities will be shuttered and specimens from small-town patients will be transported to big labs hundreds or thousands of miles away.
It is also true that the financial disaster besetting the nation’s clinical laboratory industry will have comparable dramatic consequences for the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers that sell them automation, analyzers, reagents, and other supplies. Since early March, IVD manufacturers watched as the pandemic caused orders for new instruments to collapse. During these same weeks, their clinical lab customers ceased ordering routine test kits at pre-pandemic levels. Dark Daily will cover the challenges confronting the IVD and other diagnostics industries in future e-briefings.
Announcing Free COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings for Clinical Labs
With the COVID-19 pandemic creating chaos in nearly every aspect of healthcare, business, and society, clinical labs and their suppliers need timely intelligence and analysis about the innovations and successes achieved by their peers. This week, Dark Daily and The Dark Report are launching COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings (Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.covid19briefings.com). This comprehensive service is free and will cover four basic areas of needs for clinical laboratories as they ramp up COVID-19 testing:
Daily and weekly COVID-19 testing dashboards to guide every lab’s short-term planning;
Proven steps for labs to introduce and validate COVID-19 tests (both rapid molecular tests and serology tests);
Getting paid for COVID-19 testing to ensure every lab’s financial stability and clinical quality; and
Legal and regulatory updates for labs doing COVID19 tests to ensure full compliance.
Also, to help clinical laboratory leaders deal with the coming wave of COVID-19 serology tests, we are producing a free webinar led by James O. Westgard, PhD, FACB, and Sten Westgard, Director of Client Services and Technology, of Westgard QC, Inc.
Each week that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, and strict shelter-in-place directives are in place, the clinical laboratory industry loses another almost $900 million in revenue from lower volumes of routine testing. No industry can survive when its incoming revenue collapses by 50% to 60% for sustained periods of time.
Will Congress Recognize the Need for a Financial Rescue of ‘Have-not’ Labs?
Thus, it is incumbent on Congress, elected officials, and healthcare policymakers to recognize the financial consequences of the pandemic to the nation’s clinical laboratories. That is particularly true of the ‘have-not’ clinical labs. They do not have the same access to decisionmakers in government as billion-dollar lab companies.
And yet, these labs located in small communities and rural areas often are the only local labs that can do STAT testing in a couple of hours, and where clinical pathologists are personally familiar with local physicians and patients.
These “have-not” labs are vital healthcare resources. They should receive the help they need to get through this unprecedented crisis that is the COVID-19 pandemic.
Facing a backlog, the state’s public health laboratory turned to the medical laboratory at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center
Much of the attention surrounding the COVID-19
outbreak—the illness caused by the SARS-CoV-2
coronavirus—has focused on large urban areas such as New York City and Los
Angeles. However, the virus is impacting many rural areas as well. This is true
in New Hampshire, where the diagnostic response required close cooperation
between the state’s public health
laboratory and the clinical
laboratory at its lone academic medical center. Their experience offers
lessons for medical
laboratory leaders nationwide.
“When these things happen and you surge beyond what you
could imagine, it’s the relationships with people that matter more than
anything,” said Christine
L. Bean, PhD, Administrator of New
Hampshire Public Health Laboratory Division of Public Health Services , Concord,
N.H., during a recent Dark
Daily webinar, titled, “What Hospital and Health System Labs Need to
Know About Operational Support and Logistics During the COVID-19 Outbreak.”
As Bean explained, during the earliest stages of the
pandemic the “CDC was doing the testing” and the state lab’s role was limited
to submitting samples from patients deemed as “presumptive positives.” Then, on
Feb. 4, the FDA granted an emergency
use authorization (EUA) allowing use of the CDC-developed real-time
reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) assay by designated labs.
The New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory (NHPHL) received
its first test kit on Feb. 10, Bean said. But the kits were recalled due to
validation problems with one of the reagents. On Feb. 26, the CDC
issued revised test instructions allowing use of the test without the N3
primer and probe set that had caused the early validation issues. The NHPHL
verified the test under the new guidelines and went live on March 2, she said.
However, with a capacity of 150 to 200 tests per day, the
lab wasn’t equipped to handle a large volume. “Much of what we do is really
population-based,” she said. “Most of the time we’re not doing patient
diagnostic testing.”
Christine L. Bean, PhD (left), Administrator of the New Hampshire Public Health Laboratory, and Joel Lefferts, PhD (right), Assistant Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Assistant Director of the Molecular Pathology, at Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, spoke with Dark Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Michel during a webinar on what hospital and health system labs need to know about operational support and logistics during the COVID-19 outbreak. The webinar can be freely downloaded by clicking here. (Photo copyright: Dark Daily.)
NHPHL Turns to the Medical Laboratory at DHMC-CGHT for
Help
The DHMC-CGHT lab began having its own discussions about
testing in the first week of February, said Joel
A. Lefferts, PhD, HCLD, DABCC, Assistant Professor of Pathology and
Laboratory Medicine and Assistant Director of Molecular Pathology at
Dartmouth’s Geisel School of
Medicine. They were unsure of how much need there would be, but “throughout
the month of February, we started exploring different testing options,” he said
during the Dark Daily webinar.
The Dartmouth-Hitchcock lab team began with the CDC test. However,
Lefferts noted that the initial FDA guidance was “somewhat restrictive” and required
specific RNA extraction
kits and real-time PCR instruments. “If our lab didn’t have the capability to
perform everything exactly as indicated, we would be running it off-label and
would have to possibly submit our own EUA submission to the FDA,” he explained.
Later, though, the FDA and CDC loosened those restrictions and the lab began testing with the CDC assay on March 18, using a Thermo Fisher ABI 7500Dx instrument, Lefferts said. According to Thermo Fisher’s website, the ABI 7500Dx “is a real-time nucleic acid amplification and five-color fluorescence detection system available for in vitro diagnostic use.”
However, Lefferts continued, “we only had one of these
7500Dx instruments, and it was a relatively manual and labor-intensive
process.” It allowed a maximum of 29 samples per run, he said, and took about
five hours to produce results.
Then, the FDA granted an EUA for Abbott’s
m2000 assay, which runs on the company’s m2000rt real-time PCR instrument.
“We were really excited, because we happened to have two of these systems in
our lab,” he said. “We quickly got on the phone and ordered some of these
kits.”
The DHMC-CGHT lab went live with the new system on March 23.
It can handle up to 94 samples per run, said Lefferts, and with two instruments
running from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., “there’s a potential to do as many as 10 runs
per day.”
This was the system they used to help New Hampshire’s Public
Health Lab with its backlog. “It was unbelievable to see that our backlog could
be really wiped out,” said Bean.
Challenges for Medical Labs
Gearing up for testing in a public health emergency poses
many challenges, Lefferts advised. “You need to look at what instrumentation
you have in your laboratory, what the experience level of your lab team is, how
much space you have, your expected batch size, and your needed turnaround
time.”
The two labs also had to deal with regulatory uncertainty. “This EUA process is something for which we don’t have much experience,” he said. “Trying to juggle CLIA, CAP, the FDA, and possibly state regulations is a bit challenging. You definitely need to do your research and talk to other clinical laboratories that are doing this testing to get advice.”
Lefferts explained that the most significant challenges to
develop and validate a molecular assay for COVID-19 included:
Availability of validation materials.
Obtaining “positive [viral] samples may be a challenge, depending on where you
are and what you have access to,” said Lefferts. However, he credits the FDA
for being “very proactive” in suggesting alternative sources for “viral isolates or genomic RNA that’s been
extracted from some of these viral isolates.”
Availability of collection kits. “We can
do a lot more testing now,” he said, but one bottleneck is the limited
availability of supplies such as nasopharyngeal swabs
and viral transport media. “We’re looking at alternative collection options,”
he said, such as 3D-printed swabs or even Q-tips [household cotton swabs], though
“hopefully it won’t come to that.” The DHMC-CGHT lab also considered producing its
own transport media.
Turnaround times. “Our lab wants to get
those results out as soon as possible,” Lefferts said. “So, we’re looking at
alternative methods to get that testing out sooner.” For example, “do we just
do the SARS-CoV-2 testing on a patient, or do we need to do other influenza and other viral
pathogens,” while also keeping up with other routine testing during the
pandemic?
Staffing issues. “Fatigue is a big issue
with members of our labs who put in lots of extra hours,” he said. The
DHMC-CGHT lab has developed contingency plans in case lab personnel get sick.
This critical information will be highly useful for
Laboratory Directors and Managers, Laboratory Supervisors and Team Leaders,
Integrated Health System Leaders, Hospital Group Leaders, Physicians and
Physician Group Leaders, Phlebotomy Managers, Courier and Logistics Managers,
and Safety and Compliance Managers.
Savvy medical laboratory managers conduct internal audits of processes involved in deficiency citations so they can uncover how deficiencies occur and help eliminate recurrences
One trend that places clinical laboratories at risk involves increased regulation of lab processes, along with more thorough accreditation inspections. Compared to past years, both developments mean more ways for lab assessors to find greater numbers of deficiencies.
However, leading laboratory accreditation and quality improvement experts say that many deficiencies could be avoided if lab leaders conducted their own internal audits and continuous quality improvement projects ahead of visits by accrediting authorities.
In an exclusive interview with Dark Daily, Randall Querry, Director of Government Relations at the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) said, “Clinical laboratories can do a better job of preparing for the external assessment by doing an internal audit. That is, watching personnel perform tests and noting if they aren’t following the same sequences that standard operating procedures address before the external assessors arrive.”
“This doesn’t have to be an ‘us against them’ exercise. We are
all in this together for continual improvement and to ensure we’re doing a
better job at the end of each day—that we have had a win,” said Querry
said.
How Should Clinical Laboratories Conduct Internal Audits?
So, what is the best method for clinical laboratory leaders to
conduct their own audits of operations and avoid citations of deficiencies?
Lucia Berte, President of Laboratories Made Better, suggested medical laboratories should “Pick a sequence and follow it through.” In the Dark Daily interview, she suggested labs should focus on:
The sequence of receiving samples in the
laboratory to make certain they are properly accessioned, processed, and
distributed;
Steps to setting up and running an analyzer; and
The process of ensuring tests’ critical values
are reported to ordering clinicians and how reports are made.
An internal audit may suggest areas where the clinical lab
is not on target to meet regulatory and accreditation criteria. Or, the lab may
discover what Querry calls “gray areas”—places where criteria are currently
being met, but a trend suggests there could be problems down the road.
“And in those cases, it’s always good to identify areas of
improvement for preventative action. They may not be a top priority—such as a
deficiency—but the areas are on the radar screen as something to address to prevent
it becoming a worsening problem,” Querry said.
Quality Improvement Processes to Address Deficiencies
Berte notes that citations in one area of the lab may
suggest the need for continuous improvement projects across all laboratory
departments or sections. For example, an accrediting body may cite chemistry
for a deficiency while hematology and other departments do okay. However, that
determination can be deceiving.
“There is always an underlying process. And the better
question for the clinical laboratory is ‘can we make an improvement project out
of this that can solve this problem not only for the area where it was cited,
but perhaps prevent this problem from occurring in other lab [departments]
prior to the next external accreditation assessments?’” Berte said.
Lack of Uniformity among a Clinical Laboratory’s
Departments
Berte says a common deficiency is “lack of a uniform
competency assessment program” for staff throughout the lab. Assessors expect
laboratory departments to have the same competency assessment in regard to
processes, records, and the way documents are created, she explained.
Lucia Berte (above), President of Laboratories Made Better, advises improving quality of documents as a project across the entire lab. “We still have a lot of silo-mentality in labs—where chemistry is different from hematology which is different from transfusion. Labs should have a uniform approach to the way their documents are written, and this is not necessarily the case,” she told Dark Daily. (Photo copyright: Whitehat Communications.)
Competency-related Citations
Berte also said competency-related citations may happen when
documents read by auditors are not in sync with what the officials see in the clinical
lab during inspections. “People not doing things in the order in which things
have to happen. That’s the disconnect.”
Querry, speaking from the perspective of an assessor, adds,
“We see a discrepancy and ask—do they have the appropriate work procedures with
them at the workstation? Is it accessible? Where is this discrepancy? We
identify it and then it’s up to the lab to address it—in training, and between
the written procedure and the process.”
Consistency, he says, is important especially in
organizations where staff rotate among lab areas and different shifts.
Quality System Essentials for Clinical Laboratories
The website for the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLIA) states that implementing a quality management system in the lab involves use of “quality system essentials (QSEs).” QSEs are key to lab workflow, communication, and training. They include documents and records management, assessments, and continual improvement.
Querry emphasizes that trying to predict what the hot citations may be in 2020 is not as important as focusing on the technical competence of the lab and its resources.
“We are not out to play gotcha. We are going in there, looking
at all the systems, and doing a sampling of testing in various departments of
the lab. It’s up to the lab to show us it is technically competent to perform
those tests. And they have the equipment and records that the equipment has
been checked and calibrated and maintained. We have an examination process,” he
said.
Experts agree, clinical laboratories that prepare for
external assessments with internal audits and continuous improvement programs
may reduce deficiencies during inspections.
At The Dark Report’s annual Lab Quality Confab for clinical laboratory administrators, managers, and quality team members, experts outline how disruption in healthcare requires labs to improve processes and cut costs
This is an opportunity for clinical laboratory directors,
pathologists, and other lab professionals, to comment on the proposed revisions
to CLIA before or during the upcoming CLIAC meeting on Nov. 6.
The agenda for the meeting is posted on the CDC’s website.
Public to be Heard on CLIA Regulations
“For the first time in its 26-year history, the council has
called for three workgroups to address how to revise CLIA,” Salerno said. The
workgroups will address these topics:
“It’s a dramatic step for the government to ask the
laboratory community how to revise the CLIA regulations,” Salerno commented.
Chartered in 1992, the advisory council meets twice a year, once in April and
once in November.
In the coming weeks, Dark Daily will publish more
information on how clinical laboratory professionals can comment on the
important issue of CLIA revisions.
Digital slides from Salerno’s keynote address are posted on LQC’s presentations website.
Clinical Laboratory Testing is Increasing in Value,
Keynote Speaker Says
As a service to clinical laboratories, Salerno outlined many
of the services the CDC’s Division of Laboratory Systems provides for free to
clinical labs, including information on such topics as:
During his remarks at the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab in Atlanta, Salerno had good news for the clinical laboratory professionals in attendance. He said that lab testing was becoming a more valued commodity in healthcare because physicians and other providers were growing increasingly confident in lab test results. [Photo copyright: The Dark Report.]
Healthcare System Disruption Impacts Providers, Including
Clinical Laboratories
Other keynote speakers addressed how disruption in the US
healthcare systems affects provider organizations in significant ways. For
clinical laboratories, such disruption has resulted in reduced payment and
demands for quality improvement and shorter turnaround times.
For all these reasons, quality
management systems may be every clinical laboratory’s best strategy to
survive and thrive, the keynote speakers said.
The first keynoter was Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of The Dark Report. Michel’s remarks focused on how price cuts from Medicare, Medicaid, private payers, and the drive for value-based payment, are requiring labs to do more with less. For this reason, quality management systems are necessary for all labs seeking to improve results, eliminate errors, and cut costs, he said.
“The people closest to the work know how to fix these
problems,” he added. “That’s why labs know they must train their staff to
identify problems and then report them up the chain so they can be fixed,”
Michel commented. “Labs that are best at listening to their employees are
getting very good at identifying problems by measuring results and monitoring
and reporting on their own performance.”
Michel identified three principle factors that are
disrupting healthcare:
The shift from reactive care in which the health system cares for sick patients to proactive care in which the health system aims to keep patients healthy and out of the hospital and other costly sites of care.
The transition away from fee-for-service payment that encourages providers to do more for patients, whether more care is needed or not, to value-based payment that aims to reward providers for keeping patients healthy.
The consolidation among hospitals, health systems, physicians, and other providers. A trend that requires clinical laboratories to find new partners and new ways to improve lab services and reduce costs.
Informatics Performance Data Help Clinical Laboratories
Respond to Change
“The attributes of new and successful labs are that they will have faster workflow and shorter cycle times for clinical lab tests and anatomic pathology specimen results,” Michel explained. “That means that labs will attack non-value-added processes by implementing continuous improvement strategies [such as Lean and Six Sigma] and by the sophisticated use of informatics.”
Making use of performance data enables clinical laboratory
directors to make changes in response to disruptions that affect healthcare.
“If you have good informatics, then seven or eight of every 10 decisions you
make will be good decisions, and with the other two and three decisions, you’ll
have time to pull back and adjust,” Michel commented.
The second keynote speaker, Jeremy Schubert, MBA, MPH, Division Vice President of Abbott, reiterated what Michel said about how the health system is moving away from fee-for-service payment. Instead of focusing on caring for sick patients exclusively, he said, health insurers are paying all healthcare providers to keep patients healthy.
“Healthcare today is about the whole life course of the
individual,” Schubert explained. “Patients no longer want healthcare only when
they’re sick. Instead, they want to be healthy. And health creation is not just
about a person’s physical health. It’s about their mental health, their
emotional health, and their social wellbeing.
“In fact,” he continued, “you can learn more about a
person’s health from their Zip code than from their genetic code.”
That is essentially what TriCore Reference Laboratories (TriCore) has been doing in New Mexico, Schubert added. During his presentation, Michel mentioned TriCore as being one of four clinical laboratories participating in Project Santa Fe, a non-profit organization that promotes the movement from Clinical Lab 1.0 to Clinical Lab 2.0. (See “TriCore Forges Ahead to Help Payers Manage Population Health,” The Dark Report, May 20, 2019.)
“If you want to be a quality engine in healthcare you have
to be operating at Lab 2.0. Who is best qualified to interpret information?
It’s the lab,” Schubert said. Then he challenged labs to begin pursuing the
goal of achieving Lab 3.0, saying “Lab 3.0 is being able to interface with the
patient to address each patient’s problems.”
The 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab (LQC) in Atlanta continues through the 17th with post-event workshops in Six Sigma and mastering quality management systems. In attendance are 300 clinical laboratory administrators, managers, and quality team members who are learning a complete array of professional training methods.
To register to attend, click here or enter https://www.labqualityconfab.com/register into your browser, or call 707-829-9485, or e-mail lqcreg@amcnetwork.com.
If direct-to-consumer testing continues to attract healthcare consumers and financial investors, medical laboratories could have a new source of revenue
Many have tried but few have found the right formula to
offer medical laboratory tests directly to consumers. Direct-to-consumer lab
testing as a robust business model has been an elusive goal. But now one
entrepreneur wants to crack this market and just attracted $50 million in
venture capital to fund her idea!
Outsiders often establish industries. This was the case when Jeff Bezos created Amazon in 1994. The online retailer transformed the way books were sold and, subsequently, established a massive new retail market.
Along the same lines, Julia Taylor Cheek, Founder and CEO of EverlyWell, a well-financed digital health company based in Austin—hopes to build a similarly disruptive business in the clinical laboratory industry.
Cheek is increasing her company’s outreach to consumers by
putting some of the company’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) medical tests on store
shelves at CVS and Target.
A former consultant and Harvard Business School graduate, Cheek raised $50 million in financing to expand EverlyWell’s digital platform. According to a news release, “Just two full years into operation, EverlyWell is reporting 300% year-over-year customer growth and a world-class consumer Net Promoter Score (NPS).”
“I think it’s a representation of sexism in our space. There are 15 other companies that have popped up in blood testing and you don’t hear anyone comparing Theranos to those male-founded startups,” she told Inc.
However, Dark Daily believes Cheek may be missing one
basis for the comparison with Elizabeth Holmes. Holmes intended for Theranos to
serve consumers with lab testing, and let consumers order and purchase their
own medical laboratory tests. Cheek is talking about the same primary business
strategy of letting consumers purchase their own lab tests.
Armed with this additional financing from investors, EverlyWell intends to expand services and develop new partnerships with retail pharmacy chain CVS Health (NYSE:CVS) and for-profit insurance company Humana (NYSE:HUM).
The news release notes, “The company has also expanded its
product line to offer 35 panels, including first-to-market tests in fertility,
vitamins, peri- and post-menopause, and high-risk HPV. In addition, EverlyWell
has launched an end-to-end care model for consumers, now offering an
independent physician consult and prescription, if appropriate, for select STDs
and Lyme Disease testing. All of this is included in an upfront price before
purchase.”
EverlyWell Intent on
Bringing Medical Laboratory Tests to Retail
Earlier this year, EverlyWell made nine lab tests available in more than 1,600 Target store locations, MedCity News reported. This may suggest that retailers are intrigued with direct-to-consumer lab testing.
“We didn’t create new tests or technologies. Instead, we’ve built technology that empowers people to get tests more easily. Our medical director works with the labs to create panels that are already validated and clinically relevant and understandable for consumers,” Julia Taylor Cheek (above), Founder and CEO of EverlyWell told Forbes. (Photo copyright: Arnold Wells/Austin Business Journal.)
Cheek reportedly established EverlyWell after becoming
disenchanted with medical laboratory tests that she felt were not well
explained and too costly under high-deductible health plans.
Just two years on, EverlyWell reports “hundreds of thousands of customers and tens of millions in sales.” The company plans to add additional staff on top of its existing 70 employees in anticipation of the new funding, Austin Business Journal reports.
“We are building a consumer brand, which means we have to be where people shop. We need to be in places like CVS and Target to really allow for broader distribution and name recognition,” Cheek told the Austin American-Statesman.
What Draws People to EverlyWell?
EverlyWell offers home health test kits, priced from $49 to
$400 that people can order without a doctor’s prescription and pay for online. Users
take their samples (saliva, urine, or a pinprick of blood) with provided
lancets and cotton swabs, MedCity News
reported.
EverlyWell’s top selling tests are:
Food sensitivity-$159;
Thyroid function-$159;
Metabolism-$89; and
Vitamin D deficiency-$99.
EverlyWell says it is “first” in direct-to-consumer tests
for:
EverlyWell Test kits come with registration information, instructions, collection tools;
Biological samples are sent by consumers to CLIA (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments)-certified labs that partner with EverlyWell;
Results are generally completed within 10 days depending on type of test and business volume;
A physician reviews the test results;
Reports on test results are electronically accessible through smartphone apps and online web dashboards.
“Lab testing is arguably one of the most important steps in preventing and managing illness but has been largely ignored by digital health companies. EverlyWell is successfully navigating an entrenched industry to offer consumers an opportunity to take charge of their own health,” said Eric Kim, Managing Partner at Goodwater Capital (which led the financing), in the news release.
“We’re building the definitive technology-enabled healthcare platform that consumers deserve and have already come to expect in other areas of their lives,” Cheek told VentureBeat. “As high-deductible plans become the norm, consumers are becoming discerning buyers who look for seamless, digitally enabled experiences.”
Learning from
EverlyWell
Of course, pathologists and medical laboratory professionals
will watch to see if EverlyWell can sustain its rapid rise in popularity with
healthcare consumers. In particular, those consumers who prefer DTC testing
over traditional clinical laboratory visits and who may be on high-deductible
health plans.
The DTC test market represents an opportunity that most
clinical laboratories have yet to take seriously. There are many reasons why
medical lab managers and pathologists would be taking a “wait and see”
attitude. Meanwhile, EverlyWell has $50 million of investors’ money to use to
demonstrate the financial viability of its strategy to encourage consumers to purchase
their own clinical laboratory tests—and even collect their own specimens at
home!
