A new KFF poll shows Americans’ trust in the CDC has dropped to its lowest point since COVID-19, creating an opportunity for clinical laboratories to become trusted local voices in public health.
An article from CIDRAP recently reported that public trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has fallen to its lowest level since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a KFF poll. The decline comes amid renewed misinformation about vaccines and autism and reflects growing skepticism toward the agency from both sides of the political spectrum.
The survey, conducted September 23–29 among more than 1,300 adults, found that only 18% of respondents have “a great deal” of trust in the CDC to provide reliable vaccine information, and 32% have “a fair amount.” That means just half of Americans have at least some trust in the CDC—down from 63% in 2023 and 57% as recently as mid-2025.
The findings followed remarks by President Donald Trump linking acetaminophen use in pregnancy to autism and calling for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to be split into three separate shots, claims that lack scientific evidence.
The erosion of trust, however, extends beyond political statements. While conservatives have long viewed the CDC with suspicion over perceived government overreach during COVID-19, many liberals now express frustration with what they see as inconsistency and political influence within the agency.
Higher Trust in Professional Medical Organizations
Interestingly, trust remains higher in professional medical organizations. Sixty-nine percent of parents polled said they trust the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 64% said they trust the American Medical Association.
“It’s encouraging, if far from ideal, that as trust in our nation’s scientific agencies crumbles, the public does trust the professional associations who have stepped forward,” said KFF president and CEO Drew Altman, PhD, in the organization’s press release. (Photo credit: KFF)
Support for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his “Make America Health Again” (MAHA) movement was also low, with 62% disapproving of his handling of vaccine policy and 59% disapproving of his overall job performance.
What Labs Can Do
Amid this erosion of trust in federal health leadership, local clinical and public health laboratories may be poised to fill an emerging gap. Because labs are often the first to detect spikes in testing volume or positive results, they have a front-line view of disease trends—sometimes days or weeks before such patterns are visible nationally. If skepticism toward the CDC continues to grow, local labs could play an increasingly vital role in identifying and communicating outbreaks, especially during flu season or in the event of a new respiratory virus surge.
Beyond surveillance, labs can also help rebuild confidence in science by engaging their communities directly. Educational outreach, transparent data sharing, and collaboration with local healthcare providers can position laboratories as trusted sources of public health information, at a time when trust in national institutions is faltering.
As the CDC works to rebuild its credibility, laboratories across the country have a unique opportunity to step into the information void by translating data into understanding, and helping restore the link between diagnostics, public awareness, and trust in science.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
Drug-resistant infections are outpacing treatments, and WHO says laboratory leaders are vital to protecting antibiotic effectiveness.
For laboratory leaders, the latest WHO report on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) underscores just how critical diagnostic testing, data accuracy, and surveillance capacity have become in the global fight against drug-resistant infections. With one in six bacterial infections now resistant to antibiotics, labs stand on the front lines. They are responsible not only for detecting resistant strains but also for generating the data that informs national and international response strategies.
According to a press release, the “Global antibiotic resistance surveillance report 2025”warns that between 2018 and 2023, “antibiotic resistance rose in over 40% of the pathogen-antibiotic combinations monitored,” with “an average annual increase of 5–15%.”
Data from over 100 countries reported to the WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) show that growing resistance to essential antibiotics “poses a growing threat to global health.” For the first time, the report presents “resistance prevalence estimates across 22 antibiotics used to treat infections of the urinary and gastrointestinal tracts, the bloodstream and those used to treat gonorrhea.” It examines eight common bacterial pathogens—Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, non-typhoidal Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, and Streptococcus pneumoniae—each linked to these major infections.
Resistance Highest in South-East Asia and Eastern Mediterranean
WHO found that the “risk of antibiotic resistance varies across the world.” The highest resistance levels are in the WHO South-East Asian and Eastern Mediterranean Regions, “where 1 in 3 reported infections were resistant.” In the African Region, “1 in 5 infections was resistant.”
According to the report, resistance “is also more common and worsening in places where health systems lack capacity to diagnose or treat bacterial pathogens.”
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, WHO director-general noted, “As countries strengthen their AMR surveillance systems, we must use antibiotics responsibly, and make sure everyone has access to the right medicines, quality-assured diagnostics, and vaccines. Our future also depends on strengthening systems to prevent, diagnose and treat infections and on innovating with next-generation antibiotics and rapid point-of-care molecular tests.” (Photo credit: WHO)
Gram-Negative Bacteria Present the Greatest Threat
The WHO report highlights that drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are becoming increasingly dangerous worldwide, with the heaviest impact seen in countries least equipped to manage the threat. Among these pathogens, E. coli and K. pneumoniae remain the most common causes of drug-resistant bloodstream infections—serious conditions that can lead to sepsis, organ failure, and death.
Globally, resistance to third-generation cephalosporins—the standard treatment for these infections—has climbed above 40% for E. coli and 55% for K. pneumoniae, and in parts of Africa, it exceeds 70%. Other essential antibiotics, including carbapenems and fluoroquinolones, are also losing effectiveness against E. coli, K. pneumoniae, Salmonella, and Acinetobacter. Once rare, carbapenem resistance is now emerging more frequently, reducing available treatment options and forcing reliance on last-resort antibiotics that are expensive, difficult to obtain, and often unavailable in low- and middle-income countries.
Progress in Surveillance but Major Gaps Remain
Despite these concerning trends, the report noted progress in global surveillance.
“Country participation in GLASS has increased over four-fold, from 25 countries in 2016 to 104 countries in 2023.” However, challenges persist: “48% of countries did not report data to GLASS in 2023,” and “about half of the reporting countries still lacked the systems to generate reliable data.” Many nations facing the highest burden of resistance “lacked the surveillance capacity to assess their antimicrobial resistance (AMR) situation.”
The report links its findings to the “political declaration on AMR adopted at the United Nations General Assembly in 2024,” which set global targets for combating antimicrobial resistance.
The declaration emphasizes strengthening health systems and working with a ‘One Health’ approach coordinating across human health, animal health, and environmental sectors.
WHO is calling on countries to strengthen laboratory systems and build reliable surveillance networks, particularly in underserved regions, to better guide treatment decisions and public health policies. The organization has set a goal for all nations to submit high-quality data on antimicrobial resistance and antibiotic use to the GLASS platform by 2030. Achieving this target will require coordinated efforts to improve data quality, expand geographic coverage, and enhance information sharing. WHO also encourages countries to implement comprehensive strategies to address antimicrobial resistance across all levels of healthcare and to ensure that treatment guidelines and essential medicines lists reflect local resistance trends.
The report is accompanied by expanded digital content available in the WHO’s GLASS dashboard, offering global and regional summaries, country profiles based on unadjusted surveillance coverage and AMR data, and detailed information on antimicrobial use.
With resistance trends worsening across regions, laboratory leaders are pivotal to turning the tide on AMR. Expanding diagnostic capabilities, improving data quality, and sharing timely resistance information will be key to shaping effective treatment guidelines and national policies. By advancing surveillance and stewardship from within the lab, clinical professionals can help preserve the power of antibiotics for future generations.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
With the government shutdown now stretching beyond two weeks, clinical laboratory leaders are beginning to feel the pinch. Experts warn that delays in Medicare payments could soon create cash-flow crunches and backlog claims well into November.
As the federal government shutdown stretches into its third week, laboratory leaders are warning of mounting financial pressure and potential payment delays that could disrupt operations and strain cash flow.
While clinical laboratories can continue to submit Medicare and Medicaid claims, the timing of reimbursements could soon become unpredictable. According to William Baus, a laboratory revenue cycle expert, who shared a visual on LinkedIn, “a government shutdown doesn’t stop you from submitting claims—but it can affect when you get paid.”
In his Oct. 11 post, Baus outlined the timeline of expected payment impacts. If the shutdown lasts fewer than 14 days (at the time this piece was written, the government shutdown entered its 17th day), Medicare reimbursements would have remained unaffected, since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) typically maintains a 14-day payment floor. But if the shutdown continues beyond that window (which it now has), the system begins to back up quickly.
For a 20-day shutdown, for instance, “payments are delayed about five business days,” Baus noted. Claims submitted October 1 would not pay out until October 21, creating a rolling backlog into November. “Bottom line,” he wrote, “a short shutdown = no impact. A longer shutdown = temporary cash-flow crunch.”
For independent laboratories and pathology groups, especially those with thin operating margins, these delays could create significant short-term liquidity challenges. Many smaller or privately owned labs depend on steady reimbursement cycles to cover payroll, reagents, and lease expenses. Even a week-long delay in large Medicare payments can tighten available cash.
Hospital and health-system labs may have more flexibility, but even they face potential ripple effects if system-wide financial operations slow down or if supply purchases and contractor payments need to be deferred.
Medicaid and ACA Impacts
Ann Lambrix, vice president of revenue cycle management at Lighthouse Lab Services, echoed those concerns in a LinkedIn post of her own, warning that providers should brace for payment delays as the shutdown continues. “Healthcare providers should prepare for potential delays in claim processing and payments from Medicare,” Lambrix wrote. She noted that while “Medicaid [is] funded through Q1 of next year,” proposed cuts to enhanced subsidies “may threaten ACA coverage for individuals choosing to obtain health insurance through marketplace plans.” Lambrix thanked William Baus for his visual summary of the shutdown’s financial ripple effects, underscoring how even temporary disruptions in federal operations can upend reimbursement timelines across the healthcare sector.
Operational Preparedness
Lab leaders should prepare contingency plans, including:
Closely monitoring accounts receivable aging reports for delayed remittances.
Reviewing cash reserves and establishing short-term credit options if needed.
Communicating with vendors and staff about possible timing issues.
Staying in contact with billing vendors and clearinghouses to track any system backlogs.
“Claims can still be submitted and processed electronically,” Baus emphasized, “but the payment cycle may slip depending on how long the shutdown lasts.”
The Takeaway
In the short term, laboratories should brace for administrative slowdowns rather than outright denials. Yet as the shutdown continues, payment backlogs could cascade, especially for labs heavily reliant on Medicare revenue.
For now, experts recommend vigilance, conservative spending, and clear communication with financial teams. As the shutdown persists, even well-run labs could feel the pinch of delayed federal payments before November begins.
Federal investigations into UnitedHealth’s Medicare billing could impact clinical labs and reshape diagnostic workflows.
The intensifying federal investigation into UnitedHealth Group’s Medicare Advantage billing practices is making headlines in both major outlets and industry-specific trade publications. Clinical laboratories have the potential to soon feel the effects. As questions grow around how the insurance giant gathers and codes medical diagnoses, labs that play a role in confirming those diagnoses could see heightened regulatory oversight, increased documentation requirements, and a more complex reimbursement landscape.
According to an article from The Associated Press, on July 24, UnitedHealth Group, the largest U.S. provider of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, revealed in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing that it is now cooperating with both criminal and civil investigations by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The probes are centered on allegations that the company inflated patient diagnoses in order to receive larger payments from the federal government. These investigations, which were first surfaced in reports by The Wall Street Journal earlier this year, are now confirmed.
UnitedHealth Comments on Investigation
UnitedHealth said it initiated contact with the DOJ after the reports came to light and is already responding to information requests. The company also announced it has launched a third-party review of its business policies and performance metrics, which is expected to conclude by the end of the third quarter, according to comments made to CNBC.
“UnitedHealth has full confidence in its practices and is committed to working cooperatively with the Department throughout this process,” the company stated in its filing.
The DOJ’s criminal investigation reportedly includes interviews with doctors about whether they were pressured to submit claims for certain diagnoses that would lead to higher MA payments. A civil inquiry into the company’s billing practices has been underway since February. Both investigations center around suspicions that UnitedHealth used retrospective chart reviews and in-home health assessments—often carried out by clinicians contracted through its Optum unit—to bolster patient risk scores and inflate payments from Medicare.
What this Might Mean for Clinical Labs
Clinical laboratories may be affected, as lab-generated diagnostic data is frequently used to support or validate the conditions coded for reimbursement. If regulators demand greater transparency or auditing of how diagnostic data is linked to MA billing, labs could face increased scrutiny on test utilization, data accuracy, and coding practices.
CNBC reported that UnitedHealth has pushed back against some of the scrutiny. The company noted that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) audits have found its practices to be “among the most accurate in the industry.” It also cited a special master’s recommendation in March in an ongoing legal case stemming from a whistleblower complaint that accused the company of withholding $2 billion in Medicare payments. In that case, the special master concluded that the DOJ had insufficient evidence to proceed.
As for the timing of the DOJ confirmation, UnitedHealth has had a challenging year. The company has endured stock volatility, leadership upheaval, and broader reputational risks. In May, CEO Andrew Witty abruptly resigned, and earlier in the year, the firm dealt with the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. UnitedHealth is also still recovering from a massive cyberattack that disrupted operations across its network.
“This all sounds logical as it moves forward with a new CEO,” wrote Jared Holz, healthcare strategist at Mizuho Securities, in a note to clients July 24, while noting that UnitedHealth had previously denied being under federal investigation.
Jared Holz, Mizuho healthcare sector strategist, said UnitedHealth’s choice to acknowledge the probes and cooperate with the department “all sounds logical as it moves forward with a new CEO.”
The Medicare and Retirement division, which includes the Medicare Advantage business, brought in $139 billion in revenue last year, making it UnitedHealth Group’s largest segment. But medical costs have surged, particularly among new MA enrollees. UnitedHealth suspended its 2025 forecast and withdrew guidance altogether in May due to financial uncertainty.
For clinical labs, payers, and providers, the situation underscores a growing federal focus on Medicare Advantage oversight, potentially reshaping not only billing practices but also the data and diagnostics behind them.
Pathologists might be able to help overburdened doctors by adding medical laboratory support services that assist providers in selecting the right tests and identifying the best therapeutic options for patients
In a new Stanford University School of Medicine study published in the July 9, 2018, issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, researchers indicate that physician burnout may be as big a cause of medical errors as unsafe healthcare environments. This highlights an opportunity for clinical laboratory professionals and pathologists to help physicians improve both diagnostic accuracy and the selection of the most appropriate therapies.
The study found that exhausted providers were twice as likely to report making a medical error. However, it’s a complex problem with no easy solutions.
“Just trying to fix the setting of healthcare environments in order to prevent errors is not sufficient,” Stanford University’s Daniel Tawfik, MD, MS, the study’s lead author, told Reuters Health. “We also need to address the actual underlying human factors that contribute to errors—specifically looking at physician burnout.”
Nevertheless, while there is no one-size-fits-all solution to physician burnout, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists potentially could help overburdened providers reduce burnout and fatigue by adopting new lab testing support services designed to assist physicians in selecting the right tests and identifying the best therapeutic options for their patients.
Medical Errors Third-Leading Cause of Death in America
Stanford researchers wanted to learn how physician burnout contributes to medical errors which, according to Johns Hopkins, is the third-leading cause of death in the US. They surveyed 6,695 physicians from across America. Of the respondents:
More than 54% reported symptoms of burnout;
33% experienced excessive fatigue;
Nearly 7% had thoughts of suicide; and,
Roughly 4% reported a failing safety grade in their primary work area.
Even in medical units judged to have excellent safety records, the study found rates of medical errors nearly tripled when physicians working in those units had high levels of burnout. The prevalence of errors became similar to a non-burned-out physician working in a unit with a safety grade of “acceptable” or “poor.”
“We found that physicians with burnout had more than twice the odds of self-reported medical error, after adjusting for specialty, work hours, fatigue, and work unit safety rating,” Tawfik noted in a Stanford news release. “We also found that low safety grades in work units were associated with three to four times the odds of medical errors.”
According to the study, overall, 10.5% of physicians surveyed acknowledged in the prior three months making:
An error in judgment;
A wrong diagnosis;
A technical mistake during a procedure;
Prescribing a wrong drug/dosage; and/or,
Ordering medication/intervention for the wrong patient.
While more than half of mistakes (55.4%) did not affect patient outcomes, or only caused a temporary problem (22.6%), more than 5% of errors did lead to major permanent health problems and 4.5% resulted in a patient death, the study found.
Radiologists, neurosurgeons, and emergency medicine specialists had the highest prevalence of error rates, with more than 21% of providers in each of those fields acknowledging recent mistakes.
Physicians reporting errors were more likely to have symptoms of overall burnout (77.6% versus 51.5%), as well as fatigue (46.6% versus 31.2%), than error-free providers. Physicians reporting recent errors also had a higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts (12.7% versus 5.8%), the study found.
Ted Hole, MD, a family practice physician in Ventura, Calif., is not surprised by the correlation between medical mistakes and overall well-being. “If your brain isn’t working right, you’re going to make errors,” Hole told the Ventura County Star. “That’s what burnout does. It makes your brain not work right.”
Stanford Connects Physician Burnout and Poor Workspace Safety Ratings
In their paper, the Stanford researchers argue a “combination of physician-targeted burnout interventions and unit-targeted patient improvement measures” are needed to tackle the problem of medical errors. Physicians who gave their work units an excellent, very good, or acceptable safety grade were less likely to make a medical error than those who described workplace safety as poor or failing.
Of the physicians who reported a poor or failing work unit safety grade, nearly 25% reported a recent error. Errors were incrementally lower for work units with higher safety grades regardless of physician burnout levels.
“This indicates both the burnout level as well as work unit safety characteristics are independently related to the risk of errors,” Tait Shanafelt, MD, Director of the Stanford WellMD Center and Associate Dean of the School of Medicine, noted in a Stanford statement.
“Today, most organizations invest substantial resources and have a system-level approach to improve safety on every work unit,” he said in the Stanford news release. “We need a holistic and systems-based approach to address the epidemic of burnout among healthcare providers if we are truly going to create the high-quality healthcare system we aspire to.”
Tait Shanafelt, MD (above), is Director of the Stanford WellMD Center, Associate Dean of the School of Medicine, and an author of the Stanford study. He maintains the “epidemic of burnout” among healthcare providers should receive as much attention as safety issues. Shanafelt became Stanford Medicine’s first Chief Wellness Officer in 2017. (Photo copyright: Stanford School of Medicine.)
Burnout Among Physicians Increasing
Other studies, including Medscape’s “Lifestyle Report 2017: Race and Ethnicity, Bias and Burnout,” confirm an upward trend in burnout rates among US physicians. In the Medscape study, 51% of physicians surveyed reporting being “burned out,” defined as a loss of enthusiasm for work, feelings of cynicism, and a low sense of personal accomplishment. Since the Medscape Lifestyle Report first queried physicians about burnout in 2013, the number of providers reporting burnout has increased 25%.
Physician burnout has been attributed to a variety of factors, including:
Excessive workloads;
Financial stress;
Extra hours spent on clerical work or EHR-related tasks; and,
Loss of human-to-human interaction between physician and patient.
Robert Lum, MD, an Oxnard, Calif.-based radiation oncologist, blames the shift to corporate-owned medical practices for some of the reported increases in burnout among physicians. Lum told the Ventura County Star he stays upbeat by never losing sight of why he became a physician.
“If you focus on the reason you went into medicine in the first place, which is to help people and marvel at the miracles modern medicine is able to do, then you’ll have less burnout,” he said.
Nevertheless, other solutions also can help. Clinical laboratories play a key role in maximizing physician/patient encounters. By extension, physicians and laboratories are linked in unique ways that enable labs to reduce physician burden and ensure positive healthcare outcomes.
