The self-cleaning material has been proven to repel even the deadliest forms of antibiotic resistant (ABR) superbugs and viruses. This ultimate non-stick coating is a chemically treated form of transparent plastic wrap which can be adhered to surfaces prone to gathering germs, such as door handles, railings, and intravenous therapy (IV) stands.
“We developed the wrap to address the major threat that is posed by multi-drug resistant bacteria,” Leyla Soleymani, PhD, Associate Professor at McMaster University and one of the leaders of the study, told CNN. “Given the limited treatment options for these bugs, it is key to reduce their spread from one person to another.”
According to research published in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal, “KPC-producing bacteria are a group of emerging highly drug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli causing infections associated with significant morbidity and mortality.”
Were those surfaces covered in this new bacterial-resistant
coating, life-threatening infections in hospital ICUs could be prevented.
Taking Inspiration from Nature
In designing their new anti-microbial wrap, McMaster researchers took their inspiration from natural lotus leaves, which are effectively water-resistant and self-cleaning thanks to microscopic wrinkles that repel external molecules. Substances that come in contact with surfaces covered in the new non-stick coating—such as a water, blood, or germs—simply bounce off. They do not adhere to the material.
The “shrink-wrap” is flexible, durable, and inexpensive to
manufacture. And, the researchers hope to locate a commercial partner to
develop useful applications for their discovery.
“We’re structurally tuning that plastic,” Soleymani told SciTechDaily. “This material gives us something that can be applied to all kinds of things.”
In the video above, Leyla Soleymani, PhD, Associate Professor at McMaster University, explains how “The new plastic surface—a treated form of conventional transparent wrap—can be shrink-wrapped onto door handles, railings, IV stands, and other surfaces that can be magnets for bacteria such as MRSA and C. difficile. This may be technology that has great value to clinical laboratories and microbiology laboratories. Click here to watch the video. (Image and video copyright: McMaster University/YouTube.)
Industries Outside of Healthcare Also Would Benefit
According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 2.8 million people get an antibiotic-resistant infection in the US each year. More than 35,000 people die from these infections, making it one of the biggest health challenges of our time and a threat that needs to be eradicated. This innovative plastic coating could help alleviate these types of infections.
And it’s not just for healthcare. The researchers said the coating could be beneficial to the food industry as well. The plastic surface could help curtail the accidental transfer of bacteria, such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria in food preparation and packaging, according to the published study.
“We can see this technology being used in all kinds of institutional and domestic settings,” Tohid Didar, PhD, Assistant Professor at McMaster University and co-author of the study, told SciTechDaily. “As the world confronts the crisis of anti-microbial resistance, we hope it will become an important part of the anti-bacterial toolbox.”
Clinical laboratories also are tasked with preventing the
transference of dangerous bacteria to patients and lab personnel. Constant
diligence in application of cleaning protocols is key. If this new anti-bacterial
shrink wrap becomes widely available, medical laboratory managers and
microbiologists will have a new tool to fight bacterial contamination.
Thus, clinical laboratory leaders must constantly be on
guard against being drawn into potentially fraudulent activities. For example,
schemes involving substance-use
disorder (SUD), which are the latest healthcare-related scams to draw the
attention of the DOJ.
Lack of Oversight in Substance-Use Disorder (SUD) Leads
to Fraud
According to four experts who co-authored a blog post in Health
Affairs, America’s opioid epidemic has affected more than 20 million
lives and become a “hot spot” for healthcare fraud.
“Substance-use disorder (SUD) treatment was a $9 billion per year industry in 1986 and is now a $35 billion industry that is expected to reach $42 billion in 2020,” they wrote. Thus, it has given rise to escalating opioid-related scams by unethical clinical laboratories, healthcare providers, and recovery-house operators.
“While current regulations around SUD treatment aim to
protect patient safety instead of criminalize addiction treatment, they vary by
state—and in some states, patient protections are limited,” they explained.
“This lack of oversight invites deceptive business practices, insurance fraud,
patient neglect, and ultimately, treatment malpractice that can damage lives
and tear families apart.”
In December 2019, the US Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released its Semiannual
Report to Congress. The report details the $5.9 billion HHS recovered from
healthcare fraud investigations during fiscal year 2019, more than double the
amount of the prior year.
“Medicaid fraud is not a victimless crime,” US Attorney Michael Stuart (above) said in the DOJ press release. “In [the Acadia Healthcare] case, every dime in false billings was doubled for a total settlement that represents twice the harm caused. This is a strong message and a massive penalty. The message is clear—if you are cheating the system and we find you, you’ll not only pay for the damage done, but far more.” (Photo copyright: Wikipedia.)
The Health Affairs authors focused on the major
players in addiction treatment-related fraud that were highlighted in a 2018 Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report. They are:
SUD treatment providers who take advantage of
“gaps in regulations and quality assurance to offer substandard and fraudulent
care that endangers patients and wastes money.”
Unlicensed patient brokers who SUD providers pay
to transport addicts to them, often from hundreds of miles away.
Disreputable recovery house or “sober home”
operators who are subsidized financially by fraudulent SUD providers.
One example the GAO report outlined involved SUD providers in Florida who funded their illegal operations by billing patients’ insurance hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary drug testing over the course of several months.
“At the very moment that ethical healthcare providers are
working harder than ever to address the opioid crisis, unethical actors—such as
providers engaged in fraud—pose a growing problem,” the Health Affairs authors
stated.
Opioid Crisis Turns Urine Screening into ‘Liquid Gold’
Kaiser
Health News (KHN) reported that many doctors who prescribe
opioids began making drug screenings routine in their practices after being
persuaded that doing so would keep them in good standing with licensing boards
and law enforcement, while also reducing their liability and preventing patient
abuse of prescription pills.
In some instances, doctors opened their own clinical laboratories,
KHN stated.
KHN described the nation’s painkiller addiction as turning urine screening into “liquid gold,” particularly for doctors who operate their own clinical laboratories. In 2014 and 2015, Medicare paid $1 million or more for drug-related tests billed by healthcare workers at more than 50 pain management practices in the US, KHN reported.
“It was almost a license to steal. You had such a lucrative possibility, it was tempting to sell as many [tests] as you can,” Charles Root, PhD, Senior Consultant at consulting firm CodeMap, told KHN. CodeMap provides publications, tools, and services that help healthcare professionals navigate the federal Medicare program and has tracked the increase in medical testing laboratories in doctors’ offices, KHN noted.
The graphic above is built on data from CodeMap. It illustrates the “explosive” growth in certain urine tests to “detect and quantify a variety of drugs,” according to KHN. This has led some providers to open clinical laboratories in their offices to capture the increasing revenue generated by this testing. (Image copyright: Kaiser Health News.)
Federal officials have taken notice of physicians whose
priority is testing patients, not treating them. Jason Mehta, JD, who at
that time was Assistant US Attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., told KHN, “We’re
focused on the fact that many physicians are making more money on testing than
treating patients. It is troubling to see providers test everyone for every
class of drugs every time they come in.”
Clinical laboratories have an important role to play in
identifying fraud and solving the opioid epidemic. Not only are lab leaders ideally
positioned to help providers better understand drug test ordering and
interpretation, but also to help develop value-based interventions within the
continuum of care for this national health crisis.
Experts list the top challenges facing widespread adoption of proteomics in the medical laboratory industry
Year-by-year, clinical
laboratories find new ways to use mass spectrometry to
analyze clinical specimens, producing results that may be more precise than
test results produced by other methodologies. This is particularly true in the
field of proteomics.
However, though mass spectrometry is highly accurate and
fast, taking only minutes to convert a specimen into a result, it is not fully
automated and requires skilled technologists to operate the instruments.
Thus, although the science of proteomics is advancing
quickly, the average pathology laboratory isn’t likely to be using mass
spectrometry tools any time soon. Nevertheless, medical
laboratory scientists are keenly interested in adapting mass spectrometry
to medical lab test technology for a growing number of assays.
Molly Campbell, Science Writer and Editor in Genomics, Proteomics, Metabolomics, and Biopharma at Technology Networks, asked proteomics experts “what, in their opinion, are the greatest challenges currently existing in proteomics, and how can we look to overcome them?” Here’s a synopsis of their answers:
Lack of High Throughput Impacts Commercialization
Proteomics isn’t as efficient as it needs to be to be
adopted at the commercial level. It’s not as efficient as its cousin genomics. For it to become
sufficiently efficient, manufacturers must be involved.
John Yates
III, PhD, Professor, Department of Molecular Medicine at Scripps Research California
campus, told Technology
Networks, “One of the complaints from funding agencies is that you can
sequence literally thousands of genomes very quickly, but you can’t do the same
in proteomics. There’s a push to try to increase the throughput of proteomics
so that we are more compatible with genomics.”
For that to happen, Yates says manufacturers need to
continue advancing the technology. Much of the research is happening at
universities and in the academic realm. But with commercialization comes
standardization and quality control.
“It’s always exciting when you go to ASMS [the conference for the American Society
for Mass Spectrometry] to see what instruments or technologies are going to be
introduced by manufacturers,” Yates said.
There are signs that commercialization isn’t far off. SomaLogic, a privately-owned American protein
biomarker discovery and clinical diagnostics company located in Boulder, Colo.,
has reached the commercialization stage for a proteomics assay platform called SomaScan. “We’ll be
able to supplant, in some cases, expensive diagnostic modalities simply from a
blood test,” Roy
Smythe, MD, CEO of SomaLogic, told Techonomy.
The graphic above illustrates the progression mass spectrometry took during its development, starting with small proteins (left) to supramolecular complexes of intact virus particles (center) and bacteriophages (right). Because of these developments, today’s medical laboratories have more assays that utilize mass spectrometry. (Photo copyright: Technology Networks/Heck laboratory, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.)
Achieving the Necessary Technical Skillset
One of the main reasons mass spectrometry is not more widely
used is that it requires technical skill that not many professionals possess.
“For a long time, MS-based proteomic analyses were technically demanding at
various levels, including sample processing, separation science, MS and the
analysis of the spectra with respect to sequence, abundance and
modification-states of peptides and proteins and false discovery rate
(FDR) considerations,” Ruedi
Aebersold, PhD, Professor of Systems Biology at the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology (IMSB) at
ETH Zurich, told Technology
Networks.
Aebersold goes on to say that he thinks this specific
challenge is nearing resolution. He says that, by removing the problem created
by the need for technical skill, those who study proteomics will be able to
“more strongly focus on creating interesting new biological or clinical
research questions and experimental design.”
Yates agrees. In a paper titled, “Recent Technical Advances in
Proteomics,” published in F1000 Research, a peer-reviewed open research
publishing platform for scientists, scholars, and clinicians, he wrote, “Mass
spectrometry is one of the key technologies of proteomics, and over the last
decade important technical advances in mass spectrometry have driven an
increased capability of proteomic discovery. In addition, new methods to
capture important biological information have been developed to take advantage
of improving proteomic tools.”
No High-Profile Projects to Stimulate Interest
Genomics had the Human Genome Project
(HGP), which sparked public interest and attracted significant funding. One of
the big challenges facing proteomics is that there are no similarly big,
imagination-stimulating projects. The work is important and will result in
advances that will be well-received, however, the field itself is complex and difficult
to explain.
Emanuel
Petricoin, PhD, is a professor and co-director of the Center for Applied
Proteomics and Molecular Medicine at George
Mason University. He told Technology
Networks, “the field itself hasn’t yet identified or grabbed onto a
specific ‘moon-shot’ project. For example, there will be no equivalent to the
human genome project, the proteomics field just doesn’t have that.”
He added, “The equipment needs to be in the background and
what you are doing with it needs to be in the foreground, as is what happened
in the genomics space. If it’s just about the machinery, then proteomics will
always be a ‘poor step-child’ to genomics.”
Democratizing Proteomics
Alexander
Makarov, PhD, is Director of Research in Life Sciences Mass Spectrometry
(MS) at Thermo Fisher
Scientific. He told Technology
Networks that as mass spectrometry grew into the industry we have today,
“each new development required larger and larger research and development teams
to match the increasing complexity of instruments and the skyrocketing
importance of software at all levels, from firmware to application. All this
extends the cycle time of each innovation and also forces [researchers] to
concentrate on solutions that address the most pressing needs of the scientific
community.”
Makarov describes this change as “the increasing democratization of MS,” and says that it “brings with it new requirements for instruments, such as far greater robustness and ease-of-use, which need to be balanced against some aspects of performance.”
One example of the increasing democratization of MS may be
several public proteomic datasets available to scientists. In European
Pharmaceutical Review, Juan
Antonio Viscaíno, PhD, Proteomics Team Leader at the European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI)
wrote, “These datasets are increasingly reused for multiple applications, which
contribute to improving our understanding of cell biology through proteomics
data.”
Sparse Data and Difficulty Measuring It
Evangelia
Petsalaki, PhD, Group Leader EMBL-EBI, told Technology
Networks there are two related challenges in handling proteomic data.
First, the data is “very sparse” and second “[researchers] have trouble
measuring low abundance proteins.”
Petsalaki notes, “every time we take a measurement, we
sample different parts of the proteome or phosphoproteome and
we are usually missing low abundance players that are often the most important
ones, such as transcription
factors.” She added that in her group they take steps to mitigate those
problems.
“However, with the advances in MS technologies developed by
many companies and groups around the world … and other emerging technologies
that promise to allow ‘sequencing’ proteomes, analogous to genomes … I expect
that these will not be issues for very long.”
So, what does all this mean for clinical laboratories? At the
current pace of development, its likely assays based on proteomics could become
more common in the near future. And, if throughput and commercialization ever
match that of genomics, mass spectrometry and other proteomics tools could
become a standard technology for pathology laboratories.
If insurance plans are removed from the billing cycle for primary care, it’s not clear how clinical laboratories will be reimbursed for their services
Direct Primary Care (DPC) is gaining popularity in the United States. This emerging movement enables primary care providers to bill patients directly for services rendered, bypassing traditional health plans. On a large scale, employers can contract with primary care practices directly for their employees’ primary care coverage. The idea is to lower healthcare costs. But what exactly is DPC and how are clinical laboratories affected by it?
In operation, direct primary care is similar to concierge medicine, where a patient pays an annual retainer for direct access to a specific healthcare provider. DPC practices offer members unlimited, on-demand visits to primary care physicians for a flat, monthly fee.
The DPC movement has its own lobbying group—the Direct Primary Care Coalition—which supports physicians who opt to practice direct primary care. According to the group’s website, there are currently about 1,000 DPC practices in 48 states which serve over 300,000 patients.
DPC has gained Senatorial support. In December, Senators Bill Cassidy, MD (R-LA), Doug Jones (D-AL), Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced legislation to “lower the cost of healthcare and expand patients’ access to their primary care providers.”
Their bill (H.R. 3708), titled the “Primary Care Enhancement Act of 2019,” would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to “allow individuals with direct primary care service arrangements to remain eligible individuals for purposes of health savings accounts, and for other purposes.”
A press release announcing the Senate version of the bill (S. 2999), described DPC as a model that “encourages patients to develop personal relationships with their primary care physician, including extending access to care beyond office visits and business hours and through telemedicine. It focuses on prevention and primary care, relying less on specialist and hospital referrals. It is a growing model used by more than 1,000 practices across 48 states and the District of Columbia.”
The press release also states, “DPC models replace copays and deductibles with flat, affordable monthly fees. Current law makes DPC incompatible with health savings accounts (HSAs) paired with high-deductible health plans (HDHPs).”
Direct Primary Care in Practice
Physicians seem to like the DPC model. It frees them, they
say, from the unnecessary interference of insurance providers, the burdens of excessive
paperwork, and ever-increasing administration costs, while allowing them to
have a better patient-doctor relationship.
“I know all my patients by name. I have time for them,” Matthew Abinante, DO, told The DO, a journal of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). “I probably interact with about 20 patients a day when you factor in the electronic communication.”
Abinante is a board-certified family physician. He practices at Elevated Health, a direct primary care practice in Huntington Beach, CA. Patients pay an average of $75 per month for membership. This fee includes unlimited same day/next day appointments and the ability to talk to a doctor via telephone, e-mail, text, or video chat—24/7.
Matthew Abinante, DO, is shown above treating a patient at Elevated Health, a DPC practice in California. “Our goal is to keep you as healthy as possible, while saving you time and money. We remove the barriers of traditional insurance and provide you with a modern take on the personal, old-fashioned care missing in today’s healthcare industry,” he said. (Photo copyright: Elevated Health.)
At Elevated Health, some minor clinical laboratory tests and
procedures are included in the monthly fee. They include:
Other medical laboratory testing, imaging, and medications
are available to patients at contracted wholesale prices, which are quoted up
front. This is consistent with the trend for price transparency in healthcare.
“What everyone really needs to know is that patients do get better care when their doctor is more satisfied with what they’re doing. And that takes time. What the [fee-for-service] system cannot provide us is time with the patient,” Tiffanny Blythe, DO, told The DO. Blythe runs Blue Lotus Family Medicine, a DPC practice in Kansas City, MO.
When Direct Primary Care Does Not Work
The DPC model has been tried before. In 2010, a DPC provider called Qliance was formed primarily on investment capital from Jeff Bezos of Amazon. The goal was to free doctors and patients from the constraints of traditional health insurance.
Qliance opened several clinics in the Seattle area and by
2014 had nearly 50,000 DPC patients—including employees of Expedia and Comcast. It also had a contract to
provide primary care services with a state Medicaid insurer. Nevertheless, Qliance
closed in 2017.
“We would open up a clinic and add a bunch of docs before we had enough patients to pay for it,” Nick Hanauer, a Seattle venture capitalist and investor in Qliance, told STAT.
“It’s just hard to get the customers because you had to
break the paradigm that was in everyone’s heads about how healthcare had to
work, and you had to disrupt the relationships people had with their insurance
companies,” Hanauer explained.
“Somebody with more economic power than we had could do
this—and should,” he added.
Not All Physicians Support Direct Primary Care
Since the DPC model is so new, there is little research or statistics to confirm it will have a positive effect on healthcare outcomes or lower healthcare costs. Some healthcare professionals have reservations about direct primary care. Their concerns include the potential for less oversight of practitioners and the possibility that patients will slight themselves regarding insurance coverage.
“What we don’t hear about are the people who need more than can cover and what happens to them when they fall into that gap,” Carolyn Engelhard, a health policy analyst and Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. “We don’t know if they just don’t get care or then enter the traditional healthcare system and start over.”
There are also concerns that DPC plans could draw a large
percentage of healthier patients, which could raise costs for those in
traditional insurance plans, and that it may be more difficult for DPC patients
to gain access to needed specialists and other services.
“Healthcare is fragmented, and if we continue to have little
carve-outs so some [doctors] can practice medicine the way they want, it is not
helping to make the system more responsive and integrated,” Engelhard added.
Nonetheless, both Direct Primary Care and Concierge Medicine
are growing in popularity in the US. And because it’s unclear how clinical
laboratories would interact with or bill DPC practices, clinical laboratory
leaders should keep a close eye on this trend.
As more patients opt for these models of care, healthcare
organizations, pathology groups, and clinical laboratories will have to create
ways to adapt. Since DPC practices are out of most networks, clinical labs may
have to bill patients directly for their services. Not all clinical labs are
prepared to do that, and those that are could experience a slowdown in the
payment process. Labs may also have to contract with physicians to provide
testing services on a pre-determined wholesale cost basis.
These virtual office visits use artificial intelligence and text messaging to allow real physicians to diagnose patients, write prescriptions, and order clinical laboratory tests
Clinical laboratories may soon be receiving test orders from physicians who never see their patients in person, instead evaluating and diagnosing them through a smartphone app. In response to major changes in the primary care industry—mostly driven by consumer demand—mobile app developers are introducing new methods for delivering primary care involving smartphones and artificial intelligence (AI).
Medical laboratories and pathology groups should prepare for consumers who expect their healthcare to be delivered in ways that don’t require a visit to a traditional medical office. One question is how patients using virtual primary care services will provide the specimens required for clinical laboratory tests that their primary care providers want performed?
Two companies on the forefront of such advances are 98point6 and K Health, and they provide a glimpse of primary care’s future. The two companies have developed smartphone apps that incorporate AI and the ability to interact with real physicians via text messaging.
Virtual Primary Care 24/7 Nationwide
Dark Daily has repeatedly reported that primary care in America is undergoing major changes driven by many factors including increasingly busy schedules, the popularity of rapid retail and urgent care clinics, consumer use of smartphones and the Internet to self-diagnose, and decreasing numbers of new doctors choosing primary care as a career path.
Writing in Stat, two physicians who had just completed internal medicine residencies, explained their own decisions to leave primary care. In their article, titled, “We were inspired to become primary care physicians. Now we’re reconsidering a field in crisis,” Richard Joseph, MD, and Sohan Japa, MD, cited factors that include long hours, low compensation in comparison with specialty care, and deficiencies in primary care training. At the time of their writing they were senior residents in primary care-internal medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
They also pointed to a decline in office visits to primary care doctors. “Patients are increasingly choosing urgent care centers, smartphone apps, telemedicine, and workplace and retail clinics that are often staffed by nurse practitioners and physician assistants for their immediate health needs,” they wrote.
One solution to declining populations of primary care physicians is a smartphone app created by Seattle-based 98point6. The service involves “providing virtual text-based primary care across the entire country, 24/7 of everyday,” explained Brad Younggren, MD, an emergency physician and Chief Medical Officer at 98point6, in a YouTube interview. “It’s text-based delivery of care overlaid with an AI platform on top of it.”
The service launched on May 1, 2018, in 10 states and is now available nationwide, according to press releases. 98point6 offers the service through individual subscriptions or through deals with employers, health plans, health systems, and other provider organizations. The personal plan costs $20 for the first year and $120 for the second, plus $1 per “visit.”
Subscribers use text messaging to interact with
an “automated assistant” that incorporates artificial intelligence. While
messaging, they can describe symptoms or ask questions about medical topics.
“After the automated assistant has gathered as many
questions as it deems necessary, it hands [the information] off to a
physician,” Younggren said. In most cases, all communication is via text
messaging. However, the doctor may ask the subscriber to send a photo or participate
in a video meeting.
The doctor then makes a diagnosis and treatment plan. Prescriptions can be sent to a local pharmacy and the subscriber can be referred to a clinical laboratory for tests. LabCorp or Quest Diagnostics are preferred providers, but subscribers can choose to have orders sent to independent labs as well, states the company’s website.
Younggren claims the company’s physicians can resolve more
than 90% of the cases they encounter. If, however, they can’t resolve a case, they
can refer the patient to a local physician. And because most of 98point6’s
interactions with subscribers are text-based, that messaging serves as reference
documentation for other doctors, he said.
“We’ve set out to dramatically augment the primary-care physician with deep technology by delivering an on-demand primary-care experience,” Robbie Cape (above), CEO and co-founder of 98point6, told Modern Healthcare. (Photo copyright: Seattle Business Magazine.)
The 98point6 physicians are full-time employees and work with the company’s technologists to improve the AI’s capabilities, Younggren said. The company claims its doctors can diagnose and treat more than 400 conditions, including: allergies, asthma, skin problems, coughs, flu, diabetes, high blood pressure, and infections. For medical emergencies, subscribers are advised to seek emergency help locally.
98point6 also can function as a front end for interacting
with patients in health systems that have their own primary-care doctors,
Younggren said. The company’s health system clients “don’t actually have a good
digital primary care front end to deliver care,” he said. “So, we can
essentially give them that, and then we can also get some detailed
understanding of how to coordinate care within the health system to drive
patients to the care that they need.” For example, this can include directing the
patient to an appropriate sub-specialist.
Leveraging Patient Data to Answer Health Questions
K Health in New York City offers a similar service based on its own AI-enabled smartphone app. The app incorporates data gleaned from the records of more than two million anonymous patients in Israel over the past 20 years, explained company co-founder Ran Shaul, co-founder and Chief Product Officer, in a blog post.
The software asks users about their “chief complaint” and
then compares the answers with data from similar cases. “We call this group
your ‘People Like Me’ cohort,” Shaul wrote. “It shows you how doctors diagnosed
those people and all the ways they were treated.”
The K Health app is free, but for a fee ranging from $14 for a one-time visit to $39 for an annual subscription, users can text with doctors, the company’s website states.
Unlike 98point6, K Health’s doctors are employed by “affiliated physician-owned professional corporations,” the company says, not K Health itself.
“The doctor you chat with will discuss a recommended treatment plan that may include a physical exam, lab tests, or radiology scans,” states K Health’s website. “They may send you directly for some of these tests, but others will require you to visit a local doctor.”
These are just the latest examples of new technologies and
services devised to help patients receive primary care. How a patient who uses
a smartphone app gets the necessary clinical laboratory tests performed is a
question yet to be answered.
Clinical laboratory leaders will want to watch this shift in
the delivery of primary care and look for opportunities to serve consumers who
are getting primary care from nontraditional sources.
