Dec 13, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Instruments & Equipment, Laboratory Instruments & Laboratory Equipment, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Sales and Marketing, Laboratory Testing
Recognizing the need to serve patients with high-deductible health plans, hospital systems are opening healthcare centers in outpatient settings where patients can receive care and undergo procedures—including clinical laboratory tests—more conveniently and for less cost
Health systems are putting medical imaging services, such as MRIs, in strip malls and shopping centers as a way to make it easier for patients. Such locations can also offer lower-cost procedures because of lower overhead compared to imaging centers located in hospitals. This trend to offer patients more convenient service at a lower cost is something that clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should watch and understand.
One driver behind this trend is the growing number of Americans enrolled in High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs), where deductibles can exceed $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for families. With such high deductibles, patients are now keenly focused on the cost of their healthcare. Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups have been impacted by this trend, as more patients shell out cash to pay for walk-in procedures and providers must collect full payments for services rendered.
Hospitals and health systems recognize the increased demand for outpatient, lower-priced medical services, along with price transparency. Patients with HDHPs are one reason why hospital bad debt is growing.
Healthcare Shopping Drives Lower Costs and Convenience
Price shopping on the Internet for medical services also is becoming more popular due to the availability of online doctor and facility ratings and easily-accessible price comparisons.
There are more than 7,000 stand-alone imaging centers in the US that operate independently of hospitals. About 70% of diagnostic imaging services occur in hospital settings with the other 30% performed in outpatient facilities.
According to Amino, a healthcare transparency company based in San Francisco, the cost for an MRI can vary significantly depending on where a patient lives and what type of facility is utilized for the test. Their research found that the cost of a limb MRI can range from hundreds of dollars at a freestanding facility to as much as $4,000 at a hospital. In some states, the price difference between getting an MRI at a hospital versus a stand-alone facility was almost $2,000. The average cost of having an MRI performed in a hospital setting is $2600.
Based on data from Amino, the graphic above illustrates the wide range of prices for MRIs throughout the country, and the cost disparity between hospital and free-standing medical imaging centers. In the future, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers can expect to see the publication of similar graphs that show the variation in the cost of clinical laboratory tests and anatomic pathology procedures, not just by state, but by individual laboratories. (Graphic copyright: MBO.)
Smart Choice MRI, based in Mequon, Wis., charges a maximum price of $600 for an MRI. The company now has 17 locations in Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, but plans to have 90 facilities within the next three years.
“The rise of high deductible health plans has fueled consumers who understand their options and demand a higher level of service from their providers,” Rick Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of Smart Choice MRI told the StarTribune. “Quality, service-focused care at a fair, transparent price has never been more important.”
Anderson added that his company can handle 94% of MRI procedures in their convenient, freestanding imaging facilities.
“I think the quality is very good, but we’ve combined the cost and quality, and most importantly the convenience of being in the neighborhood where people are shopping,” Anderson said. “If you look at our Richfield (Minnesota) location, we’re literally next to SuperTarget, Caribou Coffee, Noodles and Company, and Qdoba.”
Public and Private Health Insurers Shift Payments to Free-standing Facilities
Anthem recently announced they will no longer pay for outpatient MRIs and CT scans performed at hospitals in almost all of the states where the health insurer does business. They are requiring patients to have the tests performed in free-standing imaging facilities in an effort to cut costs and lower premiums. This change could affect 4.5 million people in 13 of the 14 states Anthem serves, with New Hampshire being the exception.
Diagnostic imaging is not the only medical service transitioning to outpatient facilities.
In July, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that it is considering payment approval for total hip and knee replacements performed in outpatient settings. This change could go into effect as early as next year.
According to Steve Miller, Chief Operating Officer at Ambulatory Surgery Center Association, an estimated 25-50% of joint replacements could be performed on an outpatient basis.
“There’s more and more comfort among surgeons who are coming out of residencies where they trained to do surgeries on an outpatient basis,” Miller told Modern Healthcare. “The volumes are doubling year over year.”
Surgeons Approve of Free-standing Surgery Centers
There are currently more than 5,500 ambulatory surgery centers in the country and upwards of 200 of those facilities are performing outpatient joint replacement procedures. Three years ago, there were only around 25 facilities providing these services.
In 2015, there were more than 658,000 total hip and knee replacements performed on Medicare beneficiaries, according to CMS data. In 2014, the government paid more than $7 billion for the hospitalization costs of these two procedures. The CMS estimates that the cost for uncomplicated knee replacement surgeries in 2018 will be $12,381 for an inpatient procedure and $9,913 for the outpatient rate.
Physicians feel that performing joint replacements in outpatient facilities could reduce costs by up to 50%.
“I could do maybe 20% of my Medicare patients on an outpatient basis, as long as they have the support and structure at home to help them recover,” said Matthew Weresh, MD, a physician at Des Moines Orthopedic Surgeons (DMOS) in the Modern Healthcare article. “It’s a great move by Medicare.” DMOS plans to begin performing joint replacements at an ambulatory surgery center later this year.
Pathologists would be wise to monitor this trend and anticipate how anatomic pathology services might shift towards lower-cost settings. For clinical laboratories, this trend further illustrates the need to prepare for more consumers paying cash for their medical services and seeking cost-effective, high-quality options.
—JP Schlingman
Related Information:
Coming Soon to a Strip Mall Near You: An MRI Provider
MRI Competition Heats up in Twin Cities
Anthem’s New Outpatient Imaging Policy Likely to Hit Hospitals’ Bottom Line
Free Standing Imaging Center and Hospitals
Need an MRI? It Pays to Shop Around. Big Time.
Hospitals Leery of CMS Proposal to Pay for Joint Replacements in ASCs
Dec 12, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Management & Operations, News From Dark Daily
In filing Monday, lawsuit seeks to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements and to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately
Many clinical laboratory executives will welcome the news that a lab industry trade association has filed a lawsuit in federal court in an effort to delay and fix the final rule for Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) private payer lab test market price reporting that Medicare officials used to lower prices on the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) that is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
In a lawsuit filed Monday, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) charged that the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ignored congressional intent and instituted a highly-flawed data reporting process when setting the 2018 CLFS rates under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014.
The ACLA asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements, to withhold applying the new CLFS until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately. The CLFS is due to take effect on Jan. 1.
The lawsuit also seeks to vacate any actions that HHS made that were not in accordance with the PAMA law and to withdraw or suspend the final rule under PAMA. The case is American Clinical Laboratory Association v. Hargan, US District Court, District of Columbia, No. 1:17-cv-2645.
Final Prices for the 2018 Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
Last month, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final CLFS rates and said at the time that it did so in compliance with the 2016 final rule implementing changes to the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule under PAMA section 216.
“We have repeatedly advised CMS that there are significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule, which fail to follow the specific commands of the PAMA statute,” said ACLA President Julie Khani in an ACLA press release. “Contrary to Congress’ intent, instead of reforming Medicare reimbursement rates to reflect the broad scope of the laboratory market, the Secretary’s final rule will disrupt the market and prevent beneficiaries from having access to the essential laboratory services they need.”
Shown above is Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) speaking at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May in New Orleans. In a press release announcing ACLA’s lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Khani emphasized that many clinical laboratories had advised officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about the “significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule” for private payer market price reported that CMS designed. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
22 Healthcare Organizations Opposed Cuts to Clinical Laboratory Test Prices
The ACLA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and more than 20 other organizations had urged CMS to suspend implementation of the new CLFS rates, which are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The organizations cited concerns over the data-collection process used to establish the rates, and the fact that the rates would cause clinical laboratories to struggle financially and possibly close. If the rates set under PAMA affect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to clinical lab testing, the law would have the opposite effect of its intent.
To bring the lawsuit, ACLA retained Mark D. Polston, JD, of the Washington, DC, law firm of King and Spaulding. A specialist in representing healthcare systems seeking to navigate Medicare regulations, Polston is the former Chief Litigation counsel for CMS and specializes in complicated Medicare reimbursement litigation. Recently, he successfully challenged Medicare’s so-called “two-midnight” rule that imposed a 0.2% rate cut on hospitals billing for some patients.
Medicare Program Prohibited Most Medical Laboratories from Reporting
Contrary to Congress’ directives, most laboratories were prohibited from reporting private payer data under CMS’ market-rate data-collection process, ACLA said in a prepared statement. “As a result, CMS failed to protect access to laboratory services for Medicare beneficiaries. This flawed process could cause serious financial harm to potentially thousands of hospitals, independent and physician office laboratories, and make it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get access to medical testing, particularly in remote rural areas and in nursing homes that depend on laboratory testing services,” ACLA said.
In the lawsuit, ACLA alleged that more than 99.3% of hospitals were prohibited from reporting their market-rate data. It is believed that this is the first time this figure has been reported. In 2015, the lawsuit charged, more than 261,500 entities received Medicare payment for laboratory services but only 1,942 laboratories reported market-rate information in 2016 under the PAMA final rule. The 1,942 labs that reported market-rate data is about 0.7% of the total number of laboratories that serve Medicare beneficiaries, the lawsuit said.
Only 21 of 7,000 Hospital Laboratories Reported Data
“Moreover, contrary to Congress’ intent, the laboratories that did report information are not representative of the market as a whole,” the lawsuit added. “For example, although approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories billed Medicare for laboratory services in 2015—accounting for 24% of the Medicare payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule—no more than 21 hospital laboratories (and probably even fewer) reported information to the secretary, leaving hospital laboratories effectively unrepresented in the data collected by the secretary.
“Hospital laboratories are often the only laboratories available to patients in certain areas of the country, and the private payer rates they receive are often much higher than other laboratories, due to differences in competitive markets, volumes of services, and other factors,” the lawsuit charged.
The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication, provided a compelling example of the serious flaws in the market price study conducted by CMS. Writing about the state of Michigan, The Dark Report noted: “At Joint Venture Hospital Laboratory Network (JVHL), CEO John Kolozsvary said Michigan’s hospitals serve 70% of the office-based physicians in the state with outreach lab testing services. Included among these hospitals are the 120 JVHL member laboratory facilities.”
“Since our network, plus the outreach programs of another 25 or 30 hospitals, hold a significant share of outreach lab testing in Michigan, how can CMS conduct an accurate, representative market study of what private insurers pay for lab tests in Michigan if it doesn’t collect data on what private payers reimburse hospital lab outreach programs in Michigan?” stated Kolozsvary in his interview with The Dark Report.
Did CMS ‘Disregard and Violate’ PAMA Statute?
In the ACLA’s announcement of the lawsuit, Polston said, “CMS clearly disregarded and violated the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring commercial rate information to be reported and collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants. Instead, information was collected from less than 1% of US laboratories.”
In the press announcement, ACLA Board Chair Curt Hanson, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Mayo Medical Laboratories said, “This lawsuit reflects our obligation to those who are providing critical testing services, and to those millions of Americans who rely on the services our industry provides.” Others supporting the lawsuit include Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics.
Compliance with PAMA Law’s Statutory Requirements
In the lawsuit, ACLA seeks to require HHS to comply with the statutory requirements and to set aside the provisions in the final rule, “that unlawfully exempts thousands of laboratories from the reporting obligations that Congress imposed” under PAMA. A central feature of PAMA Section 216 is that laboratories must report market rate data so that HHS can ensure that Medicare reimbursement rates closely reflect the rates laboratories receive from private payers, the lawsuit said.
“ACLA was a strong supporter of Congress’ market-based reforms, which resulted in the most extensive changes to the system for reimbursing clinical laboratories since 1984,” the lawsuit said.
In challenging the final regulations, the lawsuit said HHS disregarded and violated, “the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring that all applicable laboratories report relevant data.”
Congress Specified Which Medical Laboratories Are Obligated to Report
“In imposing these requirements, Congress took care to specify which laboratories would be obligated to report market data to ensure that information would be collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants,” the lawsuit said. “Congress made clear that any ‘laboratory’ would be required to report data if, ‘with respect to its revenues under [the Medicare program], a majority of such revenues are from’ the Physician Fee Schedule or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule,” the lawsuit charged.
In promulgating the regulations, however, HHS, disregarded Congress’ instructions and “unreasonably and arbitrarily exempted significant categories and large numbers of laboratories that meet the statutory definition from the reporting requirements that Congress imposed,” the lawsuit said.
“The secretary’s final rule fatally undermines one of PAMA’s purposes, which is to require a broad spectrum of Medicare-participating laboratories to report market information to the secretary. Instead, in ultra vires (Latin for “beyond the powers”) fashion, the secretary has carved out large categories of laboratories—ultimately resulting in the exclusion of some 99.3% of the laboratory market—from the statutory reporting requirements,” the lawsuit charged. Ultra vires acts fall outside the authority of the organization in question.
In the lawsuit, the ACLA claims under:
count 1: ultra vires agency action not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority;
count 2: unreasonable construction of statute;
count 3: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, arbitrary and capricious action; and,
count 4: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, injunctive and declaratory relief.
Seeking an Injunction to Have HHS Secretary to Withhold or Suspend Final Rule
In its final section, “Prayer for Relief,” the lawsuit asks the court to vacate, “any agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” to require the Secretary of HHS to comply with the statutory requirements, “including faithfully implementing the statutory definition of ‘applicable laboratory;’” and enter an “injunction that (1) directs the Secretary to withdraw or suspend his final rule until such time as it can be brought into compliance with the statute, and (2) directs the Secretary to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until such time as the Secretary has made appropriate revisions to his final rule.” The lawsuit also asked the court to award to the ACLA “costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
—Joseph Burns
Related Information:
ACLA Files Lawsuit Challenging PAMA Rates
CMS Ignored Congressional Intent in Implementing New Clinical Lab Payment System Under PAMA, ACLA Charges in Suit
Quest Diagnostics Supports Suit Against HHS Charging That CMS Ignored Congressional Intent in Implementing New Clinical Lab Payment System
LabCorp Supports American Clinical Laboratory Association Lawsuit on PAMA Final Rule
For Top 20 Tests, CMS to Cut Payment by 28% in 2018-2020; Medicare officials move one step closer to destroying beneficiary access to lab tests: The Dark Report, October 9, 2017
Dec 11, 2017 | Coding, Billing, and Collections, Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Laboratory Management and Operations, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing, Managed Care Contracts & Payer Reimbursement, Management & Operations
While proposals might change before the final CMS draft, lobbyists see potential for improving Medicare payment totals and structures in the upcoming 2018 outpatient rule and physician fee schedule
At this time, efforts by medical laboratories to lobby and educate Medicare officials and members of Congress about the flaws in the Medicare program’s market study of what private health insurers pay for clinical laboratory tests have failed to trigger positive action on this matter. But despite the bad news concerning that issue, there is a positive development with a proposed rule that would change which lab tests should be included in bundles paid under the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS).
The details of how the clinical laboratory industry worked to educate the right decision-makers within the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was part of a story published by Axios. The story described how several different healthcare specialties conducted educational and lobbying campaigns and succeeded in getting favorable decisions on the matters of concern.
Changing the Medicare 14-day Medical Lab Test Billing Schedule Regulation
Though the complete Axios article covers several categories of healthcare lobbying, “The Win for Clinical Labs” section lists lobbying activities in 2017 on behalf of the medical laboratory industry. It covers:
· “Who met with the feds: Lobbyists with lab testing companies Myriad Genetics and Veracyte, pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim, and lobbying firm Todd Strategy, federal meeting records show.
· “What they wanted: An open comment period on the ‘14-day’ regulation, likely with the goal of adjusting or eliminating it, according to a lobbying presentation.
· “The 14-day regulation stipulates that if lab tests are ordered within 14 days of a patient’s discharge from a hospital, the hospital must bill Medicare for the tests. The lab then seeks payment from the hospital. Anything after 14 days, the lab can bill Medicare directly.
· “The companies argued in the presentation that the rule limits access to lab tests because hospitals may be reluctant to bill Medicare for labs after patients leave.
· “What they got: An open comment period, and a modification to the policy that would allow labs to bill Medicare directly for some tests.”
One success slated to enter the OPPS relates to the 14-day rule/Date of Service (DOS) determinations, which set strict billing requirements for diagnostic tests based on when the tests are ordered. Medical laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, and lobbying strategists teamed up to streamline the current regulations and improve how billing works for a range of Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (ADLTs).
Lobbying participants included:
· Biodesix of Boulder, Colo.;
· Boehringer-Ingelheim of Ridgefield, Conn.;
· Guardant Health Inc. of Redwood City, Cali.;
· LUNGevity Foundation of Chicago;
· Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, Utah;
· Veracyte of South San Francisco.
The graphic above was taken from a May 2017 presentation to policymakers at HHS and CMS, which focused on delays created by the 14-day rule. It described existing determinations as “developed for the old world of hospital and reference laboratories.”
Presentation speakers also cited concerns that current payment requirements might limit access to testing and delay diagnosis. As precision medicine often involves major illnesses—such as cancer—swift testing, diagnosis, and treatment are essential parts of improving patient outcomes.
Results of the Lobbying Effort Could Bring Relief for Hospitals and Clinical Laboratories
CMS posted their proposed OPPS rules for 2018 in July and created an open comment period, which closed in September.
In analysis of the current proposed rules at Health Law and Policy Matters noted, “The proliferation of molecular pathology testing technology, coupled with the implementation of the packaging policy a few years ago, has strained relationships between many hospitals and laboratories.”
The analysis outlined three currently proposed approaches from CMS:
· The first crates exceptions to current DOS rules for molecular pathology tests and ADLTs under certain conditions.
· The second only applies exemptions to ADLTs citing a lack of “access to care” concerns for molecular pathology tests.
· The third adds an exception for molecular pathology tests and ADLTs excluded from OPPS packaging, but applicable to “under arrangements” rules.
Other Lobbying ‘Wins’
Axios noted two other potential wins related to this year’s lobbying efforts.
1. Fresenius Medical Care, owner of National Cardiovascular Partners, opened public debate regarding pay rates for heart procedures in outpatient heart labs and ambulatory surgery centers.
2. CMS and HHS awarded Photocure, manufacturer of Cysview (FDA-approved technology for the detection of bladder cancer), a proposal for add-on billing codes to increase pay for bladder cancer procedures using their drug solutions.
However, these are just proposals. There is no guarantee they will reach the final draft for 2018—if at all.
Lobbying Expensive but Gets Results
While lobbying is an important way to shape the regulatory landscape surrounding healthcare, it is time- and money-intensive. In the presentation from Todd Strategy, LLC, regarding the 14-day rule, the speakers established a timeline spanning two years of administration and congressional outreach. They also pointed out that similar requests were made in 2016 for the calendar year 2017 OPPS rules that were never implemented.
As healthcare continues to shift toward personalized approaches, and diagnostic testing becomes an increasingly important aspect of diagnosing and treating disease, laboratories and healthcare groups must continue to identify opportunities to both increase revenue and streamline operations to continue growing.
With innovative medical laboratory tests and new diagnostic technologies emerging at a rapid pace, the opportunity to use lobbying to educate lawmakers and government regulators continues to be a viable tool for clinical laboratories interested in speeding change and protecting the ability of clinical laboratories to serve physicians and their practices—particularly because the system is known for its complex requirements and slow-moving bureaucracy.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
The Subtle Lobbying Wins in Medicare’s Outpatient Rule
Impact of Date of Service “14 Day” Rule on Diagnostics
Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment – Final Rule with Comment and Final CY2017
14 Day Rule Frequently Asked Questions
CMS May Decide to Permit Labs to Bill for Certain Tests Provided to Outpatients
Medicare Program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs
Your Quick Guide to Understanding the Weird 14 Day Rule (CMS Billing for Lab Tests)
Date of Service (DOS) for Clinical Laboratory and Pathology Specimens
Oct 18, 2017 | Compliance, Legal, and Malpractice, Digital Pathology, Laboratory News, Laboratory Operations, Laboratory Pathology, Laboratory Testing
The Joint Commission opposed the Medicare proposal, and patient advocate groups say rescinding it is a setback for hospital transparency
Powerful interests arrayed against greater transparency in the performance of hospitals, physicians, and medical laboratories have stopped a proposed Medicare program that would have allowed the public to see the results of hospital inspections.
Stopped in its tracks was an effort by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to make hospital accreditation inspection reports available for public viewing. Opposition to this program led CMS to withdraw its plan for heightened transparency.
CMS originally called the proposal “groundbreaking” in a National Public Radio (NPR) article. That’s because it would have enabled consumers to view reports that private accreditation organizations, such as The Joint Commission, complete after each inspection. Inspection reports contain information on errors and problems found during hospital surveys. CMS’ push for more transparency in hospital inspections is consistent with the healthcare industry’s trend toward open sharing of healthcare quality, price, and other data.
“We are proposing changes relating to transparency of accrediting organizations survey reports and plans of correction of providers and suppliers,” CMS officials wrote in a proposed rule published on April 28.
CMS Pulls Back Proposal to Make Hospital Survey Reports Public
But it was not to be. After receiving comments, CMS officials stated in early August that the agency had pulled back the proposal.
“CMS is committed to ensuring that patients have the ability to review the findings used to determine that a facility meets the health and safety standards required for Medicare participation. However, we believe further review, consideration, and refinement of this proposal is necessary to ensure that CMS establishes requirements, consistent with our statutory authority, that will inform patients and continue to support high quality care,” noted a CMS fact sheet.
Agencies Find Problems in Hospitals That Accreditors Do Not, CMS Declares
It’s against federal law for CMS to release data related to hospital inspections, Becker’s Hospital Review reported. And, as part of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), clinical laboratories must participate in inspections to ensure they qualify for Medicare and Medicaid payments. However, the inspection reports of the nation’s medical laboratories are not made public.
So, what motivated CMS to make healthcare organizations’ inspection information public? CMS noted that private accreditation organizations miss serious provider problems that state inspectors find in follow-up visits to hospitals, ProPublica explained.
In fact, state agency reviews of 103 hospitals in 2014 found 41 serious deficiencies, including 39 missed by the accreditors, noted the NPR article.
The chart above based on Johns Hopkins research was compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics and reported by The Washington Post. It shows that medical errors are now the third leading cause of death in the US. (Photo copyright: The Washington Post.)
“Right now, the public has very little information about the places where they’re putting their life on the line, and that’s just not acceptable. If [they are] a good place, what are they afraid of?” Rosemary Gibson, Senior Advisor at The Hastings Center, stated in the NPR article.
Reaction from Accreditors and Consumer Groups Differs
The Joint Commission opposed the CMS proposal. And, now, patient safety advocacy groups are disappointed about the decision by Medicare officials to rescind the proposed program.
“We believe the proposal will have significant detrimental consequences on our nation’s ability to continually improve the delivery of healthcare services,” stated Mark Chassin, MD, FACP, MPP, MPH, Joint Commission President and Chief Executive Officer, in a June letter to CMS published partially in an HCPro blog post.
HCPro, a firm that aids organizations in accreditation, credentialing, and other needs, noted the following Joint Commission concerns about publicly shared survey reports in the blog post:
- Providers may be less likely to be open about opportunities for improvement;
- Accreditors could struggle to create new standards;
- The number of non-accredited facilities may increase;
- Accreditation may be devalued; and,
- Costs to providers and accreditors would likely rise.
The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ), another accreditation option for hospitals, also expressed concerns with the CMS proposal, according to the ProPublica report.
“Knowing that survey [inspection] reports are public knowledge will only incentivize hospitals and other healthcare entities to go back to the days of ‘hiding’ quality of care issues from accreditors, rather than working with us to improve the quality and safety of care rendered to patients,” CIHQ advised in the ProPublica article.
The Leapfrog Group, which bills itself as an advocate of hospital transparency, called the reversed proposal “a disappointing setback for healthcare transparency.”
In a statement, Leah Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Leapfrog Group, noted, “We are disappointed to learn that the agency that runs Medicare (CMS) has reversed course on its proposal to require private accrediting organizations, such as the Joint Commission, to publicly release reports of problems they found in hospitals and other healthcare facilities. The public deserves full transparency on how the healthcare industry performs.”
Clearly the public is calling for increased transparency in healthcare. As are many organizations and industry journals, such as the Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), which presented a national award to Ellen Gabler, an investigative reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, for her work covering weaknesses in inspections for clinical laboratories. (See Dark Daily, “Journalists Take Home Top National Awards for Their Work Covering Theranos and the Clinical Laboratory Industry,” May 16, 2016.)
Some Accreditation Information Available Online
So, for the time being, it appears that what is found during hospital inspections will stay within the inspection report and will not become available to the general public. However, with consumers expecting greater transparency and higher levels of service in all aspects of healthcare, the interest in public access to the quality performance of hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups will only increase.
Meanwhile, for patients interested in existing resources about provider quality, The Joint Commission has an online “find a gold star healthcare organization” quality check. Also, the American College of Surgeons publishes an online search for accredited facilities. And, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers an online search for CLIA accredited labs.
—Donna Marie Pocius
Related Information:
Secret Data on Hospital Inspections May Become Public At Last
Proposed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) Rule
Changes to the Application and Reapplication Procedures for National Accrediting Organizations
CMS Backs Off Proposal to Make Hospital Accredited Investigations Public; Five Things to Know
Accreditors Can Keep Their Hospital Inspection Reports Secret, Feds Decide
Joint Commission Comments on Proposed CMS Transparency Rule
Disappointing Setback for Healthcare Transparency
Journalists Take Home Top National Awards for Their Work Covering Theranos and the Clinical Laboratory Industry
Oct 13, 2017 | Uncategorized
Media coverage of a recent Orig3n promotion-and intervention from state and federal officials-reveals the level of discomfort public and policymakers have for handling the publics’ protected health information, including genetic test data
Is it appropriate to offer free genetic tests to 70,000 fans attending a professional football game? Apparently not, say federal and state healthcare regulators who took steps to block a planned free genetic test giveaway that the Baltimore Ravens and clinical laboratory company Orig3n planned to conduct on Sunday, September 17.
Genetic testing has become a mainstay of clinical laboratories and pathology groups. And it can’t be denied that the growing popularity of self-administered genetic tests could have an impact on medical laboratories’ revenue. Additionally, there’s the issue of state and federal privacy laws in the handling of protected health information (PHI) as outlined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to consider. Thus, the news that a developer of genetic self-test kits planned to distribute hundreds of free tests at an NFL football game in Baltimore quickly garnered the attention of federal and state officials, as well as the national media.
Instead of handing out t-shirts, Orig3n, a developer of genetic self-tests kits based in Boston, planned to offer free DNA tests at the September home opening game of the Baltimore Ravens. However, the giveaway was not to be. The promotion attracted the attention of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Maryland Department of Health (MDH), and a range of media outlets. This led to postponing the event just days before it was scheduled to happen.
According to Forbes, the test promotion claimed to provide information on genetic markers related to vitamin D deficiency, skin aging, language ability, and muscle force.
However, news coverage in The Baltimore Sun of the cancellation of the free genetic test giveaway cited concerns from CMS officials about Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) requirements.
Orig3n told Vice in 2016 that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and other typical genetic test requirements that apply to medical laboratories, weren’t needed because their tests are non-diagnostic. However, genetic testing often does require physician orders and lab approval in the state of Maryland.
Speaking with The Baltimore Sun, Kevin Byrne, Senior VP of Public and Community Relations for the Baltimore Ravens, stated, “[We are] working with the Maryland Department of Health. Orig3n is confident it can receive the proper approvals and plans to have a fan giveaway later this season at one of our games.”
Criticism of Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Genetic Testing
In Forbes, journalist Rita Rubin noted, “I paid $99 for the 23andMe direct-to-consumer genetic testing service several years ago. Turns out 23andMe included at least one of the four genes covered by the test Orig3n plans to give out to Ravens fans.”
23andMe is also familiar with the regulatory hurdles of DTC genetic testing. As we reported in 2013, the company received letters from the FDA demanding they cease sale of their genetic tests. These letters were followed by a $5-million class-action law suit in California claiming the test results were “meaningless.” (See Dark Daily, “23andMe Socked with FDA Warning Letter and Class Action Lawsuit over Company’s Genetic Testing Services,” December 11, 2013.)
These concerns were echoed by Toni I. Pollin, PhD, Associate Professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. “There’s nothing in this that I think is a good idea,” she told The Baltimore Sun. “The tests they’re talking about doing are not going to be useful for a particular individual.”
The graph above, which is drawn from a Kalorama report on the current and future market for US Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic testing, illustrates the meteoric increase in value of the DTC tests market. (Image copyright: MedCityNews/Kalorama.)
Modern Healthcare followed up on the 23andme story in 2016. Although the class-action suit eventually failed in the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, it took nearly two years for 23andMe to bring a portion of their tests to the market.
However, the coverage surrounding both events illustrate how wary government regulators might be to allow direct-to-consumer genetic testing to become a commonplace service. And how wary the public is to trust these new technologies and services with their protected health information.
Privacy Concerns and Media Backlash Still Common
In a September press release promoting the event, Orig3n states, “Orig3n is on a mission to advance the future of health. We believe that everyone should have direct, affordable access to their genetic information and reaching people with DNA tests on such a large scale is a natural and exciting way for us to demonstrate that.”
While Orig3n claims security is in place to protect sensitive genetic information, Bethesda, Maryland, attorney Bradley Shear and Peter Pitts, President of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI), both cited security concerns in the Baltimore Sun article.
The privacy and security concerns surrounding the collection and pooling of genomic and healthcare big data are not limited to the US. This trend continues to shape how innovative technologies grow and how systems and companies communicate data around the world.
A June ebriefing highlighted how even blinded data can be collated and compared to learn far more about a person or patient than a single dataset might suggest. (See Dark Daily, “Coverage of Alexion Investigation Highlights the Risk to Clinical Laboratories That Sell Blinded Medical Data,” June 21, 2017.)
Alexion (NASDAQ:ALXN), a pharmaceutical company specializing in orphan drugs, was shoved into the spotlight by Bloomberg Businessweek for aggressive marketing tactics in several countries around the world using blinded data to target patients and clinicians. The story also brought with it mentions of high-profile clinical laboratories and diagnostics providers—a potential PR nightmare for all involved.
Direct-to-consumer genetic tests offer opportunities for consumers to discover facets of their health and genetic backgrounds. However, the potential risks, security/privacy concerns, and the true value of test results continue to create hurdles for commercial service providers, as well as for pathologists and clinical laboratories.
Until public and regulatory scrutiny decreases, the value of the data gathered by these tests is determined, and standards are in place regarding security of customers’ protected health information, laboratories should remain vigilant and tread carefully when considering DTC testing as a viable opportunity to expand revenues.
—Jon Stone
Related Information:
‘DNA Day’ Planned for Ravens’ Game Undergoes Federal and State Scrutiny
Ravens Decide That Perhaps ‘DNA Day’ at M and T Bank Stadium Should Be Postponed
Orig3n Holds Inaugural Ravens DNA Day on September 17 at M and T Bank Stadium to Kick Off the Season
Beyond Bobbleheads: One NFL Team Wants to Offer Fans Free Genetic Testing
Biotech Company Offers Fitness and Beauty-focused Genetic Tests
Baltimore Ravens to Hand Out Free DNA Test Kits
Ravens Fans to Be Offered DNA Test Kits Sunday in Unusual NFL Promotion
Promotion Offering DNA Test Kits to Ravens Fans to Be Rescheduled
Football Team’s DNA Day Postponed
23andMe Socked with FDA Warning Letter and Class Action Lawsuit over Company’s Genetic Testing Services
23andme Escapes California Class Action for Arbitration
Coverage of Alexion Investigation Highlights the Risk to Clinical Laboratories That Sell Blinded Medical Data
