Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”
For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.
According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.
The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”
In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal
Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.
The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.
“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”
Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”
AHA Voices Support
Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.
Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.
Due to the national health system’s aggressive cost-cutting measures over the past 20 years, some regions of the island country now have only limited local medical laboratory services
It was in the early 2000s when different district health boards throughout New Zealand decided on a strategy of issuing sole source, multi-year medical laboratory testing contracts in their regions to cut lab test testing costs. Consequently, pathology laboratories that lost their bidding were forced to cease operations or merge with the winning bidders. At the time, New Zealand pathologists and laboratory scientists feared the government health system was undermining the financial stability of pathology laboratories and leaving portions of the country with limited testing capacity.
Now, arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant on the remote island nation may be creating a day of reckoning for that decision. In particular, “holiday hotspots” in New Zealand may be filling up with seasonal travelers at the exact moment a surge in COVID-19 testing is needed.
Holiday Destinations Lack Pathology Lab Capacity
Medical laboratory scientist Terry Taylor, president of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Science (NZIMLS), fears some small-town tourist destinations do not have the local-based medical laboratory testing capacity to process a surge in PCR tests and will need to ship samples elsewhere, delaying the speed at which COVID-19 test results can be delivered in communities that attract thousands of vacationers during New Zealand’s summer from December to February.
“In these areas, those swabs that are taken will end up being sent to the mothership so to speak, so one of the larger laboratories that’s nearby those regions,” he told Checkpoint. “So, there will be delays when this starts to kick on.”
Taylor also pointed out that shifting lab work to larger medical centers creates capacity concerns within those facilities as well.
“I will reiterate, all of the big hospitals will obviously still be operating 24-hour services doing the acute work that’s coming through,” he said. “But be aware, we do everything. We don’t just do COVID testing, so sometimes things are just going to have to wait in those periods.”
“We’ve certainly got to get together now and come up with a plan that works so that we do not inundate our laboratories and therefore the other health services,” medical laboratory scientist Terry Taylor (above), president of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Science, told Newshub. “It is really not an option to test everyone. We need to be looking at who we test, how we test and when we test,” he added. (Photo copyright: Newshub.)
In a statement to Checkpoint, the New Zealand Ministry of Health maintained COVID-19 testing remained a priority for the government over the Christmas and New Year period.
“The ministry works closely with DHBs (District Health Boards) and laboratories to manage demands for testing, and to reiterate the importance of processing and returning tests as quickly as possible,” the statement said. “It should be noted that samples of close contacts of cases and high-risk individual are prioritized by laboratories.”
Dark Daily Correctly Predicted Pathology Lab Losses
In 2009, Dark Daily reported on New Zealand’s use of contract bidding for pathology lab testing services in Wellington and Auckland in an effort to drive down costs. The winning labs agreed to roughly a 20% decrease in reimbursement rates.
At that time, Editor Robert L. Michel predicted the loss of established pathology providers and insufficient reimbursement rates could lead to scaled down testing menus, loss of skilled staff and a negative impact on patient care. He noted then, “New Zealand may become the first developed country in the world to learn what happens to the entire healthcare system when deep budget cuts finally leave medical laboratories with insufficient reimbursement.
“Such a situation,” Michel continued, “would likely mean that laboratory test providers in New Zealand would lack the funding and resources to offer physicians and patients a full menu of state-of-the-art diagnostics tests. It could also mean that medical laboratories would lack adequate resources and skilled staff to sustain the quality of test results at a world-class level of quality, accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility. In either case, the quality of patient care would be negatively affected.”
Fast forward to 2022, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues some New Zealand leaders fear the opening of Auckland’s border to summer travelers will lead to community spread of the coronavirus at a time when budget cuts have left these same regions with local pathology testing capacity that is insufficient to meet the needs of the surrounding community.
In fact, New Zealand’s first case of community exposure to the Omicron variant was reported in Auckland on December 29, 2021, a Ministry of Health news release noted.
“You’re going to see the virus seeded everywhere,” epidemiologist Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, told The Guardian in mid-November.
Critical Supply Shortages as Pathology Testing ‘Crunch Point’ Reached
In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, New Zealand’s clinical laboratory system nearly reached a breaking point as a shortage of COVID-19 tests left the system teetering on the edge of collapse.
According to Joshua Freeman, MD, Clinical Director of Microbiology and Virology at the Canterbury DHB, the “crunch point” arrived around March 20, 2020, when New Zealanders were being urged to get tested so the country could determine if there was community transmission of the virus, online news site Stuff reported.
Meanwhile, testing supplies such as reagents, plastic tubes, and pipette tips were in short supply globally and 13 regional labs were yet to be set up across the country. Even once the new laboratories, district health board testing centers, and mobile clinics were up and running, procuring needed supplies remained challenging, according to COVID-19 testing data from the Ministry of Health.
America also Struggled with COVID-19 Supply Shortages
While New Zealand’s mostly publicly funded universal healthcare system has been stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic, America’s private system has not fared much better. In the early months of the pandemic, personal protective equipment, COVID-19 tests, and testing materials also were in short supply in this country.
CBS News reported that the US was continuing to struggle with limited supplies of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests and long turnaround times for clinical laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests as families gathered for the recent holiday season.
Thus, clinical laboratory leaders and laboratory scientists in this country should watch with keen interest at how New Zealand’s pathology laboratories fare as the Omicron variant further challenges the country’s testing capacity.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 1918 influenza (aka, the Spanish Flu) pandemic took place worldwide between 1918 and 1919. It was caused by the H1N1 virus (A/H1N1), a subtype of the Influenza A virus, and infected approximately 500 million people worldwide (a third of the human population at the time). Fifty million people died. Many were children or otherwise healthy individuals, but people from all age groups perished.
The CDC calls the Spanish Flu the “deadliest pandemic of the 20th century.” Past pandemics have generally concluded after 2.5 to 3.5 years. That’s how long it takes for new viruses to mutate and become endemic diseases, Healthline reported.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been around for about that long. It stands to reason the natural end of the COVID-19 pandemic may be just around the corner. But is it? And is the Omicron variant an indicator that the COVID-19 pandemic is winding down?
“Our analysis suggests that in the US, this combination of characteristics would lead to Omicron replacing Delta as the dominant variant in the next few months and to a higher peak burden of disease than the country saw in the second half of 2021 (but likely below the peak reached in the winter of 2020-21),” the report states.
McKinsey analysts also acknowledged the possible impact of new therapeutics, COVID-19 vaccine booster doses, and public health measures on Omicron spread. “In the short term, an accelerated rollout of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines is likely to be one of the best protections against an Omicron-fueled wave of the disease,” the analysts wrote.
Does How the Spanish Flu Came to an End Mirror the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Virologists and infectious disease experts explained that the Spanish Flu virus did what viruses still do: mutate and become less dangerous. Herd immunity also helped end the 1918 pandemic.
“The 1918 influenza virus eventually mutated to the point of not having a high number of deaths—eventually over three years or so. We may very well be witnessing this process with ongoing variants of SARS-CoV-2,” virologist Rodney Rohde, PhD, Director of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at Texas State University, told Healthline.
Today’s flu strains have “ancestral links” to the 1918 flu, and thus, the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus will most likely also leave its mark, The Boston Herald reported. “The coronavirus will evolve and hopefully morph into a seasonal illness to which we pay little mind, but it’s still too early to tell,” Todd Ellerin, MD (above,) Director of Infectious Diseases, South Shore Health, South Weymouth, Mass., told The Boston Herald. (Photo copyright: Greg Derr/The Patriot Ledger.)
“If you think about the way viruses behave, biologically, their reason for living is to replicate and spread, and there’s really no advantage for the virus to kill the host,” infectious disease specialist Keith Armitage, MD, Professor of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases at Case Western Reserve University, told Healthline. “The hope is, that if the pandemic doesn’t go away, we will get new variants that are highly contagious but don’t produce much of a clinical illness,” he added.
In “2021’s Top 10 Lab Stories Confirm Important Trends,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR), posed a similar question in its number one story of 2021: “COVID-19: Will it Become Endemic and a Respiratory Virus that Shows Up Every Year like Influenza?”
“The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is a pandemic that fades, as did SARS in 2003, or becomes endemic and a respiratory virus that shows up every season like influenza and the common cold, is of major concern to clinical lab administrators. That’s because clinical labs and pathology groups must continue to serve physicians and patients with the usual menu of routine, reference, and esoteric testing,” TDR noted.
Clinical Laboratories to Continue COVID Testing
It would be most helpful for medical laboratories and pathology groups to have some idea of when the pandemic will end. Unfortunately, such predictions would not be very useful.
“Since COVID-19 infections have a high number of asymptomatic transmitters, we may not fully understand how societal and environmental pressures—masks, distancing, remote working, etc.—on the virus will allow it to evolve,” Rohde told Healthline.
For now, clinical laboratories will need to continue to remain prepared as COVID-19 cases rise and people seek SARS-COV-2 tests, vaccinations, and treatments. COVID-19 testing is likely to be in demand throughout the coming year. The current surge in demand for COVID-19 tests is putting additional stress on the supply chain.
“We know pandemics end; it’s just a matter of time,” Sara Paton, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Wright State University, told the Journal-News. “It could be in 2022, maybe later in the year, but I can’t say for sure. It could be 2023.”
Survey shows more than 50% of hospitals and health systems plan to increase virtual care services within two years, a development that can change how patients access clinical laboratory testing services
If anything positive came out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s the growing acceptance by physicians and health payers of telehealth—including telepathology, teleradiology, and other types of virtual doctor visits—as a way for patients to meet with their physicians in place of in-office healthcare.
In earlier coverage about the rapid adoption of telehealth and virtual doctor visits, Dark Daily has observed that this trend creates a unique challenge for clinical laboratories. If the patient has a virtual consultation with his or her physician, how would a clinical laboratory get access to this patient to do a venipuncture and collect the samples necessary to perform the medical laboratory tests ordered by the physician?
Nevertheless, according to multiple reports, healthcare providers are planning to increase investment in telehealth technologies.
Disparate Technologies Led to Technical Difficulties for Virtual Healthcare Providers
The terms telemedicine and telehealth are often used interchangeably. However, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), there are subtle differences worth noting.
Telehealth is a broad term which refers to “electronic and telecommunications technologies and services used to provide care and services at-a-distance [while] telemedicine is the practice of medicine using technology to deliver care at a distance.
“Telehealth is different from telemedicine in that it refers to a broader scope of remote health care services than telemedicine. Telemedicine refers specifically to remote clinical services, while telehealth can refer to remote non-clinical services,” the AAFP notes.
Kelly Lewis, former Vice President of Revenue Strategy and Enablement at telehealth provider Amwell, told Healthcare IT News (HIT News) that “the COVID-19 pandemic caused telehealth adoption to skyrocket.
However, “Because much of this adoption was driven out of an abundance of necessity, there was little time for organizations to think strategically about their technology investments,” she added.
“With urgency at a high, payers, provider organizations and clinicians all turned to the quickest options available so patients could continue to get care. The result, however, was what we are calling platform ‘sprawl’—the use of a number of disparate solutions that are leading to a confusing and frustrating care delivery system and experience.”
Nevertheless, according to a survey conducted by HIT News and HIMSS Analytics, “More than half (56%) of hospital and health system leaders say they are planning to increase their investment in telemedicine during the next two years.” This, “shows that the huge surge in and mainstreaming of telehealth during the ongoing pandemic has caused the C-suite and other healthcare leaders to embrace the technology that has for so long existed on the periphery of medicine,” HIT News noted.
“The clear message is that telehealth is here to stay and will continue to expand,” Lewis told HIT News, adding, “The majority of payers without virtual care offerings also reported planning to add them in the next 24 months.”
“Clinicians agree that moving toward a fully integrated telehealth platform would be beneficial. More than 80% believe investing in a fully integrated virtual or hybrid care system would have a positive impact on clinical outcomes and patient experiences,” Kelly Lewis (above), former VP at telehealth provider Amwell, told Healthcare IT News. Considering the growing demand for telehealth, pathologists and clinical laboratories will need a strategy for supporting virtual healthcare providers. (Photo copyright: Healthcare IT News.)
The HIT News/HIMSS Analytics survey findings suggest telehealth will transition as providers aim for “smart-growth” instead of “pandemic-fueled expediency,” Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
Survey respondents expressed positive attitudes about telehealth:
56% of healthcare leaders plan to increase investment in virtual care over the next two years.
80% of respondents noted “very” or “extremely” important telehealth factors are integrating with existing workflows, fast video connections, and reducing administrative burden.
77% called telehealth platform integration with the electronic health record (EHR) “very” or “extremely” important.
80% envision positive clinical outcomes and patient experiences from a fully integrated telemedicine platform.
75% of payers said a single digital platform has potential to streamline member experiences.
“With telehealth visits stabilizing at roughly 10 times pre-pandemic levels, digital transformation initiatives are rising across the field. As a result of the pandemic, 60% of healthcare organizations are adding new digital projects, with telemedicine becoming a higher priority for 75% of executives (vs. 42% in 2019) to improve the patient experience,” the AHA reported.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups are advised to keep pace with the changing healthcare landscape which increasingly puts a premium on remote and virtual visits. This has become even more critical as healthcare providers and investors infuse more capital into telehealth technology.
As physicians expand telemedicine virtual office visits post-pandemic, a clinical laboratory strategy to reach patients and acquire specimens will be required.
GISAID hosts a vast, open database of genomic sequences of SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus samples, and medical laboratory scientists in countries across the globe are contributing
Clinical laboratories around the world have been contributing to the global scientific community’s database of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, and its variants, through an ingenious and crucial network known as GISAID. This cooperative sharing of the coronavirus’ genetic data (now four million genomic sequences strong) has greatly contributed to understanding the spread of infections and progress obtained in developing effective treatments and vaccines.
Headquartered in Munich, Germany, GISAID, which stands for Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data, was created in 2008 during the Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) pandemic. The GISAID initiative promotes “the rapid sharing of data from all influenza viruses and the coronavirus causing COVID-19. This includes genetic sequence and related clinical and epidemiological data associated with human viruses, and geographical as well as species-specific data associated with avian and other animal viruses, to help researchers understand how viruses evolve and spread during epidemics and pandemics,” according to the GISAID website.
Clinical pathologists are likely familiar with GISAID. The initiative has become an indispensable tool for researchers battling SARS-CoV-2. GISAID allows scientists and organizations worldwide to upload genetic sequences of COVID-19 samples. Those sequences can then be used in research for treatments, vaccines, and to track emerging variants. The information is invaluable, freely available, and represents the collaborative efforts of scientists around the world in the fight against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
An article published in The World, titled, “From Congo to Chile, Small Labs Are Playing a Growing Role in Global Understanding of COVID,” noted that more than four million genomic sequences have been submitted as of October 15, 2021. The more countries around the world that submit sequences to GISAID, the more understanding scientists have of how the virus is mutating. And, as the cost of performing genomic sequencing declines, the number of countries submitting genomes of SARS-CoV-2 to GISAID is rising.
How GISAID Ensures Contributors Receive Credit for Their Work
One of the reasons that GISAID has been so successful in gathering data is that it requires anyone who uses data downloaded from the massive database to give credit to the person or organization who uploaded it. In other words, if a scientist in the United Kingdom (UK) does breakthrough research using genomes that were originally uploaded to GISAID by a scientist in the Congo, the UK scientist must credit the work of the scientist from the Congo.
Other genomic databases do not have this requirement and genetic researchers are often hesitant to share information due to fear their work will be co-opted by others. According to The World, scientists in lower income countries are particularly vulnerable to having their work appropriated.
Even worse is having one’s work appropriated, used to create a product, and then not being given access to that product.
“Unfortunately, we’ve seen also the situation whereby people have leveraged that data and created the solution and refused to share the solution with those that shared the data,” virologist Christian Happi, PhD (above), who directs the African Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases (ACEGID) at Redeemer’s University in Nigeria, told The World. “And that is definitely going to roll back this whole open data sharing and access principle.” Happi is also a Visiting Scientist in the Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (Photo copyright: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP/News 24.)
That is why GISAID’s policy of giving credit is so important, as molecular biologist Francine Ntoumi, PhD, told The World. “This means that we are going to participate in the game. We are able to say what is circulating. You are no more an observer and I think it makes a difference.” Ntoumi is Founder and Executive Director of the Congolese Foundation for Medical Research (CFMR) in the Republic of Congo, a lecturer in Immunology at Marien Ngouabi University, and Associate Professor and Head of a Research Group at the Institute of Tropical Medicine at the University of Tübingen, Germany.
The guarantee that credit will be given softens some of those fears and explains why the GISAID database is so vast, and increasingly contains sequences from scientists in Africa, South American, and other places where genomic sequencing was not widespread prior to the pandemic. Information from all over the world is crucial for scientists monitoring the mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
Criticisms of GISAID
The fact that more countries are contributing to the GISAID database is certainly a positive, but the non-profit is not without its critics. There have been complaints about the lack of transparency, and some researchers claim to have had their access denied to the data without any explanation.
An article published in Science reported that “Scientists live in fear of losing access to the GISAID database.”
One scientist who requested anonymity told Science, “I am so tired of being scared all the time, of being terrified that if I take a step wrong, I will lose access to the data that I base my research on. [GISAID] has that sword hanging over any scientist that works on SARS-CoV-2.”
In response to these criticisms, GISAID said in a statement, “Any individual who registers with GISAID and agrees to the GISAID terms of use will be granted access credentials. … On rare occasions, GISAID has found it necessary to temporarily suspend access credentials to protect the GISAID sharing mechanism,” The World reported.
The strict sharing rules may be necessary to encourage researchers in lower income countries to contribute their genomic data on SARS-CoV-2. Charles Rotimi, PhD, a geneticist at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), told Science, “To make scientists, especially from developing countries, more comfortable—making sure that they are recognized in the work that they are doing—sometimes you have to create an extra layer [of protection].”
GISAID has certainly accomplished much in its assembling four million SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequences. The initiative’s efforts have contributed to a substantial increase in the number of countries around the world that now have gene sequencing capabilities.
This is another illustration for clinical laboratory managers and pathologists of how continual technology advances in gene sequencing equipment and data analysis software make it significantly cheaper, faster, and more accurate to do genetic sequencing. This was not true, just a few years ago.
