News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

New Research Suggests Clinical Laboratory Blood Tests Could Fill A Void in Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnoses

Studies presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference point to the p-tau217 protein as an especially useful biomarker

Researchers disclosed a potentially useful biomarker for Alzheimer’s Disease at a major conference this summer. The good news for clinical laboratories is that the biomarker is found in blood. If further research confirms these early findings, medical laboratories could one day have a diagnostic test for this condition.

That possibility emerged from the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC), which was held online July 27-31. Researchers presented findings from multiple studies that suggested blood/plasma levels of a protein known as phospho-tau217 (p-tau217) can indicate brain anomalies associated with Alzheimer’s.“Changes in brain proteins amyloid and tau, and their formation into clumps known as plaques and tangles, respectively, are defining physical features of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain,” states an AAIC press release. “Buildup of tau tangles is thought to correlate closely with cognitive decline. In these newly reported results, blood/plasma levels of p-tau217, one of the forms of tau found in tangles, also seem to correlate closely with buildup of amyloid.”

At present, “there is no single diagnostic test that can determine if a person has Alzheimer’s disease,” the association states on its website. Clinicians will typically review a patient’s medical history and conduct tests to evaluate memory and other everyday thinking skills. That may help determine that an individual has dementia, but not necessarily that Alzheimer’s is the cause.

“Currently, the brain changes that occur before Alzheimer’s dementia symptoms appear can only be reliably assessed by positron-emission tomography (PET) scans, and from measuring amyloid and tau proteins in [cerebrospinal] fluid (CSF),” the association states. “These methods are expensive and invasive. And, too often, they are unavailable because they are not covered by insurance or difficult to access, or both.”

In the AAIC press release, Alzheimer’s Association Chief Science Officer Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, said that a clinical laboratory blood test “would fill an urgent need for simple, inexpensive, non-invasive and easily available diagnostic tools for Alzheimer’s.

“New testing technologies could also support drug development in many ways,” she added. “For example, by helping identify the right people for clinical trials, and by tracking the impact of therapies being tested. The possibility of early detection and being able to intervene with a treatment before significant damage to the brain from Alzheimer’s disease would be game changing for individuals, families, and our healthcare system.”

However, she cautioned, “these are early results, and we do not yet know how long it will be until these tests are available for clinical use. They need to be tested in long-term, large-scale studies, such as Alzheimer’s clinical trials.”

Eli Lilly Clinical Laboratory Alzheimer’s Test

In one study presented at the conference, titled, “Discriminative Accuracy of Plasma Phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer Disease vs Other Neurodegenerative Disorders,” researchers evaluated an experimental p-tau217 medical laboratory test developed by Eli Lilly. They published their research in JAMA Network.

The study, led by Oskar Hansson, MD, of Lund University in Sweden, included 1,402 participants. About half of these were enrolled in BioFINDER-2, an ongoing dementia study in Sweden. In this group, researchers were most interested in the test’s ability to distinguish Alzheimer’s from other neurodegenerative disorders that cause dementia.

Diagnostic accuracy was between 89% and 98%, the researchers reported, which was similar to the performance of PET imaging and CSF tests. P-tau217 was more accurate than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as well as other biomarkers, such as p-tau181.

Oskar-Hansson-PhD-Lund-University-400w@72ppi
“Today the majority of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease around the world do not get a timely diagnosis, which results in suboptimal symptomatic treatment and care,” Oskar Hansson, MD, said in an Eli Lilly news release. “With rising prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease, more patients will be evaluated in primary care and other clinics where CSF and PET biomarkers are not available. Blood-based biomarkers, like plasma p-tau217, together with digital tools for checking memory performance, such as smartphone-based apps, can considerably improve the diagnostic work-up of Alzheimer’s disease patients in such clinics.” (Photo copyright: Alzheimer’s Fund.)

Another cohort consisted of 81 participants in the Brain and Body Donation Program at Banner Sun Health Research Institute in Sun City, Ariz. In this program, elderly volunteers submit to periodic clinical assessments and agree to donate their organs and tissue for study after they die.

Here, the researchers’ primary goal was to determine the test’s ability to distinguish between individuals with and without Alzheimer’s. Researchers ran the p-tau217 test on plasma samples collected within 2.9 years of death and compared the results to postmortem examinations of the brain tissue. Accuracy was 89% in individuals with amyloid plaques and tangles, and 98% in individuals with plaques and more extensive tangles.

The third cohort consisted of 622 members of a large extended family in Colombia whose members share a genetic mutation that makes them susceptible to early-onset Alzheimer’s, The New York Times reported. Among the members, 365 were carriers of the mutation. In this group, levels of plasma p-tau217 increased by age, and “a significant difference from noncarriers was seen at age 24.9 years,” the researchers wrote in Jama Network. That’s about 20 years before the median age when mild cognitive impairment typically begins to appear in carriers.

Other Alzheimer Biomarker Studies Presented at AAIC

Suzanne Schindler, MD, PhD, a neurologist and instructor in the Department of Neurology at the Washington University School of Medicine (WUSM) in St. Louis, presented results of an Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) study that used mass spectrometry to analyze amyloid and p-tau variants in blood samples collected from participants. The researchers compared these with CSF and PET results and found that some of the of p-tau isoforms, especially p-tau217, had a strong concordance.

“These findings indicate that blood plasma Aβ and p-tau measures are highly precise biomarkers of brain amyloidosis, tauopathy, and can identify stages of clinical and preclinical AD,” stated an AAIC press release on the studies.

The WUSM researches launched the effort to develop and validate Alzheimer’s blood biomarkers called the Study to Evaluate Amyloid in Blood and Imaging Related to Dementia (SEABIRD) in April 2019. It runs through August 2023 and will seek to enroll more than 1,100 participants in the St. Louis area.

Another study presented at the conference compared the performance of p-tau217 and p-tau181 in distinguishing between Alzheimer’s and Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD), another condition that causes dementia. Study author Elisabeth Thijssen, MSc, of the UC San Francisco Memory and Aging Center reported that both biomarkers could be useful in differential diagnosis, but that p-tau217 was “potentially superior” for predicting a tau positive PET scan result.

For decades, physicians have wanted a diagnostic test for Alzheimer’s Disease that could identify this condition early in its development. This would allow the patient and the family to make important decisions before the onset of severe symptoms. Such a clinical laboratory test would be ordered frequently and thus would be a new source of revenue for medical laboratories.

—Stephen Beale

Related Information:

How is Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosed?

Alzheimer’s Diagnosis and Treatment

Diagnosing Alzheimer’s: How Alzheimer’s is Diagnosed

New Alzheimer’s Disease Blood Test Could Enable Early Diagnosis and Advance Understanding of How Disease Impacts Those Living with It

Lilly’s p-tau217 Blood Test Shows High Accuracy in Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease in Data Published in JAMA

P-Tau217 May Detect Alzheimer Disease, Brain Amyloidosis, Tauopathy

New Blood Test Shows Great Promise in The Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease

‘Amazing, Isn’t It?’ Long-Sought Blood Test for Alzheimer’s in Reach

Scientists Get Closer to Blood Test for Alzheimer’s Disease

Discriminative Accuracy of Plasma Phospho-tau217 for Alzheimer Disease vs Other Neurodegenerative Disorders

Federal Judge Blocks New HHS Rule That Would Have Required Pharmaceutical Companies to Include Pricing in Television Ads

Drug companies claim HHS rule violates their first amendment rights, but added web links to drug prices in their TV ads anyway

Will American consumers ever see the prices of their prescription drugs? That almost happened this summer, when a Trump administration healthcare transparency initiative would have required pharmaceutical companies to include prices in drug advertisements. But that requirement was halted by a federal judge one day before it was scheduled to take effect.

The measure, which passed in May, was intended to provide healthcare consumers with price transparency for some prescription medications and help lower prescription costs. However, a federal judge placed the new law on hold citing government over-reach.

This is a significant development for clinical laboratory managers, pathologists, and others watching efforts that will enable patients to see the cost of their medical care in advance of service. Also, few were surprised to learn that this court case was filed by pharmaceutical companies with the goal of preventing prescription drug prices from being disclosed in these advertisements.

HHS Tells Big Pharma to ‘Level with People’ About Drug Costs

Reducing prescription drug prices is a critical issue for healthcare consumers. Therefore, any policy that helps lower costs should provide benefits for both patients as well as the healthcare industry overall. That’s why President Trump signed the initiative that required pharmaceutical companies to include drug prices in television advertisements.

“We are telling drug companies today: You’ve got to level with people [about] what your drugs cost,” Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar (above) stated after Congress passed the President’s proposal, STATreported. “Put it in the TV ads. Patients have a right to know, and if you’re ashamed of your drug prices, change your drug prices. It’s that simple.” [Photo copyright: Washington Times.]

The controversial proposal, which would have applied to all prescription drugs that cost more than $35 for a one-month supply, was scheduled to go into effect over the summer until it was blocked by Federal Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Mehta ruled that HHS does not have the regulatory power to force pharmaceutical companies to include the prices of prescription drugs in their TV ads and that the agency had violated laws passed by Congress.

“That policy very well could be an effective tool in halting the rising cost of prescription drugs. But no matter how vexing the problem of spiraling drug costs may be, HHS cannot do more than what Congress has authorized,” Mehta wrote in his decision, NPR reported.

Drug companies Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN), Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY) and Merck (NYSE:MRK) along with the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) filed lawsuits over the regulation stating it was a violation of their free speech rights. They won the reprieve on July 8, just one day before the regulation would have gone into effect.

Mehta stated in his opinion that the Social Security Act, which HHS used as its basis for the regulation, does not “empower HHS to issue a rule that compels drug manufacturers to disclose list prices,” Fierce Pharma reported.

In August, the Trump administration filed an appeal after the federal judge struck down the regulation. The exact basis for that appeal has not been disclosed. 

Drug Companies Decry New Law as Unconstitutional

Many drug makers are not happy with the rule. Drug industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) believes that mandating drug companies to disclose pricing in TV commercials is a violation of their First Amendment rights, STAT reported.

Nevertheless, PhRMA proposed that pharmaceutical companies provide a web link in their TV advertisements that directs consumers to pricing information online. And some companies also are experimenting with going a step further and voluntarily complying with the original regulation.

In a news release, PhRMA states, “To help patients make more informed healthcare decisions, [PhRMA] member companies today announced their commitment to providing more transparency about medicine costs. PhRMA member companies’ direct-to-consumer (DTC) television advertisements will soon direct patients to information about medicine costs, including the list price of the medicine, out-of-pocket costs, or other context about the potential cost of the medicine and available financial assistance. The biopharmaceutical industry will also launch a new platform that will provide patients, caregivers, and providers with cost and financial assistance information for brand-name medicines, as well as other patient support resources.”

However, Azar said that action is not in compliance with the rule. “They put $4 billion a year into television advertising because the television ad is where people are getting their information, and to point them to the internet would be the equivalent of saying that they should simply be putting their ads on the internet and not running them on TV,” he told the press, STAT reported.

Opponents of the rule noted that actual drug costs for consumers can vary widely depending on coverage and that patients might forgo their medications if they are concerned about the costs, reported Politico following passage of the measure in May.

Critics also claimed that that there were no enforcement mechanisms outlined for companies that did not comply with the ruling, and that it relied on the pharmaceutical industry to police itself. If a particular company failed to include the required information in its TV ads, competitors could file suit against it under the deceptive and unfair trade practice provisions of the Lanham Act, Politico noted.

Solutions to the public’s demand for price transparency in healthcare may be forthcoming. However, at press time, no further information concerning the status of this HHS regulation was available. Dark Daily will continue to monitor the situation and inform readers of any developments.

Meanwhile executives and pathologists at the nation’s clinical laboratories should continue to develop strategies to serve patients who want to know the prices of their medical laboratory tests before they arrive to have their specimens collected.

This summer, several pharma companies may have succeeded in getting a federal court to stop this particular rule to disclose prescription drug prices. But the trend toward price transparency has deep roots and will continue forward.

—JP Schlingman

Related Information:

Drug Makers Will Have to Include Prices in TV Ads as Soon as This Summer

Judge Blocks Trump Rule Requiring Pharma Companies to Disclose Drug Prices in TV Ads

Appeal Shows Trump’s HHS Isn’t Giving Up on Putting Drug Prices in TV Ads

Trump Finalizes Rule to Require Drug Prices in TV Ads

Johnson and Johnson Will List Drug Prices in TV Commercials

PhRMA Members Take New Approach to DTC Television Advertising

What You Need to Know about Putting Drug Prices in TV Ads

Why Putting List Prices in Drug Ads Matters

Success of Harvard Pilgrim Value-Based Pharma Contracts Might Indicate a Transition Away from Fee-for-Service to Value-Based Care in Other Healthcare Areas

New value-based healthcare payment models could have far-reaching effects on medical laboratories and the testing they provide

Hospitals, physicians, and medical laboratories recognize the transition from “volume to value” that’s underway in the American healthcare system. Fee-for-service payments for clinical services (regardless of whether they are needed or effective) will soon cease and providers will be increasingly paid on how much value they deliver to patient care. This will fundamentally alter the complete care continuum, from hospital stays to pathology consults to clinical laboratory testing services.

One such change involves value-based drug contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers. According to an article in The Boston Globe, in an effort to reduce the ever-increasing cost of prescription drugs while still “giving patients access to costly treatments,” Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (Harvard Pilgrim)—one of Massachusetts’ largest health insurers with more than 1.3 million members—is negotiating value-based agreements with major pharmaceutical manufacturers. How much money Harvard Pilgrim pays for certain drugs will depend on how much the healthcare organization contributes to curing/improving their patients’ conditions.

Value-Based Pharmaceutical Agreements

Harvard Pilgrim first made news for their value-based drug contracts in 2015 when they contracted with three companies:

Harvard Pilgrim currently has 12 value-based pricing contracts with pharmaceutical companies.  According to a news release, the contracts enable Harvard Pilgrim to monitor “specific criteria in patients following discharge” for the effectiveness of medication. “If the medicines fail to meet the agreed upon outcomes criteria in real patients, Harvard Pilgrim will be charged a lower amount,” the news release states.

a majority of health plans are interested in forming outcomes-based contracts with biopharmaceutical manufacturers

The graph above is from an analysis by Avalere Health, a strategic advisory company in Washington, DC, that develops solutions for healthcare. It shows how, according to Avalere, “a majority of health plans are interested in forming outcomes-based contracts with biopharmaceutical manufacturers that tie product reimbursement to patient outcomes.” (Image copyright: Avalere Health.)

These contracts link a drug’s cost to its overall effectiveness in ways that make companies accountable for results in terms of real-world patient outcomes, rather than controlled trial results. Michael Sherman, MD, Harvard Pilgrim’s Chief Medical Officer and SVP of Health Services, stated in the news release that they put drug companies “at risk for delivering” on their promises.

According to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care President and CEO Eric Schultz, value-based agreements between insurance, hospitals, medical laboratories, and drug companies are becoming increasingly important. At the 2017 America’s Health Service Plans (AHIP) Institute and Expo, Schultz stated that in terms of value-based contracting, “right now, it’s all about clinical outcomes,” a FierceHealthcare article covering the event noted. Shultz believes this is a good thing for patients that could positively impact all areas of healthcare.

Harvard Pilgrim is not alone in shifting to value-based healthcare (AKA, value-based purchasing and Pay-for-Performance). According to a news release, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Health Plan recently created the Center for Value-Based Purchasing for Pharmaceuticals. According to William Shrank, MD, UPMC Health Plan’s Chief Medical Officer, the Center is determined to evaluate outcomes and effects of the new payment models, which have the potential to “rapidly influence pharmaceutical purchasing nationwide and promote greater value in medication use.”

Can Medical Laboratories Participate in Value-based Models?

The rise of value-based healthcare models affects more than just pharmaceutical companies; medical laboratories nationwide are considering how value-based systems might affect their work and mission as well. In an Orchard Software whitepaper titled, “The Value of the Laboratory in the New Healthcare Model,” Daniel J. Scully, CEO of New York’s Buffalo Medical Group, stated that the “50-million dollar” question for laboratories is “does the laboratory offer enough value in service and speed of results” for the new value-based healthcare models?

Clinical laboratories play such a vital role in healthcare quality—providing accurate diagnosing and crucial monitoring, as well as data collection and risk assessment—they may find themselves affected by value-based healthcare changes. Because of the high costs of equipment and testing, laboratories may also find themselves scrambling to eliminate costs and improve on efficiency, by monitoring resources and testing outcomes in connection to patient needs.

Clinical pathologists may also find themselves more frequently called upon to assist in guiding clinicians to more “effectively utilize lab services to achieve better care,” according to the Orchard Software white paper.

Clinical Associations Say Medical Laboratories Crucial to Success of Value-based Healthcare

The American Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and the American Society for Clinical Pathologists (ASCP) have both addressed what the change to a value-based healthcare system may mean for clinical pathologists.

An ASCP white paper states that clinical pathology data has become increasingly important as “clinical laboratory data are now used to measure provider performance, both individual and organizational, as well as to inform value-based purchasing that optimizes healthcare resources and decreases costs.”

In a position statement, the AACC noted that laboratory testing was crucial to this new model, and that “laboratory professionals are uniquely positioned” to help increase value within healthcare by helping “clinicians identify the most effective testing protocol and interpret the results accurately. Clinical laboratorians can further reduce healthcare costs by developing new, more precise tests to personalize patient care and creating computerized clinical decision support interventions to aid test selection.” Some types of testing, however, particularly expensive molecular and genetic testing, may end up a target of similar value-based agreements between the labs that perform these tests and the provider organizations that use the tests.

Much of the focus on value-based healthcare is currently on value-based pharmaceutical contracts, such as those from Harvard Pilgrim. Nevertheless, clinical laboratories will likely play vital roles in providing care, guiding testing, and evaluating care outcomes under these new payment models. They also could find themselves part of a larger debate concerning overuse of testing or data collection.

Changes to healthcare from pay-for-service to pay-for-value will undoubtedly have far-reaching effects as healthcare fields attempt to cut costs while providing better services. Every clinical laboratory must be proactive in finding its place in these new models.

Amanda Warren

Related Information:

Harvard Pilgrim Expands Use of Novel Drug Purchasing Deals

Value for Consumer Drugs—Harvard Pilgrim Leads the Way

Harvard Pilgrim Signs Outcomes-Based Contracts with AstraZeneca for Brilinta and Bydureon

UPMC Health Plan Establishes Unprecedented Center for Value-Based Purchasing for Pharmaceuticals

Harvard Pilgrim Signs Second Groundbreaking Contract with Amgen for Repatha

Lilly’s Trulicity Joins Pay-for-performance Trend with Harvard Pilgrim Deal

Advancing Value-Based Healthcare: Laboratory Medicine’s Essential Role

The Value of the Laboratory in the New Healthcare Model

AHIP 2017: Harvard Pilgrim, Eli Lilly CEOs Talk Drug Prices and Paying for Value

Health Insurers Go All in on Value-based Drug Pricing

Health Plans Are Interested in Tying Drug Payments to Patient Outcomes

Harvard Pilgrim Bets on Value-based Drug Payments with New Deals

Harvard Pilgrim to Pay for 2 Autoimmune Drugs Based on Outcomes, Value

Value-based Contracts Key to Solving U.S. Drug Pricing ‘Crisis’

Nearly One-Third of Traditional Medicare Payments Now Based on Value-Based Reimbursement and Alternative Payment Models

Ongoing Growth in Volume of Clinical Laboratory Tests That Support Precision Medicine Due to Physician Acceptance; Payers Still Have Concerns

Pathologists and Clinical Lab Executives Take Note: Medicare Has New Goals and Deadlines for Transitioning from Fee-For-Service Healthcare Models to Value-Based Reimbursement

Up to 50% of Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, and Anthem Reimbursements Go to Value-Based Contracts; Clinical Laboratories Must Implement Value-Based Strategies to Remain Competitive

Attention Pathologists and Clinical Laboratory Professionals: New ‘Sunshine Act’ Requirements Will Track and Publish Financial Relationships Providers Have with Healthcare Vendors

Some physicians fear disclosure of payments by drug and medical device companies could damage patient confidence and physician-patient relationships

Over the course of 2014, pathologists and medical laboratory managers will experience a different relationship with in vitro diagnostic (IVD) manufacturers and other lab industry vendors. That’s because a new federal law requires vendors to publicly disclose financial and other arrangements they have with providers.

That law is the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, and it became effective on August 21, 2013. The intent of this new law is to shed light on financial aspects of relationships between physicians and healthcare vendors.

Vendors Must Disclose All ‘Transfers of Value’ They Made to Providers

Vendors are now required to publicly disclose all payments—or “transfers of value”—to providers where the value is more than $10 or an aggregate amount of $100 annually. Manufacturers and providers, therefore, must report payments for speaking engagements, consulting fees, research grants, travel reimbursements, stock, and even small trinkets and meals during routine sales visits.

This includes medical device and medical equipment manufacturers, group purchasing organizations, pharmaceutical firms, software companies, physicians, and teaching hospitals, noted an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The Sunshine Act also requires manufacturers and group purchasing organizations to report certain information regarding ownership or investment interests of physicians in their companies.

Data collected must be reported to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and will be compiled into a database. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is expected to publish the information on a public website for the first time in September 2014. HHS also will include this information in an annual report to Congress.

Study Revealed Extent of Physician-Vendor Financial Relationships

The NEJM article noted the extent of vendor-physician financial relationships by citing a 2007 study. This study revealed that 94% of U.S. physicians had an industry financial relationship. The study found that 83% of physicians received gifts and 28% received payments for professional services, such as consulting or research participation. Of physicians reporting industry relationships, 60% were involved in medical education and 40% in creating clinical practice guidelines.

By 2001, commercial vendors had also become the major source of research and development funding, accounting for 55% to 60% of the $100 billion annually spent on these activities. Additionally, commercial funding for continuing medical education (CME) has also increased, with the industry now paying for more than a third of all CME offerings.

Requirements of the Sunshine Act are particularly familiar to companies that have been sued by the federal government for allegedly making payments to physicians to encourage them to improperly market drugs for off-label uses or as kickbacks to get them to use specific devices. In settlements with the government to resolve the charges, these companies have signed corporate integrity agreements, noted a report in Modern Healthcare. Under these settlements, dozens of companies, including Eli Lilly and Co., Novartis, and Pfizer, disclosed their financial arrangements with physicians.

Will Disclosure of Payments Hurt Physician-Patient Relationships? 

Congress passed this law in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to thwart the influence of financial perks on physician choice of vendor products and healthcare costs. Research has indicated that disclosure of physician-vendor financial relationships may bring down healthcare costs.

Patients “might be less inclined to accept treatment recommendations from these physicians or even to receive care from them,” noted authors of the NEJM article. “Given the evidence that greater physician financial involvement with manufacturers is associated with higher utilization of expensive, brand-name products, such dynamics could reduce costs.”

Attorney David Hoffmeister, a Partner at the global law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, agrees. In a Medsider interview, he suggested that smart, computer-savvy patients are likely to seek out this information.

Attorney David Hoffmeister is a partner in the law firm of Wilson Sonsi Goodrich & Rosati. When it comes to public reporting about vendor payments to physicians, he believes a significant number of computer-savvy patients will look for such information about their physicians’ financial relationships with commercial vendors and judge them accordingly. (Photo copyright Wilson Sonsi Goodrich & Rosati)

Attorney David Hoffmeister is a partner in the law firm of Wilson Sonsi Goodrich & Rosati. When it comes to public reporting about vendor payments to physicians, he believes a significant number of computer-savvy patients will look for such information about their physicians’ financial relationships with commercial vendors and judge them accordingly. (Photo copyright Wilson Sonsi Goodrich & Rosati)

In light of the number of people seeking healthcare information on websites, such as WebMD, it is apparent “there are some folks who are going to be very interested in what type of remuneration their physicians receive from medical device companies,” said Hoffmeister. He noted that, if undergoing a hip replacement or knee replacement, for example, smart patients might look at the HHS website to determine whether or not their physicians have received significant remuneration from the manufacturers of those devices.

Will Transparency End Cozy Physician-Vendor Relationships?

Although HHS intends the website to inform the general public, Hoffmeister noted that the information may not be useful to anyone other than prosecutors or investigators.  The concern of physicians about disclosure was voiced at the American Medical Association’s (AMA) annual meeting in June. The greatest fear about the new law expressed by physicians was that it would cause patients to question their reasons for prescribing a certain drug if the HHS data links them to a drug company. In turn, that may ultimately affect the patient-physician relationship.

“Whether transparency will lead to fewer relationships is really the million-dollar question,” said Daniel Carla, M.D., Director of the Pew Charitable Trusts Prescription Project. “The kinds of relationships that may drop off may well be the most inappropriate relationships.” He suggested, however, that drug and device companies are expected to seek new ways to keep frustrated doctors from walking away from valued consulting and research relationships.

 

Daniel Carla, M.D., (pictured here) is Director of the Pew Charitable Trusts Prescription Project. He is unsure if disclosure will actually end or limit physician financial relationships with commercial vendors. He suggested that drug and device companies will find loop holes in the new law to retain valued research and consulting relationships. (Photo copyright of National Physicians Alliance.)

Daniel Carla, M.D., (pictured here) is Director of the Pew Charitable Trusts Prescription Project. He is unsure if disclosure will actually end or limit physician financial relationships with commercial vendors. He suggested that drug and device companies will find loop holes in the new law to retain valued research and consulting relationships. (Photo copyright of National Physicians Alliance.)

AMA Encourages Doctors to Take Advantage of Disclosure Review Period

Though the burden for collecting and reporting data falls on industry vendors, the AMA is encouraging doctors to review vendor disclosures and demand correction of inaccuracies. The law provides 45 days for physicians to review industry disclosures before submission to the CMS. The CMS will indicate the data is in dispute, but it’s up to vendors to make corrections, noted the Modern Healthcare report.

Some hospitals are educating their physicians about the potential impact of the Sunshine Act. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock, for instance, began strengthening its conflict-of-interest policy more than two years ago to address relationships between physicians and commercial interests.

Medical Laboratory Professionals Affected by ‘Sunshine Act’ Too

The law has already changed policies and practices of in vitro diagnostics (IVD) companies and other lab industry vendors. Because this law calls for tracking and public reporting of the various types of incentives and remuneration provided by IVD manufacturing and supply firms, every pathologist and medical laboratory professional should be aware of this law’s requirements. They will also want to follow guidelines established by their parent organizations or hospital institutions regarding vendor remuneration.

It is also important to know that the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) introduced stricter new ethics guidelines for its members in recent years. This combination of industry guidelines and federal legislation is why many IVD manufacturers, healthcare informatics companies, and other lab industry vendors have revised their policies for remunerating pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals for various technology development and evaluation services. It is also why lab industry vendors have changed the policies that govern how they provide sponsorships and grants in support of medical lab industry meetings and conferences.

—By Patricia Kirk

Related Information:

Already feeling the heat: Docs rethinking payments as Sunshine Act looms

The Sunshine Act — Effects on Physicians

Physician Payment Sunshine Act: Listing of Policy and Medicine Resources for Open Payments

Finally, Final Rule on the Physician Payments Sunshine Act under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Released

AdvaMed Ethics Guidelines

;