Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is considering adding clinical laboratory services to bundled payments in its proposed Oncology Care First model
CMMI, an organization within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), is charged with developing and testing new healthcare delivery and payment models as alternatives to the traditional fee-for-service (FFS) model. On November 1, 2019, CMMI released an informal Request for Information (RFI) seeking comments for the proposed Oncology Care First (OCF) model, which would be the successor to the Oncology Care Model (OCM) launched in 2016.
“The inefficiency and variation in oncology care in the
United States is well documented, with avoidable hospitalizations and emergency
department visits occurring frequently, high service utilization at the end of
life, and use of high-cost drugs and biologicals when lower-cost, clinically
equivalent options exist,” the CMMI RFI states.
With the proposed new model, “the Innovation Center aims to build on the lessons learned to date in OCM and incorporate feedback from stakeholders,” the RFI notes.
How the Oncology Care First Model Works
The OCF program, which is voluntary, will be open to
physician groups and hospital outpatient departments. CMMI anticipates that
testing of the model will run from January 2021 through December 2025.
It will offer two payment mechanisms for providers that
choose to participate:
A Monthly Population Payment (MPP) would apply
to a provider’s Medicare beneficiaries with “cancer or a cancer-related
diagnosis,” the RFI states. It would cover Evaluation and Management (EM)
services as well as drug administration services and a set of “Enhanced
Services,” including 24/7 access to medical records.
Of particular interest to medical laboratories, the RFI also
states that “we are considering the inclusion of additional services in the monthly
population payment, such as imaging or medical laboratory services, and seek
feedback on adding these or other services.”
In addition, providers could receive a
Performance-Based Payment (PBP) if they reduce expenditures for patients
receiving chemotherapy below a “target amount” determined by past Medicare
payments. If providers don’t meet the threshold, they could be required to
repay CMS.
Practices that wish to participate in the OCF model must go through an application process. It is also open to participation by private payers. CMS reports that 175 practices and 10 payers are currently participating in the 2016 Oncology Care Model (OCM).
“We want better quality care for patients,” explained Lara Strawbridge, MPH (above), Director of the CMMI Division of Ambulatory Payment Models, during a US Department of Health and Human Services public listening session on Nov. 8. “We hope that at the same time, costs are maintained or reduced.” The new OCF payment model will feature a Monthly Population Payment mechanism that could include reimbursements for medical laboratory services, which has some medical laboratory organizations concerned. (Photo copyright: Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation.)
Medical Lab Leaders Concerned about the CMMI OCF Model
One group raising concerns about the inclusion of medical laboratory service reimbursements in the Monthly Population Payment scheme is the Personalized Medicine Coalition. “Laboratory services are crucial to the diagnosis and management of many cancers and are an essential component of personalized medicine,” wrote Cynthia A. Bens, the organization’s senior VP for public policy, in an open letter to CMMI Acting Director Amy Bassano. “We are concerned that adding laboratory service fees to the MPP may cause providers to view them as expenses that are part of the total cost of delivering care, rather than an integral part of the solution to attain high-value care,” Bens wrote.
She advised CMMI to “seek further input from the laboratory
and provider communities on how best to contain costs within the OCF model,
while ensuring the proper deployment of diagnostics and other laboratory
services.”
Members of the coalition include biopharma companies, diagnostic companies, patient advocacy groups, and clinical laboratory testing services. Lab testing heavyweights Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX) and Laboratory Corporation of America (NYSE:LH) are both members.
CMS ‘Doubles Down’ on OCM
The proposal received criticism from other quarters as well. “While private- and public-sector payers would be well served to adopt and support a VBP [value-based payment] program for cancer care, we need to better understand some of the shortcomings of the original OCM design and adopt lessons learned from other successful VBP models to ensure uptake by providers and ultimately better oncology care for patients,” wrote members of the Oncology Care Model Work Group in a Health Affairs blog post. They added that with the new model, “CMS seems to double down on the same design as the OCM.”
Separately, CMMI has proposed a controversial Radiation
Oncology (RO) alternative payment model (APM) that would be mandatory for
practices in randomly-selected metro areas. The agency estimates that it would
apply to approximately 40% of the radiotherapy practices in the US.
These recent actions should serve to remind pathologists and
clinical laboratories that CMS continues to move away from fee-for-service and
toward value-based care payment models, and that it is critical to plan for
changing reimbursement strategies.
Clinical laboratory leaders interested in positioning their labs to be paid for added-value services will get knowledge, insights, and more at upcoming third annual Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop in November
It’s a critical time for medical laboratories. Healthcare is transitioning from a fee-for-service payment system to new value-based payment models, creating disruption and instability in the clinical lab test market. In addition, payers are cutting reimbursement for many lab tests.
These are among the market factors leading some pathologists
and clinical lab leaders to seek new or alternative sources of revenue to keep
the lights on and the machines running in their laboratories. Some might say,
it’s a dark time for the lab industry.
“This is not the time to be shy or timid,” he declared. “The
quantitative value of medical laboratory domain is significant and will be lost
if not exploited or leveraged.”
Shotorbani has reason to be positive. In recent years the Project Santa Fe Foundation (PSFF) has emerged to advocate for, and teach, the Clinical Lab 2.0 model. Clinical Lab 2.0 is an approach which focuses on longitudinal clinical laboratory data to augment population health in new payment arrangements.
Earlier this year, PSFF filed for 501(c) status, according to a news release. It is now positioned as a nonprofit organization, guided by a board of directors whose mission is “to create a disruptive value paradigm and alternative payment model that defines placement of diagnostic services in healthcare.”
Progressing Toward Clinical Lab 2.0
At the 24th Annual Executive War College on Lab and Pathology Management held in New Orleans last May, the nation’s first ever Clinical Lab 2.0 “Shark Tank” competition was won by Aspenti Health, a full-service diagnostic laboratory specializing in toxicology screening.
“This project, as well as all of the other cases that were presented, were quite strong and all were aligned with the mission of the Clinical Lab 2.0 movement,” said Shotorbani, in a news release. “This movement transforms the analytic results from a laboratory into actionable intelligence at the patient visit in partnership with front-liners and clinicians—allowing for identification of patient risks—and arming providers with insights to guide therapeutic interventions.
“Further, it reduces the administrative burden on providers by collecting SDH [social determinants of health] predictors in advance and tying them to outcomes of interest,” he continued. “By bringing SDH predictors to the office visit, it enables providers to engage in SDH without relying on their own data collection—a current care gap in many practices. The lab becomes a catalyst helping to manage the population we serve.”
Aspenti Health’s Shark Tank entry, “Integration of the Clinical Laboratory and Social Determinants of Health in the Management of Substance Use,” focused on the social factors tied to the co-use of opioids and benzodiazepines, a combination that puts patients at higher risk of drug-related overdose or death.
The project revealed that the top-two predictors of co-use
were the prescribing provider practice and the patient’s age.
“They did an interesting thing—what clinical laboratories
alone cannot do—the predictive value of lab test data mapped by zip code for
patients admitted in partnership with social determinants of health. This helps
to create delivery models to potentially help prevent opioid overdose,” said
Shotorbani, who sees economic implications for chronic conditions.
“If clinical laboratories have that ability to do that in
acute conditions such as opioid overdose, what is our opportunity to use lab test
data in chronic conditions, such as diabetes? The cost of healthcare is in
chronic conditions, and that is where clinical lab data has an essential role—to
support early detection and early prevention,” he added.
“This is often described as the transition from volume to value because this trend will fundamentally change how all clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups are paid,” said Khosrow Shotorbani (above), MBA, MT(ASCP), Executive Director of the Project Santa Fe Foundation (PSFF), during his presentation at the 22nd annual Executive War College in New Orleans. “This shift from volume to value also will create new winners and losers in the clinical lab industry,” he declared. “Not every lab organization will take the timely action required to introduce the value-based laboratory testing services that hospitals, physicians, and payers will need. (Photo copyright: Albuquerque Business First.)
Clinical Laboratory Data is Health Business Data
One clinical laboratory working toward that opportunity is TriCore Reference Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. It recently launched Diagnostic Optimization with the goal of improving the health of their communities.
“TriCore turned to this business model,” Shotorbani
explained. “It is actively pursuing the strategy of intervention, prevention,
and cost avoidance. TriCore is in conversation with health plans on how its lab
test data and other data sets can be combined and analyzed to risk-stratify a
population and to identify care gaps and assist in closing gaps.
“Further, TriCore is identifying high-risk patients early
before they are admitted to hospitals and ERs—the whole notion of facilitating
intervention between the healthcare provider and the potential person who may
get sick,” he added. “These are no longer theoretical goals. They are
realizations. Now the challenge is for Project Santa Fe to help other lab
organizations develop similar value-added collaborations in their communities.”
Renee Ennis, TriCore’s Chief Financial Officer, told American Healthcare Leader, “Women go in (to an ER) for some condition, and the lab finds out they are pregnant before anyone else,” she said, adding that TriCore reaches out to insurers who can offer care coordinators for prenatal services.
“There is definitely a movement within the industry in this
direction [of Clinical Lab 2.0],” she added. “But others might not be moving as
quickly as we are. As a leader in this transition, I think a lot of eyes are on
what we are doing and how we are doing it.”
Why Don’t More Lab Leaders Move Their Labs to Clinical
Lab 2.0?
So, what holds labs back from pursing Clinical Lab 2.0?
Shotorbani pointed to a couple of possibilities:
A lab’s traditional focus on volume while not
developing partnerships (such as with pharmacy colleagues) inside the
organization; and
Limited longitudinal data due to a provider’s
sale of lab outreach services or outsourcing the lab.
“The whole notion of Clinical Lab 2.0 is basically connecting the longitudinal data—the Holy Grail of lab medicine. That is the business model. Without the longitudinal view, the ability to become a Clinical Lab 2.0 is extremely limited,” added Shotorbani.
New Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop Focuses on Critical ‘Pillars’
Project Santa Fe Foundation will host the Third Annual Clinical Lab. 2.0 Workshop in Chicago on November 3-5. New this year are sessions aligned with Clinical Lab 2.0 “pillars” of leadership, standards, and evidence. The conference will feature panels addressing:
C-suite Drivers: moderated by Mark Dixon, President of The Mark Dixon Group;
In an informal Request for Information (RFI), the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) sought feedback on a “new direction to promote patient-centered care and test market-driven reforms that empower beneficiaries as consumers, provide price transparency, increase choices and competition to drive quality, reduce costs, and improve outcomes.”
CMS to ‘Move Away’ from Engineering Healthcare ‘From Afar’
Comments from healthcare providers, clinicians, states, payers, and stakeholders were accepted through November 20, 2017.
In a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) op-ed, CMS Administrator Seema Verma explained the agency’s process moving forward. “We will move away from the assumption that Washington can engineer a more efficient healthcare system from afar—that we should specify the processes healthcare providers are required to follow,” she wrote.
CMS Administrator Seema Verma (above) plans to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation “in a new direction” and may be signaling a willingness to give providers more flexibility with value-based care payment models for Medicare services. (Photo copyright: Healthcare Dive.)
The RFI states the new model design will follow six guiding principles:
1. Choice and competition in the market;
2. Provider choice and incentives;
3. Patient-centered care;
4. Benefit design and price transparency;
5. Transparent model design and evaluation; and,
6. Small scale testing.
Providers Need Freedom to Design New Approaches to Healthcare
Verma said CMS plans to review all Innovation Center models to determine “what is working and should continue, and what isn’t and shouldn’t.” She voiced concern that the complexity of some of the current models may have encouraged consolidation in the healthcare system, resulting in fewer choices for patients.
“We must shift away from a fee-for-service system that reimburses only on volume and move toward a system that holds providers accountable for outcomes and allows them to innovate,” Verma wrote in the WSJ op-ed. “Providers need the freedom to design and offer new approaches to delivering care. Our goal is to increase flexibility by providing more waivers from current requirements.”
Actual Progress of Value-based Healthcare ‘Herky-Jerky’
However, Neil Smiley, CEO of Loopback Analytics, which assists healthcare organizations with managing outcome-based care, believes the transition to value-based care may face stiffer headwinds under the new administration. He points to an August CMS proposal that canceled some mandatory bundled payment programs and scaled back others as an indication that healthcare transformation could be slowing.
“The pace at which CMS committed to rolling out value-based care is fundamentally different from the pace we’re currently seeing,” he told Health IT. “The progress toward value-based care, instead of this steady momentum they expected, is more of a herky-jerky fashion.”
The Health Care Transformation Task Force (HCTTF), a 42-member industry consortium, was among the stakeholders who responded to CMS’ RFI. In a 22-page letter, the task force reiterated its support for the healthcare system’s transformation to value-based payment and care delivery, while outlining areas for improvements. The group urged CMS to continue to develop new models while modifying, rather than abandoning, existing models that show promise and need time to achieve a lasting return.
“We would like CMS to continue support for promising models while balancing the current portfolio with new, innovative payment models,” Clare Wrobel, Director of Payment Reform Models at HCTTF, told Home Health Care News. “[But] it would be a mistake to discard current models that providers have already invested in and are showing real promise.”
Smiley, meanwhile, suggests clinical laboratory managers, pathologists, and other healthcare providers keep watch as healthcare transformation continues to evolve.
“The fee-for-service model, love it or hate it, is not dying. The organism has adapted,” he told Health IT. “For those that were aggressive early adopters of value-based care and really believed what they were hearing, and have gone fully after value-based care, some of them may feel a little exposed. If they go too hard too fast, they may suffer economically if they misjudge the pace at which this moves.”
November workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 to forward-thinkers among clinical laboratories, IVD manufacturers, and lab IT vendors offered many examples where clinical laboratory diagnostics can add value and improve patient outcomes
DATELINE: ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico—Here in this mile-high city, a special Project Santa Fe Workshop devoted to teaching the principles of Clinical Lab 2.0 attracted an impressive roster of innovators and forward-thinkers in clinical laboratory medicine. In attendance were leaders from a select number of the nation’s first-rank health systems and hospitals, along with executives from In Vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers, lab IT companies, other lab service companies, attendees from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and from institutions in Canada, Germany, Israel, India, and the UK.
Their common goal was to learn more about the emerging clinical and business model for medical laboratories known as “Clinical Lab 2.0.” A key objective of the workshop was to help those lab leaders in attendance develop strategic action plans for their own lab organizations, so as to take advantage of the insights coming from the vast information streams generated by their clinical laboratories. These services would be in support the evolving needs of health systems, hospitals physicians, and health insurers to more effectively provide integrated patient-centered clinical care.
Medical Laboratories Can Use Clinical Lab 2.0 as a Path to Adding Value
Clinical Lab 2.0 is the clinical and business model of the future for medical laboratories, assert the developers of this concept. “Clinical Lab 2.0 describes the attributes needed by all medical laboratories that want to succeed in a healthcare system organized to provide precision medicine, keep people out of hospitals, and where providers—including labs—are reimbursed based on the value they provide,” stated Khosrow Shotorbani, CEO of TriCore Reference Laboratories, one of the organizers of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop.
“Clinical Lab 2.0 is the path medical labs will need to follow if they are to continue providing relevant lab testing services and generate the reimbursement necessary for them to maintain a high level of clinical excellence and financial stability going forward,” he added. “This is the next generation of medical laboratory organization and operation.”
Lab 1.0 Was Lab Clinical/Business Model for 50 Years
For more than 50 years, Clinical Lab 1.0 was the model for labs,” noted James Crawford, MD, PhD, Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Laboratory Services at Northwell Health Laboratories and an organizer of the Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop. “Lab 1.0 is transactional, focusing on generating high quality analytical data on specimens received, but without assembling these data into integrative clinical care programs. In the simplest sense, Clinical Lab 1.0 focused on generating ever-greater numbers of specimens to drive down average cost-per-test, while maximizing revenue in a fee-for-service system.
This chart shows the attributes of Clinical Lab 1.0 and compares those to the attributes of Clinical Lab 2.0. Lab 1.0 is transactional and based on increasing test volume to lower costs and maximize fee-for-service revenue. Clinical Lab 2.0 is integrative in ways that add value to lab testing services. (Graphic copyright Project Santa Fe.)
“But fee-for-service payment is going away,” he said. “Increasingly, clinical laboratories will be paid based on the value they provide. This payment can be in the form of bundled reimbursement, as a per-member-per-month payment, or as a share of the budgeted payment made to a health system, an accountable care organization (ACO), or a multispecialty provider network. As these alternative forms of provider payment become dominant, to earn a fair share of reimbursement, all medical laboratories will need a clinical strategy to deliver lab testing services that measurably contribute to improved patient outcomes while reducing the overall cost of care. This requires looking at medical laboratories’ contribution to effective delivery of the full dollar of the healthcare spend, not just the three-cents-on-the-dollar representing laboratory testing.”
Innovators in Clinical Laboratory Industry Identify New Ways to Add Value
There are already a handful of innovative clinical laboratory organizations that have clinical experience in moving past the Lab 1.0 paradigm of reporting an accurate test result within the accepted turnaround time. Leaders within these labs are collaborating with physicians and frontline care givers specifically to help them better utilize lab tests in ways that directly improve the speed and accuracy of the overall diagnostic sequence, as well as achieving therapeutic optimization as rapidly as possible. These collaborations are tracking the improvement in patient outcomes while demonstrating how better use of lab tests can lower the total cost per episode of care.
During the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop, case studies were presented demonstrating how clinical laboratory leaders are taking the first steps to practice Clinical Lab 2.0 so as to achieve added value with medical laboratory tests. The case studies included:
· A project at Henry Ford Health to collaborate with physicians to more appropriately utilize lab tests and build consensus in support of a new lab test formulary.
· A multi-hospital initiative at Northwell Health to collaborate with physicians and nurses in the use of creating testing to make earlier, more accurate diagnoses of acute kidney injury during inpatient admissions, and better guide decisions to treat.
· A partnership involving TriCore Reference Laboratory and certain health insurers in New Mexico where the laboratory—using lab test data (some generated by emergency room testing) and other clinical data—alerts the insurers to women who are pregnant, thus allowing the insurers to provide timely guidance to the women’s care teams with the goal of improving prenatal care.
The Project Santa Fe Clinical Lab 2.0 Workshop convened on November 13-14 in Albuquerque, N.M. A broad spectrum of innovative professionals from the five Project Santa Fe member laboratories (above) were there to teach the lessons learned from their first successful efforts to collaborate with physicians and create added value from medical laboratory diagnostics. Other attendees included progressive lab leaders from several of the nation’s most prominent health systems, along with thought leaders from the IVD, lab software, and lab association sectors. (Photo copyright Project Santa Fe.)
Project Santa Fe Workshop: A Well-Attended Lab ‘Think Tank’
Participants attending the Clinical Lab 2.0 workshop included hospital lab administrators, pathologists, and clinical laboratory industry executives. The importance of this workshop is reflected in the educational grants and financial support provided by leading in vitro diagnostics manufacturers, lab IT companies, and other lab industry vendors. The lab industry vendors included:
Described as a think-tank venture, the organizers are committed to implementing projects that demonstrate how lab tests can be used in ways that add value, and then publish the resulting projects, along with data about improved patient outcomes and reductions in healthcare costs, in peer-reviewed journals. Multi-institutional studies will be required to validate the findings and outcomes from the added-value clinical collaborations initiated at the different medical laboratory organizations participating in Project Santa Fe.
Another primary goal is to share the lessons learned from these innovative projects with other like-minded pathologists, lab administrators, and lab managers. In May, Project Santa Fe organizers led a one-day workshop to teach Clinical Lab 2.0 at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management. The workshop in Albuquerque on November 13-14 was the second learning opportunity available to medical laboratory professionals. A November 2018 workshop is planned.
To offset the loss of revenue from the price cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory tests, labs will need to aggressively—but wisely—slash costs to balance their budgets
Many experienced industry executives expect this to be the single most financially disruptive event to hit the clinical laboratory profession in more than 20 years. This will not only have a substantial negative financial impact on all labs—large and small—but two sectors of the clinical lab industry are considered to be so financially vulnerable they could cease to exist.
At Greatest Risk of Financial Failure are Community Laboratories
The first sector is comprised of smaller community lab companies that operate in towns and rural areas. These labs are at the greatest risk because they are the primary providers of lab testing services to the nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities in their neighborhoods. And because they have a high proportion of Medicare Part B revenue.
Thus, the expected Medicare price cuts to the high-volume automated lab tests—such as chemistry panels and CBCs (complete blood count) that are the bread-and-butter tests for these labs—will swiftly move them from minimal profit margins to substantial losses. Since these labs have a cost-per-test that is significantly higher than the nation’s largest public lab companies, they will be unable to financially survive the 2018 Medicare fee cuts.
The second sector at risk is comprised of rural hospitals and modest-sized community hospitals. What officials at CMS and their consulting companies overlooked when they created the PAMA (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) private payer market price reporting rule is that these hospitals provide lab testing services to nursing homes and office-based physicians in their service areas.
Because of the low volumes of testing in these hospital labs, they also have a larger average cost-per-test than the big public labs. Thus, the 2018 cuts to Medicare Part B lab test prices will erode or erase any extra margin from this testing that now accrues to these hospitals.
Rural and Small Community Hospitals Rely on Lab Outreach Revenue
The financial disruption these Medicare lab test price cuts will cause to rural and community hospitals is a real thing. These hospitals rely on outreach lab test revenues to subsidize many other clinical services within the hospital. One rural hospital CEO confirmed the importance of lab outreach revenue to her organization. Michelle McEwen, FACHE, CEO of Speare Memorial Hospital in Plymouth, N.H., spoke to The Dark Report in 2012 about the financial disruption that was happening when a major health insurer excluded her hospital’s laboratory from its network.
Speare Memorial is a 25-bed critical access hospital in the central part of the state between the lakes region and the White Mountain National Forest. McEwen was blunt in her assessment of the importance of clinical laboratory outreach revenues to her hospital. “The funds generated by performing these [outreach] lab tests are used to support the cost of providing laboratory services to all patients 24/7, including stat labs for emergency patients and inpatients,” McEwen explained. “These funds also help support other services in the hospital where losses are typically incurred, such as the emergency room and obstetric programs.” (See “Critical Access Hospitals Losing Lab Test Work,” The Dark Report, April 2, 2012.)
All Medical Laboratories Will Suffer Financial Pain from Medicare Price Cuts
But it is not just community lab companies and rural hospitals that are at risk of financial failure as the Medicare Part B cuts are implemented by CMS on Jan. 1, 2018. Any clinical laboratory serving Medicare patients will experience a meaningful drop in revenue. Many larger hospital and health system laboratories are recasting their financial projections for 2018 to identify how big a drop in revenue they will experience and what cost-cutting strategies will be needed to at least break even on their lab outreach business.
This explains why the first big trend of 2018 will be substantial revenue cuts from the Medicare program. It also explains why the second big trend of 2018 will be smart cost-cutting as labs attempt to balance their books and lower spending proportional to the reduced income they project.
Labs Have a Decade of Successful Cost-Cutting, More Cuts are Difficult
Aggressive cost-cutting, however, puts the nation’s medical laboratories at risk for a different reason. For the past decade, most well-run labs have already harvested the low-hanging fruit from obvious sources of cost reduction. They installed latest-generation automation. They re-engineered workflows using the techniques of Lean, Six Sigma, and process improvement.
During these same years, most medical laboratories also reduced technical staff and trimmed management ranks. That has created two new problems:
First, there are not enough managers in many labs to both handle the daily flow of work while also tackling specific projects to cut costs and boost productivity. Basically, these labs are already at their management limit, with no excess capacity for their lab managers to initiate and implement cost-cutting projects.
Second, technical staffs are already working at near peak capacity. Increased use of automation at these labs has reduced lab costs because labs were able to do the same volume of testing with fewer staff. However, the reduced staffs that oversee the lab automation are now working at their own peak capacity. Not only are they highly stressed from the daily routine, they also do not have spare time to devote to new projects designed to further cut costs.
Each Year Will Bring Additional Cuts to Medicare Part B Lab Prices
This is why all clinical laboratories in the United States will find it difficult to deal with the Medicare Part lab test fee cuts that will total $400 million during 2018. And what must be remembered is that, in 2019 and beyond, CMS officials will use the PAMA private payer market price reporting rule to make additional fee cuts. Over 10 years, CMS expects these cuts will reduce spending by $5.4 billion from the current spending level.
Taken collectively, all these factors indicate that many medical laboratories in the United States will not survive these Medicare fee cuts. The basic economics of operating a clinical laboratory say that less volume equals a higher average cost per test and higher volume equals a lower average cost per test.
Medical Labs with Highest Costs Most at Risk of Failure from Price Cuts
What this means in the marketplace is that labs with the highest average cost per test make the least profit margin on a fee-for-service payment. The opposite is true for labs with the lowest average cost per test. They will make a greater profit margin on that same fee-for-service payment.
Carry this fundamental economic principle of medical laboratory operations forward as Medicare Part B lab test fee cuts happen in 2018. Labs with the highest average cost per test will be first to go from a modest profit or break-even to a loss. As noted earlier, the clinical lab sectors that have the highest average cost per test are smaller community labs, along with rural and community hospitals. That is why they will be first to go out of business—whether by sale, bankruptcy, or by simply closing their doors.
Learning How to Cut Lab Costs While Protecting Quality
Every pathologist and lab administrator seeking the right strategies to further cut costs in their lab, while protecting quality and enhancing patient services, will want to consider sending a team from their laboratory to the 11th Annual Lab Quality Confab that takes place in New Orleans on October 24-25, 2018.
Anticipating the greater need for shrewd cost-cutting that also protects the quality of the lab’s testing services, this year’s Lab Quality Confab has lined up more than 51 speakers and 39 sessions. Of particular interest are these extended workshops that come with certifications:
Lab Quality Confab is recognized for its use of lab case studies—taught by the nation’s early adopter lab organizations. Certification classes are available to gain proficiency in the use of Lean methods and Six Sigma tools, such as:
Developing single-piece and small batch workflow to cut TAT and lift productivity.
Given the strong interest in smart ways to cut costs, boost productivity, and balance revenue-versus-cost, registrations for this year’s Lab Quality Confab is running at a record pace. The full agenda can be viewed at this link (or copy this URL and paste into your browser: http://www.labqualityconfab.com/agenda).
Of special interest to lab leaders preparing to stay ahead of the financial impact of the Medicare Part B fee cuts, Lab Quality Confab offers deep discounts for four or more attendees from the same lab organization. This allows your lab’s most effective cost-cutters to see, hear, and learn together, so that when they return they can get a flying start helping you align your lab’s costs to the expected declines in revenue that will happen on Jan. 1, 2018.
