The federal agency says it will mandate randomized, controlled clinical trials for vaccination of younger, healthy individuals
It’s been a confusing past few weeks in terms of what the general public’s access to COVID-19 vaccinations will be like in the future.
Public health experts have been verbally jousting with the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about moves its health officials made recently regarding the vaccines. This could put clinical laboratories on the front lines to help determine whether COVID cases—particularly severe ones—eventually rise as a result.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, who leads the agency’s vaccine oversight, announced on May 20 that the agency will require randomized, controlled clinical trials before approving COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under age 65.
“While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months,” Makary and Prasad wrote in NEJM.
Under the new framework, they noted, the agency expects that it will continue to approve vaccines for adults over 65 as well as younger people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The range of diseases is “vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression,” they wrote. “Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.”
In their NEJM commentary, FDA commissioner Martin Makary, MD (left), and Vinay Prasad, MD (right), wrote, “Moving forward, the FDA will adopt the following COVID-19 vaccination regulatory framework: On the basis of immunogenicity—proof that a vaccine can generate antibody titers in people.” (Photo copyrights: Wikimedia Commons.)
Former CDC APIC Member Pushes Back
The announcement drew criticism from public health and medical experts.
“The FDA guidance presented in the NEJM was not released in the Federal Register, did not invite comment, and provided only a general outline for COVID-19 vaccine licensure,” wrote pediatrician and vaccinologist Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, in a commentary for STAT. Edwards is a former member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccine recommendations to the agency.
On June 9, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he’s removing all 17 current members of ACIP.
“The FDA mandate is to ensure safe and effective vaccines based on the clinical studies performed, but not to develop specific recommendations for their use,” Edwards added. “Providing recommendations on vaccine use for the civilian population is the mandate of the ACIP.”
Edwards contended that extensive data is already available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. She stated that “there is no precedent for mandating continued placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials for vaccines that have already been licensed.”
New Policy Announcement Raises Questions
The New York Times notes that many questions remain about the specifics of the new policy and how broadly the vaccines will be available.
A likely scenario, the paper reported, is that health insurers will play a role as “gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.” Without insurance coverage, people would likely pay approximately $140 per shot out of pocket.
This stands in contrast to European countries, where outreach campaigns target specific populations based on public health recommendations. according to Forbes. However, “in virtually all instances, COVID-19 vaccines can be gotten free of charge across Europe regardless of health or age status,” the article notes.
In their NEJM commentary, Prasad and Makary noted that adoption of the annual COVID-19 booster shot is already low. The CDC reported that 23% of Americans 18 and older received vaccinations in the 2024-2025 season, up slightly from 21.6% in 2023-2024.
Kennedy Steps In
On May 27, Kennedy announced in a video on X that the CDC would remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Previously, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everyone ages six months and older.
Kennedy was joined in the video by Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD.
However, CDC staffers were “blindsided” by the announcement, NPR reported, citing an agency official who requested anonymity.
“Hours after the post on X, CDC staffers received a directive from Secretary Kennedy—dated May 19, but sent May 27—rescinding the department’s 2022 acceptance of the CDC’s recommendations for the use of COVID shots in children and during pregnancy,” NPR reported.
It now appears that HHS has at least partially backtracked on Kennedy’s announcement.
The CDC’s immunization schedule now states that vaccination of healthy children should be a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” between the doctor and parent or patient.
“After confusing, mixed messages from leaders at HHS earlier this week, we are relieved to see today that the CDC updated its schedules for child and adolescent immunizations to allow families to maintain the choice to immunize their children against COVID in consultation with their doctor,” American Academy of Pediatrics president Susan Kressly said in a statement from the organization.
In a June 1 interview with the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Makary confirmed that the recommendation to vaccinate “should be with the patient and their doctor.”
However, he also criticized ACIP as a “kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.”
Plan offers members transparent pricing for medications and 24/7 virtual consults
Amazon is working to be price competitive in the healthcare products and services it provides. A recently launched plan offers Prime members fixed prices and affordable monthly rates for telehealth visits, treatment plans, and medication delivery for various types of health, beauty, and lifestyle care. Healthcare providers such as office-based physicians, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups, may once again be impacted by Amazon’s foray into medical care.
This is not the first time that Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) has waded into the medical pond. In 2022, the Seattle-based ecommerce company purchased One Medical (NASDAQ:ONEM) for $3.9B while at the same time launching Amazon Clinic (now known as Amazon One Medical Pay-per-visit), a virtual healthcare service, in an attempt to “reinvent” healthcare. Dark Daily covered these events in an ebrief at that time.
Since then, Amazon has offered pay-per-visit telehealth consultations to determine treatments for more than 30 common ailments such as pink eye (conjunctivitis), flu, and sinus conditions. Now, Amazon is adding “low, clear upfront pricing for a clinical visit, treatment plan, and fast, free medication delivery for Prime members for a range of common health, beauty, and lifestyle concerns, including anti-aging skincare treatment, men’s hair loss, erectile dysfunction, eyelash growth, and motion sickness,” according to an Amazon news release.
“We’re committed to giving customers convenient, affordable care options that put them in control of their health,” said Bergen Penhart, general manager for Amazon One Medical Pay-per-visit, in the news release. “This new offering makes it easy for Prime members to get expert clinical advice and prescribed treatments for common health, beauty, and lifestyle needs, all from the comfort of home.”
The platform supports both on-demand messaging and virtual video telehealth visits to address more than 30 common medical issues.
“This simple care experience was built to meet the needs of today’s customer. At Amazon, we’re working to reduce the burden on patients who’d like to move forward with care, but may be tired of navigating the hurdles of our healthcare system, waiting in a long line at the pharmacy, or worried about a surprise bill or medication cost,” said Harvard-trained lung specialist and chief medical officer for Amazon, Vin Gupta, MD (above). “We’re helping patients re-engage in care and spend time doing what they love instead.” These new medical initiatives from Amazon are meant to be convenient for patients, but have an impact on local healthcare providers, clinical laboratories, and pharmacies. (Photo copyright: Vin Gupta, MD.)
Convenience, Transparency, 24/7 Access to Healthcare
Telemedicine has seen a sharp rise in recent years, aided by necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Forbes reports that the percentage of hospitals offering telemedicine rose to 72% in 2021. Since so many Americans today use the Internet for everything from shopping for medications to interfacing with healthcare providers, it makes sense that Amazon, one of the world’s most successful online retailers, would want a cut of the action.
So what is the retail giant offering now that improves upon its previous healthcare services? It is promoting fixed prices and monthly payments with complete transparency. There are also no surprise bills for Amazon One Medical patients. Prime members can see the price for their telehealth consultation and prescription before deciding whether to go forward with the appointment and treatment.
In addition, Amazon One Medical patients can use a smartphone app (available on both Android and Apple iPhone) to review prices for treating five common health conditions and beauty treatments, as well as meeting virtually with a clinician 24/7 from anywhere in the world. In some areas Amazon even offers same-day or next-day medication deliveries.
“This simple, upfront pricing helps customers shop for their healthcare and make informed, confident decisions. Customers only pay for the cost of the consultation and medication (if prescribed). There are no additional fees, expenses, or subscriptions needed beyond Amazon Prime,” the news release states.
First Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed against Amazon One Medical
However, the road to success in healthcare is not without its potholes. In “Amazon One Medical Call Centers Found Wanting in Washington Post Report,” we covered a 2024 Washington Post story on leaked documents that appeared to indicate Amazon’s One Medical primary care call center was not using trained, certified medical professionals to field patient phone calls and provide telehealth guidance.
This led to disappointment among Amazon One Medical patients, we reported.
According to The Washington Post, Amazon bought One Medical and hired workers for their call centers with “limited training and little to no medical experience.” This allegedly caused serious medical issues such as high blood pressure spikes and blood in stool to go unrecognized.
Caroline O’Donovan, the Washington Post reporter who broke the story, told PBS, “In the documents that were leaked to us, there’s a doctor who wrote a note saying, ‘I don’t think these call center people even realize that they’re triaging patients, which is not something that they’re qualified to do.’”
Amazon acknowledged that initial calls could have been handled more effectively, however the company insisted that no patients were harmed. In an email statement, Amazon spokesperson Dawn Brun said, “We take patients’ feedback seriously and the [Washington Post] story mischaracterizes the dedication we have to our patients and care teams.”
Nevertheless, Amazon One Medical now faces a lawsuit. The Daily Mail reported that Suzanne Tong of Oakland, Calif., is suing Amazon for negligence after her husband died following a video consultation during which he was told to “take an inhaler” for symptoms that included shortness of breath and blue feet.
“Hours later, the 45-year-old was rushed to the emergency department at the Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, where [according to court documents] he ‘collapsed in the waiting room and expired,’” The Daily Mail reported, adding, “The [court] filing claims that ‘to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,’ if Mr. Tong had received the ‘proper care, treatment and follow up’ at his appointment with Amazon One Medical on December 18, 2023, he would have survived.”
Amazon would not comment on the impending litigation citing patient privacy concerns, instead providing a statement to the press. In it, an Amazon One Medical spokesperson said, “While we are prohibited by law from discussing patient records, we refute claims that a change in the duration of visits or location of a virtual visit has impacted the care provided at Amazon One Medical,” the Los Angeles Times reported. “We care deeply about every patient we serve, and the quality and safety of our care are our highest priorities. We’re proud of our extensive quality and safety measures, and of the health outcomes we help our patients achieve. We take concerns about our care extremely seriously, and we’re committed to continuous improvement.”
According to The Daily Mail, this is the first wrongful death lawsuit brought against Amazon One Medical.
Warning to Clinical Labs, Pathology Groups
Stories like these raise questions as to whether the quality of care delivered by various telehealth services is being sacrificed for the sake of convenience and price transparency. Americans are increasingly living more online. Medical services moved online out of necessity, and many healthcare providers who stayed online have expanded their offerings due to customer demand.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists would be wise to stay informed on this growing trend. These business launches are a warning shot for lab managers and pathology groups to invest time and money becoming more patient/consumer friendly providers with websites that feature price transparency.
Patients outside the US wait even longer to see healthcare specialists with some appointments scheduled a year out in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
Data recently released by healthcare consulting firm ECG Management Consultants (ECG) reveals that patients in the United States wait an average of 38 days for healthcare appointments. That figure is a significant stretch from the desired industry standard of 14-day or less wait times, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Clinical laboratories serve the needs of physicians who see patients and refer testing needed by patients to labs. Thus, average wait times should be of interest to lab professionals who strive to meet reporting turnaround times for lab test results, particularly given the unique way that ECG conducted its survey of patient wait times.
In “The Waiting Game: New-Patient Appointment Access for US Physicians,” ECG wrote, “Adopting a ‘secret shopper’ approach, we put ourselves in the shoes of the average patient trying to book an appointment. We contacted nearly 4,000 physician practices in 23 major cities across the US, posing as a new, commercially insured patient seeking care for general, nonemergent conditions that typically don’t require a physician referral.”
ECG’s study provides “a realistic view of where and in what specialties patients face the most significant challenges to accessing routine care,” the authors wrote in their published report. The report also includes patients’ appointment-keeping behavior based on length of wait times.
“Consumer expectations have evolved significantly in all industries. From buying a plane ticket to making a restaurant reservation, the consumer experience has been highly optimized and customers in turn have become accustomed to information and services being available at their fingertips. They bring the same expectations about speed and convenience to healthcare,” the researchers explained.
ECG pointed out that when patients are required to wait 14 days or more to see their physicians, no shows and cancellations increase dramatically.
“Numerous studies have shown that patients are significantly less likely to show up for appointments that are scheduled further out,” the study authors noted.
“One of the takeaways was how difficult the patient experience is. Not only did our secret shoppers have to go out and find physicians, they had to sit on the phone sometimes on very long holds and go through multiple barriers and jump through hoops,” Jennifer Moody (above), partner with ECG Management Consultants and one of the authors of the study, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Even in that case, they weren’t successful in scheduling appointments with all the practices they called. I think of the average consumer who might be having a similar experience,” she added. Lengthy wait times are not believed to be an issue when patients need clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Getting Authentic Results
To gather the study data, ECG distributed its secret shoppers throughout 23 major US cities, reaching almost 4,000 physician practices (between 145-168 per city) to schedule appointments for non-emergency conditions not needing a physical referral.
The researchers gathered wait times for TNAAs (third next available appointments), a common metric. They chose TNAAs because first and second appointments often produce unclear results due to extenuating circumstances or late cancellations, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
The researchers recorded TNAAs for the following specialties:
Cardiology (39 days),
Dermatology (40 days),
Family medicine (29 days),
Gastroenterology (48 days),
General surgery (22 days),
Neurology (63 days),
Obstetrics/gynecology (37 days),
Ophthalmology (37 days),
Orthopedic surgery (20 days),
Pediatrics (24 days), and,
Rheumatology (68 days).
They found the average wait time to be 38 days. And “of the 253 metropolitan market and specialty combinations included in this research, only 6% had an average wait time of 14 days or less,” Becker’s reported.
The researchers omitted the physician practices that were unable to either take or return calls, take messages, or provide a hold time under five minutes to give the secret shopper an answer, Becker’s added.
Jennifer Moody, Partner, ECG Management Consultants, one of the authors of the study, “was particularly surprised by the portion of callers who never even made it to the stage of learning about wait times. Out of 3,712 physician practices, callers were able to secure responses from only 3,079, meaning nearly one in five physician practices could not provide appointment availability information,” Becker’s reported.
The lowest average wait time in all specialties was 27 days in Houston, and the longest was 70 days in Boston. “A key takeaway from the report is that physician concentration does not guarantee timely access, as a major healthcare hub like Boston helps illustrate,” Becker’s noted, adding that physicians in such areas may “devote time to teaching or research over appointments.”
The graphic above, taken from ECG’s published report, shows the average TNAA times recorded by their secret shoppers at medical specialty practices in major cities across the US. (Graphic copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Other Country’s Wait Times
Healthcare systems outside the US struggle with patient wait times as well. Forbes reported that patients of Canada’s public health system “faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner. That’s over six months—the longest ever recorded.”
Patients in Nova Scotia wait even longer. There they “face a median wait of 56.7 weeks—more than a year—for specialist treatment following referral by a general practitioner. Those on Prince Edward Island are also in the year-long waiting club—a median of just over 55 weeks,” Forbes noted.
And in the UK, a recent survey found that “more than 150,000 patients had to wait a day in A&E [accident and emergency] before getting a hospital bed last year, according to new data,” with the majority of those patients over the age of 65, according to The Guardian.
ECG suggestions that may reduce wait times include:
Adopt automation and self-service tools in an “easily navigable platform” that enables patients to schedule appointments 24/7.
Ensure healthcare providers are “utilized appropriately and at the top of their license.”
Address inequities in access to healthcare regardless of patients’ location or socioeconomic status.
There is more in the ECG report that hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories—can use to reduce patient wait times to see care providers. As the authors wrote, “For patients, the first step of the care journey shouldn’t be the hardest.”
Patients concerns about the quality of care provided since Amazon acquired One Medical in 2022 can affect clinical laboratory testing for those providers
Recently, The Washington Post reported on leaked documents that appear to indicate Amazon’s One Medical primary care call center was not using trained, certified medical professionals to field patient phone calls and provide telehealth guidance. Instead, The Post reported, “[One Medical’s] call center is staffed by contractors who receive about two weeks of medical training before responding to patient concerns,” and that, “They have missed urgent issues like blood pressure spikes and sudden stomach pain with blood in one patient’s stool,” MSN’s Business Insider reported.
The Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, went on to report, “Amazon’s primary care clinic One Medical circulated talking points telling workers to claim that in cases when its call center failed to escalate potentially urgent calls to medical staff, patients ‘received the care they needed,’ according to screenshots of internal messages seen by The Washington Post.”
The Post’s report highlights the challenges some telemedicine providers using “non-physician” personnel are having in delivering quality primary care.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing and hospital lockdowns kept many people indoors and unable to access their doctors and clinical laboratories when they needed. As the pandemic progressed, enterprising mega corporations like Amazon saw an opportunity and invested heavily in bringing healthcare to patients where they live and shop.
Amazon, for example, announced in 2022 that it would be purchasing One Medical and all of its primary care clinics nationwide for $3.9 Billion.
“There is an immense opportunity to make the healthcare experience more accessible, affordable, and even enjoyable for patients, providers, and payers,” said Amir Dan Rubin, One Medical’s CEO, in an Amazon press release announcing the acquisition at that time. “We look forward to innovating and expanding access to quality healthcare services, together,” he added.
But it turns out, developing alternative pathways to primary care is not such an easy thing. According to Business Insider, some patients with One Medical are struggling to get adequate care, major patient concerns have been missed, and there are concerns over the efficacy of the services.
“The opportunity to transform healthcare and improve outcomes by combining One Medical’s human-centered and technology-powered model and exceptional team with Amazon’s customer obsession, history of invention, and willingness to invest in the long-term is so exciting,” said Amir Dan Rubin (above), One Medical’s CEO, in an Amazon press release. Clinical laboratories that service One Medical’s providers may want to follow this developing story. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Call Center Contractors Spark Concerns
One Medical was started by Harvard-trained internist Thomas Lee, MD, in an effort to streamline medical services to the benefit of stakeholders and patients, according to Forbes. This subscription based service offered patients 24/7 virtual care with access to in-person appointments.
“One Medical was founded in 2007 as a concierge medical network before going public in 2020 and purchasing Iora Health, a value-based provider for seniors, in 2021. By the end of 2022, a majority of One Medical’s revenue came from capitated contracts. The company currently operates more than 200 clinics and a telehealth service in a membership model,” Healthcare Dive reported.
But according to reports reviewed by journalists at The Washington Post, on more than one occasion elderly patients have been failed by the One Medical call center in Tempe, Arizona. Patients began to be rerouted to this call center about a year after the Amazon acquisition.
The Post reported that several patients reported symptoms such as pain and swelling, blood in stool, a spike in blood pressure and sudden rib pain, and that the call center failed to escalate these calls to clinical staff—instead simply scheduling an appointment sometimes for days later.
The workers at the Tempe call center included newly hired contractors with what The Post described as “limited training and little to no medical experience.” Internal sources at One Medical are raising the alarm bell about the dangers of Amazon’s frugal approach. “There were a lot of things slipping through the cracks,” one anonymous source told The Post.
Quantity over Quality
In an interview with PBS, Caroline O’Donovan, the reporter at The Washington Post who broke this story said, “In the documents that were leaked to us, there’s a doctor who wrote a note saying, ‘I don’t think these call center people even realize that they’re triaging patients, which is not something that they’re qualified to do.’”
Amazon contends that no one was harmed in the cases where protocol was not followed.
In an email statement concerning the Washington Post report, Amazon spokesperson Dawn Brun wrote, “While the patients ended up receiving the care they needed (during in-person visits with their providers), the initial call could have been managed more effectively,” The Post reported.
“We take patients’ feedback seriously and the [Washington Post] story mischaracterizes the dedication we have to our patients and care teams,” she added.
However, O’Donovan says that the patients—and some employees—she spoke with challenged that idea. “The patients I spoke to again and again—and some of the One Medical employees I spoke to—said there’s a difference between getting your phone call answered faster, literally someone picking up the phone, and actually getting your problem solved,” she told PBS.
When data-driven companies like Amazon get involved in healthcare certain care standards may be sacrificed in the name of optimization.
This story shows that there is not an easy solution/answer to developing alternative primary care pathways. Clinical laboratories have a stake in the evolution and developments in the field of primary care and telemedicine because often these patients need lab tests.
Good behavior in federal prison by the disgraced founder of the now-defunct clinical laboratory company earned her the reduction in her original sentence of 11 years
Elizabeth Holmes, founder of failed clinical laboratory blood analysis company Theranos, continues to serve a lengthy term in prison after being convicted of multiple counts of fraud in 2022. However, now comes news that good behavior at her federal prison has shortened her sentence by nearly two years, according to NBC News.
The latest reduction took Holmes’ release from December 2032 to August 2032 in her “11-plus-year (135 month) prison sentence for wire fraud and conspiracy,” NBC reported, adding that Holmes, though Theranos, “defrauded investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Holmes entered FPC Bryan, a federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas, to begin serving her term in May 2023.
“Holmes had her sentence computation done within the first 30 days of arriving at Bryan,” Forbes reported. Given Good Conduct Time (GCT), Holmes was given 608 days off calculated from the start of her sentence. “If she were to incur a disciplinary infraction, some of those days can be taken away. Most all prisoners receive 54 days per year of GCT based on the sentence imposed,” Forbes added.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) can additionally shave off up to a year through its Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). “To qualify, the prisoner must not have a disqualifying offense, such as terrorism or gun charge, and voluntarily provided information that they had a drug or alcohol problem prior to their arrest. This disclosure has to be done prior to sentencing during the pre-sentence interview and must be also documented in the Presentence Report, a detailed report used by the BOP to determine things like classification and programming for the prisoner,” Forbes noted.
Additionally, the federal First Step Act, which President Trump signed into law in 2018, enables Holmes to “earn up to 365 days off any imposed sentence by participating in prison programming such as a self-improvement classes, a job, or religious activities,” Forbes reported.
Given the opportunities to shave time off her sentence, Holmes may ultimately serve just 66 months of her original 135 month sentence in federal prison.
Elizabeth Holmes (above) taken backstage at TechCrunch Disrupt San Francisco 2014 when Holmes was at the height of her fame and popularity. At this point, Theranos’ Edison blood testing device had not yet been shown to be a fake. But evidence was mounting as clinical laboratory scientists and anatomic pathologists became aware of the technology’s shortcomings. (Photo copyright: Max Morse/Wikimedia Commons.)
Fall of a Silicon Valley Darling
Theranos boasted breakthrough technology and became an almost overnight sensation in Silicon Valley when it burst onto the scene in 2003. Holmes, a then 19-year-old Stanford University dropout, claimed Theranos would “revolutionize the world of blood testing by reducing sample sizes to a single pin prick,” Quartz reported.
The height of the company saw Theranos valued at $9 billion, which came crashing down when the Wall Street Journal reported in 2015 that questionable accuracy and procedures were being followed by the company, CNN reported.
“From the moment Holmes concluded her presentation and stepped off the podium on Monday afternoon, she, her company, and her comments became the number one subject discussed by attendees in the halls between sessions and in the AACC exhibit hall,” Michel wrote, adding, “The executive team and the investors at Theranos have burned through their credibility with the media, the medical laboratory profession, and the public. In the future, the company’s claims will only be accepted if presented with scientific data developed according to accepted standards and reviewed by credible third parties. Much of this data also needs to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals held in highest esteem.”
Ultimately, investors who had jumped in early with financial support for Theranos were defrauded of hundreds of millions of dollars and Holmes was sentenced to 11 years/three months behind bars.
“Theranos had only ever performed roughly a dozen of the hundreds of tests it offered using its proprietary technology, and with questionable accuracy. It also came to light that Theranos was relying on third-party manufactured devices from traditional blood testing companies rather than its own technology,” CNN added.
The company shut down in 2018.
And so, the Elizabeth Holmes saga continues with reductions in her prison sentence for “good behavior.” The irony will likely not be lost on the anatomic pathologists, clinical laboratory scientists, and lab managers who followed the federal trials.
