Though not biomarkers per se, these scores for certain genetic traits may someday be used by clinical laboratories to identify individuals’ risk for specific diseases
Can polygenic risk scores (a number that denotes a person’s genetic predisposition for certain traits) do a better job at predicting the likelihood of developing specific diseases, perhaps even before the onset of symptoms? Researchers at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard (Broad Institute) believe so, and their study could have implications for clinical laboratories nationwide.
In cooperation with medical centers across the US, the scientists “optimized 10 polygenic scores for use in clinical research as part of a study on how to implement genetic risk prediction for patients,” according to a Broad Institute news release.
The research team “selected, optimized, and validated the tests for 10 common diseases [selected from a total of 23 conditions], including heart disease, breast cancer, and type 2 diabetes. They also calibrated the tests for use in people with non-European ancestries,” the news release notes.
As these markers for genetic risk become better understood they may work their way into clinical practice. This could mean clinical laboratories will have a role in sequencing patients’ DNA to provide physicians with information about the probability of a patient’s elevated genetic risk for certain conditions.
However, the effectiveness of polygenic risk scores has faced challenges among diverse populations, according to the news release, which also noted a need to appropriately guide clinicians in use of the scores.
“With this work, we’ve taken the first steps toward showing the potential strength and power of these scores across a diverse population,” said Niall Lennon, PhD (above), Chief Scientific Officer of Broad Clinical Labs. “We hope in the future this kind of information can be used in preventive medicine to help people take actions that lower their risk of disease.” Clinical laboratories may eventually be tasked with performing DNA sequencing to determine potential genetic risk for certain diseases. (Photo copyright: Broad Institute.)
Polygenic Scores Need to Reflect Diversity
“There have been a lot of ongoing conversations and debates about polygenic risk scores and their utility and applicability in the clinical setting,” said Niall Lennon, PhD, Chair and Chief Scientific Officer of Broad Clinical Labs and first author of the study, in the news release. However, he added, “It was important that we weren’t giving people results that they couldn’t do anything about.”
In the paper, Lennon and colleagues explained polygenic risk scores “aggregate the effects of many genetic risk variants” to identify a person’s genetic predisposition for a certain disease or phenotype.
“But their development and application to clinical care, particularly among ancestrally diverse individuals, present substantial challenges,” they noted. “Clinical use of polygenic risk scores may ultimately prevent disease or enable its detection at earlier, more treatable stages.”
The scientists set a research goal to “optimize polygenic risk scores for a diversity of people.”
While performing the polygenic risk score testing on participants, Broad Clinical Labs focused on 10 conditions—including cardiometabolic diseases and cancer—selected by the research team based on “polygenic risk score performance, medical actionability, and clinical utility,” the Nature Medicine paper explained.
For each condition, the researchers:
Identified “exact spots in the genome that they would analyze to calculate the risk score.”
Used information from the NIH’s All of Us Research Program to “create a model to calibrate a person’s polygenic risk score according to that individual’s genetic ancestry.”
The All of Us program, which aims to collect health information from one million US residents, has three times more people of non-European ancestry than other data sources developing genetic risk scores, HealthDay News reported.
20% of Study Participants Showed High Risk for Disease
To complete their studies, Broad Institute researchers processed a diverse group of eMERGE participants to determine their clinical polygenic risk scores for each of the 10 diseases between July 2022 and August 2023.
Listed below are all conditions studied, as well as the number of participants involved in each study and the number of people with scores indicating high risk of the disease, according to their published paper:
Over 500 people (about 20%) of the 2,500 participants, had high risk for at least one of the 10 targeted diseases, the study found.
Participants in the study self-reported their race/ancestry as follows, according to the paper:
White: 32.8%
Black: 32.8%
Hispanic: 25.4%
Asian: 5%
American Indian: 1.5%
Middle Eastern: 0.9%
No selection: 0.8%
“We can’t fix all biases in the risk scores, but we can make sure that if a person is in a high-risk group for a disease, they’ll get identified as high risk regardless of what their genetic ancestry is,” Lennon said.
Further Studies, Scoring Implications
With 10 tests in hand, Broad Clinical Labs plans to calculate risk scores for all 25,000 people in the eMERGE network. The researchers also aim to conduct follow-up studies to discover what role polygenic risk scores may play in patients’ overall healthcare.
“Ultimately, the network wants to know what it means for a person to receive information that says they’re at high risk for one of these diseases,” Lennon said.
The researchers’ findings about disease risk are likely also relevant to healthcare systems, which want care teams to make earlier, pre-symptomatic diagnosis to keep patients healthy.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to follow Broad Clinical Labs’ studies as they perform the 10 genetic tests and capture information about what participants may be willing to do—based on risk scores—to lower their risk for deadly diseases.
Another report finds nearly half of all healthcare systems planning to opt out of Medicare Advantage plans because of issues caused by prior authorization requirements
Prior-authorization is common and neither healthcare providers (including clinical laboratories) nor Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans are happy with the basic process. Thus, labs—which often must get prior-authorization for molecular diagnostics and genetic tests—may learn from a recent KFF study of denial rates and successful appeals.
“While prior authorization has long been used to contain spending and prevent people from receiving unnecessary or low-value services, it also has been [the] subject of criticism that it may create barriers to receiving necessary care,” KFF, a health policy research organization, stated in a news release.
Nearly all MA plan enrollees have to get prior authorization for high cost services such as inpatient stays, skilled nursing care, and chemotherapy. However, “some lawmakers and others have raised concerns that prior authorization requirements and processes, including the use of artificial intelligence to review requests, impose barriers and delays to receiving necessary care,” KFF reported.
“Insurers argue the process helps to manage unnecessary utilization and lower healthcare costs. But providers say prior authorization is time-consuming and delays care for patients,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“There are a ton of barriers with prior authorizations and referrals. And there’s been a really big delay in care—then we spend a lot of hours and dollars to get paid what our contracts say,” said Katie Kucera (above),Vice President and CFO, Carson Tahoe Health, Carson City, Nev., in a Becker’s Hospital CFO Report which shared the health system’s plan to end participation in UnitedHealthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage plans effective May 2025. Clinical laboratories may want to review how test denials by Medicare Advantage plans, and the time cost of the appeals process, affect the services they provide to their provider clients. (Photo copyright: Carson Tahoe Health.)
Key Findings of KFF Study
To complete its study, KFF analyzed “data submitted by Medicare Advantage insurers to CMS to examine the number of prior authorization requests, denials, and appeals for 2019 through 2022, as well as differences across Medicare Advantage insurers in 2022,” according to a KFF issue brief.
Here are key findings:
Requests for prior authorization jumped 24.3% to 46 million in 2022 from 37 million in 2019.
More than 90%, or 42.7 million requests, were approved in full.
About 7.4%, or 3.4 million, prior authorization requests were fully or partially denied by insurers in 2022, up from 5.8% in 2021, 5.6% in 2020, and 5.7% in 2019.
About 9.9% of denials were appealed in 2022, up from 7.5% in 2019, but less than 10.2% in 2020 and 10.6% in 2021.
More than 80% of appeals resulted in partial or full overturning of denials in the years studied. Still, “negative effects on a person’s health may have resulted from delay,” KFF pointed out.
KFF also found that requests for prior authorization differed among insurers. For example:
Humana experienced the most requests for prior authorization.
Among all MA plans, the share of patients who appealed denied requests was small. The low rate of appeals may reflect Medicare Advantage plan members’ uncertainty that they can question insurers’ decisions, KFF noted.
It’s a big market. Nevertheless, “between onerous authorization requirements and high denial rates, healthcare systems are frustrated with Medicare Advantage,” according to a Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) survey of 135 health system Chief Financial Officers.
According to the CFOs surveyed, 19% of healthcare systems stopped accepting one or more Medicare Advantage plans in 2023, and 61% are planning or considering ending participation in one or more plans within two years.
“Nearly half of health systems are considering dropping Medicare Advantage plans,” Becker’s reported.
Federal lawmakers acted, introducing three bills to help improve timeliness, transparency, and criteria used in prior authorization decision making. Starting in 2023, KFF reported, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published final rules on the bills:
Rule One (effective June 5, 2023), “clarifies the criteria that may be used by Medicare Advantage plans in establishing prior authorization policies and the duration for which a prior authorization is valid. Specifically, the rule states that prior authorization may only be used to confirm a diagnosis and/or ensure that the requested service is medically necessary and that private insurers must follow the same criteria used by traditional Medicare. That is, Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements cannot result in coverage that is more restrictive than traditional Medicare.”
Rule Two (effective April 8, 2024), is “intended to improve the use of electronic prior authorization processes, as well as the timeliness and transparency of decisions, and applies to Medicare Advantage and certain other insurers. Specifically, it shortens the standard time frame for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests from 14 to seven calendar days starting in January 2026 and standardizes the electronic exchange of information by specifying the prior authorization information that must be included in application programming interfaces starting in January 2027.”
Rule Three (effective June 3, 2024), requires “Medicare Advantage plans to evaluate the effect of prior authorization policies on people with certain social risk factors starting with plan year 2025.”
KFF’s report details how prior authorization affects patient care and how healthcare providers struggle to get paid for services rendered by Medicare Advantage plans amid the rise of value-based reimbursements.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to analyze their test denials and appeals rates as well and, in partnership with finance colleagues, consider whether to continue contracts with Medicare Advantage health plans.
As a result, health system-based clinical laboratories likely saw a decline in test orders as well a decrease in outreach revenue
Bad financial news continues in the hospital industry. According to an August 2023 National Hospital Flash Report from consulting firm Kaufman Hall, hospitals’ financial performance deteriorated in July, partly due to declines in inpatient and outpatient volumes and rising bad debt and charity care.
The implication from these findings is that hospital-based clinical laboratories saw a drop in test volume and any lab revenue associated with inpatient testing.
In an analysis of data from more than 1,300 hospitals, Kaufman Hall noted a dip in hospitals’ median calendar year-to-date operating margin from 1.4% in June down to 1.3% in July. The data also showed “a greater pullback in volume on the outpatient side, which may be attributed to patients choosing not to pursue elective procedures during the summer,” a Kaufman Hall news release stated.
Kaufman Hall’s National Hospital Flash Report by Erik Swanson, Senior Vice President, Data and Analytics, and Brian Pisarsky, Senior Vice President, Strategic and Financial Planning, is an analysis of actual and budget data—sampled from Syntellis Performance Solutions—which is representative of hospitals of various sizes and areas in the US.
“It’s clear that today’s challenging financial environment is here to stay, and hospital leaders must be proactive in seeking out opportunities to refine their operations and remain competitive,” said Erik Swanson, Senior Vice President, Data and Analytics, Kaufman Hall, in a news release. Clinical laboratory leaders would be wise to follow the same advice. (Photo copyright: Kaufman Hall.)
Expenses Declined, Bad Debt and Charity Care Rose
Here are other national data Kaufman Hall reported for July 2023 as compared to June 2023:
Adjusted discharges per calendar day dropped 7%.
Operating room minutes per calendar day declined 13%.
Emergency department visits per calendar day fell 1%.
Bad debt and charity care as a percentage of hospitals’ gross operating revenue was up 7%.
Purchased service expense per adjusted discharge was down 3%.
Labor expense per adjusted discharge also fell 3%.
Even though expenses slightly declined during July, patient volume decreases “pulled down” the margins, Healthcare Innovation reported, which called the report “a gloomy one.”
Also, the uptick in bad debt and charity care while volumes decreased created a “difficult situation for hospitals,” Medical Economics observed.
Here are the report’s “key takeaways,” according to Kaufman Hall:
All volume indicators were down, but operating margins were still better than 2022.
Outpatient volume decreased more than inpatient, possibly due to patients choosing not to have elective procedures during the summer.
The decline in expenses was “not enough to offset revenue losses,” and inflation will continue to take its toll on labor expenses.
Medicaid has been “disenrolling” members in 30 states during June and July, and bad debt and charity care have increased.
The report also called out need for improvement in providers’ discharge of patients to skilled nursing facilities. “Hospitals that prioritize care transitions to skilled nursing facilities are performing better than institutions [that] do not,” Swanson said in the news release.
“Identifying steps that can ensure a smooth transition, such as obtaining pre-authorizations and planning discharge early, will help organizations reduce expenses and improve patients’ experience,” he continued.
For Hospitals, 2023 Not as Bad as 2022
MedCity News pointed out that though July’s operating margin index decline followed four months of growth, hospitals are still way ahead of 2022 performance when median operating margins were -0.98% in July 2022.
Still, it appears hospitals are struggling to secure financial footing after 2022, an overall bad financial year for the hospital industry.
More recently, a 2023 Becker’s Hospital CFO Report compiled a list of 81 hospitals that had cut jobs since the start of the year in response to “financial and operational challenges.”
Included was Tufts Medicine in Burlington, Massachusetts. In August, the hospital “eliminated hundreds of jobs” in an outsourcing of lab outreach services to Labcorp. The Becker’s report noted that “[Tufts] said it will work with Labcorp to have the majority of affected employees transition to a similar position with Labcorp.”
Tips for Clinical Lab Financial Viability
Medical laboratory leaders need to help ensure financial health of their labs as well as quality and efficiency of services. Advice from Kaufman Hall may be applicable.
The report writers advised providers to secure payer authorizations before a “patient comes in the door.” For clinical labs, this is comparable to the need to secure insurance company authorizations for expensive genetic tests before samples are taken and tests performed.
Another tip from Kaufman Hall is to “collect and use data to inform process improvement” and “make change.” Along those lines, medical laboratories could leverage patient data to guide launch of new services, entry to markets, workflow improvement, and costs reduction.
Healthcare attorneys advise medical laboratory leaders to ensure staff understand difference between EKRA and other federal fraud laws, such as the Anti-kickback Statute
More than four years have passed since Congress passed the law and yet the Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act of 2018 (EKRA) continues to cause anxiety and confusion. In particular are the differences in the safe harbors between the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and Stark Law versus EKRA. This creates uncertainty among clinical laboratory leaders as they try to understand how these disparate federal laws affect business referrals for medical testing.
According to a news alert from Tampa Bay, Florida-based law firm, Holland and Knight, “EKRA was enacted as part of comprehensive legislation designed to address the opioid crisis and fraudulent practices occurring in the sober home industry.” However, “In the four years since EKRA’s enactment, US Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement actions have broadened EKRA’s scope beyond reducing fraud in the addiction treatment industry to include all clinical laboratory activities, including COVID-19 testing.”
It is important that medical laboratory leaders understand this law. New cases are showing up and it would be wise for clinical laboratory managers to review their EKRA/AKS/Stark Law compliance with their legal counsels.
“Keeping in mind that [EKRA is] a criminal statute, clinical laboratories need to take steps to demonstrate that they’re not intending to break the law,” said attorney David Gee, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, in an exclusive interview with The Dark Report. “[Lab leaders should] think about what they can do to make their sales compensation program avoid the things the government has had such a problem with, even if they’re not sure exactly how to compensate under the language of EKRA or how they’re supposed to develop a useful incentive compensation plan when they can’t pay commissions.” David Gee will be speaking about laboratory regulations and compliance at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans on April 25-26, 2023. (Photo copyright: Davis Wright Tremaine.)
How Does EKRA Affect Clinical Laboratories?
The federal EKRA statute—originally enacted to address healthcare fraud in addiction treatment facilities—was “expansively drafted to also apply to clinical laboratories,” according to New York-based law firm, Epstein Becker and Green. As such, EKRA “applies to improper referrals for any ‘service,’ regardless of the payor. … public as well as private insurance plans, and even self-pay patients, fall within the reach of the statute.”
In “Revised Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute Rules Are Good News for Labs,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report noted that EKRA creates criminal penalties for any individual who solicits or receives any remuneration for referring a patient to a recovery home, clinical treatment facility, or clinical laboratory, or who pays or offers any remuneration to induce a referral.
According to Epstein Becker and Green, EKRA:
Applies to clinical laboratories, not just toxicology labs.
Has relevance to all payers: Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance plans, and self-pay.
Is a criminal statute with “extreme penalties” such as 10 years in prison and $200,000 fine per occurrence.
Exceptions are not concurrent with AKS.
Areas being scrutinized include COVID-19 testing, toxicology, allergy, cardiac, and genetic tests.
“For many clinical laboratories, a single enforcement action could have a disastrous effect on their business. And unlike other healthcare fraud and abuse statutes, such as the AKA, exceptions are very limited,” Epstein Becker and Green legal experts noted.
“Therefore, a lab could potentially find itself protected under an AKS safe harbor and still potentially be in violation of EKRA,” they continued. “The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the DOJ have not provided any clarity regarding this statute (EKRA). Without this much needed guidance clinical laboratories have been left wondering what they need to do to avoid liability.”
EKRA versus AKS and Stark Law
HHS compared AKS and the Stark Law (but not EKRA) by noting on its website prohibition, penalties, exceptions, and applicable federal healthcare programs for each federal law:
AKS has criminal fines of up to $25,000 per violation and up to a five-year prison term, as well as civil penalties.
The Stark Law has civil penalties only.
AKS prohibits anyone from “offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals or generate federal healthcare program business.”
The Stark Law addresses referrals from physicians and prohibits the doctors “from referring Medicare patients for designated health services to an entity with which the physician has a financial relationship.”
EKRA is more restrictive than AKS, as it prohibits some compensation that AKS allows, healthcare attorney Emily Johnson of McDonald Hopkins in Chicago told The Dark Report.
Recent enforcement actions may help lab leaders better understand EKRA’s reach. According to Holland and Knight:
Malena Lepetich of Belle Isle, Louisiana, owner and CEO of MedLogic LLC in Baton Rouge, was indicted in a $15 million healthcare fraud scheme for “allegedly offering to pay kickbacks for COVID-19 specimens and respiratory pathogen testing.”
In S-G Labs Hawaii, LLC v. Graves, a federal court concluded the laboratory recruiter’s contract “did not violate EKRA because the recruiter was not referring individual patients but rather marketing to doctors. According to the court, EKRA only prohibits percentage-based compensation to marketers based on direct patient referrals.”
In another federal case, United States v. Mark Schena, the court’s rule on prohibition of direct and indirect referrals of patients to clinical labs sent a strong signal “that EKRA most likely prohibits clinical laboratories from paying their marketers percentage-based compensation, regardless of whether the marketer targets doctors or prospective patients.”
What can medical laboratory leaders do to ensure compliance with the EKRA law?
In EKRA Compliance, Law and Regulations for 2023, Dallas law firm Oberheiden P.C., advised clinical laboratories (as well as recovery homes and clinical treatment facilities) to have EKRA policies and procedure in place, and to reach out to staff (employed and contracted) to build awareness of statute prohibitions and risks of non-compliance.
One other useful resource for clinical laboratory executives and pathologists with management oversight of their labs’ marketing and sales programs is the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management. The conference takes place on April 25-26, 2023, at the Hyatt Regency in New Orleans. A panel of attorneys with deep experience in lab law and compliance will discuss issues associated with EKRA, the Anti-Kickback Statutes, and the Stark self-referral law.
Researchers at the university suggested their findings could lead to new genetic tests that could be offered by medical laboratories
New research conducted at the University of Utah suggests that clinical laboratories may someday be able to deploy genetic tests to indicate whether a couple has a higher-than-average risk of stillbirth.
This is yet another example of how researchers are cracking DNA’s code to understand how certain gene variants may affect the healthcare of offspring. The knowledge produced by this research, as confirmed by additional studies, may lead to genetic markers that medical laboratories can use to diagnose the risk of stillbirth using the parent’s DNA.
“Stillbirth is one of those problems that is so tragic and life-changing,” said study co-author Jessica Page, MD (above). “It is especially frustrating when you don’t have a good answer for why it happens. This knowledge may give us the opportunity to change how we risk stratify people and reduce their risk through prevention.” Should this research be validated, clinical laboratories may soon have new genetics tests to help doctors identify risk for stillbirth. (Photo copyright: Intermountain Healthcare.)
Can Stillbirth be Prevented?
Jessica Page, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Utah School of Medical and co-author of the 2022 study, was lead author of a 2018 study that estimated nearly one-fourth of stillbirths are preventable.
“Stillbirth rate reduction has been slow in the US and we think many stillbirths may be potentially preventable,” she said in a university press release. “This is motivating us to look for those genetic factors so we can achieve more dramatic rate reduction.”
According to the press release, the University of Utah researchers found that stillbirth “can be inherited and tends to be passed down through male members of the family. That risk preferentially comes from the mother’s or father’s male relatives—their brothers, fathers, grandfathers, uncles, or male cousins. But the odds of a couple losing a baby to stillbirth are even greater when the condition comes from the father’s side of the family.”
The researchers made this discovery by analyzing data from the Utah Population Database (UPDB), which contains information on eight million people who were born in the state or have other connections there. The database is maintained by the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. It includes genealogical information and health records that allowed the researchers to trace incidence of stillbirths across multiple generations of families.
The researchers examined 9,404 stillbirth cases between 1978 and 2019, along with 18,808 live births that served as controls. They identified 390 multi-generational families with high numbers of stillbirths. Within that group, they looked at incidence of stillbirth among first-, second-, and third-degree relatives of stillborn babies. They then compared those numbers with data from unaffected families.
“We were able to evaluate multigenerational trends in fetal death as well as maternal and paternal lineages to increase our ability to detect a familial aggregation of stillbirth,” said genetic epidemiologist Tsegaselassie Workalemahu, PhD, lead author of the study. “Not many studies have examined inherited genetic risk for stillbirth because of a lack of data. The Utah Population Database allows for a more rigorous evaluation than has been possible in the past.”
Workalemahu described the research as “an important step toward identifying specific genes that increase the risk of stillbirth, which could one day lead to better diagnosis and prevention,” according to the university press release.
One caveat, the press release notes, is that Utah’s population is disproportionately of northern European descent. “Future studies will need to determine whether the trends hold true among people of different races and ethnicities,” it stated.
Call for More Testing
The University of Utah study is part of a larger effort to gain a greater understanding of the causes of stillbirths.
The story notes that “more than 20,000 pregnancies in the US end in stillbirth,” and in one in three of those cases, the cause is not determined.
Drucilla Roberts, MD, an obstetric and perinatal pathologist at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), told ProPublica that at a minimum, “the placenta should definitely be evaluated in every stillbirth.” But citing CDC data, the story notes that this is done in only 65% of stillbirths, and autopsies are performed in less than 20%.
“Experts blame the low rates on several factors,” the story states. “Because an autopsy often is performed in the days following a stillbirth, doctors and nurses have to ask families soon after they receive news of the death if they would like one. Many families can’t process the loss, let alone imagine their baby’s body being cut open. What’s more, many doctors aren’t trained in the advantages of an autopsy, or in communicating with parents about the exam.”
One consequence, ProPublica notes, is that clinicians are ill-equipped to advise patients on how to reduce risk in future pregnancies. The story describes the case of Karen Gibbins, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) in Portland.
An Opportunity for Pathologists
Gibbins’ son was stillborn in 2018. She asked for an autopsy and learned that her son “had a rare disease caused by her antibodies attacking the cells in his liver,” the story states. When she became pregnant again, her doctor prescribed antibody infusions and she later gave birth to a healthy son. “If we had not had that autopsy, my third child would have died as well,” she told ProPublica.
This parent’s comment about the value of the autopsy done after her son’s stillbirth identifies an opportunity for the pathology profession. For several decades, health plans have become ever more reluctant to pay for autopsies. Yet, pathologists know the value that autopsies can provide.
The immediate value comes from revealing useful insights about all the health conditions of the deceased. The long-term value comes from the ability to gather the findings across a large number of autopsies that can contribute to new knowledge about health conditions that physicians use to improve the diagnoses of different health conditions.
Thus, with the publication of this peer-reviewed study about the connection between genetic variations and stillbirth, there is the opportunity for some of the nation’s pathology societies to advocate for funding a pilot program to fund more autopsies of stillborn babies, specifically to add more knowledge about the role of gene mutations as a causative factor in stillbirths.
