Results of the UK study confirm for clinical laboratory professionals the importance of fully understanding the design and function of SNP chips they may be using in their labs
Here is another example of a long-established clinical laboratory test that—upon new evidence—turns out to be not as accurate as once thought. According to research conducted at the University of Exeter in Devon, UK, Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chips (aka, SNP microarrays)—technology commonly used in commercial genetic testing—is inadequate at detecting rare gene variants that can increase breast cancer risk.
A news release announcing the results of the large-scale study states, “A technology that is widely used by commercial genetic testing companies is ‘extremely unreliable’ in detecting very rare variants, meaning results suggesting individuals carry rare disease-causing genetic variants are usually wrong.”
Why is this a significant finding for clinical laboratories? Because medical laboratories performing genetic tests that use SNP chips should be aware that rare genetic variants—which are clinically relevant to a patient’s case—may not be detected and/or reported by the tests they are running.
UK Researchers Find ‘Shockingly High False Positives’
The conclusion reached by the Exeter researchers, the BMJ study states, is that “SNP chips are extremely unreliable for genotyping very rare pathogenic variants and should not be used to guide health decisions without validation.”
Leigh Jackson, PhD, Lecturer in Genomic Medicine at University of Exeter and co-author of the BMJ study, said in the news release, “The number of false positives on rare genetic variants produced by SNP chips was shockingly high. To be clear: a very rare, disease-causing variant detected using [an] SNP chip is more likely to be wrong than right.”
In the news release, Caroline Wright, PhD (above), Professor in Genomic Medicine at the University of Exeter Medical School and senior author of the BMJ study, said, “SNP chips are fantastic at detecting common genetic variants, yet we have to recognize that tests that perform well in one scenario are not necessarily applicable to others.” She added, “We’ve confirmed that SNP chips are extremely poor at detecting very rare disease-causing genetic variants, often giving false positive results that can have profound clinical impact. These false results had been used to schedule invasive medical procedures that were both unnecessary and unwarranted.” (Photo copyright: University of Exeter.)
Large-Scale Study Taps UK Biobank Data
The Exeter researchers were concerned about cases of unnecessary invasive medical procedures being scheduled by women after learning of rare genetic variations in BRCA1 (breast cancer type 1) and BRCA2 (breast cancer 2) tests.
“The inherent technical limitation of SNP chips for correctly detecting rare genetic variants is further exacerbated when the variants themselves are linked to very rare diseases. As with any diagnostic test, the positive predictive value for low prevalence conditions will necessarily be low in most individuals. For pathogenic BRCA variants in the UK Biobank, the SNP chips had an extremely low positive predictive value (1-17%) when compared with sequencing. Were these results to be fed back to individuals, the clinical implications would be profound. Women with a positive BRCA result face a lifetime of additional screening and potentially prophylactic surgery that is unwarranted in the case of a false positive result,” they wrote.
Using UK Biobank data from 49,908 participants (55% were female), the researchers compared next-generation sequencing (NGS) to SNP chip genotyping. They found that SNP chips—which test genetic variation at hundreds-of-thousands of specific locations across the genome—performed well when compared to NGS for common variants, such as those related to type 2 diabetes and ancestry assessment, the study noted.
“Because SNP chips are such a widely used and high-performing assay for common genetic variants, we were also surprised that the differing performance of SNP chips for detecting rare variants was not well appreciated in the wider research or medical communities. Luckily, we had recently received both SNP chip and genome-wide DNA sequencing data on 50,000 individuals through the UK Biobank—a population cohort of adult volunteers from across the UK. This large dataset allowed us to systematically investigate the performance of SNP chips across millions of genetic variants with a wide range of frequencies, down to those present in fewer than 1 in 50,000 individuals,” wrote Wright and Associate Professor of Bioinformatics and Human Genetics at Exeter, Michael Weedon, PhD, in a BMJ blog post.
The Exeter researchers also analyzed data from a small group of people in the Personal Genome Project who had both SNP genotyping and sequencing information available. They focused their analysis on rare pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
The researchers found:
The rarer the variant, the less reliable the test result. For example, for “very rare variants” in less than one in 100,000 people, 84% found by SNP chips were false positives.
Low positive predictive values of about 16% for very rare variants in the UK Biobank.
Nearly all (20 of 21) customers of commercial genetic testing had at least one false positive rare disease-causing variant incorrectly genotyped.
SNP chips detect common genetic variants “extremely well.”
Advantages and Capabilities of SNP Chips
Compared to next-gen genetic sequencing, SNP chips are less costly. The chips use “grids of hundreds of thousands of beads that react to specific gene variants by glowing in different colors,” New Scientist explained.
Common variants of BRCA1 and BRCA2 can be found using SNP chips with 99% accuracy, New Scientist reported based on study data.
However, when the task is to find thousands of rare variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, SNP chips do not fare so well.
“It is just not the right technology for the job when it comes to rare variants. They’re excellent for the common variants that are present in lots of people. But the rarer the variant is, the less likely they are to be able to correctly detect it,” Wright told CNN.
SNP chips can’t detect all variants because they struggle to cluster needed data, the Exeter researchers explained.
“SNP chips perform poorly for genotyping rare genetic variants owing to their reliance on data clustering. Clustering data from multiple individuals with similar genotypes works very well when variants are common,” the researchers wrote. “Clustering becomes more difficult as the number of people with a particular genotype decreases.”
Clinical laboratories Using SNP Chips
The researchers at Exeter unveiled important information that pathologists and medical laboratory professionals will want to understand and monitor. Cancer patients with rare genetic variants may not be diagnosed accurately because SNP chips were not designed to identify specific genetic variants. Those patients may need additional testing to validate diagnoses and prevent harm.
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should consider this another example of how CMS is taking forward steps to encourage value-based payment arrangements throughout the health system
With the sky-high cost of many prescription drugs and gene therapies, it was only a matter of time before the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would seek to link reimbursement for them to patient outcomes.
A recent CMS proposed rule (CMS-2842-P) concerning value-based purchasing (VBP) for prescription drugs covered by Medicaid encourages payers to engage in Medicaid state value-based purchasing (aka, pay-for-performance) arrangements for expensive prescription drugs. This rule may have implications for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups if it were extended to cover companion diagnostics linked to expensive therapeutic drugs and gene therapies.
CMS also intents the proposed rule to help drug manufacturers ease roadblocks to contracting with payers—including Medicaid—a CMS fact sheet explained.
Federal officials are looking to reimburse healthcare providers for prescribing drugs that are shown to work best on patients that truly need them, while also incentivizing pharmaceutical manufacturers to created drugs “of high patient value,” stated Laffer Healthcare Intelligence, a Nashville, Tenn. healthcare investment firm, in an email to its intelligence service subscribers.
In a press release announcing the proposed rule, Seema Verma, CMS Administrator, said “We are creating opportunities for drug manufacturers to have skin in the game through payment arrangements that challenge them to put their money where their mouth is.”
Old Regulations Don’t Address Value, Expensive Gene Therapies
According to CMS, for 30 years federal regulations have favored the “volume of drugs” sold over the “quality of drugs.” Simultaneously, during the past three years the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four gene therapies with many more “in the development pipeline,” Verma wrote in the journal Health Affairs. “While the lifesaving impact of these often-curative therapies are profound, their costs are unprecedented,” she stated.
CMS’ new rule proposes to define value-based purchasing as “an arrangement or agreement intended to align pricing and/or payments to evidence-based measures and outcomes-based measures,” Verma added.
Companion Diagnostic: Molecular and Genetic Testing
For clinical laboratories, the case CMS makes for therapeutic drugs could be applied to expensive molecular diagnostics and genetic testing. CMS may base reimbursement on how accurately and how fast a lab test can enable a diagnosis. Also, payment could be linked to a lab’s report and guidance to the ordering provider in selecting a therapy that makes a difference in the patient’s outcome.
“This is exactly the concept of the companion diagnostic,” said Robert Michel, editor-in-chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication, The Dark Report. “Take, for example, a $5,000 genetic cancer test that that stages a $500,000 cancer prescription drug. Patients who will not benefit from the drug will not get it. And the $5,000 lab test may keep, say, 10 people from getting a drug that wouldn’t work for them. Thus, the $50,000 in lab tests could save $5 million in prescription drug costs,” he explained.
For its part, Novartis, the Basel, Switzerland-based creator of Zolgensma, said the proposed CMS changes are “an important first step,” and helpful to the company’s “access strategy” in the US, BioPharma Dive reported.
Healthcare experts envision that deals struck under the new proposed CMS rule will focus on gene therapies and expensive drugs, MedPage Today reported.
“Measuring outcomes is costly; it takes time, and everyone has to come up with a way to do it. So, if a drug costs $50, it’s not worth going to every single patient (in research). If the drug costs $500,000, maybe it’s worth it … figuring out if the drug worked. That’s why people talk about it in the context of gene therapies,” Alexander Dworkowitz (above), Partner, Manatt Health, New York, told MedPage Today. (Photo copyright: Manatt, Phelps and Phillips, LLP.)
According to the Laffer Healthcare Intelligence analysis email, CMS’ 137-page proposed rule is “very broad,” but focuses on three themes:
“First, CMS wants to establish an official definition for VBP models to accelerate development of drug pay-per-value programs.
“Second, CMS want to restrict the amount of opioids doctors can prescribe.
“Third, very subtle changes are proposed that negatively affect the PBM (pharmacy benefit management) industry.”
CMS’ proposal also includes standards aimed at fighting opioid prescription fraud and misuse in Medicaid drug programs, noted Fierce Healthcare.
Transparent Drug Prices
Medical laboratory leaders may want to monitor the progress of this proposed rule. In addition to value-based payment, the rule advances price transparency by clearing the way to sharing prices of therapeutic drugs and how they improve patient care, while also lowering costs.
Meanwhile, a refresh of lab information technology to enable authorization of genetic and molecular tests by payer also may prove worthwhile.
Limited availability of COVID-19 clinical lab tests is major topic at federal briefings and news stories, yet many of nation’s labs are laying off staff and at point of closing
Cash flow at the nation’s clinical laboratories has crashed, with revenues down by more than $5 billion since early March. This is the biggest financial disaster for the nation’s clinical laboratory industry in its 100-year history and it couldn’t come at a worse time for the American public and the US healthcare system.
At the precise moment when the nation needs clinical laboratories to begin performing millions of tests for SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 illness, those same labs are watching their cash flow collapse.
Data from multiple sources gathered by The Dark Report, sister publication of Dark Daily, confirm that—beginning in early March and continuing through last week—clinical laboratories in the United States saw incoming flows of routine specimens decline by between 50% and 60%. During this same time, lab revenue fell by similar amounts.
Clinical Lab Industry Currently Losing $800 to $900 Million Weekly
To give this decline context, the healthcare system spends about $80 billion annually on medical laboratory testing. Thus, labs across the US generated about $1.5 billion in revenue each week during 2019 and into 2020. By April 5, the decline in routine lab specimen volumes reached 55% to 60%. Since then, the clinical lab industry now loses between $800 million and $900 million each week. Total revenue loss from previous levels is already estimated to be $5.2 billion, and it is growing by an additional $800 million to $900 million every week that patients stay away from hospitals and physicians’ offices.
In the eight weeks since the COVID-19 pandemic caused patients to cease coming to hospitals and visiting their doctors, incoming routine specimens and revenue fell by 60%, causing cumulative lost routine revenue of $5.2 billion for the clinical laboratory industry in the United States. Each week that the existing shelter-in-place directives are effective, labs lose another $800 million to $900 million. The Dark Report based these estimates on data provided by multiple companies working with lab billing/claims, middleware analytical solutions, and customer relationship management (CRM) and electronic health record (EHR) products. (Chart copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group, Inc.)
The recent dire financial condition of labs small and large has gone unremarked by federal healthcare officials at the daily White House COVID-19 Task Force briefings. National news sources have yet to report on this development and its implications for successfully expanding the availability and numbers of COVID-19 tests in response to the pandemic.
The rapid and deep decline in specimens and revenue is not limited to clinical laboratories. Biopsy cases referred to anatomic pathology groups have declined by 50% to 60%. Some subspecialty pathology labs saw case referrals drop by 80% or more.
The nation’s two biggest clinical laboratory companies confirmed similar declines in their normal daily flow of routine specimens. Both companies recently reported first-quarter earnings (which included the month of March).
Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp Each Disclose Volume Declines of 50% to 60%
During its Q1 2020 earnings conference call, Chairman, President, and CEO of Quest Diagnostics (NYSE:DGX), Steve Rusckowski, stated, “In April, volume declines continue to intensify as we are seeing signs that volume declines are bottoming out at around 50% to 60%.”
The drop-off in routine lab test referrals was the similar at LabCorp (NYSE:LH). “In our diagnostics business, at the end of the quarter, we experienced reductions in demand for testing of 50% to 55% versus the company’s normal daily levels,” explained Glenn Eisenberg, Executive Vice President and CFO during LabCorp’s Q1 2020 earnings call. “This reduction in demand impacted testing volume broadly but was more heavily weighted towards routine procedures.”
Interviews with independent clinical lab owners and the administrative directors of hospital and health system labs further confirm this rapid and dramatic decline in the number of routine specimens arriving in their labs. Fewer specimens mean fewer claims, which means less revenue to laboratories.
Two Different Financial Futures for ‘Have’ Labs and ‘Have Not’ Labs
What happens next to the clinical laboratory industry in the United States—and to its ability to continue ramping up the availability of adequate numbers of COVID-19 tests in major cities, small towns, and rural areas—will be a story of “haves” and “have nots.”
The “haves” are clinical labs that have access to money. These are publicly-traded lab companies, academic medical center labs, and the sophisticated labs of health networks that operate multiple hospitals. In each case, these organizations have capital reserves and access to loans that will probably enable them to sustain COVID-19 lab testing services at the large volumes required to respond to the pandemic.
clinical labs operated by community hospitals and rural hospitals that were not financially robust before the onset of the pandemic; and,
specialty lab companies that perform a specific number of proprietary diagnostic tests (and for which demand has collapsed as patients stopped seeing their doctors).
Medicare Led Payers in the ‘Lab Test Price Race to the Bottom’
Prior to the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the finances of the “have-not” labs were already shaky, with many on the verge of filing bankruptcy, closing, or selling to a bigger lab company. Much blame for the deteriorating finances at a large proportion of community lab companies, community hospital labs, and rural hospital labs can be attributed to the deep, multi-year price cuts to the Medicare Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule as mandated by the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA).
Medicare’s multi-year cuts to lab test prices were immediately copied by most state Medicaid programs. During this period, private payers followed Medicare’s lead and enacted their own deep cuts to the prices they paid labs for both routine tests and molecular/genetic tests.
That is why—when the pandemic intensified in early March—the 50% to 60% drop in specimens and revenue that hit these labs starved them of essential cash flow. When polled, the owners and directors of these labs acknowledge layoffs of the majority of their staff in all departments. They also reported substantial delays—both in submitted lab test claims and in getting payment for those claims—because claims-processing departments at the labs and private health insurers are understaffed due to shelter-in-place directives.
COVID-19 Test Revenue Helps Only Labs Performing Those Tests
Revenue from COVID-19 testing is helping certain labs offset the revenue loss from fewer routine specimens. XIFIN, Inc., a San Diego company that provides revenue cycle management (RCM) services for clinical laboratories and pathology groups, analyzed the lab test claims for COVID-19 rapid molecular tests. It determined that labs performing these tests are generating enough revenue from these test claims to equal about 20% of their pre-pandemic revenue.
The chart above was prepared by XIFIN, Inc., of San Diego and is based on the changes XIFIN observed in the volume of routine clinical laboratory test claims generated by client labs on a weekly basis. In the first two months of 2020, routine lab test claims ran at expected levels until the first week of March. During the rest of March, routine lab test claims declined by 60%. During April, incoming routine lab test claims remained 55% to 60% below pre-pandemic levels. The shaded area shows the number of COVID-19 test claims coming into clinical labs. XIFIN says COVID-19 test claims make up about 20% of the decline in routine test specimens for those labs performing COVID-19 tests. The Dark Report estimates that the clinical laboratory industry has lost $800 million to $900 million in routine test revenue each week since March 23. Weekly revenue losses will continue at this rate until patients begin visiting their physicians and hospitals again perform elective services. (Chart copyright: XIFIN, Inc.)
Many CLIA-certified community laboratories and hospital labs have the diagnostic instruments and experience to perform rapid molecular tests for COVID-19. But when contacted, they tell us that their suppliers do not ship them even minimal quantities of the COVID-19 kits, the reagents, and the consumables. Thus, they cannot meet the needs of their client physicians. Instead, they watch as these physicians refer COVID-19 tests to the nation’s largest labs. The supply shortage prevents these smaller labs from doing larger numbers of COVID-19 test for the patients in the communities they serve. It also prevents them from earning the revenues from COVID-19 testing that currently helps the nation’s “have” labs offset the decline in revenue from routine testing.
Congress, national healthcare policymakers, and state governors need to immediately address this situation. Each week that passes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the shelter-in-place directives drains another $800 million to $900 million in revenue from routine lab testing that previously flowed into the nation’s clinical laboratories.
‘Have-not’ Clinical Labs in Small Towns Will Quietly Shrink and Disappear
Without timely intervention and financial support, the nation’s network of ‘have not’ labs, which have so capably served towns away from big metropolitan centers and rural areas, will quietly begin shrinking. One at a time, labs in small towns will close or sell. Local lab facilities will be shuttered and specimens from small-town patients will be transported to big labs hundreds or thousands of miles away.
It is also true that the financial disaster besetting the nation’s clinical laboratory industry will have comparable dramatic consequences for the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers that sell them automation, analyzers, reagents, and other supplies. Since early March, IVD manufacturers watched as the pandemic caused orders for new instruments to collapse. During these same weeks, their clinical lab customers ceased ordering routine test kits at pre-pandemic levels. Dark Daily will cover the challenges confronting the IVD and other diagnostics industries in future e-briefings.
Announcing Free COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings for Clinical Labs
With the COVID-19 pandemic creating chaos in nearly every aspect of healthcare, business, and society, clinical labs and their suppliers need timely intelligence and analysis about the innovations and successes achieved by their peers. This week, Dark Daily and The Dark Report are launching COVID-19 STAT Intelligence Briefings (Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://www.covid19briefings.com). This comprehensive service is free and will cover four basic areas of needs for clinical laboratories as they ramp up COVID-19 testing:
Daily and weekly COVID-19 testing dashboards to guide every lab’s short-term planning;
Proven steps for labs to introduce and validate COVID-19 tests (both rapid molecular tests and serology tests);
Getting paid for COVID-19 testing to ensure every lab’s financial stability and clinical quality; and
Legal and regulatory updates for labs doing COVID19 tests to ensure full compliance.
Also, to help clinical laboratory leaders deal with the coming wave of COVID-19 serology tests, we are producing a free webinar led by James O. Westgard, PhD, FACB, and Sten Westgard, Director of Client Services and Technology, of Westgard QC, Inc.
Each week that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues, and strict shelter-in-place directives are in place, the clinical laboratory industry loses another almost $900 million in revenue from lower volumes of routine testing. No industry can survive when its incoming revenue collapses by 50% to 60% for sustained periods of time.
Will Congress Recognize the Need for a Financial Rescue of ‘Have-not’ Labs?
Thus, it is incumbent on Congress, elected officials, and healthcare policymakers to recognize the financial consequences of the pandemic to the nation’s clinical laboratories. That is particularly true of the ‘have-not’ clinical labs. They do not have the same access to decisionmakers in government as billion-dollar lab companies.
And yet, these labs located in small communities and rural areas often are the only local labs that can do STAT testing in a couple of hours, and where clinical pathologists are personally familiar with local physicians and patients.
These “have-not” labs are vital healthcare resources. They should receive the help they need to get through this unprecedented crisis that is the COVID-19 pandemic.
Many other healthcare systems also are partnering with private genetic testing companies to pursue research that drive precision medicine goals
It is certainly unusual when a major health network announces that it will give away free genetic tests to 10,000 of its patients as a way to lay the foundation to expand clinical services involving precision medicine. However, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should consider this free genetic testing program to be the latest marketplace sign that acceptance of genetic medicine continues to move ahead.
Notably, it is community hospitals that are launching this
new program linked to clinical laboratory research that uses genetic tests for
specific, treatable conditions. The purpose of such genetic research is to
identify patients who would benefit from test results that identify the best
therapies for their specific conditions, a core goal of precision medicine.
Clinical laboratory leaders will be interested in this
initiative, as well other partnerships between healthcare systems and private
genetic testing companies aimed at identifying and enrolling patients in
research studies for disease treatment protocols and therapies.
The Future of Precision Medicine
Modern Healthcare reported that data from the WholeMe DNA study, which was funded through donations to the AdventHealth Foundation, also will be used by the healthcare network for research beyond FH, as AdventHealth develops its genomics services. The project’s cost is estimated to reach $2 million.
“Genomics is the future of medicine, and the field is rapidly evolving. As we began our internal discussions about genomics and how to best incorporate it at AdventHealth, we knew research would play a strong role,” Wes Walker MD, Director, Genomics and Personalized Health, and Associate CMIO at AdventHealth, told Becker’s Hospital Review.
“We decided to focus on familial hypercholesterolemia
screening initially because it’s a condition that is associated with
life-threatening cardiovascular events,” he continued. “FH is treatable once
identified and finding those who have the condition can lead to identifying
other family members who are subsequently identified who never knew they had
the disease.”
The AdventHealth Orlando website states that participants in the WholeMe study receive information stored in a confidential data repository that meets HIPAA security standards. The data covers ancestry and 22 other genetic traits, such as:
Asparagus Odor Detection
Bitter Taste
Caffeine Metabolism
Cilantro Taste Aversion
Circadian Rhythm
Coffee Consumption
Delayed Sleep
Earwax Type
Endurance vs Power
Exercise Impact on Weight
Eye Color
Freckling
Hair Curl and Texture
Hand Grip Strength
Height
Lactose Tolerance
Sleep Duration
Sleep Movement
Sleeplessness
Sweet Tooth
Tan vs. Sunburn
Waist Size
Those who test positive for a disease-causing FH variant will be referred by AdventHealth for medical laboratory blood testing, genetic counseling, and a cardiologist visit, reported the Ormond Beach Observer.
One in 250 people have FH, and 90% of them are undiagnosed,
according to the FH Foundation,
which also noted that children have a 50% chance of inheriting FH from parents
with the condition.
AdventHealth plans to expand the free testing beyond central
Florida to its 46 other hospitals located in nine states, Modern Healthcare
noted.
Other Genetics Data Company/Healthcare Provider Partnerships
Helix (above) is one of the world’s largest CLIA-certified, CAP-accredited next-generation sequencing labs. The partnership with AdventHealth offered study participants Exome+: a panel-grade medical exome enhanced by more than 300,000 informative non-coding regions; a co-branded ancestry + traits DNA product for all participants; secure storage of genomic data for the lifetime of the participant; infrastructure and data to facilitate research; and in-house clinical and scientific expertise, according to Helix’s website. (Photo copyright: Orlando Sentinel.)
Business Insider noted that Helix has focused on clinical partnerships for about a year and seems to be filling a niche in the genetic testing market.
“Helix is able to sidestep the costs of direct-to-consumer
marketing and clinical test development, while still expanding its customer
base through predefined hospital networks. And the company is in a prime
position to capitalize on providers’ interest in population health management,”
Business Insider reported.
Ochsner’s program is the first “fully digital population
health program” aimed at including clinical genomics data in primary care in an
effort to affect patients’ health, FierceHealthcare
reported.
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer due to
mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes;
Lynch
syndrome, associated with colorectal and other cancers; and
FH.
Color also offers genetic testing and whole genome sequencing services to NorthShore’s DNA10K program, which plans to test 10,000 patients for risk for hereditary cancers and heart diseases, according to news release.
And, Jefferson Health offered Color’s genetic testing to the healthcare system’s 33,000 employees, 10,000 of which signed up to learn their health risks as well as ancestry, a Color blog post states.
“Understanding the genome warning signals of every patient will be an essential part of wellness planning and health management,” said Geisinger Chief Executive Officer David Feinberg, MD, when he announced the new initiative at the HLTH (Health) Conference in Las Vegas. “Geisinger patients will be able to work with their family physician to modify their lifestyle and minimize risks that may be revealed,” he explained. “This forecasting will allow us to provide truly anticipatory healthcare instead of the responsive sick care that has long been the industry default across the nation.”
It will be interesting to see how and if genetic tests—free
or otherwise—will advance precision medicine goals and population health
treatments. It’s important for medical laboratory leaders to be involved in health
network agreements with genetic testing companies. And clinical laboratories should
be informed whenever private companies share their test results data with
patients and primary care providers.
New molecular diagnostics lab has latest-generation molecular- and gene-sequencing systems to support efforts to deliver precision medicine to local patients
