Clinical laboratories are particularly tasty targets for cybercriminals seeking the abundance of protect health information contained in patient electronic health records
Recent data from cybersecurity company Netwrix of Frisco, Texas, shows that 84% of healthcare organizations—including clinical laboratories and pathology groups—caught at least one cyberattack in the past year and “69% of them faced financial damage as a result.” That’s according to the company’s latest Hybrid Security Trends Report which notes that 24% of healthcare organizations are “fully cloud-based,” as opposed to just 11% of non-healthcare industries.
“Phishing was the most common type of incident experienced on premises, similar to other industries. Account compromise topped the list for cloud attacks: 74% of healthcare organizations that spotted a cyberattack reported user or admin account compromise,” the Netwrix report notes.
Phishing, where cybercriminals send fake emails and texts to unsuspecting employees that trick them into providing private information, continues to be one of the most prevalent cyberthreats experienced by healthcare organizations and often serves as the catalyst for much larger and more dangerous cyberattacks.
This is particularly dangerous in clinical laboratories where as much as 80% of protected health information (PHI) in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs) is laboratory test results and other personal medical data.
“Protected health information (PHI) is one of the most expensive types of data sold on darknet forums, which makes healthcare organizations a top target for cybercriminals, said Ilia Sotnikov (above), security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report. Clinical laboratory patient electronic health records are particularly weighted toward PHI. (Photo copyright: Netwrix.)
Don’t Open That Email!
Typical phishing scams begin with innocent-looking emails from companies that appear to be legitimate and often contain language that implies urgent action is needed on the part of the user. These emails can be very convincing, appear to originate from reputable companies, and usually instruct users to open an attachment contained in the email or click on a link that goes to a known company website. However, the site is a fake.
Once the harmful file attachment is opened, users will be directed to download fake software or ransomware that attempts to capture the user’s personal information. When visiting a malicious website, consumers will often receive pop-ups with instructions for updating information, but the true purpose is to harvest personal data.
Never provide any personal information to an unsolicited request.
If you believe the contact is legitimate, initiate a contact with the organization using verified data, usually via telephone.
Never provide any passwords over the phone or in response to an unsolicited Internet request.
Review any accounts, such as bank statements, often to search for any suspicious activity.
“Healthcare workers regularly communicate with many people they do not know—patients, laboratory assistants, external auditors and more—so properly vetting every message is a huge burden,” said IT security expert Dirk Schrader, VP of security research at Netwrix, in the report. “Plus, they do not realize how critical it is to be cautious, since security awareness training often takes a back seat to the urgent work of taking care of patients. Combined, these factors can lead to a higher rate of security incidents.”
Top 10 Brands Faked in Phishing Scams
Phishing emails often appear to be from legitimate companies to lull the recipient into a false sense of security. In a January 22 report, Check Point Research (CPR) announced its latest Brand Phishing Ranking for the fourth quarter of 2024. The report reveals the brands that were most frequently impersonated in phishing attacks by cybercriminals for the purpose of stealing personal information from consumers.
According to the CPR report, 80% of disclosed brand phishing incidents occurred within just 10 brands (listed below with each brand’s percentage of phishing attacks). They are:
According to the report, fraudulent domains “replicated official websites to mislead shoppers with fake discounts, ultimately stealing login credentials and personal information. These fraudulent sites replicate the brand’s logo and offer unrealistically low prices to lure victims. Their goal is to trick users into sharing sensitive information, such as login credentials and personal details, enabling hackers to steal their data effectively.”
Steps Clinical Labs Can Take to Protect Patients’ PHI
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups can take precautions that minimize the risk of allowing cybercriminals access to their patients’ PHI.
“A core defense strategy is to minimize standing privileges by using a privileged access management (PAM) solution. Another is to implement identity threat detection and response (IDTR) tools to quickly block malicious actors using compromised credentials,” said Ilia Sotnikov, security strategist and VP of user experience at Netwrix, in the report.
The threat of phishing scams is a lingering issue that everyone in healthcare should be aware of and take necessary precautions to recognize and prevent having one’s PHI stolen. Clinical laboratory management should constantly remind lab personnel and contractors to be vigilant regarding fake emails and texts from well-known brands that ask for private information.
Inability to access clinical laboratory test results forced hospitals to suspend critical procedures and surgeries causing major disruptions to healthcare
Cyberattacks continue to shut down the ability of hospitals to process orders for clinical laboratory tests, medical imaging, and prescriptions. One such cyberattack recently took place against Ascension, the largest nonprofit Catholic health system in the United States. It took more than a month for the health network’s electronic health record (EHR) system to be fully restored, according to a cybersecurity event press release.
Immediately following the event, Ascension announced it had hired a third party company to resolve the fallout from the cyberattack.
“On Wednesday, May 8, we detected unusual activity on select technology network systems, which we now believe is due to a cybersecurity event. … Access to some systems have been interrupted … We have engaged Mandiant, a third party expert, to assist in the investigation and remediation process, and we have notified the appropriate authorities,” a press release states.
Based in Reston, Va., Mandiant is an American cybersecurity firm and a subsidiary of Google.
Cyberattacks are happening more frequently and medical professionals need to be aware that patient care can be severely disrupted by such attacks. The Ascension attack locked its employees out of the healthcare provider’s computer databases, rendering medical personnel unable to track and coordinate patient care. The health network’s EHR, phones, and databases used to order certain clinical laboratory tests, imaging services, procedures, and medications were all affected.
Hospital employees, including two doctors and a registered nurse, spoke anonymously to the Detroit Free Press regarding the issues at their facilities resulting from the cyberattack.
“It’s so, so dangerous,” said the nurse, describing the immediate aftermath of the cyberattack. “We are waiting four hours for head CT [computed tomography scan] results on somebody having a stroke or a brain bleed. We are just waiting. I don’t know why they haven’t at least paused the ambulances and accepting transfers because we physically … don’t have the capacity to care for them right now.”
“In some cases, what are supposed to be unique medical record numbers assigned to patients when they register in the emergency department at Ascension St. John [Detroit, Mich.] have been given to more than one patient at a time,” Detroit Free Press reported. “Because of that, the nurse told the Free Press she couldn’t be confident that a patient’s blood test results actually were his own.”
“We’ve started to think about these as public health issues and disasters on the scale of earthquakes or hurricanes,” Jeff Tully, MD (above), Associate Clinical Professor, Anesthesiology, and co-director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California-San Diego, told NPR. “These types of cybersecurity incidents should be thought of as a matter of when and not if,” he added. Inability to verify clinical laboratory test results or access patients’ electronic medical records endangers patients and undermines the confidence of critical healthcare workers. (Photo copyright: UC San Diego.)
Losing Track of Patients and Their Records
According to the HIPAA Journal’sH1, 2024 Healthcare Data Breach Report, “In H1 [first half of the fiscal year], 2024, 387 data breaches of 500 or more [healthcare] records were reported to OCR, which represents an 8.4% increase from H1, 2023, and a 9.3% increase from H1, 2022.”
After the Ascension cyberattack, the healthcare organization’s computer systems were inoperable, and its pharmacy services were temporarily closed. Medical orders for clinical laboratory testing, imaging tests, and prescriptions had to be handwritten on paper and faxed to appropriate departments, which led to long wait times for patients.
There were cases where singular medical record numbers were assigned to multiple patients. Staff resorted to Google documents, paper charting, and text messaging to communicate with one another. But they still lost track of some patients.
“For a lot of our nurses, they’ve never paper charted at all,” said Connie Smith, a charge capture coordinator and head of the Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, in a ThinkStack blog post. “We were using forms that we pulled out of drawers that hadn’t seen the light of day in a long, long time.”
“They are texting me to find out where the patient went,” a St. John Hospital Emergency Room physician anonymously told the Free Press immediately following the Ascension cyberattack. “They don’t even know where the patient is going or if they’ve been admitted. People are getting lost.
“The pharmacy is getting requests for patient medications, and they have no idea where the patient is in the hospital,” the doctor continued. “Some of the attending physicians are putting in orders for medications, somewhat dangerous medications, and we have no idea if the medications are actually being administered. It’s a scary thing when your medical license is tied to this. If medication mistakes become lawsuits, they will follow us throughout our entire careers and that is not fair to us. It’s not fair to patients.”
According to online updates provided by Ascension, the cyberattack began when an employee downloaded a malicious file thinking it was a legitimate document. That allowed hackers to access seven of Ascension’s 25,000 servers. The resulting cyberattack stifled operations across the organization’s facilities and among its healthcare providers for weeks.
A June 12 update read, “we are pleased to announce that electronic health record (EHR) access has been restored across our ministries. This means that clinical workflow in our hospitals and clinics will function similarly to the way it did prior to the ransomware attack.” The updates did not mention how the attack was resolved or if a ransom was paid to restore the hospitals’ systems.
Preparing for System Disruptions
According to its website, St. Louis-based Ascension has 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers, and 140 hospitals serving communities in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
“Despite the challenges posed by the recent ransomware incident, patient safety continues to be our utmost priority. Our dedicated doctors, nurses, and care teams are demonstrating incredible thoughtfulness and resilience as we utilize manual and paper based systems during the ongoing disruption to normal systems,” Ascension noted in a Michigan Cybersecurity Event Update.
Clinical laboratory managers and anatomic pathology practice administrators may want to learn from Ascension’s experience and make advanced preparations that will secure patient information and enable their lab to continue functioning during a cyberattack. The Ascension cyberattack illustrates how easily computer systems containing critical information can be hacked and affect patient care.
Trifecta of forces at work that will affect the clinical laboratory and pathology industries have been described as a ‘perfect storm’ requiring lab and practice managers to be well informed
Digital pathology, artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, and the perfect storm of changing federal regulations, took centerstage at the 29th Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management in New Orleans this week, where more than 1,000 clinical laboratory and pathology leaders convened over three days.
This was the largest number of people ever onsite for what has become the world’s largest event focused exclusively on lab management topics and solutions. Perhaps the highlight of the week was the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) announcement of its final rule on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs). Overall, the conference featured more than 120 speakers, many of them national thought leaders on the topic of clinical lab and pathology management. More than 65% of the audience onsite were executive level lab managers.
“The level of interest in the annual Executive War College is testimony to the ongoing need for dynamic, engaging, and highly relevant conference events,” said Robert Michel (above), Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and founder of the Executive War College. “These in-person gatherings present great opportunities for clinical laboratory and pathology managers and leaders to network and speak with people they otherwise might not meet.” (Photo copyright: Dark Intelligence Group.)
Demonstrating Clinical Value
For those who missed the action onsite, the following is a synopsis of the highlights this week.
Lâle White, Executive Chair and CEO of XiFin, spoke about the future of clinical laboratory testing and the factors reshaping the industry. There are multiple dynamics impacting healthcare economics and outcomes—namely rising costs, decreasing reimbursements, and the move to a more consumer-focused healthcare. But it is up to labs, she said, to ensure their services are not simply viewed as a commodity.
“Laboratory diagnostics have the potential to change the economics of healthcare by really gaining efficiencies,” she noted. “And it’s up to labs to demonstrate clinical value by helping physicians manage two key diagnostic decision points—what tests to order, and what to do with the results.”
But even as labs find ways to increase the value offered to clinicians, there are other disruptive factors in play. Consumer-oriented tech companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon are democratizing access to patient data in unforeseen ways, and Medicare Advantage plans are changing the way claims are processed and paid.
Clinical labs are fundamental components of the public health infrastructure. So, the CDC plans on focusing on delivering high-quality laboratory science, supported by reliable diagnostics and informatics for disease outbreaks and exposures, and engaging with public and private sector partners.
The history of MolDX and Z-Codes were the topics discussed by Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer for healthcare claims and transaction processing company Palmetto GBA. Molecular testing is highly complex, and the lack of well-defined billing codes and standardization makes it difficult to know if a given test is reasonable and necessary.
Z-Codes were established to clarify what molecular testing was performed—and why—prompting payers to require both Z-Codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes when processing molecular test claims. Medicare’s MolDX program further streamlines the claims process by utilizing expertise in the molecular diagnostics space to help payers develop coverage policies and reimbursement for these tests.
FDA Final Rule on LDT Regulation
Timothy Stenzel, MD, PhD, CEO of Grey Haven Consulting and former director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics reviewed the latest updates from the FDA’s Final Rule on LDT (laboratory developed test) regulation. Prior to the FDA releasing its final rule, some experts suggested that the new regulations could result in up to 90% of labs discontinuing their LDT programs, impacting innovation, and patient care.
However, the final rule on LDTs is very different from the original proposed rule which created controversy. The final rule actually lowers the regulatory burden to the point that some labs may not have to submit their LDTs at all. The FDA is reviewing dozens of multi-cancer detection assays, some of which have launched clinically as LDTs. The agency is likely to approve those that accurately detect cancers for which there is no formal screening program.
Stenzel explained the FDA’s plan to down-classify most in vitro diagnostic tests, changing them from Class III to Class II, and exempting more than 1,000 assays from FDA review. He also discussed the highlights of the Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). Launched in January, the QMSR bought FDA requirements in line with ISO 13485, making compliance easier for medical device manufacturers and test developers working internationally.
Looming Perfect Storm of Regulatory Changes
To close out Day 1, Michel took to the stage again with a warning to clinical laboratories about the looming “Perfect Storm” trifecta—the final FDA ruling on LDTs, Z-Code requirements for genetic testing, and updates to CLIA ’92 that could result in patient data being considered a specimen.
Laboratory leaders must think strategically if their labs are to survive the fallout, because the financial stress felt by labs in recent years will only be exacerbated by macroeconomic trends such as:
Staff shortages,
Rising costs,
Decreasing and delayed reimbursements, and
Tightening supply chains.
Lab administrators looking for ways to remain profitable and prosperous should look beyond the transactional Clinical Lab 1.0 fee-for-service model and adopt Clinical Lab 2.0, which embraces HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) scores and STAR ratings to offer more value to Medicare Advantage and other payers.
Wednesday’s General Session agenda was packed with information about the rise of artificial intelligence, big data, and precision medicine in healthcare. Taking centerstage on the program’s final day was Michael Simpson, President and CEO of Clinisys. Simpson gave a global perspective on healthcare data as the new driver of innovation in diagnostics and patient care.
Research results call into question the safety and dependability of using artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis, a development that should be watched by clinical laboratory scientists
ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that returns answers to written prompts, has been tested and found wanting by researchers at the University of Florida College of Medicine (UF Health) who looked into how well it could answer typical patient questions on urology. Not good enough according to the researchers who conducted the study.
AI is quickly becoming a powerful new tool in diagnosis and medical research. Some digital pathologists and radiologists use it for data analysis and to speed up diagnostic modality readings. It’s even been said that AI will improve how physicians treat disease. But with all new discoveries there comes controversy, and that’s certainly the case with AI in healthcare.
Many voices in opposition to AI’s use in clinical medicine claim the technology is too new and cannot be trusted with patients’ health. Now, UF Health’s study seems to have confirmed that belief—at least with ChatGPT.
The study revealed that answers ChatGPT provided “fell short of the standard expected of physicians,” according to a UF Health new release, which called ChatGPT’s answers “flawed.”
The questions posed were considered to be common medical questions that patients would ask during a visit to a urologist.
The researchers believes their study is the first of its kind to focus on AI and the urology specialty and which “highlights the risk of asking AI engines for medical information even as they grow in accuracy and conversational ability,” UF Health noted in the news release.
“I am not discouraging people from using chatbots,” said Russell S. Terry, MD (above), an assistant professor in the UF College of Medicine’s department of urology and the study’s senior author, in a UF Health news release. “But don’t treat what you see as the final answer. Chatbots are not a substitute for a doctor.” Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to monitor how developers improve the performance of chatbots and other applications using artificial intelligence. (Photo copyright: University of Florida.)
UF Health ChatGPT Study Details
UF Health’s study featured 13 of the most queried topics from patients to their urologists during office visits. The researchers asked ChatGPT each question three times “since ChatGPT can formulate different answers to identical queries,” they noted in the news release.
The urological conditions the questions covered included:
The researchers then “evaluated the answers based on guidelines produced by the three leading professional groups for urologists in the United States, Canada, and Europe, including the American Urological Association (URA). Five UF Health urologists independently assessed the appropriateness of the chatbot’s answers using standardized methods,” UF Health noted.
Notable was that many of the results were inaccurate. According to UF Health, only 60% of responses were deemed appropriate from the 39 evaluated responses. Outside of those results, the researchers noted in their Urology paper, “[ChatGPT] misinterprets clinical care guidelines, dismisses important contextual information, conceals its sources, and provides inappropriate references.”
When asked, for the most part ChatGPT was not able to accurately provide the sources it referenced for its answers. Apparently, the chatbot was not programmed to provide such sources, the UF Health news release stated.
“It provided sources that were either completely made up or completely irrelevant,” Terry noted in the new release. “Transparency is important so patients can assess what they’re being told.”
Further, “Only 7 (54%) of 13 topics and 21 (54%) of 39 responses met the BD [Brief DISCERN] cut-off score of ≥16 to denote good-quality content,” the researchers wrote in their paper. BD is a validated healthcare information assessment questionnaire that “provides users with a valid and reliable way of assessing the quality of written information on treatment choices for a health problem,” according to the DISCERN website.
ChatGPT often “omitted key details or incorrectly processed their meaning, as it did by not recognizing the importance of pain from scar tissue in Peyronie’s disease. As a result … the AI provided an improper treatment recommendation,” the UF Health study paper noted.
Is Using ChatGPT for Medical Advice Dangerous to Patients?
Terry noted that the chatbot performed better in some areas over others, such as infertility, overactive bladder, and hypogonadism. However, frequently recurring UTIs in women was one topic of questions for which ChatGPT consistently gave incorrect results.
“One of the more dangerous characteristics of chatbots is that they can answer a patient’s inquiry with all the confidence of a veteran physician, even when completely wrong,” UF Health reported.
“In only one of the evaluated responses did the AI note it ‘cannot give medical advice’ … The chatbot recommended consulting with a doctor or medical adviser in only 62% of its responses,” UF Health noted.
For their part, ChatGPT’s developers “tell users the chatbot can provide bad information and warn users after logging in that ChatGPT ‘is not intended to give advice,’” UF Health added.
Future of Chatbots in Healthcare
In UF Health’s Urology paper, the researchers state, “Chatbot models hold great promise, but users should be cautious when interpreting healthcare-related advice from existing AI models. Additional training and modifications are needed before these AI models will be ready for reliable use by patients and providers.”
UF Health conducted its study in February 2023. Thus, the news release points out, results could be different now due to ChatGPT updates. Nevertheless, Terry urges users to get second opinions from their doctors.
“It’s always a good thing when patients take ownership of their healthcare and do research to get information on their own,” he said in the news release. “But just as when you use Google, don’t accept anything at face value without checking with your healthcare provider.”
That’s always good advice. Still, UF Health notes that “While this and other chatbots warn users that the programs are a work in progress, physicians believe some people will undoubtedly still rely on them.” Time will tell whether trusting AI for medical advice turns out well for those patients.
The study reported above is a useful warning to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists that current technologies used in ChatGPT, and similar AI-powered solutions, have not yet achieved the accuracy and reliability of trained medical diagnosticians when answering common questions about different health conditions asked by patients.
In addition to viruses, wastewater analysis can also be used to detect the presence of chemical substances such as opioids
Wastewater surveillance and analysis continues to be a useful tool for detecting the prevalence of viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in a community. Perhaps more importantly, wastewater surveillance can fill in gaps where clinical laboratory testing data may be days or weeks behind the true spread of viral infections.
One sign of the value of testing wastewater for infectious diseases is the fact that government officials are financing a continuing program of wastewater testing. In September, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded a contract to conduct wastewater surveillance/analysis worth millions of dollars to Verily Life Sciences, a Google company, rather than renewing its contract with Biobot Analytics, which had been doing the work since 2020. One interesting twist in the award of this contract is how an ensuing dispute pulled the plug on a significant portion of the wastewater analysis in this country.
In their September Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC highlighted a CDC study during which wastewater samples were taken from 40 wastewater treatment plants located in Wisconsin’s three largest cities. The samples were collected weekly and tested for influenza and RSV. The findings were then compared with data regarding emergency department (ED) visits for those diseases.
The CDC found that higher detections of flu and RSV were associated with higher rates of ED visits for both illnesses. The study also suggests that wastewater might detect the spread of these viruses earlier than ED visit data alone.
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 provided valuable insight into community incidence of COVID-19,” said Peter DeJonge, PhD (above), a CDC Career Epidemiology Field Officer, in an interview with Infectious Disease Special Edition. “[The CDC’s] report supports the idea that wastewater surveillance also has the potential to serve as a useful method with which to track community spread of influenza and RSV.” Local clinical laboratories are also involved in the CDC’s wastewater surveillance programs. (Photo copyright: CDC.)
Keeping Communities Informed about Spread of Viral Infections
The CDC’s study was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023. The wastewater samples from all three cities tested positive for the viruses in advance of increases in ED visits. After the ED visits for those viruses had subsided, the viral material remained in sewersheds for up to three months.
“Both influenza and RSV can cause substantial amounts of illness, hospitalization, and even death during annual epidemics, which often occur during winter months in the US,” Peter DeJonge, PhD, a CDC Career Epidemiology Field Officer assigned to the Chicago Department of Public Health, told Infectious Disease Special Edition (IDSE). “Clinical providers and public health officials benefit from surveillance data to understand when and where these diseases are spreading in a community each year. This type of data can help prepare clinics [and clinical laboratories] for anticipated cases, tailor public health messaging, and encourage timely vaccination.”
“The collective burden from these respiratory viruses is staggering. With these viruses circulating simultaneously and potentially shifting in seasonality and severity, communities must be able to understand the full impact of each of these illnesses to inform awareness and public health responses that can prevent infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths,” said Mariana Matus, PhD, CEO and cofounder of Biobot Analytics, in an August press release announcing the launch of a “Respiratory Illnesses Panel” that will monitor wastewater for Influenzas A and B (seasonal flu), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19).
“Traditional testing methods for these illnesses do not provide a comprehensive picture of the number of people infected due to inaccurate reporting, as well as asymptomatic or misdiagnosed cases,” Matus continued. “By monitoring wastewater concurrently for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2, we can fill in these gaps and provide important information to communities.”
CDC Moves to Change Wastewater Surveillance Contractor Mid-stream
As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 emerge, a recent contract dispute may be the cause of a time delay in efforts to perform wastewater surveillance for the disease, as well as for other viral infections, according to Politico.
The CDC’s move to replace Biobot Analytics with Verily Life Sciences to do wastewater surveillance has led to Biobot filing a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
According to World Socialist Web Site (WSWS), “The scope of the [Biobot] contract [to provide extended data for the public health agency’s National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS)] included data from more than 400 locations from over 250 counties across the entire United States, covering 60 million people. On top of this, Biobot also conducted genomic sequencing to identify the latest variants in circulation.”
About one quarter of the wastewater testing sites in the country have been shut down due to Biobot’s contract being suspended in September. The remaining 1,200 sites that are not covered under the original contract will continue wastewater testing, Politico reported.
The GAO hopes to have a decision on the contract dispute in January. Verily says it is ready to proceed with testing in all locations and already has its infrastructure in place.
“We are committed to working with the CDC to advance the goals of the … testing program, initiate testing on the samples already delivered when allowed to resume work, and make wastewater data available as quickly as possible,” Bradley White, PhD, Principal Scientist/Director at Verily, told Politico.
Under the terms of Verily’s contract, the company will collect samples from wastewater treatment centers cross the county and analyze the samples for COVID-19 and the mpox (monkey pox) virus.
This contract marks the first agreement between the CDC and Verily.
The CDC has not disclosed why it decided to change contractors, but it is probable that cost may have been played a role in the decision. Verily’s contract is for $38 million over the course of five years and Biobot’s most recent contract was for around $31 million for a period of less than 18 months, Politico reported.
In a LinkedIn post, Matus reported that Biobot had already laid off 35% of its staff due to the contract decision by the CDC.
Competition in Wastewater Surveillance Market
When seeking viruses in wastewater, scientists use gene-based detection methods to locate and amplify genetic signs of pathogens. But public health officials are just beginning to tap into the potential opportunities that may exist in the analysis of data present in wastewater.
Wastewater surveillance is also being looked at as a way to combat America’s opioid epidemic.
“Wastewater surveillance is becoming more mature and more mainstream month after month, year over year,” Matus told Time.
Thus, regardless of which companies end up working with the CDC, it appears that wastewater surveillance and analysis, which requires a great deal of clinical laboratory testing, will continue to help fight the spread of deadly viral infections, as well as possibly the nation’s drug epidemic.
