Switching from non-profit to for-profit may affect how clinical laboratories operate in the new healthcare system
Shifting away from fee-for-service payment models and towards value-based healthcare is the goal of many non-profit hospital systems. One such transformation is underway at Summa Health, one of the largest integrated delivery networks (IDNs) in Ohio. On January 17, venture capital firm General Catalyst announced that its subsidiary—Health Assurance Transformation Corporation (HATCo)—had entered into an agreement to purchase Summa Health.
“HATCo’s investment into Summa Health will drive not only near-term benefit to the organization and the patients it serves but also sustainable, long-term transformation through a true shift to value-based care and access to new revenue streams, resources, innovations, and technologies,” states a General Catalyst news release penned by Marc Harrison, MD, CEO of HATCo.
Harrison was formerly President and CEO of Intermountain Healthcare, a 33 hospital not-for-profit IDN in Salt Lake City, Utah. This is a noteworthy fact because Intermountain Health has a national reputation as an innovative multi-hospital health system. Some observers believe that Harrison’s involvement signals that General Catalyst believes it has a care model that can deliver better patient care in a profitable manner.
“Under its new structure, Summa will become a for-profit organization, and General Catalyst says it will introduce new tech-enabled solutions that aim to make care more accessible and affordable,” CNBCreported.
“This is the first time that anybody has done anything quite like this,” Harrison told CNBC. “There are many digital health solutions that are out there as point solutions. This is the first holistic transformation of a health system to a thoughtful combination of digital and in-person care.”
“Our intent is to build on and augment the system’s considerable strengths. First and foremost, we share Summa Health’s commitment to serving all members of the community,” wrote HATCo CEO Marc Harrison, MD (above), in a news release. “The Summa Health team also shares our belief that achieving healthcare transformation will require a shift to value-based care … Together, we intend to demonstrate that a model that is better for patients can also be good for business, creating a blueprint for other health systems to effectively serve all people in their communities.” How this shift will affect Summa’s clinical laboratories remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: General Catalyst.)
Betting on Healthcare
In 2023, General Catalyst, an American venture capital firm headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., unveiled its Health Assurance Transformation Corporation (HATCo) and began shopping for a health system to buy.
HATCo has 20 healthcare systems in a network that spans 43 states and four countries, according to Healthcare Dive. The company’s news release states it has been focused on three areas since its start-up:
Helping its partners on their “transformation journeys.”
Planning to “acquire and operate a health system for the long-term.”
“The goal of the purchase is for the health system to act as a proving ground for General Catalyst to test ways to improve hospital operations and patient care, without risk aversion or cash shortfalls, management said,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Thus, the firm’s announcement to purchase a health system last October “sent shockwaves through the healthcare industry” according to Healthcare Dive.
“At its core, General Catalyst’s long-term Health Assurance thesis is that value-based care not only is good for patients, but also can be a successful business model if deployed with innovative technology at meaningful scale. Its rationale for buying a health system is a belief that it can improve on the traditional model of not-for-profit health system governance and management by embedding new incentives,” wrote Christopher Kerns, CEO and co-founder of Washington, D.C-based research firm Union Healthcare Insight, in a blog post analysis.
General Catalyst’s HATCo may offer up “a profit motive, a longer time horizon, and a channel for dozens of innovative companies to demonstrate value,” he noted.
“The single biggest barrier to promising young healthcare companies is an inability to scale. Many of their innovations—in digital health, patient engagement, revenue cycle workflow, etc.—require willing health system partners who are famously conservative in their investments and service providers, and rarely take risks on newbies. The addition of Summa provides an open laboratory for those innovations,” Kerns added.
Is the Summa Health Deal Good for Healthcare?
Some in the industry were taken aback by General Catalyst’s announcement.
“A lot of people feel like a PE (private equity) or venture capital company owning a hospital is kind of like asking Freddy Krueger to come babysit your kids. It just makes people a little nervous, and it doesn’t feel quite aligned with this concept of healthcare being a human right,” John Bass, CEO of Hashed Health, a Nashville, Tenn.-based healthcare venture studio, told CNBC.
Nevertheless, it’s a moot point. HATCo is moving forward with its purchase of Summa Health.
“For this bet to work, Summa will have to be a solid proving ground for [General Catalyst’s] portfolio companies. And that means either Summa itself will have to grow, or it will have to act as a force multiplier for its other value-based portfolio companies to justify the considerable capital expended. I have to say, that’s a tall order, but not an insane one,” said Kerns in the Union Healthcare Insight blog post.
Healthcare managers may find it interesting to follow HATCo and Summa Health on their planned journey. The results may speak for themselves. Either way, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology group practices in HATCo’s health system may be in for some interesting changes.
Executives and pathologists from many of the nation’s most prominent clinical laboratories are on their way to the Crescent City today to share best practices, hear case studies from innovative labs, and network
NEW ORLEANS—This afternoon, more than 900 lab CEOs, administrators, and pathologists will convene for the 28th Annual Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management conference. Three topics of great interest will center around adequate lab staffing, effective cost management, and developing new sources of lab testing revenue.
Important sessions will also address the explosion in next-generation sequencing and genetic testing, proposed FDA regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs), and innovative ways that clinical laboratories and pathology groups can add value and be paid for that additional value.
All this is happening amidst important changes to healthcare and medicine in the United States. “Today, the US healthcare system is transforming itself at a steady pace,” explained Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report and Founder of the Executive War College. “Big multi-hospital health systems are merging with each other, and payers are slashing reimbursement for many medical lab tests, even as healthcare consumers want direct access to clinical laboratory tests and the full record of their lab test history.
“Each of these developments has major implications in how clinical laboratories serve their parent organizations, offer services directly to consumers, and negotiate with payers for fair reimbursement as in-network providers,” Michel added. “Attending the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management equips lab leaders with the tools they’ll need to make smart decisions during these challenging times.”
Now in its 28th year, the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management convenes April 25-26 in New Orleans. Executive War College extends to a third day with three full-day workshops: LEAN fundamentals for lab leaders, a genetic testing program track, and a digital pathology track. Learn more at www.ExecutiveWarCollege.com. (Photo copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group.)
Challenges and Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
With major changes unfolding in the delivery and reimbursement of clinical services, clinical laboratory and pathology practice leaders need effective ways to respond to the evolving needs of physicians, patients, and payers. As The Dark Report has often covered, three overlapping areas are a source of tension and financial pressure for labs:
Day-to-day pressures to manage costs in the clinical laboratory or pathology practice.
The growing demand for genetic testing, accompanied by reimbursement challenges.
Evolving consumer expectations in how they receive medical care and interact with providers.
Addressing all three issues and much more, the 2023 Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management features more than 80 sessions with up to 125 lab managers, consultants, vendors, and in vitro diagnostic (IVD) experts as speakers and panelists.
Old-School Lab Rules Have Evolved into New-School Lab Rules
Tuesday’s keynote general sessions (to be reported exclusively in Wednesday’s Dark Daily ebriefing) will include four points of interest for clinical laboratory and pathology leaders who are managing change and pursuing new opportunities:
Positioning the lab to prosper by serving healthcare’s new consumers, new care models, new payment models, and more, with Michel at the podium.
How old-school lab rules have evolved into new-school lab rules and ways to transition the lab through today’s disrupters in healthcare and the clinical laboratory marketplace, with Stan Schofield, Managing Principal of the Compass Group.
Generating value by identifying risk signals in longitudinal lab data and opportunities in big data from payers, physicians, pharma, and bioresearch, with Brad Bostic, Chairman and CEO of hc1.
Wednesday’s keynote sessions (see exclusive insights in Friday’s Dark Daily ebriefing) explore:
Wednesday’s keynotes conclude with a panel discussion on delivering value to physicians, patients, and payers with lab testing services.
Clinical Labs, Payers, and Health Plans Swamped by Genetic Test Claims
Attendees of the 2023 Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management may notice a greater emphasis on whole genome sequencing and genetic testing this year.
As regular coverage and analysis in The Dark Report has pointed out, clinical laboratories, payers, and health plans face challenges with the explosion of genetic testing. Several Executive War College Master Classes will explore critical management issues of genetic and genomic testing, including laboratory benefit management programs, coverage decisions, payer relations, and best coding practices, as well as genetic test stewardship.
This year’s Executive War College also devotes a one-day intensive session on how community hospitals and local labs can set up and offer genetic tests and next-generation sequencing services. This third-day track features more than a dozen experts including:
During these sessions, attendees will be introduced to “dry labs” and “virtual CLIA labs.” These new terms differentiate the two organizations that process genetic data generated by “wet labs,” annotate it, and provide analysis and interpretation for referring physicians.
State of the Industry: Clinical Lab, Private Practice Pathology, Genetic Testing, IVD, and More
For lab consultants, executives, and directors interested in state-of-the-industry Q/A and discussions concerning commercial laboratories, private-practice pathology, and in vitro diagnostics companies, a range of breakout sessions, panels, and roundtables will cover:
Action steps to protect pathologists’ income and boost practice revenue.
Important developments in laboratory legal, regulatory, and compliance requirements.
New developments in clinical laboratory certification and accreditation, including the most common deficiencies and how to reach “assessment ready” status.
An update on the IVD industry and what’s working in today’s post-pandemic market for lab vendors and their customers.
Federal government updates on issues of concern to clinical laboratories, including PAMA, the VALID Act, and more.
Long-time attendees will notice the inclusion of “Diagnostics” into the Executive War College moniker. It’s an important addition, Michel explained for Dark Daily.
“In the recent past, ‘clinical laboratory’ and ‘anatomic pathology’ were terms that sufficiently described the profession of laboratory medicine,” he noted. “However, a subtle but significant change has occurred in recent years. The term ‘diagnostics’ has become a common description for medical testing, along with other diagnostic areas such as radiology and imaging.”
Key managers of medical laboratories, pathology groups, and in vitro diagnostics have much to gain from attending the Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management, now in its 28th year. Look for continued coverage through social media channels, at Dark Daily, and in The Dark Report.
Medical laboratories may find opportunities guiding hospital telehealth service physicians in how clinical lab tests are ordered and how the test results are used to select the best therapies
Telehealth is usually thought of as a way for patients in remote settings to access physicians and other caregivers. But now comes a pair of studies that indicate use of telehealth in inpatient settings is outpacing the growth of telehealth for outpatient services.
This is an unexpected development that could give clinical laboratories new opportunities to help improve how physicians in telehealth services use medical laboratory tests to diagnose their patients and select appropriate therapies.
Dual Surveys Compare Inpatient and Outpatient Telehealth
Service Use
Definitive Healthcare (DH) of Framingham, Mass., is an analytics company that provides data on hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers, according to the company’s website. A survey conducted by DH found that use of telehealth solutions—such as two-way video webcams and SMS (short message service) text—has increased by inpatient providers from 54% in 2014 to 85% in 2019, a news release stated.
Meanwhile, a second Definitive Healthcare survey suggests
use of telehealth in outpatient physician office settings remained essentially
flat at 44% from 2018 to 2019, according to another news
release.
For the inpatient report, Definitive Healthcare polled 175 c-suite
providers and health
information technology (HIT) directors in hospitals and healthcare systems.
For the outpatient survey, the firm surveyed 270 physicians and outpatient
facilities administrators.
DH’s research was aimed at learning the status of telehealth
adoption, identifying the type of telehealth technology used, and predicting possible
further investments in telehealth technologies.
Most Popular Inpatient Telehealth Technologies
On the inpatient side, 65% of survey respondents said the most used telehealth mode is hub-and-spoke teleconferencing (audio/video communication between sites), Healthcare Dive reported. Also popular:
Fierce
Healthcarereports that the telehealth technologies showing the largest
increase by hospitals and health networks since 2016 are:
Two-way video/webcam between physician and
patient (70%, up from 47%);
Population health management tools, such as SMS
text (19%, up from 12%);
Remote patient monitoring using clinical-grade
devices (14%, up from 8%);
Mobile apps for concierge services (23%, up from
17%).
“Organizations are finding new and creative ways through telehealth to fill gaps in patient care, increase care access, and provide additional services to patient populations outside the walls of their hospital,” Kate Shamsuddin, Definitive Healthcare’s Senior Vice President of Strategy, told Managed Healthcare Executive.
DH believes investments in telehealth will increase at
hospitals as well as physician practices. In fact, 90% of respondents planning
to adopt more telehealth technology indicated they would likely start in the
next 18 months, the news releases state.
Most Popular Outpatient Telehealth Technologies
In the outpatient telehealth survey, 56% of physician
practice respondents indicated patient portals as the
leading telehealth technology, MedCity
News reported. That was followed by:
Hub-and-spoke teleconferencing (42%);
Concierge services (42%);
Clinical- and consumer-grade remote patient
monitoring products (21% and 12%).
While adoption of telehealth technology was flat over the
past year, 68% of physician practices did use two-way video/webcam technology
between physician and patient, which is up from 45% in 2018, Fierce
Healthcare reported.
The graph above, taken from the Definitive Healthcare 2019 survey, shows the percentage of telehealth use among surveyed outpatient settings. “The results show how telehealth continues to be one of the core linchpins for providers,” Kate Shamsuddin, Definitive Healthcare’s Senior Vice President of Strategy, told Healthcare Dive. (Graphic copyright: Definitive Healthcare.)
MedCity News reports that other telehealth technologies in
use at physician practices include:
Mobile apps for concierge service (33%);
Two-way video between physicians (25%);
SMS population management tools (20%).
Telehealth Reimbursement and Interoperability Uncertain
Why do outpatient providers appear slower to adopt
telehealth, even though they generally have more patient encounters than
inpatient facilities and need to reach out further and more often?
Definitive Healthcare reports that 20% of physician practice
respondents are “satisfied with the practice’s current solutions and services,”
and though telehealth reimbursement is improving, 13% are unsure they will be
reimbursed for telehealth services.
The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) states that Medicare
Part B covers “certain telehealth services,” and that patients may be
responsible for paying 20% of the Medicare approved amount. CMS also states
that, effective in 2020, Medicare
Advantage plans may “offer more telehealth benefits,” as compared to
traditional Medicare.
“There is not only a need for more clarity around reimbursement policies, but also a need for more interoperable telehealth solutions that can be accessed through electronic health record or electronic medical record systems, as well as a better understanding about what types of telehealth options are available,” said Jason Krantz (above), CEO, Definitive Healthcare, in the outpatient telehealth survey news release. (Photo copyright: Definitive Healthcare.)
The increase in telehealth use at hospitals—as well as its
increased adoption by physician offices—may provide clinical laboratories with opportunities
to assist telehealth doctors with lab test use and ordering. By engaging in telehealth
technology, such as two-way video between physicians, pathologists also may be
able to help with the accuracy of diagnoses and timely and effective patient
care.
Cerner and Epic are the industry’s revenue leaders, though smaller vendors remain popular with physician groups
Sales of electronic health record (EHR) systems and related hardware and services reached $31.5 billion in 2018. And those sales will increase, according to a 2019 market analysis from Kalorama Information. This is important information for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that must interface with the EHRs of their physician clients to enable electronic transmission of lab orders and test results between doctor and lab.
Kalorama’s ranking includes familiar big EHR manufacturer names—Cerner (NASDAQ:CERN) and Epic—and includes a new name, Change Healthcare, which was born out of Change Healthcare Holding’s merger with McKesson. However, smaller EHR vendors remain popular with many independent physicians.
“We estimate that 40% of the market is not in the top 15 [in total revenue rankings],” said Bruce Carlson, Kalorama’s publisher, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily. “There’s a lot of room. There are small vendors out there—Amazing Charts, e-MDs, Greenway, NextGen, Athena Health—that show up on a lot of physician surveys.”
“The EHR is really important,” noted Bruce Carlson (above), Publisher at Kalorama. “Since there are a variety of systems—sometimes different from the LIS [laboratory information management system]—you want to make sure you know the vendors and the space.” Carlson says opportunities remain for new entrants in the 700-plus competitor space, which is expected to see continued mergers and acquisitions that will affect clinical laboratories and their client physicians. (Photo copyright: Twitter.)
Interoperability a Key Challenge, as Most Medical
Laboratories Know
Interoperability—or the lack thereof—remains one of the
industry’s biggest challenges. For pathologists, that means seamless electronic
communication between medical laboratories and provider hospitals can be
elusive and can create a backlash against EHR vendors.
Kalorama notes a joint investigation by Fortune and Kaiser Health News (KHN), titled, “Death by a Thousand Clicks: Where Electronic Health Records Went Wrong.” The report details the growing number of medical errors tied to EHRs. One instance involved a California lawyer with herpes encephalitis who allegedly suffered irreversible brain damage due to a treatment delay caused by the failure of a critical lab test order to reach the hospital laboratory. The order was typed into the EHR, but the hospital’s software did not fully interface with the clinical laboratory’s software, so the lab did not receive the order.
“Many software vendors and LIS systems were in use prior to
the real launching of EHRs—the [federal government] stimulus programs,” Carlson
told Dark Daily. “There are a lot of legacy systems that aren’t
compatible and don’t feed right into the EHR. It’s a work in progress.”
Though true interoperability isn’t on the immediate horizon, Carlson expects its arrival within the next five years as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ramps up pressure on vendors.
“I think it is going to be a simple matter eventually,” he
said. “There’s going to be much more pressure from the federal government on
this. They want patients to have access to their medical records. They want one
record. That’s not going to happen without interoperability.”
Other common criticisms of EHRs include:
Wasted provider time: a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine notes providers now spend more time in indirect patient care than interacting with patients.
Physician burnout: EHRs have been shown to increase physician stress and burnout.
Not worth the trouble: The debate continues over whether EHRs are improving the quality of care.
Negative patient outcomes: Fortune’s investigation outlines patient safety risks tied to software glitches, user errors, or other flaws.
There’s No Going Back
Regardless of the challenges—and potential dangers—it appears EHRs are here to stay. “Any vendor resistance of a spirited nature is gone. Everyone is part of the CommonWell Health Alliance now,” noted Carlson.
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should expect
hospitals and health networks to continue moving forward with expansion of
their EHRs and LIS integrations.
“Despite the intensity of attacks on EHRs, very few health systems are going back to paper,” Carlson said in a news release. “Hospital EHR systems are largely in place, and upgrades, consulting, and vendor switches will fuel the market.”
Thus, it behooves clinical laboratory managers and
stakeholders to anticipate increased demand for interfaces to hospital-based
healthcare providers, and even off-site medical settings, such as urgent care
centers and retail health clinics.
Despite the widespread adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems and billions in government incentives, lack of interoperability still blocks potential benefits of digital health records, causing frustration among physicians, medical labs, and patients
Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups understand the complexity of today’s electronic health record (EHR) systems. The ability to easily and securely transmit pathology test results and other diagnostic information among multiple providers was the entire point of shifting the nation’s healthcare industry from paper-based to digital health records. However, despite recent advances, true interoperability between disparate health networks remains elusive.
One major reason for the current situation is that multi-hospital health systems and health networks still use EHR systems from different vendors. This fact is well-known to the nation’s medical laboratories because they must spend money and resources to maintain electronic lab test ordering and resulting interfaces with all of these different EHRs.
Healthcare IT News highlighted the scale of this problem in recent coverage. Citing data from the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Logic database, they note that—when taking into account affiliated providers—the typical health network engages with as many as 18 different electronic medical record (EMR) vendors. Similarly, hospitals may be engaging with as many as 16 different EMR vendors.
The graphics above illustrates why interoperability is the most important hurdle facing healthcare today. Although the shift to digital is well underway, medical laboratories, physicians, and patients still struggle to communicate data between providers and access it in a universal or centralized manner. (Images copyright: Healthcare IT News.)
The lack of interoperability forces healthcare and diagnostics facilities to develop workarounds for locating, transmitting, receiving, and analyzing data. This simply compounds the problem.
Pressure from Technology Giants Fuels Push for Interoperability
According to HITECH Answers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has paid out more than $38-billion in EHR Incentive Program payments since April 2018.
Experts, however, point out that government incentives are only one part of the pressure vendors are seeing to improve interoperability.
“There needs to be a regulatory push here to play referee and determine what standards will be necessary,” Blain Newton, Executive Vice President, HIMSS Analytics, told Healthcare IT News. “But the [EHR] vendors are going to have to do it because of consumer demand, as things like Apple Health Records gain traction.”
Another solution, according to TechTarget, involves developing application programming interfaces (APIs) that allow tech companies and EHR vendors to achieve better interoperability by linking information in a structured manner, facilitating secure data transmission, and powering the next generation of apps that will bring interoperability ever closer to a reality.
TechTarget reported on how University of Utah Hospital’s five hospital/12 community clinic health network, and Intermountain Healthcare, also in Utah, successfully used APIs to develop customized interfaces and apps to improve accessibility and interoperability with their Epic and Cerner EHR systems.
Diagnostic Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
As consumers gain increased access to their data and healthcare providers harness the current generation of third-party tools to streamline EHR use, vendors will continue to feel pressure to make interoperability a native feature of their EHR systems and reduce the need to rely on HIT teams for customization.
For pathology groups, medical laboratories, and other diagnosticians who interact with EHR systems daily, the impact of interoperability is clear. With the help of tech companies, and a shift in focus from government incentives programs, improved interoperability might soon offer innovative new uses for PHI in diagnosing and treating disease, while further improving the efficiency of clinical laboratories that face tightening budgets, reduced reimbursements, and greater competition.
