Even a 10% decline in vaccination rates would cause cases to skyrocket, leading to massive increase in demand for clinical laboratory MMR testing
As policymakers consider revisions to the current childhood vaccination schedule, a simulation model developed at Stanford University projects that declines in vaccination rates could lead to a dramatic resurgence of measles and other preventable infectious diseases over the next 25 years. Even at current vaccination rates, measles could once again become endemic in the US within two decades, the researchers reported.
The model suggests that clinical laboratories could one day find themselves testing millions of children for diseases once thought to be nearly eliminated in the US.
“With measles, we’re right on the cusp,” said senior author Nathan Lo, MD, PhD, assistant professor of infectious diseases, in a Stanford Medicine press release. “Increasing vaccination levels by just 5% brings the number of measles cases down, safely away from returning to endemic levels.”
“We’ve seen a worrisome pattern of decreasing routine childhood vaccinations,” said study senior author Nathan Lo, MD, PhD, in a Stanford Medicine press release. (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
Millions of Measles Cases Predicted if Vaccinations Drop
To complete their study, the researchers looked at four infectious diseases:
“We used a large-scale epidemiological model to simulate all individuals living in the US and assigned them an age, vaccination status, immunity, state of residence, etc.,” Lo explained. “We then simulated how infections would spread under different vaccine conditions.”
Each state was modeled independently to account for variations in risk, noted lead author Mathew Kiang, ScD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology and population health at Stanford. For example, Massachusetts is considered low risk due to high vaccination rates, whereas Texas and California are “higher risk because vaccination rates in both have dropped and there’s a lot of travel to those states,” he said.
The model assumed that infections would not cross state lines, “so the numbers could be an underestimate,” Kiang said.
He painted a grim picture of the scenarios projected by the model.
“If vaccination were to fall by even 10% today, measles cases would skyrocket to 11.1 million over the next 25 years,” he said. “If vaccination rates were cut in half, we’d expect 51.2 million cases of measles, 9.9 million cases of rubella, 4.3 million cases of polio, and 200 cases of diphtheria over 25 years. This would lead to 10.3 million hospitalizations and 159,200 deaths, plus an estimated 51,200 children with post-measles neurological complications, 10,700 cases of birth defects due to rubella, and 5,400 people paralyzed from polio.”
Lo suggested a more hopeful scenario in which “some fraction of the unvaccinated population seeks vaccination” as the diseases spread over the next decade. However, “if that were to happen, you can’t just flip a switch—once these diseases get unleashed, it would take time eliminate them again,” he said.
As of May 22, 2025, 1,046 cases of measles have been reported in the US this year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This year has been among the most active for measles since 2000. For the whole of 2024, 285 cases were reported.
More Contagious than COVID-19
All four diseases are far more contagious than COVID-19, Lo said, but measles “is in a different ballpark” as one of the most infectious diseases known to medicine. In a fully susceptible population, he said, one person can infect up to 20 individuals, but for the purposes of the simulation, they used a more conservative estimate of 12.
“There was a disruption to healthcare services during the pandemic, but declines preceded this period and have accelerated since then for many reasons,” he noted. “People look around and say, ‘We don’t see these diseases. Why should we vaccinate against them?’ There’s a general fatigue with vaccines. And there’s distrust and misinformation about vaccine effectiveness and safety.”
Another concern with measles is that the MMR vaccine “has become particularly controversial, partly due to a history of fraudulent medical research that raised safety concerns,” Lo said.
He added that compared to the other diseases, measles is more prevalent globally.
“Travelers importing a disease are like matches, and US under-vaccination is the tinder,” Kiang said. “With measles, you’re throwing a lot of matches in, and eventually something is going to happen.”
Researchers find genome sequencing identified conditions missed by standard newborn screening programs that use common clinical laboratory tests
Interim results from a large ongoing pilot study suggest that genome sequencing of newborn children may be more effective than traditional clinical laboratory screening for detection of early-onset genetic conditions. The researchers also found that parents were highly receptive to the idea of performing the sequencing on their newborns.
“The results show us that genome sequencing can radically improve children’s medical care,” said study co-author Joshua Milner, MD, chief of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology services at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, in a Columbia University press release.
“Genome sequencing allows us to detect things that cause serious illness and take action to prevent those illnesses in a significant number of children, not just a few rare cases. It should be instituted as the next standard for newborn screening because it can detect so much more than current methods,” said study co-author Joshua Milner, MD (above), chief of allergy, immunology, and rheumatology services at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, in a press release. Study finding suggest genetic sequencing can be more effective than clinical laboratory screening tests for early detection of genetic disorders. (Photo copyright: Columbia University.)
GUARDIAN Study Details
For the pilot study, the researchers sought consent from 5,555 families, with 4,000 (72%) agreeing to participate. The babies studied were born between September 2022 and July 2023. At that time, the researchers screened for 156 treatable conditions. Parents could also choose to add a panel of 99 neurodevelopmental disorders that do not have treatments, but where “affected children may benefit from early intervention,” the press release notes.
The total—255 genetic tests—included the 50 conditions in the standard Newborn Screening Program as a quality control, principal investigator Wendy Chung, MD, PhD, told Healio.
Among the 4,000 participants, 147 children (3.7%) screened positive for one of the conditions. Further testing confirmed diagnoses in 120 children. “Only 10 of these children were detected through standard screening,” the Columbia press release states.
The vast majority—92 of 120 children—were diagnosed with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency. “G6PD is not included in traditional screening but individuals with G6PD deficiency can have moderate to life-threatening reactions to certain foods and medications which can easily be prevented by avoiding them,” the press release notes.
Screening for Previously Unscreened Treatable Disorders
The New York State Department of Health mandates free Newborn Screening (NBS) in which a blood sample is collected for testing, generally 24 to 36 hours after birth. The test screens for 50 disorders.
Genome sequencing, however, “offers an additional method to improve screening for conditions already included in NBS and to add those that cannot be readily screened because there is no biomarker currently detectable in dried blood spots,” the GUARDIAN researchers wrote in JAMA.
In the GUARDIAN study, families planning to give birth at an NYP hospital can authorize the researchers to perform genome sequencing of the same dried blood spots to screen for additional pre-selected genetic conditions. At present, the study screens for more than 450 conditions, according to the study website.
“It would be prohibitive to screen for all these diseases with standard testing, but with genomic screening, there’s minimal extra cost when adding a condition,” said study co-author Jordan Orange MD, PhD, chair of pediatrics at Columbia University’s Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and physician-in-chief of NewYork-Presbyterian’s Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital, in the Columbia press release. “We can screen for treatable disorders that we never thought of screening for before.”
GeneDX, which performs the genomic sequencing for GUARDIAN, issued a press release in which it listed other conditions that are not part of the standard screening. These include Long QT syndrome, which the company described as “a rare heart condition that may cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and can be treated with beta-blockers.”
GUARDIAN also detected conditions that came up as false negatives in the standard screening, Chung told Healio. One baby had a genetic variant that causes severe combined immunodeficiency disorder (SCID), a rare and often-fatal condition. Chung said that the genomic sequencing identified the condition while the standard newborn screening missed it.
“We know that a bone marrow transplant is a cure for these children, but safety and success are the highest when the transplant occurs in the first few months of life, before the child starts developing infections or other symptoms,” Milner said in the Columbia press release. “Only because of the genomic screening were we able to identify this child in time.”
Excluding the G6PD cases, the positive screening rate was 0.6%, twice the rate of standard screening. As of last November, more than 12,000 babies had been enrolled in the study. The researchers hope to enroll 100,000.
Advances in Genomic Sequencing Bring Benefits to NBS
“In my practice, I’ve seen many patients who’ve spent years going from doctor to doctor with symptoms that no one can explain. But by the time they receive a diagnosis, the window to best manage the disease has usually passed,” said Chung in the Columbia University press release.
Looking ahead, Chung told Healio that she’d like to expand outside of New York, “in part for generalizability to demonstrate that this is something that could be done with our national public health newborn screening system.”
She’d also like to cut the turnaround time from the current three weeks to one week, she said. And she’d like to drive down the cost.
“Families and pediatricians don’t need to go through those diagnostic odysseys anymore with the genomic technology we now have. We can make the diagnosis at birth,” she said.
The GUARDIAN study shows how advances in genetic testing are moving fast enough that the point has been reached where the classic clinical laboratory methodologies for newborn screening used for decades are becoming outmoded because of the superior performance/cost of genome sequencing.
Study is first solid evidence that introduction of HPV vaccines may be a factor in the reduction in rates of cervical cancer among those who were vaccinated nearly 20 years ago
This success story confirms that a better understanding of what causes cervical cancer—when combined with the development of clinical laboratory tests that detect the HPV virus—were key developments in the fight against this deadly disease.
The study, led by cancer population scientist Ashish Deshmukh, PhD, epidemiologist, professor of public health sciences and co-leader of the cancer control program at the Hollings Cancer Center (HCC) at MUSC, found the connection between the decline in cervical cancer rates and the adoption of the HPV vaccine.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to monitor the worldwide effort to eradicate cervical cancer, as many countries focus their efforts on HPV vaccine compliance. The scientists published their findings in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) titled, “Cervical Cancer Mortality among US Women Younger than 25 Years, 1992-2021.”
“We had a hypothesis that since it’s been almost 16 years, that maybe we might be starting to see [the] initial impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer deaths, and that’s exactly what we observed,” Ashish Deshmukh PhD (above), epidemiologist and professor of public health sciences at Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, told Science News. The MUSC study provides important findings for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists providing vaccinations against Human Papillomavirus. (Photo copyright: Medical University of South Carolina.)
MUSC Study Details
Deshmukh’s team examined cervical cancer mortality rates of women younger than 25 from 1992-2021. The team divided data into 3-year periods, noting a “gradual decline in cervical cancer deaths of almost 4%” which brought deaths to .02 per 100,000 people from 2013-2015, Science News reported, adding that the researchers speculated that the “steady drop might be due to improved prior prevention and screening methods for cervical cancer.”
The death rate for cervical cancer continued to trend downward with “a dramatic reduction in mortality over just 60%,” arriving at .007 deaths per 100,000 according to the 2019-2021 data, Science News continued.
In their JAMA article, the MUSC researchers noted a continued positive shift toward lower cervical cancer rates beyond 2021, with a 12% per year decline and 65% reduction overall.
“They’re seeing this precipitous drop in mortality at the time that we would be expecting to see it due to vaccination,” Emily Burger, PhD, professor at the University of Oslo and research scientist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told Science News. “Ultimately, we hope we are preventing mortality and death [with the introduction of vaccines], and this study is really supporting that conclusion.”
Nonetheless, a definitive connection to the HPV vaccine was not possible to determine “because it’s unclear whether the women in the study cohort were, in fact, vaccinated,” Science News reported.
Development of the PAP Smear
Cervical cancer was first discovered in 1886. At that time pathologists relied on “examination of tissue biopsies derived from an observable lesion,” LabTAG noted. It was George Papanicolaou, PhD—considered to be the father of cytology—who determined in 1943 that more could be observed via a surface biopsy under a microscope. The Pap Smear was born.
The Pap Smear, for which wider screening began in the US in the late 1950s and 1960s, began to reduce deaths from cervical cancer by the 1990s. But women who did not get an annual pap were the ones generally to be diagnosed with advanced cervical cancer.
By the 1990s, pap smear testing was a major business for clinical laboratories and pathology groups. Fifty-five million pap tests were done annually in the 1990s.
In 2004, clinical laboratories began HPV testing. Then came the HPV vaccine. Introduced in 2006, HPV vaccine programs focused on 12-15 year-old girls with hopes of preventing cervical cancer.
Clinical laboratories in the US today perform many fewer Pap smear tests.
While efforts overseas appear to focus on HPV vaccine requirements, the US has been hesitant to do the same. The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Virginia, and Rhode Island are the only states to require it by grade seven, Immunize.org notes. Various reasons have kept it from being required in the US, including fear that it might encourage sexual activity in teens.
There is hope that, with a larger focus on cervical cancer, more deaths can be prevented since the cancer itself is slow growing. “When we look at HPV vaccination coverage in the US, we haven’t reached our goal. We have to do better in terms of improving vaccination rates,” Deshmukh told Science News.
As scientists continue to gain a better understanding of causes and prevention of cervical cancer, new clinical laboratory tests may be developed to detect HPV. Thus, lab managers will want to stay in touch with current research as it will surely impact the testing performed by labs in the future.
Lack of regular clinical laboratory screenings in this age group at least partially to blame, researchers say
While cervical cancer rates have seen a 50-year decline overall, that trend is shifting among 30- to 40 year-olds who have experienced a near 2% increase from 2012-2019. This finding comes from a 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) report that is eyeing the timeline of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines and the lack of clinical laboratory cancer screenings as possible contributors to this new trend.
Though a 2% increase is significant, the study, which was published in CA: ACancer Journal for Clinicians, titled “Cancer Statistics, 2024,” noted that these cancers were “mostly early, curable tumors,” epidemiologist Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD, Senior Vice President Surveillance and Health Equity Science at ACS, and senior author of the new report, told NBC News.
To understand how the increase in cancer rates impacts this age group, consider the numbers: “About 13,800 American women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and 4,360 die from the disease,” NBC reported.
US vaccination programs for youths have lagged behind nations that have embraced HPV vaccination to positive results.
Australia, for example, has vaccinated a high proportion of its youth since the vaccine was first released in 2006. In 2023, the nation created its National Strategy for the Elimination of Cervical Cancer in Australia program and expects cervical cancer to be fully eliminated there by 2035.
For lab professionals, this demonstrates how new technologies like the HPV test and vaccine can alter how individuals are screened for diseases, and how vaccines can reduce and even eliminate diseases that were once common.
“We need to make sure we are not forgetting about that generation that was a little too old for HPV vaccination,” Jennifer Spencer, PhD (above), Assistant Professor, Department of Population Health and Department Internal Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News. “The onus is on the healthcare system to think about who is slipping through the cracks,” she added. Lack of clinical laboratory screenings among the 30-40 age group may be contributing to the increase in cervical cancer rates. (Photo copyright: Dell Medical School.)
Lack of Clinical Laboratory Screenings
Research points to a lag in cervical cancer screenings as a possible cause for the recent rise in cases. Timely screening allows doctors to both identify and remove any worrisome lesions before they become cancerous, Jennifer Spencer, PhD, Assistant Professor of the Department of Population Health, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, told NBC News.
Screenings for women ages 21-65 have fallen 15% since 2000, according to data from the National Cancer Institute. Also, more than half of women with cervical cancer have “either never been screened or haven’t been screened in the past five years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” NBC reported.
The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends that women 21-29 years of age should receive Pap smears every three years. Women 30-65 years of age should do the same, or every five years with an HPV test or combo test.
Despite a decrease in cervical cancer, 29% of women in their 20s are overdue to get screening, NBC noted. This was the age group most likely to be lagging on getting screened. Spencer says that this delay in screening could explain the resulting increase in cervical cancer among the 30-40 age group.
Causes for Lack in Screenings
Regardless of age group, women who were uninsured, in a rural area, non-white, or identifying as lesbian, bisexual, or gay were also more likely to be overdue on screenings, according to Spencer’s study.
In addition, women who just moved to the United States may have missed their screenings, thus increasing risk, epidemiologist Nicholas Wentzensen, MD, PhD, Deputy Director, Senior Investigator, and Head of the Clinical Epidemiology Unit at the National Cancer Institute, told NBCNews.
Additionally, Spencer found in her research that confusion exists by both patients and doctors on when cervical screening should take place. Some participants in her study did not have screening recommended by their doctors, while others simply did not recognize it was necessary.
“When women in one of Spencer’s studies were asked why they hadn’t been screened recently, they commonly said that they didn’t know they needed to be screened or that a health provider hadn’t recommended it. Only 1% [of] women ages 21 to 29 said they had skipped screening because they had received the HPV shot,” NBC News reported.
A 2022 Journal of American Medicine (JAMA) report also looked at screenings as a possible cause. Those researchers found that “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
“If the increase (in cases) is real, it could be a result of missed screening opportunities at earlier ages, as suggested by the increase in squamous cell carcinoma and localized disease. It may also stem from a decrease in screening at younger ages,” the JAMA study authors wrote.
HPV Vaccine and Cervical Cancer Prevention
The HPV vaccine is another important area of research to be considered. Approved in 2006, HPV vaccines were beneficial because HPV “causes six types of cancer, including cervical cancer,” NBC reported.
Women in their early 20s at that time were the first generation to benefit from HPV vaccines, NBC noted. It may be that they continue to benefit in a decrease in cervical cancer among their cohort.
Countries that have emphasized HPV vaccines and stringent screenings in their cancer prevention efforts are reaping the benefits of that policy.
Though cancer screening and the HPV vaccine are important first steps women should take to prevent cervical cancer, follow-through clinical laboratory testing and diagnosis is crucial, Spencer added. This would include additional testing and treatment for any abnormal results of the cancer screening.
However, according to Spencer, “only 73% of women with abnormal screening results received follow-up care,” NBC reported.
Healthcare policymakers today are emphasizing the need for providers to identify and close gaps in care as a way to improve patient outcomes and help control the cost of care. Women who are overdue for a cervical cancer screening test—whether an HPV test or Pap smear—have this care gap. This creates an opportunity for clinical labs to add value.
Clinical laboratories could be helpful during this period by looking at patient files to note which patients are overdue for screenings and then alerting their doctors. Medical labs also could work directly with doctors to establish a program to reach out to patients. Labs would thus be adding value as well as benefitting patients.
Some hospital organizations are pushing back, stating that the new regulations are ‘too rigid’ and interfere with doctors’ treatment of patients
In August, the Biden administration finalized provisions for hospitals to meet specific treatment metrics for all patients with suspected sepsis. Hospitals that fail to meet these requirements risk the potential loss of millions of dollars in Medicare reimbursements annually. This new federal rule did not go over well with some in the hospital industry.
Sepsis kills about 350,000 people every year. One in three people who contract the deadly blood infection in hospitals die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thus, the federal government has once again implemented a final rule that requires hospitals, clinical laboratories, and medical providers to take immediate actions to diagnose and treat sepsis patients.
The effort has elicited pushback from several healthcare organizations that say the measure is “too rigid” and “does not allow clinicians flexibility to determine how recommendations should apply to their specific patients,” according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Perform blood tests within a specific period of time to look for biomarkers in patients that may indicate sepsis, and to
Administer antibiotics within three hours after a possible case is identified.
It also mandates that certain other tests are performed, and intravenous fluids administered, to prevent blood pressure from dipping to dangerously low levels.
“These are core things that everyone should do every time they see a septic patient,” said Steven Simpson, MD, Professor of medicine at the University of Kansas told Fierce Healthcare. Simpson is also the chairman of the Sepsis Alliance, an advocacy group that works to battle sepsis.
Simpson believes there is enough evidence to prove that the SEP-1 guidelines result in improved patient care and outcomes and should be enforced.
“It is quite clear that this works better than what was present before, which was nothing,” he said. “If the current sepsis mortality rate could be cut by even 5%, we could save a lot of lives. Before, even if you were reporting 0% compliance, you didn’t lose your money. Now you actually have to do it,” Simpson noted.
“We are encouraged by the increased attention to sepsis and support CMS’ creation of a sepsis mortality measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care,” Chanu Rhee, MD (above), Infectious Disease/Critical Care Physician and Associate Hospital Epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital told Healthcare Finance. The new rule, however, requires doctors and medical laboratories to conduct tests and administer antibiotic treatment sooner than many healthcare providers deem wise. (Photo copyright: Brigham and Women’s Hospital.)
Healthcare Organizations Pushback against Final Rule
“By encouraging the use of broad spectrum antibiotics when more targeted ones will suffice, this measure promotes the overuse of the antibiotics that are our last line of defense against drug-resistant bacteria,” the AHA’s letter states.
In its recent coverage of the healthcare organizations’ pushback to CMS’ final rule, Healthcare Finance News explained, “The SEP-1 measure requires clinicians to provide a bundle of care to all patients with possible sepsis within three hours of recognition. … But the SEP-1 measure doesn’t take into account that many serious conditions present in a similar fashion to sepsis … Pushing clinicians to treat all these patients as if they have sepsis … leads to overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, which can be harmful to patients who are not infected, those who are infected with viruses rather than bacteria, and those who could safely be treated with narrower-spectrum antibiotics.”
CMS’ latest rule follows the same evolutionary path as previous federal guidelines. In August 2007, CMS announced that Medicare would no longer pay for additional costs associated with preventable errors, including situations known as Never Events. These are “adverse events that are serious, largely preventable, and of concern to both the public and healthcare providers for the purpose of public accountability,” according to the Leapfrog Group.
In 2014, the CDC suggested that all US hospitals have an antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) to measure and improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians and utilized by patients.
Research Does Not Show Federal Sepsis Programs Work
He points to analysis which showed that though use of broad-spectrum antibiotics increased after the original 2015 SEP-1 regulations were introduced, there has been little change to patient outcomes.
“Unfortunately, we do not have good evidence that implementation of the sepsis policy has led to an improvement in sepsis mortality rates,” Rhee told Fierce Healthcare.
Rhee believes that the latest regulations are a step in the right direction, but that more needs to be done for sepsis care. “Retiring past measures and refining future ones will help stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve outcomes for the many patients affected by sepsis,” he told Healthcare Finance.
Sepsis is very difficult to diagnose quickly and accurately. Delaying treatment could result in serious consequences. But clinical laboratory blood tests for blood infections can take up to three days to produce a result. During that time, a patient could be receiving the wrong antibiotic for the infection, which could lead to worse problems.
The new federal regulation is designed to ensure that patients receive the best care possible when dealing with sepsis and to lower mortality rates in those patients. It remains to be seen if it will have the desired effect.
