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.
Encouraging patients—even children—to be more directly involved in their own medical care may reduce the burden on healthcare workers and might even help those clinical laboratories struggling to hire enough phlebotomists to collect specimens
Researchers at Emory University School of Medicine have concluded a study which found that school-aged children can successfully use a nasal swab to obtain their own SARS-CoV-2 test specimens. This may come as a surprise to hospital and clinical laboratory personnel who have performed nasal swabbing for COVID-19 tests. Some people, adults included, find the procedure so uncomfortable it brings tears.
And yet, after being shown a 90-second how-to video and given a handout with written instructions and pictures, 197 Atlanta children who had COVID-19 symptoms between July and August of 2021 performed their own self-swabbing. A healthcare worker then collected a second swabbed sample. All samples were submitted to a clinical laboratory for PCR analysis.
The Emory study provides another example of how the healthcare system is engaging patients to be directly involved in their own medical care. Results of the study could positively impact clinical laboratories facing a shortage of personnel, as well as schools where children have to take repeated COVID-19 tests with the assistance of trained professionals.
In a study with 197 school-age children, researchers at Emory University School of Medicine found that children could self-swab themselves for COVID-19 testing after watching a 90-second instructional video. Clinical laboratory leaders who are short on personnel may find these results intriguing. (Photo copyright: Emory University.)
How Did the Children Do?
The self-collected swabs and those collected by a healthcare worker agreed 97.8% of the time for a positive result and 98.1% of the time for a negative result. The analysis showed that both collection methods identified the 44% of symptomatic kids who were positive for COVID-19.
“Seeing how closely the results line up between the children and trained healthcare workers is a strong indicator that these age groups are fully capable of swabbing themselves if given proper instruction,” said Jesse Waggoner, MD, an Assistant Professor of Infectious Diseases with the Emory University School of Medicine and one of the lead authors on the study, in an Emory University press release.
A higher percentage of children age eight and under needed assistance, such as more instruction before correctly completing self-collection—21.8% compared to 6.1% for children older—but SARS-CoV-2 detection among the two age groups did not differ.
Does FDA Approve of Self-Swabbing?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not authorized COVID-19 tests that include self-swabbing by children under age 14. However, data from the Emory study, published in JAMA, is now available to test manufacturers seeking authorization for pediatric self-collection.
“Pediatric self-swabbing will support expanded testing access and should make it even easier to test school age populations with fewer resources,” said Tim Stenzel, MD, PhD, Director of the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics at the FDA, in the Emory statement. “This study furthers our knowledge of test accuracy with these types of samples and provides test manufacturers with data to support their EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) requests to the FDA.”
Self-swabbing versus Clinical Laboratory Worker
While it has been longstanding medical practice to have healthcare workers collect samples for respiratory tract infection testing, the Emory researchers suggest that allowing children to collect their own COVID-19 samples could be one way to reduce the burden of a shortage of healthcare workers.
The researchers also believe pediatric self-swabbing would expand access to diagnostic tests and make it easier to test school-age populations.
“Every minute of a healthcare worker’s time is at a premium,” said senior study author Wilbur Lam, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Biomedical Engineering, Emory University and Georgia Tech, in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release. “Why not allow a kid to self-swab? It’s a win-win! They would rather do it themselves and it frees up the healthcare worker to do other things,” he added.
In 2020, a Stanford University School of Medicine study published in JAMA showed test samples collected by adults who swabbed their own nasal passages were as accurate as those collected by healthcare workers. This study involved 30 participants who had previously tested positive for COVID-19.
Though the Emory University and Stamford University studies were small, they agreed in their findings which is significant. Clinical laboratory executives and pathologists should expect this trend toward direct-to-consumer and other forms of self-testing to continue, even among young patients.
New USPSTF guidelines suggest reducing the volume of Vitamin D deficiency testing in the general population, which could reduce revenue for clinical laboratories
From 2005 to 2011, the volume of clinical laboratory tests for Vitamin D soared nationally as more doctors tested more patients for Vitamin D deficiency. This became a major source of revenue growth for many clinical laboratories performing those tests. But at least a portion of lab revenue associated with Vitamin D testing may be in jeopardy.
In a recommendation statement published in JAMA Network, titled, “Screening for Vitamin D Deficiency in Adults,” the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—following up on its 2014 recommendations—stated “that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults.”
The USPSTF’s new recommendations concerning Vitamin D testing came after the federal task force performed an extensive review of the benefits and potential harm of screening for Vitamin D deficiencies in non-pregnant adults who displayed no symptoms of a deficiency. Symptoms of a Vitamin D deficiency include fatigue and tiredness, bone and back pain, depression, impaired would healing, bone loss, hair loss, and muscle pain.
After completing its research, the USPSTF concluded “the overall evidence on the benefits of screening for Vitamin D deficiency is lacking. Therefore, the balance of benefits and harms of screening for Vitamin D deficiency in asymptomatic adults cannot be determined.”
Are USPSTF Conclusions Contrary to Current Deficiency Testing Practices?
“Among asymptomatic, community-dwelling populations with low Vitamin D levels, the evidence suggests that treatment with Vitamin D has no effect on mortality or the incidence of fractures, falls, depression, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or adverse events,” the JAMA Network article states.
Other studies have linked low Vitamin D levels with some health conditions and risks, however, the USPSTF review found no studies that directly evaluated any perks associated with Vitamin D screening in otherwise healthy individuals.
Everyday Health listed 10 illnesses linked to low Vitamin D deficiency. They include:
“We see a lot of associations between Vitamin D deficiency and poor health outcomes,” Mary Byrn, PhD, RN, an associate professor at Loyola University in Chicago who studies Vitamin D, told Everyday Health. “Although these are relationships and we are unable to conclude cause and effect, taking Vitamin D supplements or exposing yourself to the sun in a safe manner to increase Vitamin D naturally are easy ways to improve your health and try to reduce your risk of multiple diseases,” she said. (Photo copyright: Midwest Nursing Research Society.)
Can Vitamin D Supplementation Be Harmful?
The USPSTF study also stated that Vitamin D supplementation appears to be safe and that toxicity from too much Vitamin D would be rare. One of the USPSTF’s key concerns of screening for Vitamin D in asymptomatic individuals was the potential for misclassification and inaccurate diagnoses.
The study also revealed that more research is needed to determine what serum levels are optimal when diagnosing a Vitamin D deficiency, and whether those levels vary by subgroups, such as race, ethnicity, or gender.
The JAMA Network article states that “the evidence is inconclusive about the effect of treatment on physical functioning and infection.”
The amount of Vitamin D individuals need each day depends upon their age. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that adults between the ages of 19 and 70 get 15 micrograms or 600 International Units (IU) of Vitamin D daily.
According to an NIH fact sheet, people can receive Vitamin D through sun exposure, supplements, and some food, such as fatty fish, mushrooms, beef liver, cheese, and egg yolks, plus foods that are fortified with Vitamin D, such as some milk products and breakfast cereals.
Vitamin D and COVID-19
It has been widely reported that approximately 42% of Americans are Vitamin D deficient. And Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of contracting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and how well patients recover after COVID-19 treatment.
A study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that examined 216 COVID-19 hospitalized patients in Spain found that over 80% of those individuals were deficient in Vitamin D. The study also found that COVID-19 patients who had lower Vitamin D levels also had a higher number of inflammatory markers that have been associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. The results of this study were in March.
For several decades, experts have recommended avoiding sun exposure and using sunscreen to avoid skin cancers. This may have caused people to get less Vitamin D from sun exposure. It may also have contributed to an increase in the number of Vitamin D deficiencies and increased COVID-19 infections.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should keep in mind that the USPSTF recommended less testing for Vitamin D deficiencies in asymptomatic individuals. This proposal may affect test volume in clinical laboratories, as Vitamin D testing has been a common and lucrative assay for many years.
Because of ‘shelter in place’ orders, many anatomic pathologists are reviewing digital images from home during the COVID-19 outbreak and demonstrating the value of whole slide imaging, digital pathology, and CMS’ recent amended remote sign-out policy
COVID-19 is already triggering many permanent changes in the way healthcare is organized and delivered in the United States. However, not until the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic eases will the full extent of these changes become visible. This will be particularly true for anatomic pathology and the profession’s expanded use of telepathology, digital pathology, and whole-slide imaging.
Since early March, specimen referrals and revenues have collapsed at anatomic pathology groups and laboratories across the nation. Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR), was first to quantify the magnitude of this collapse in tissue referrals to pathology groups. In an interview with The Dark Report, Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, Inc., explained that pathology clients using XIFIN’s revenue cycle management services were seeing an average 40% decrease in specimens. And, for certain pathology sub-specialties, the drop-off in specimen referrals was as much as 90%. (See TDR, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” April 20, 2020.)
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) appealed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow pathologists to work remotely. In response, CMS issued a memorandum which stated, “Due to the public health emergency posed by COVID-19 and the urgent need to expand laboratory capacity, CMS is exercising its enforcement discretion to adopt a temporary policy of relaxed enforcement in connection with laboratories located at temporary testing sites under the conditions outlined herein.”
Since then, many physicians, including pathologists, have quickly adapted to working remotely in some form.
Push for Remote Pathology Services Acknowledges Anatomic Pathologist Shortage
The CMS memorandum (QSO-20-21-CLIA), which the federal agency issued to laboratory surveyors on March 26, 2020, notes that CMS will exercise “enforcement discretion to ensure pathologists may review pathology slides remotely” if certain defined conditions are met.
CMS’ decision, which “is applicable only during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” is intended to increase capacity by allowing remote site review of clinical laboratory data, results, and pathology slides.
Ordinarily, CLIA regulations for cytology (a branch of study that focuses on the biological structure of cells) state that cytology slide preparations must be evaluated on the premises of a laboratory that is certified to conduct testing in the subspecialty of cytology. However, a fast-acting Congressional letter sent by 37 members of Congress to US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar II, MD, states, “it is unwise and unnecessary to overburden the remaining pathologists with excess work due to staffing shortages, thereby increasing the risk of burnout, medical error, and further shortages in staffing due to exposure. The number of COVID-19 cases will increase and peak over the next two months and will stretch existing healthcare systems to their limits.”
Decreasing Number of ‘Active Pathologists’ Drives Adoption of Telepathology, Digital Pathology, and Whole-slide Imaging
The current COVID-19 outbreak is just the latest factor in support of enabling remote review of anatomic pathology images and cases. The trend of using telepathology, whole-slide imaging (WSI), and digital pathology systems has been gathering momentum for several years. Powerful economic forces support this trend.
The Dark Report devoted its June 10, 2019, issue to a deep dive of the challenges currently facing the anatomic pathology profession. In particular, TDR noted a study published May 31, 2019, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network Open, titled, “Trends in the US and Canadian Pathologist Workforces from 2007 to 2017.” The study’s authors—pathologists in the United States and Canada—reported that between 2007 and 2017 the number of active pathologists in the United States decreased from 15,568 to 12,839—a 17.53% decline.
TDR noted that these findings imply there are fewer pathologists in the United States today in active practice to handle the steady increase in the number of cases requiring diagnostic review. In turn, this situation could lead to delays in diagnoses detrimental to patient care.
In the United States, the COVID-19 pandemic created an “immediate need for remote sign-outs, reviews, and consults,” said Mike Bonham, MD, PhD (above), Chief Medical Officer for Proscia, a digital pathology software developer, in an interview with Dark Daily. “In the context of highly relevant workflow and workforce challenges, it reinforces the opportunity for wider adoption of digital pathology.” Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, several distinct forces were driving adoption and use of digital pathology in combination with traditional microscopy, he said. (Photo copyright: Proscia.)
Distinct Forces Beginning to Reshape Anatomic Pathology
In recent years, the anatomic pathology profession has faced growing financial pressure, a shrinking workforce, and a surge in the global demand for pathology—issues that come at a time when biopsies and cancer diagnostics require greater expertise.
The UCSF School of Medicine started with frozen slide sections and moved to the broader volume of pathology slides. Since 2015, UCSF’s School of Medicine has moved toward a fully digital pathology operation and has serialized the adoption by specialty, according to Zoltan Laszik, MD, PhD, attending physician at UCSF and Professor of Clinical Pathology in UCSF’s Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine.
Laszik is among a handful of specialists and digital pathology early adopters who collaborated on the new Dark Daily white paper, which is available for free download.
Through the adoption of digital pathology, glass slides are digitized using a whole-slide image scanner, then analyzed through image viewing software. Although the basic viewing functionality is not drastically different than that provided by a microscope, digitization does bring improvements in lab efficiency, diagnostic accuracy, image management, workflows, and revenue enhancements.
Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI)-based computational applications have emerged as an integral part of the digital pathology workflow in some settings, the white paper explains.
“These developments are important to anatomic pathologists because the traditional pathology business model continues to transform at a steady pace,” noted Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report.
Anthony Magliocco, MD, FRCPC, FCAP, President and CEO of Protean BioDiagnostics and former Professor and Chair of Pathology at Moffitt Cancer Center, is featured in the white paper as well. His new pathology service model provides routine pathology services, precision oncology, second opinions, liquid biopsies, genetics, and genomics to cancer centers from a Florida-based specialty laboratory.
To register for this important learning opportunity, click here or place this URL in your web browser: https://www.darkdaily.com/webinar/streamlined-operations-increased-revenue-higher-quality-of-care-conclusive-evidence-on-the-value-of-adopting-digital-pathology-in-your-lab/.
These digital pathology technologies represent an innovative movement shaping the present and future of pathology services. Pathologists wanting to learn more are encouraged to sign up for the May 13 webinar, which will build on the body of evidence and commentary that is included in the new white paper, and which will be available for free on-demand download following the live broadcast.
By taking early measures to combat the spread, the country had a medical laboratory test for COVID-19 available as early as Jan. 24, and was able to focus medical laboratory testing on the most at-risk individuals
With the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak dominating headlines and medical laboratories under growing pressure to increase testing capacity, Taiwan’s rapid response to the pandemic could provide a critical model for other countries to follow.
Given its proximity to mainland China—just 81 miles—and the large number of individuals who frequently travel back and forth between the countries, Taiwan was at risk of having the second-highest number of imported COVID-19 cases, according to a model developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of New South Wales Sydney. News reports indicate that, each year, about 60,000 flights carry 10 million passengers between Taiwan and China.
Data from Taiwan’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Central Epidemic Command Center (CECC) indicate that the country has managed to contain the outbreak thanks to these aggressive actions.
As of March 19, Taiwan’s CECC reported a total of 108 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections. That compares with 81,155 in China, 41,035 in Italy, and 10,755 in the US, according to data compiled by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. When the World Health Organization (WHO) reports on the number of COVID-19 cases by country, it includes the number of COVID-19 cases from Taiwan under the totals for the People’s Republic of China. WHO made this decision several years ago, under pressure by China to not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.
The World
Population Review website says Taiwan’s population is about 23.8 million.
But its infection rate is low even on a per capita basis: Approximately 45
infections per million population, compared with 6,784 in Italy, 564 in China,
and 326 per million in the US.
The JAMA authors noted that Taiwan was prepared for
an outbreak after its experience with the severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) pandemic in 2003, which also originated
in China.
Timeline of COVID-19 Outbreak at the Earliest Stages
Taiwan apparently learned a lesson about preparedness from
the SARS outbreak the rest of the world did not and that enabled the tiny
nation to respond immediately to the novel Coronavirus threat.
The country’s efforts began on Dec. 31 with inspections of
flight arrivals from Wuhan. “When there were only a very few cases [of
COVID-19] reported in China, [Taiwanese health authorities] already went onto
every airplane that came from Wuhan,” C. Jason Wang,
MD, PhD, an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and
Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA
report, told Vox.
“Health officials came on the airplane and checked people for symptoms,” he
added.
Travelers who had recently visited Wuhan and displayed
symptoms of pneumonia were quarantined at home for 14 days. Taiwan’s
CDC reported that quarantined individuals were being tested for the
2019-nCoV coronavirus (later renamed to SARS-CoV-2)
soon after it was identified. The CECC, activated in January to coordinate the
government’s response, reported the first confirmed imported case on Jan. 21.
On Jan. 24, their
CDC announced that testing for the virus was being performed at the CDC and
eight designated hospitals. Testing included samples from physicians around the
country. As of Feb. 17, daily testing capacity was about 1,300 samples, the JAMA
authors reported.
Wang told Vox that aggressive measures to identify
and isolate at-risk individuals at the earliest stages reduced the volume of clinical
laboratory tests that had to be performed. “Here in the US and elsewhere, we’re
now seeing community spread,” he said. “It’s probably been here for a while.
And so now we’re trying to see, ‘Oh, how many people should we test?’ Then, you
really need to have a very large capacity in the beginning.”
“I think the US has enormous capacity that’s currently not being used,” C. Jason Wang, MD, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes, and Prevention at Stanford University and lead author of the JAMA report, told Vox. “We have big tech companies that really could do a lot, right? We ought to get the big companies together. Get the governors together, get the federal government agencies to work with each other, and try to find innovative ways to think about how to best do this. We’ve got the smartest people here in the US because they come from everywhere. But right now, those are untapped resources. They’re not working together. And the federal government, the agencies, they need to collaborate a little more closely.” (Photo copyright: Stanford University.)
More Actions by Authorities
The JAMA report supplementary materials notes a total of 124 actions taken by Taiwanese authorities between Jan. 20 and Feb. 24 to contain the outbreak. In addition to the border inspections, quarantines and testing, they included integration of data between the country’s National Health Insurance Administration and National Immigration Agency, so authorities, and later hospitals, could identify any patient who had recently traveled to China, Hong Kong, or Macau.
The steps also included:
An escalating series of travel restrictions,
eventually including suspension of most passenger flights from Taiwan to China,
as well as a suspension of tours to Hong Kong or Macau.
Use of government-issued cell phones to monitor
quarantined individuals.
Fines for individuals breaking the 14-day home
quarantine.
Fines for incoming travelers who failed to
provide accurate health information.
Fines for disseminating false information or
rumors about the epidemic.
Fines and jail sentences for profiteering on disease-prevention
products.
Designation of military camps and other
government facilities for quarantine.
Nationwide disinfection of universities,
colleges, and public spaces around schools.
The government also took aggressive action to ensure
adequate supplies of surgical masks, including stepped-up manufacturing, export
bans, price limits, and a limit of one to three masks per purchase.
The JAMA authors noted that government officials issued daily press briefings to educate the public about the outbreak. Communication efforts also included public service announcements by Taiwan Vice President Chen Chien-jen, a trained epidemiologist.
A poll taken in Taiwan on Feb. 17 and 18 indicated high approval ratings for officials’ response to the crisis.
The JAMA authors also noted some “challenges” in the
government’s response. For example, most real-time public communication was in
Mandarin Chinese and sign language, leaving out non-Taiwanese citizens in the
country. And the cruise ship Diamond Princess, later found to have infections
on board, was allowed to dock near Taipei and disembark passengers. There are
also questions about whether similar policies can be sustained through the end
of a pandemic.
Still, “well-trained and experienced teams of officials were
quick to recognize the crisis and activated emergency management structures to
address the emerging outbreak,” the JAMA authors wrote. “Taiwan is an
example of how a society can respond quickly to a crisis and protect the
interests of its citizens.”
One noteworthy difference in the speedy response to
recognition of a novel coronavirus in Taiwan, compared to recognition of the
same novel coronavirus in the United States, was the fast availability of
clinical laboratory tests for COVID-19 in Taiwan.
Pathologists and clinical laboratory professionals here in
the US are frustrated that their skills and talents at developing and
validating new assays on an accelerated timeline were not acknowledged and
leveraged by government officials as they decided how to respond to the
emergence of the novel coronavirus now called SARS-CoV-2.
