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.
Pathologists and clinical laboratories have an opportunity to help create newborn rWGS programs in their parent hospitals and health systems
Diagnosing disease in infants is particularly difficult using typical clinical laboratory testing and modalities. Thus, the use of rapid Whole Genome Sequencing (rWGS) is gaining acceptance when such a procedure is deemed “medically appropriate” based on the child’s symptoms.
In “Whole Genome Sequencing for Newborns Gains Favor,” Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report wrote, “Evidence is swiftly accumulating that use of rapid Whole Genome Sequencing for certain children in NICUs can enable diagnostic insights that guide effective interventions. Further, these pilot rWGS programs in children’s hospitals are showing a solid return on investment because of improved care. It is predicted that more hospitals may soon offer rWGS.”
Conducted at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, the researchers found that “Whole genome tests are nearly twice as good as narrower tests at unearthing genetic abnormalities that can cause disease in infants—the study found 49% of abnormalities, compared to 27% with more commonly used tests targeting particular types of genetic diseases,” the Associate Press reported.
The AP story follows the medical journey of a now 4-year-old who was diagnosed with a rare bleeding disorder. The nearly fatal condition was only caught because broad genetic testing found she suffered from factor XIII deficiency, a blood disorder characterized by the inability to clot properly.
“I’ve been doing clinical trials of babies for over 40 years,” neonatologist Jonathan Davis, MD (above), Chief, Division of Newborn Medicine at Tufts Children’s Hospital at Tufts Medical Center and Professor of Pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, told the AP. “It’s not often that you can do something that you feel is going to really change the world and change clinical practice for everyone.” Clinical laboratories that work with oncologists to treat children suffering from cancer will understand Davis’ enthusiasm. (Photo copyright: Tufts Medicine.)
Incorporating Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing into Infant Care
Genetic diseases are responsible for 41% of infant deaths, according to a Rady Children’s Institute press release, which goes on to say the usage of rWGS may significantly improve the odds for infants born with genetic disorders.
“Broad use of genomic sequencing during the first year of life could have a much greater impact on infant mortality than was recognized hitherto,” said Stephen Kingsmore MD, President/CEO, Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, which was one of the additional study sites for the Tufts Medicine researchers.
Genetic testing is already used to predict infant health outcomes, but the Tufts study highlights further developments that could improve the process. Prenatal genetic testing can be utilized both through carrier testing to determine any potential genetic red flags in the parents, and during prenatal screening and diagnostic testing of the fetus.
When an infant presents symptoms after birth, rWGS can then be implemented to cast a broad net to determine the best course of treatment.
According to ScienceDaily, the Tufts study found rWGS “to be nearly twice as effective as a targeted gene sequencing test at identifying abnormalities responsible for genetic disorders in newborns and infants.”
However, the rWGS tests took an average of six days to come back, whereas the targeted tests took only four days, ScienceDaily reported. Also, there is not full consensus on whether a certain gene abnormality is actually the cause of a specific genetic disorder.
“Many neonatologists and geneticists use genome sequencing panels, but it’s clear there are a variety of different approaches and a lack of consensus among geneticists on the causes of a specific patient’s medical disorder,” Jill Maron, MD, Vice Chair of Pediatric Research, Tufts Medical Center, and a co-principal investigator of the Tufts study, told Science Daily.
rWGS Costs versus Return on Investment
Some also question the upfront cost of genetic testing. It can be high, but it’s coming down and Maron stresses the importance of the tests.
“Genome sequencing can be costly, but in this targeted, at-risk population, it proves to be highly informative. We are supportive of ongoing efforts to see these tests covered by insurance,” she told ScienceDaily.
Each of the doctors associated with the Tufts study emphasized the importance of this testing and the good that can be done for this vulnerable group. The potential value to the children, they say, far outweighs the drawbacks of the testing.
“This study provides further evidence that genetic disorders are common among newborns and infants,” Kingsmore told ScienceDaily, “The findings strengthen support for early diagnosis by rapid genomic sequencing, allowing for the use of precision medicine to better care for this vulnerable patient population.”
For clinical laboratories, there is also good news about reimbursement for rWGS. In a story published last fall KFF Health News wrote, “Since 2021, eight state Medicaid programs have added rapid whole-genome sequencing to their coverage or will soon cover it, according to GeneDX, a provider of the test. That includes Florida … The test is also under consideration for coverage in Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina, according to the nonprofit Rady Children’s Institute for Genomic Medicine, another major provider of the test.”
“Collectively, these developments are encouraging children’s hospitals, academic centers, and tertiary care centers to look at establishing their own rWGS programs,” wrote Michel in The Dark Report. “In settings where this is appropriate, hospital and health system-based clinical laboratories have an opportunity to take an active role in helping jump start a newborn rWGS program in their institutions.”
Pathologists should continue to monitor rWGS, as well as prenatal and carrier testing, to have a full awareness of its growing use in infant and young child cancer screening.
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.
