In a handful of cases, health insurers reversed denials after physicians or patients posted complaints on social media
Prior authorization requirements by health insurers have long been a thorn in the side of medical laboratories, as well as physicians. But now, doctors and patients are employing a new tactic against the practice—turning to social media to shame payers into reversing denials, according to KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News).
Genetic testing lab companies are quite familiar with prior authorization problems. They see a significant number of their genetic test requests fail to obtain a prior authorization. Thus, if the lab performs the test, the payer will likely not reimburse, leaving the lab to bill the patient for 100% of the test price, commonly $1,000 to $5,000. Then, an irate patient typically calls the doctor to complain about the huge out-of-pocket cost.
“There are times when you simply must call out wrongdoings,” she wrote in an Instagram post, according to the outlet. “This is one of those times.”
In response, an “escalation specialist” from BCBSIL contacted her but was unable to help. Then, after KFF Health News reached out, Nix discovered on her own that $36,000 in outstanding claims were marked “paid.”
“No one from the company had contacted her to explain why or what had changed,” KFF reported. “[Nix] also said she was informed by her hospital that the insurer will no longer require her to obtain prior authorization before her infusions, which she restarted in July.”
“I think we’re on the precipice of really improving the environment for prior authorization,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update. If this was to happen, it would be welcome news for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. (Photo copyright: Nashville Medical News.)
Physicians Also Take to Social Media to Complain about Denials
Some physicians have taken similar actions, KFF Health News reported. One was gastroenterologist Shehzad A. Saeed, MD, of Dayton Children’s Hospital in Ohio. Saeed posted a photo of a patient’s skin rash on Twitter in March after Anthem denied treatment for symptoms of Crohn’s disease. “Unacceptable and shameful!” he tweeted.
Two weeks later, he reported that the treatment was approved soon after the tweet. “When did Twitter become the preferred pathway for drug approval?” he wrote.
Eunice Stallman, MD, a psychiatrist from Boise, Idaho, complained on X (formerly Twitter) about Blue Cross of Idaho’s prior authorization denial of a brain cancer treatment for her nine-month-old daughter. “This is my daughter that you tried to deny care for,” she posted. “When a team of expert [doctors] recommend a treatment, your PharmD reviewers don’t get to deny her life-saving care for your profits.”
However, in this case, she posted her account after Blue Cross Idaho reversed the denial. She said she did this in part to prevent the payer from denying coverage for the drug in the future. “The power of the social media has been huge,” she told KFF Health News. The story noted that she joined X for the first time so she could share her story.
Affordable Care Act Loophole?
“We’re not going to get rid of prior authorization. Nobody is saying we should get rid of it entirely, but it needs to be right sized, it needs to be simplified, it needs to be less friction between the patient and accessing their benefits. And I think we’re on really good track to make some significant improvements in government programs, as well as in the private sector,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update.
However, KFF HealthNews reported that Kaye Pestaina, JD, a Kaiser Family Foundation VP and Co-Director of the group’s Program on Patient and Consumer Protections, noted that some “patient advocates and health policy experts” have questioned whether payers’ use of prior authorization denials may be a way to get around the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition against denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.
“They take in premiums and don’t pay claims,” family physician and healthcare consultant Linda Peeno, MD, told KFF Health News. “That’s how they make money. They just delay and delay and delay until you die. And you’re absolutely helpless as a patient.” Peeno was a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1980s and then became a whistleblower.
The issue became top-of-mind for genetic testing labs in 2017, when Anthem (now Elevance) and UnitedHealthcare established programs in which physicians needed prior authorization before the insurers would agree to pay for genetic tests.
Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report covered this in “Two Largest Payers Start Lab Test Pre-Authorization.” We noted then that it was reasonable to assume that other health insurers would follow suit and institute their own programs to manage how physicians utilize genetic tests.
At least one large payer has made a move to reduce prior authorization in some cases. Effective Sept. 1, UnitedHealthcare began a phased approach to remove prior authorization requirements for hundreds of procedures, including more than 200 genetic tests under some commercial insurance plans.
However, a source close to the payer industry noted to Dark Daily that UnitedHealthcare has balked at paying hundreds of millions’ worth of genetic claims going back 24 months. The source indicated that genetic test labs are engaging attorneys to push their claims forward with the payer.
Is Complaining on Social Media an Effective Tactic?
A story in Harvard Business Review cited research suggesting that companies should avoid responding publicly to customer complaints on social media. Though public engagement may appear to be a good idea, “when companies responded publicly to negative tweets, researchers found that those companies experienced a drop in stock price and a reduction in brand image,” the authors wrote.
However, the 2023 “National Customer Rage Survey,” conducted by Customer Care Measurement and Consulting and Arizona State University, found that nearly two-thirds of people who complained on social media received a response. And “many patients and doctors believe venting online is an effective strategy, though it remains unclear how often this tactic works in reversing prior authorization denials,” KFF Health News reported.
Federal Government and States Step In
KFF Health News reported that the federal government is proposing reforms that would require some health plans “to provide more transparency about denials and to speed up their response times.” The changes, which would take effect in 2026, would apply to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and federal Health Insurance Marketplace plans, “but not employer-sponsored health plans.”
KFF also noted that some insurers are voluntarily revising prior authorization rules. And the American Medical Association reported in March that 30 states, including Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington, are considering their own legislation to reform the practice. Some are modeled on legislation drafted by the AMA.
Though the states and the federal government are proposing regulations to address prior authorization complaints, reform will likely take time. Given Harvard Business Review’s suggestion to resist replying to negative customer complaints in social media, clinical labs—indeed, all healthcare providers—should carefully consider the full consequences of going to social media to describe issues they are having with health insurers.
Proposed regulation to limit rate increases during health crises gets pushback from staffing agencies and travel nurses who disagree with salary restrictions
Hospitals across the nation are seeking relief from skyrocketing costs due to increased demand for temporary workers—especially travel nurses. This has led organizations like the American Hospital Association (AHA) to step in and call for legislators to cap spiking salary rates. Many clinical laboratories report similar increases in salaries following the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 for medical technologists (MTs), clinical laboratory scientists (CLSs), histologists, and other skilled positions. This increase in salaries of lab scientists was mirrored by an even greater increase in the cost of travel MTs.
According to analysis conducted by Becker’s Hospital Review of hiring data from Vivian Health, an online job placement website for healthcare professionals, “Average weekly travel nurse pay climbed from $1,896 in January 2020 to $3,782 in December 2021, a 99.47% increase.”
A prior study by Kaufman Hall and Associates, LLC., found rates for temporary workers almost 500% higher than pre-pandemic times. While numbers are trending downward, it’s clear that rates are still high enough to cause alarm, KFF Health News reported.
“During the pandemic there were staffing companies who were making a lot of promises and not necessarily delivering,” Dave Dillon (above), VP of Public and Media Relations at Missouri Hospital Association, told KFF Health News. “It created an opportunity for both profiteering and for bad actors to be able to play in that space.” (Photo copyright: L.G. Patterson/Missouri Hospital Association.)
AHA Alleges Price Gouging
Demand for temporary healthcare workers surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, and, because supply was limited, salaries for temporary workers—such as travel nurses—soared as well. This dramatic increase in hospitals’ costs prompted the AHA in 2021 to send a letter to the Federal Trade Commission seeking relief for healthcare providers from what the organization called “anticompetitive pricing by nurse-staffing agencies.”
In January 2022, about 200 House members urged then White House COVID-19 Response Team Coordinator Jeffrey Zients “to investigate reports that nurse staffing agencies are taking advantage of the COVID-19 pandemic to increase their profits at the expense of patients and the hospitals that treat them,” an AHA new release noted.
In an AHA House Statement titled, “Pandemic Profiteers: Legislation to Stop Corporate Price Gouging,” the AHA wrote “Our concerns range from potential collusion to increased prices way beyond competitive levels and/or egregious price gouging and the impact these behaviors could have on efforts to care for patients and communities.”
Temporary nurses make up a large portion of staff nationwide with 1,760,111 employed nationally as of September, according to Zippia research. With some nurses commandeering $40,000 signing bonuses and pay rates up to $10,000 a week for ICU nurses during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the significant impact of these rate hikes cannot be ignored.
“We have received reports that the nurse staffing agencies are vastly inflating price by two, three, or more times pre-pandemic rates, and then taking 40% or more of the amount being charged to the hospitals for themselves as profits. This situation is urgent and reliance on temporary workers caused normal staffing costs to balloon in all areas of the country,” Representatives Peter Welch, D-VT, and Morgan Griffith, R-VA, wrote in the letter submitted by the AHA to House members.
States Take a Stand
But nothing was done at the federal level to cap rates for travel nurses, so hospital organizations in 14 states lobbied legislators to cap rates at the local level. However, this has proven to be problematic.
At this time, at least 14 states have proposed legislation that impose limits on what temp nursing services can charge and what stipulations they must follow during a crisis. Navigating this patchwork of state laws could be challenging for both hospitals and temporary nurses.
Some states are taking sterner measures, KFF Health News reported:
Missouri regulators proposed legislation that would allow felony charges to be brought against healthcare staffing agencies that raise prices during emergencies.
Texas lawmakers proposed legislation that would administer civil penalties against agency price-gouging—laws which the state does not have on the books at all—and also would allow fees up to $10,000 to be assessed per violation of the proposed law.
New York proposed amendments to legislation that would cap the amount temporary staffing agencies could charge.
Nurses, Staffing Agencies Tell Their Side
The implementation of new laws to protect hospitals from alleged temp agency price gouging presents new challenges. One issue is state-to-state competition.
“It might become difficult to hire travel nurses, and some states could face a lower-quality hiring pool during a national crises if the neighboring state doesn’t have strict measures,” Hannah Neprash, PhD, Assistant Professor, Division of Health Policy and Management at the University of Minnesota, told KFF Health News.
And financial handcuffs may not sit well with staffing agencies that feel misunderstood by hospital organizations pushing for regulation. According to KFF Health News, “Typically about 75% of the price charged by a staffing agency to a healthcare facility goes to costs such as salary, payroll taxes, workers’ compensation programs, unemployment insurance, recruiting, training, certification, and credential verification, said Toby Malara, a Vice President at the American Staffing Association trade group.”
Malara added, “hospital executives have, ‘without understanding how a staffing firm works,’ wrongly assumed price gouging has been occurring. In fact, he said many of his trade group’s members reported decreased profits during the pandemic because of the high compensation nurses were able to command,” KFF Health News reported.
Not surprisingly, many nurses have also come out against government regulation of their wages.
“Imagine the government attempting to dictate how much a lawyer, electrician, or plumber would make in Missouri. This would never be allowed, yet this is exactly what’s happening right now to nurses,” Theresa Newbanks, FNP, a nurse practitioner who is affiliated with several hospitals in multiple states.
Creative Responses Required
Increases in both rates and legislation continue to spur creativity among hospitals needing to fill shifts, support staff, and prevent worker burnout.
The American Hospital Association December 2022 Task Force noted this in their “Creative Staffing Models” paper. The AHA cited telehealth visits, technical support, and working with non-traditional partners as beneficial ideas. These were also noted as meaningful ways to recruit and retain staff.
Other hospital systems have even created their own staffing agencies. Allegheny Health Network (AHN) developed a variety of systems where nurses can work a single weeklong assignment, multiple-week assignments, or transfer to other facilities, Kaiser Health News reported. While these staffing scenarios make up a small percentage of the hospital staff, it’s a worthwhile addition to increase options for nurses.
Staff turnover for RNs increased from 8.4% to 27.1% last year, as reported by the 2022 NSI National Healthcare Retention and RN Staffing Report. Finding solutions to staffing shortages—and consequently increased temporary nursing cost—is crucial because burnout is still a problem, just as it is in clinical laboratories and pathology groups.
Occupancy rates at skilled nursing facilities remain well below pre-pandemic levels, a trend that weakens the financial health of nursing homes and means fewer test referrals to clinical laboratories that service them
COVID-19 is taking a financial bite out of the nursing home industry as seniors opt for home care rather than entering nursing facilities. If this trend becomes permanent, clinical laboratories may have to ramp up their ability to collect specimens from a growing population of patients who choose non-traditional healthcare settings. And as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic stretches on, the exodus of seniors from nursing home facilities provides another example of how COVID-19 is altering consumers’ access to healthcare.
According to the most recent “AARP Nursing Home COVID-19 Dashboard Fact Sheets,” the COVID-19 pandemic “has swept the nation, killing more than 160,000 residents and staff of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.”
Because COVID-19 has hit nursing home residents the hardest, many families have decided elderly parents may be safer living with relatives than in nursing homes that have proven vulnerable to widespread outbreaks. In addition, COVID-19-related lockdowns in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) have provided families with additional motivation to choose home care for elderly relatives.
For example, in “Should You Bring Mom Home from Assisted Living During the Pandemic?” retired Seattle physician Alison Webb, MD, told Kaiser Health News (KHN) she moved her 81-year-old father, who has moderate dementia, out of assisted living so he could be with grandchildren and enjoy gardening rather than remain in his senior facility, where COVID-19 protocols kept him sequestered from friends and family.
This is not an isolated example and may have a long-term impact on clinical laboratories that service skilled nursing facilities.
Patient Volume Falls Dramatically at Skilled Nursing Facilities
While hospital discharge rates are rebounding to near pre-pandemic levels, an Avalere Health analysis of Medicare fee-for-service claims found a “more drastic and lasting decline in patient volume” at skilled nursing facilities. In contrast, Avalere found home health has experienced a rebound in patient numbers beginning last May.
“In the early months of the COVID-19 outbreak in the US, we saw a substantial decrease in hospital discharges to both skilled nursing facilities and home health agencies,” said Heather Flynn, Consultant at Avalere, in an Avalere press release. “Hospital discharges are steadily moving back to pre-pandemic levels, but our analysis points to an uneven ‘return to normal’ across care settings.”
The graph above, taken from the Avalere press release, reveals “a stark decline in inpatient hospital discharges and discharges to both SNF and home health beginning in February 2020. The analysis further indicated that the skilled nursing industry has experienced a more drastic and lasting decline in patient volume relative to total hospital volume and discharges to home health (where rebounds were observed beginning in May). Of note, discharges to home health experienced a year-over-year increase in June 2020, at 4.6% greater discharge volume when compared to June 2019, while discharges to SNF remained notably below pre-pandemic levels at a 25.4% decrease in year-over-year discharges.” (Graphic copyright: Avalere Health.)
“Skilled nursing facility occupancy typically slows in April after an uptick during the flu season, but we haven’t seen anything like this in recent memory,” Kauffman said in an NIC press release which announced nursing home occupancy had dropped to 78.9% last April, 2020, down 5.5% from 2019. “The long-term effect of COVID-19 on skilled nursing occupancy remains to be seen as the industry adjusts to a new normal.”
Since then, the occupancy rate in skilled nursing properties has fallen even further. The latest Skilled Nursing Monthly Report announced a new low of 74.2%.
Will Clinical Laboratories That Service Skilled Nursing Homes Be Affected?
Mark Parkinson (above), President and CEO of the AHCA and former Governor of Kansas, maintains a successful COVID-19 vaccination rollout and lifting of nursing home visitation bans are keys to the industry’s recovery. “I think the census needs to recover about 1% a month. If we can recover 1% a month on a steady basis, that gets us to the end of 2021,” Parkinson told Skilled Nursing News. “And we’re still down, but we’re down 5% or 6%; we’re not down 13% or 14%. If we recover a half a percent, some businesses will be okay, but not all. If we only recover half a percent, we don’t get any more money, folks are going to have problems. If we don’t have any recovery on census … things are very, very bad.” (Photo copyright: Kansas Health Institute.)
There are signs the nursing home industry may have to contend with home healthcare becoming a permanent competitor for patients. In a news release last spring, the Mayo Clinic announced it was partnering with Medically Home of Boston to launch a virtual hospital-at-home model aimed at delivering “advanced care” from a network of paramedics, nurses, and support team in a home care setting.
The initiative means patients can receive a range of healthcare services in their homes that traditionally required a hospital setting. The services include:
Infusions,
Skilled nursing,
Clinical laboratory and imaging services,
Behavioral health and rehabilitation services.
While the initial program rollout will allow Mayo Clinic to free up ventilators and hospital space for COVID-19 patients, John Halamka, MD, an emergency medicine physician and President of Mayo Clinic Platform, told Modern Healthcare, “Next, we’ll look to forward-thinking organizations who believe like we do in that care should be more convenient and accessible.”
Discharge Doctors Now Choose Home Healthcare Over Skilled Nursing Facilities
Physicians also are embracing home care in greater numbers. As reported in Forbes, a 2020 William Blair survey showed 81% of physicians responsible for discharge planning would send patients to a home health agency rather than a skilled nursing facility. Pre-pandemic, only 54% of discharging physicians expressed a preference for home care, according to the survey.
Greg Chittim, Partner at Health Advances, an international strategy consulting firm headquartered in Boston, points to improvements in virtual technologies as the catalyst for home care’s growth.
“One of the silver linings of COVID-19 is the level of investment we are seeing in virtual care technologies,” Chittim told Forbes. “And beyond the technologies, providers and patients are building that comfort with traditional real-time communication. I think we have moved 10 years ahead in 10 months.”
As the COVID-19 pandemic rolls on and home health initiatives become more commonplace and grow in popularity, clinical laboratory managers may want to develop solutions that assist home healthcare providers with collecting and shipping patient specimens for testing.
Though the test initially drew ‘raves’ from Trump administration, the FDA now suggests negative results should be confirmed with an additional ‘high-sensitivity authorized SARS-CoV-2 molecular test’
This spring, as the United States attempted to jump-start a national response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic, the Trump administration heralded Abbott Laboratories’ five-minute test for COVID-19 as a major breakthrough. But even as the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued dozens of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) to quickly get COVID-19 diagnostic tests into clinical use, the accuracy of some of those tests came into question—including Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 rapid molecular test.
The continuing controversy over Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 test shows how the national spotlight can be a double-edged sword, bringing both widespread favorable attention to a breakthrough technology, followed by heightened public scrutiny if deficiencies emerge. At the same time, from the first news stories about the Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 test, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers understood that this test always had certain performance parameters, as is true of every diagnostic test.
“Everybody was raving about it,” a former administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said of ID NOW in an interview with Kaiser Health News (KHN). “It’s an amazing test, but it has limitations which are now being better understood.”
In a White House ceremony on March 29, 2020, President Trump praised his administration’s role in speeding up development “on both testing and treatment that will help us win our war against the coronavirus.” Among the moves highlighted was the FDA’s approval two days earlier of Abbott’s ID-NOW COVID-19 rapid molecular test (above), which the President stated, “delivers lightning-fast results in as little as five minutes,” adding, “Normally, this approval process from the FDA would take 10 months, and even longer, but we did it in four weeks.” (Photo copyright: Washington Post.)
FDA Warns Public about Inaccurate Test Results
On May 14, the FDA issued a public warning about the point-of-care test’s accuracy after receiving 15 “adverse event reports” indicating some patients were receiving “false negative results.”
“Regardless of method of collection and sample type, Abbott ID NOW COVID-19 had negative results in a third of the samples that tested positive by Cepheid Xpert Xpress when using nasopharyngeal swabs in viral transport media and 45% when using dry nasal swabs,” the NYU study authors stated.
Abbott Rebuts Criticism
In a statement following the FDA’s warning, Abbott said, “We’re seeing studies being conducted to understand the role of ID NOW in ways that it was not designed to be used. In particular, the NYU study results are not consistent with other studies. While we’ve seen a few studies with sensitivity performance percentages in the 80s, we’ve also seen other studies with sensitivity at or above 90%, and one as high as 94%.
“While we understand no test is perfect, test outcomes depend on a number of factors including patient selection, specimen type, collection, handling, storage, transport and conformity to the way the test was designed to be run. ID NOW is intended to be used near the patient with a direct swab test method,” Abbott’s statement added, noting the company would be “further clarifying our product information to provide better guidance” and “reinforcing proper sample collection and handling instructions.”
Then, on May 21, Abbott issued another statement highlighting an interim analysis of an ongoing multisite clinical study demonstrating ID NOW COVID-19 test performance is ≥94.7% in positive agreement (sensitivity) and ≥98.6% negative agreement (specificity) when compared to two different lab-based molecular PCR reference methods.
“We’re pleased ID NOW is delivering on what it was designed to do—quickly detect the virus in people who need to know now if they’re infected,” said Philip Ginsburg, MD, SAIM, Senior Medical Director, Infectious Disease, Rapid Diagnostics at Abbott, in the statement. “This is great news for people who are experiencing symptoms and want to take action before they infect others, reducing the spread of infection in society.”
Nonetheless, KHN reported on June 22 that the FDA had “received a total of 106 reports of adverse events for the Abbott test, a staggering increase. The agency has not received a single adverse event report for any other point-of-care tests meant to diagnose COVID-19.”
Second Comparison Study Results for Abbott’s ID NOW
The Abbott ID NOW test correctly identified 74% of positive samples. In comparison, Cepheid’s Xpert Xpress SARS CoV-2 test correctly identified 99% of positives. Negative agreement was 100% and 92.0% for ID NOW and Xpert, respectively.
The FDA’s testing policy for clinical laboratories and commercial manufacturers recommends diagnostic tests correctly identify at least 95% of positive samples. However, KHN pointed out, a senior FDA official in late May said coronavirus tests that were administered outside lab settings would be considered useful in fighting the pandemic even if they miss 20% of positive cases.
“There’s no way I would be comfortable missing two out of 10 patients,” Whittier told KHN.
Abbott ID-NOW’s Role in the Global Fight to Stop COVID-19
Abbott’s ID NOW COVID-19 test is promoted as delivering positive test results in five minutes and negative results in about 13 minutes. On its website and in news releases, Abbott maintains its test “performs best in patients tested earlier post symptom onset.”
In a July 17 statement, Abbott said, “ We have shipped 5.3 million of our rapid ID NOW tests to all 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Islands. The majority of these tests have been sent to outbreak hotspots and we’ve asked that customers prioritize frontline healthcare workers and first responders.”
It is common for a new diagnostic instrument and a new clinical laboratory test to be continually improved after initial launch. Thus, the performance of such devices at the time they are given clearance from the FDA to be used in clinical care can be much improved several months or years later.
Given the importance of a reliable point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 test during the pandemic, it can be assumed that Abbott Laboratories is working closely with its medical laboratory customers specifically to improve the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of both the instrument and the test kit.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
