Though the No Surprises Act was enacted to prevent such surprise billing, key aspects of the legislation are apparently not being enforced
Dani Yuengling thought she had properly prepared herself for the financial impact of a breast biopsy. After all, it’s a simple procedure, especially if done by fine needle aspiration (FNA). Then, the 35-year-old received a bill for $18,000! And that was after insurance and though she had received a much lower advanced quote, according to an NPR/Kaiser Health News (NPR/KHN) bill-of-the-month investigation.
So, what happened? And what can anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories do to ensure their patients don’t receive similar surprise bills?
Yuengling had lost her mother to breast cancer in 2017. Then, she found a lump in her own breast. Following a mammogram she decided to move forward with the biopsy. Her doctor referred her to Grand Strand Medical Center in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
But she needed to know how much the procedure would cost. Her health plan had a $6,000 deductible. She worried she might have to pay for the entire amount of a very expensive procedure.
However, the hospital’s online “Patient Payment Estimator” informed her that an uninsured patient typically pays about $1,400 for the procedure. Yuengling was relieved. She assumed that with insurance the amount would be even less, and thankfully, clinical laboratory test results of the biopsy found that she did not have breast cancer.
Then came the sticker shock! The bill broke down like this:
$17,979 was the total for her biopsy and everything that came with it.
Her insurer, Cigna, brought the cost down to the in-network negotiated rate of $8,424.14.
Her insurance then paid $3,254.47.
Yuengling was responsible for $5,169.67 which was the balance of her deductible.
So, why was the amount Yuengling owed higher than the bill would have been if she had been uninsured and paid cash for the procedure?
According to the NPR/KHN investigation, this is not an uncommon occurrence. The investigators reported that nearly 30% of American workers have high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and may face larger expenses than what a hospital’s cash price would have been for uninsured individuals.
Dani Yuengling (above) knew she had to take the lump in her breast seriously. Her mother had died of breast cancer. “It was the hardest experience, seeing her suffer,” Yuengling told NPR/KHN. Fortunately, following a biopsy procedure, clinical laboratory testing showed she was cancer free. But the bill for the procedure was shockingly higher than she’d expected based on the hospital’s patient payment estimator. (Photo copyright: Kaiser Health News.)
Take the Cash Price
In 2021, Bai was part of a John’s Hopkins research team that analyzed US hospital cash prices compared with commercial negotiated rates for specific healthcare services.
“The 70 CMS-specified hospital services represent 74 unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) diagnosis related group codes (four services were represented by two codes),” the authors wrote. “Cash prices and payer-specific negotiated prices for the 70 services were obtained from Turquoise Health, a data service company that specializes in collecting pricing information from hospitals.”
They continued, “Cash prices can affect the cost exposure of 26 million uninsured individuals and concern nearly one-third of US workers enrolled in high-deductible health plans, who are often responsible to pay for medical bills without a third-party contribution and thus are interested in having access to low cash prices. In contrast with the commercial price negotiated bilaterally between hospitals and insurers providing insurance plans, the cash price is determined unilaterally by the hospital and might be expected to be higher than negotiated prices.”
However, the team’s research found otherwise. “Across the 70 CMS-specified services … some hospitals set their cash price comparable to or lower than their commercial negotiated price,” they concluded.
Bai advises patients to ask healthcare providers about the cash price before undergoing any procedure no matter what their insurance status is. “It should be a norm,” she told NPR/KHN.
Federal No Surprises Act is not Foolproof
Yuengling was charged an extraordinarily high amount for her procedure compared to other hospitals in her area. Fair Health Consumer estimates the cost of the procedure Yuengling received cost an average of $3,500 at other local hospitals. Uninsured patients likely pay even less.
A spokesperson for Grand Street Medical Center blamed the inaccurate estimate on “a glitch” in the payment estimator system. The hospital has since removed some procedures from the tool until it can be corrected. Yuengling initially disputed the charge with the hospital but in the end decided to pay the full amount she owed.
NPR/KHN recommends that insured patients consult with their health insurance company to get an estimate before any procedure. That is the purpose of the No Surprises Act which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).
The law requires health insurance companies to provide their members with an estimate of medical costs upon their request. The Act also empowers patients to file federal complaints about their medical bills.
Patients who find themselves in a similar situation to Yuengling may want to consider paying the cash price for the procedure. Although this may not be common practice, Jacqueline Fox, JD, a healthcare attorney and professor of law at the University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told NPR/KHN that there is not a law she is aware of that would prohibit patients from doing so.
Anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories should check that their online prices and estimation tools comply with the No Surprises Act to ensure that what happened to Yuengling does not happen with their patients. They also could inform patients on how to pay cash for procedures if insurance rates are too high. Medical professionals and patients can work together to achieve transparency in healthcare pricing.
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.
