Patients outside the US wait even longer to see healthcare specialists with some appointments scheduled a year out in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia
Data recently released by healthcare consulting firm ECG Management Consultants (ECG) reveals that patients in the United States wait an average of 38 days for healthcare appointments. That figure is a significant stretch from the desired industry standard of 14-day or less wait times, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.
Clinical laboratories serve the needs of physicians who see patients and refer testing needed by patients to labs. Thus, average wait times should be of interest to lab professionals who strive to meet reporting turnaround times for lab test results, particularly given the unique way that ECG conducted its survey of patient wait times.
In “The Waiting Game: New-Patient Appointment Access for US Physicians,” ECG wrote, “Adopting a ‘secret shopper’ approach, we put ourselves in the shoes of the average patient trying to book an appointment. We contacted nearly 4,000 physician practices in 23 major cities across the US, posing as a new, commercially insured patient seeking care for general, nonemergent conditions that typically don’t require a physician referral.”
ECG’s study provides “a realistic view of where and in what specialties patients face the most significant challenges to accessing routine care,” the authors wrote in their published report. The report also includes patients’ appointment-keeping behavior based on length of wait times.
“Consumer expectations have evolved significantly in all industries. From buying a plane ticket to making a restaurant reservation, the consumer experience has been highly optimized and customers in turn have become accustomed to information and services being available at their fingertips. They bring the same expectations about speed and convenience to healthcare,” the researchers explained.
ECG pointed out that when patients are required to wait 14 days or more to see their physicians, no shows and cancellations increase dramatically.
“Numerous studies have shown that patients are significantly less likely to show up for appointments that are scheduled further out,” the study authors noted.
“One of the takeaways was how difficult the patient experience is. Not only did our secret shoppers have to go out and find physicians, they had to sit on the phone sometimes on very long holds and go through multiple barriers and jump through hoops,” Jennifer Moody (above), partner with ECG Management Consultants and one of the authors of the study, told Becker’s Hospital Review. “Even in that case, they weren’t successful in scheduling appointments with all the practices they called. I think of the average consumer who might be having a similar experience,” she added. Lengthy wait times are not believed to be an issue when patients need clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Getting Authentic Results
To gather the study data, ECG distributed its secret shoppers throughout 23 major US cities, reaching almost 4,000 physician practices (between 145-168 per city) to schedule appointments for non-emergency conditions not needing a physical referral.
The researchers gathered wait times for TNAAs (third next available appointments), a common metric. They chose TNAAs because first and second appointments often produce unclear results due to extenuating circumstances or late cancellations, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
The researchers recorded TNAAs for the following specialties:
Cardiology (39 days),
Dermatology (40 days),
Family medicine (29 days),
Gastroenterology (48 days),
General surgery (22 days),
Neurology (63 days),
Obstetrics/gynecology (37 days),
Ophthalmology (37 days),
Orthopedic surgery (20 days),
Pediatrics (24 days), and,
Rheumatology (68 days).
They found the average wait time to be 38 days. And “of the 253 metropolitan market and specialty combinations included in this research, only 6% had an average wait time of 14 days or less,” Becker’s reported.
The researchers omitted the physician practices that were unable to either take or return calls, take messages, or provide a hold time under five minutes to give the secret shopper an answer, Becker’s added.
Jennifer Moody, Partner, ECG Management Consultants, one of the authors of the study, “was particularly surprised by the portion of callers who never even made it to the stage of learning about wait times. Out of 3,712 physician practices, callers were able to secure responses from only 3,079, meaning nearly one in five physician practices could not provide appointment availability information,” Becker’s reported.
The lowest average wait time in all specialties was 27 days in Houston, and the longest was 70 days in Boston. “A key takeaway from the report is that physician concentration does not guarantee timely access, as a major healthcare hub like Boston helps illustrate,” Becker’s noted, adding that physicians in such areas may “devote time to teaching or research over appointments.”
The graphic above, taken from ECG’s published report, shows the average TNAA times recorded by their secret shoppers at medical specialty practices in major cities across the US. (Graphic copyright: ECG Management Consultants.)
Other Country’s Wait Times
Healthcare systems outside the US struggle with patient wait times as well. Forbes reported that patients of Canada’s public health system “faced a median wait of 27.7 weeks for medically necessary treatment from a specialist after being referred by a general practitioner. That’s over six months—the longest ever recorded.”
Patients in Nova Scotia wait even longer. There they “face a median wait of 56.7 weeks—more than a year—for specialist treatment following referral by a general practitioner. Those on Prince Edward Island are also in the year-long waiting club—a median of just over 55 weeks,” Forbes noted.
And in the UK, a recent survey found that “more than 150,000 patients had to wait a day in A&E [accident and emergency] before getting a hospital bed last year, according to new data,” with the majority of those patients over the age of 65, according to The Guardian.
ECG suggestions that may reduce wait times include:
Adopt automation and self-service tools in an “easily navigable platform” that enables patients to schedule appointments 24/7.
Ensure healthcare providers are “utilized appropriately and at the top of their license.”
Address inequities in access to healthcare regardless of patients’ location or socioeconomic status.
There is more in the ECG report that hospitals—as well as clinical laboratories—can use to reduce patient wait times to see care providers. As the authors wrote, “For patients, the first step of the care journey shouldn’t be the hardest.”
New non-invasive test could replace traditional painful spinal taps and clinical laboratory fluid analysis for diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease
Scientists at AXIM Biotechnologies of San Diego have added another specimen that can be collected non-invasively for rapid, point-of-care clinical laboratory testing. This time it is tears, and the diagnostic test is for Parkinson’s disease (PD).
The new assay measures abnormal alpha-synuclein (a-synuclein), a protein that is a biomarker for Parkinson’s, according to an AXIM news release which also said the test is the first rapid test for PD.
“The revolutionary nature of AXIM’s new test is that it is non-invasive, inexpensive, and it can be performed at a point of care. It does not require a lumbar puncture, freezing, or sending samples to a lab. AXIM’s assay uses a tiny tear drop versus a spinal tap to collect the fluid sample and the test can be run at a doctor’s office with quantitative results delivered from a reader in less than 10 minutes,” the news release notes.
“Furthermore, emerging evidence shows that a-synuclein assays have the potential to differentiate people with PD from healthy controls, enabling the potential for early identification of at-risk groups,” the news release continues. “These findings suggest a crucial role for a-synuclein in therapeutic development, both in identifying pathologically defined subgroups of people with Parkinson’s disease and establishing biomarker-defined at-risk cohorts.”
This is just the latest example of a disease biomarker that can be collected noninvasively. Other such biomarkers Dark Daily has covered include:
“With this new assay, AXIM has immediately become a stakeholder in the Parkinson’s disease community, and through this breakthrough, we are making possible new paradigms for better clinical care, including earlier screening and diagnosis, targeted treatments, and faster, cheaper drug development,” said John Huemoeller, CEO, AXIM (above), in a news release. Patients benefit from non-invasive clinical laboratory testing. (Photo copyright: AXIM Biotechnologies.)
Fast POC Test versus Schirmer Strip
AXIM said it moved forward with its novel a-synuclein test propelled by earlier tear-related research that found “a-synuclein in its aggregated form can be detected in tears,” Inside Precision Medicine reported.
But that research used what AXIM called the “outdated” Schirmer Strip method to collect tears. The technique involves freezing tear samples at -80 degrees Celsius (-112 Fahrenheit), then sending them to a clinical laboratory for centrifugation for 30 minutes; quantifying tear protein content with a bicinchoninic acid assay, and detecting a-synuclein using a plate reader, AXIM explained.
Alternatively, AXIM says its new test may be performed in doctors’ offices and offers “quantitative results delivered from a reader in less than 10 minutes.”
“Our proven expertise in developing tear-based diagnostic tests has led to the development of this test in record speed, and I’m extremely proud of our scientific team for their ability to expand our science to focus on such an important focus area as Parkinson’s,” said John Huemoeller, CEO, AXIM in the news release.
“This is just the beginning for AXIM in this arena,” he added. “But I am convinced when pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and neurologists see how our solution can better help diagnose Parkinson’s disease in such an expedited and affordable way, we will be at the forefront of PD research, enabling both researchers and clinicians a brand-new tool in the fight against PD.”
One of those tests was “a lateral flow diagnostic for point-of-care use that measures the level of lactoferrin proteins in tear fluid, which work to protect the surface of the eye. … Axim said that low lactoferrin levels have also been linked to Parkinson’s disease and that the assay can be used alongside its alpha-synuclein test,” Fierce Biotech noted.
“It made sense to try and look at the proteinaceous [consisting of or containing protein] constituents of tear fluid,” Lew told Neurology Live. “Tear fluid is easy to collect. It’s noninvasive, inexpensive. It’s not like when you do a lumbar puncture, which is a much more involved ordeal. There’s risk of contamination with blood (saliva is dirty) issues with blood and collection. [Tear fluid analysis] is much safer and less expensive to do.”
In Biomarkers in Medicine, Lew et al noted why tears make good biomarkers for Parkinson’s disease, including “the interconnections between the ocular [eye] surface system and neurons affected in Parkinson’s disease.”
The researchers also highlighted “recent data on the identification of tear biomarkers including oligomeric α-synuclein, associated with neuronal degeneration in PD, in tears of PD patients” and discussed “possible sources for its release into tears.”
Future Clinical Laboratory Testing for Parkinson’s
Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer’s. It affects nearly one million people in the US. About 1.2 million people may have it by 2030, according to the Parkinson’s Foundation.
Thus, an accurate, inexpensive, non-invasive diagnostic test that can be performed at the point of care, and which returns clinical laboratory test results in less than 10 minutes, will be a boon to physicians who treat PD patients worldwide.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may want to follow AXIM’s future research to see when the diagnostic test may become available for clinical use.
Healthcare revenue cycle consultant Jonathan Wiik suggests healthcare providers must prepare their organizations for patients who need help paying increasing medical costs
A recent analysis of this issue by TransUnion Healthcare (NYSE:TRU) states, “patients experienced an 11% increase in average out-of-pocket costs during 2017, rising from $1,630 in Q4 2016 to $1,813 in Q4 2017.” It is a development that should send up red flags to clinical laboratory managers seeking ways to maintain and increase revenues.
“Given the increased payment responsibility, being able to determine a patient’s ability to pay is increasingly important for hospitals,” noted Jonathan Wiik, Principal, Healthcare Strategy at TransUnion Healthcare (TRU). “In order to allow patients to focus on getting the care they need healthcare providers need processes and tools in place to help patients meet their financial obligations and to establish funding mechanisms that will benefit both the patient and provider.” Obviously, this also applies to clinical laboratories.
According to a news release, “The [TRU] analysis also revealed that in 2017, on average, 49% of patient out-of-pocket costs per healthcare visit were below $500; 39% were $501-$1,000; and 12% were more than $1,000.”
For providers, patients’ swelling unpaid balances mean more uncompensated care, the analysis also showed. And that means more unpaid balances for clinical laboratories as well.
“Increasing healthcare costs and patient responsibility is a continuing trend that does not seem to be slowing anytime in the near future,” noted Jonathan Wiik (above) Principal, Healthcare Strategy, at TransUnion Healthcare and author of the new book “Healthcare Revolution: The Patient Is the New Payer,” during a HIMSS 2018 presentation. (Photo copyright: Colorado Managed Care Collaborative.)
Patients Struggle to Pay Amounts Under $500
Each year, more healthcare consumers are forced onto high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that make them responsible for thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars in upfront costs.
And according to another TRU news release, patients with commercial insurance plans experienced a 67% increase in their financial responsibility over five years. In other words, after insurance plans paid providers, patients still needed to pony up 12.2% of the total bill in 2017, as compared to 8% in 2012.
During the most recent year studied by TransUnion Healthcare, patients’ out-of-pocket costs increased 11%, rising to $1,813 in 2017 from $1,630 in 2016, a news release revealed.
And it doesn’t take a huge bill for patients to feel the pain. TransUnion’s data reveals that 68% of patients with medical bills below $500 did not fully pay what they owed, RevCycle Intelligence reported. This has major implications for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups because many lab charges fall under $500 and TransUnion shows that almost 70% of patients do not pay the full amount of these bills.
According to TRU, medical specialties with the highest out-of-pocket estimated amounts due from patients include:
And, as Dark Daily previously reported, affluent and self-employed people also feel the pinch, as deductibles can be as high as $5,000/year for individuals and more than $10,000/year for a families, whether plans are purchased through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or employers.
When patients cannot afford to pay their bills, hospitals’ bad debt and charity-care levels rise. Together, bad debt and charity care comprise a provider’s uncompensated care.
“A lot of patients can’t afford these bills, which is why uncompensated care has bounced,” Wiik told Modern Healthcare.
Indeed, uncompensated care was $38.3 billion in 2016, up $2.6 billion since 2015, according to an American Hospital Association (AHA) 2017 fact sheet.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that Medicare bad debt (the effect of Medicare patients not paying deductibles and co-pays) increased to $3.69 billion in 2016 from $3.14 billion in 2012, a 17% bump, TransUnion Healthcare pointed out.
Consumers Say They Want Prices, Financing Plans
Consumers say healthcare providers are not transparent about costs for procedures, nor do they effectively offer financing options. That’s according to a HealthFirst Financial news release, which states, “More than three-quarters, or 77%, of healthcare consumers say it’s important or very important they know their costs before treatment and 53% want to discuss financing options before care. However, the vast majority of healthcare providers are not satisfying these consumer demands.”
“53% voice concern about the ability to pay a medical bill of less than $1,000;
“35% worried about the ability to pay a bill of less than $500; and,
“16% are concerned about the ability to pay a bill of less than $250.”
These numbers fall well into the amounts clinical laboratories charge for services rendered.
What Can Medical Laboratories Do?
To help their customers pay their bills and improve revenue, Dark Daily suggest labs:
Use software that enables ordering clinicians to process advanced beneficiary notices and prior authorizations for services;
Inform the customer prior to specimen collection about their financial responsibility for the test;
Ask for payment-due at time of the patient encounter;
Share key lab test price data in easily accessible and understandable ways;
Keep credit card information securely on-hand for agreed-to balances patients are responsible for paying; and,
Offer payment options, such as e-billing and financing plans.
As we’ve pointed out many times, because clinical laboratories are dependent on the physicians and hospitals they service, they are particularly vulnerable when patients stop paying their bills.
