The federal agency says it will mandate randomized, controlled clinical trials for vaccination of younger, healthy individuals
It’s been a confusing past few weeks in terms of what the general public’s access to COVID-19 vaccinations will be like in the future.
Public health experts have been verbally jousting with the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about moves its health officials made recently regarding the vaccines. This could put clinical laboratories on the front lines to help determine whether COVID cases—particularly severe ones—eventually rise as a result.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner Martin A. Makary, MD, MPH, and Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, who leads the agency’s vaccine oversight, announced on May 20 that the agency will require randomized, controlled clinical trials before approving COVID vaccines for healthy individuals under age 65.
“While all other high-income nations confine vaccine recommendations to older adults (typically those older than 65 years of age), or those at high risk for severe COVID-19, the United States has adopted a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework and has granted broad marketing authorization to all Americans over the age of 6 months,” Makary and Prasad wrote in NEJM.
Under the new framework, they noted, the agency expects that it will continue to approve vaccines for adults over 65 as well as younger people with health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19.
The range of diseases is “vast, including obesity and even mental health conditions such as depression,” they wrote. “Estimates suggest that 100 million to 200 million Americans will have access to vaccines in this manner.”
In their NEJM commentary, FDA commissioner Martin Makary, MD (left), and Vinay Prasad, MD (right), wrote, “Moving forward, the FDA will adopt the following COVID-19 vaccination regulatory framework: On the basis of immunogenicity—proof that a vaccine can generate antibody titers in people.” (Photo copyrights: Wikimedia Commons.)
Former CDC APIC Member Pushes Back
The announcement drew criticism from public health and medical experts.
“The FDA guidance presented in the NEJM was not released in the Federal Register, did not invite comment, and provided only a general outline for COVID-19 vaccine licensure,” wrote pediatrician and vaccinologist Kathryn M. Edwards, MD, in a commentary for STAT. Edwards is a former member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which makes vaccine recommendations to the agency.
On June 9, in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that he’s removing all 17 current members of ACIP.
“The FDA mandate is to ensure safe and effective vaccines based on the clinical studies performed, but not to develop specific recommendations for their use,” Edwards added. “Providing recommendations on vaccine use for the civilian population is the mandate of the ACIP.”
Edwards contended that extensive data is already available on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. She stated that “there is no precedent for mandating continued placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials for vaccines that have already been licensed.”
New Policy Announcement Raises Questions
The New York Times notes that many questions remain about the specifics of the new policy and how broadly the vaccines will be available.
A likely scenario, the paper reported, is that health insurers will play a role as “gatekeepers by demanding medical documentation of an underlying condition before agreeing to cover the cost.” Without insurance coverage, people would likely pay approximately $140 per shot out of pocket.
This stands in contrast to European countries, where outreach campaigns target specific populations based on public health recommendations. according to Forbes. However, “in virtually all instances, COVID-19 vaccines can be gotten free of charge across Europe regardless of health or age status,” the article notes.
In their NEJM commentary, Prasad and Makary noted that adoption of the annual COVID-19 booster shot is already low. The CDC reported that 23% of Americans 18 and older received vaccinations in the 2024-2025 season, up slightly from 21.6% in 2023-2024.
Kennedy Steps In
On May 27, Kennedy announced in a video on X that the CDC would remove the COVID-19 vaccine from the recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women. Previously, the CDC recommended the vaccine for everyone ages six months and older.
Kennedy was joined in the video by Makary and National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya MD, PhD.
However, CDC staffers were “blindsided” by the announcement, NPR reported, citing an agency official who requested anonymity.
“Hours after the post on X, CDC staffers received a directive from Secretary Kennedy—dated May 19, but sent May 27—rescinding the department’s 2022 acceptance of the CDC’s recommendations for the use of COVID shots in children and during pregnancy,” NPR reported.
It now appears that HHS has at least partially backtracked on Kennedy’s announcement.
The CDC’s immunization schedule now states that vaccination of healthy children should be a matter of “shared clinical decision-making” between the doctor and parent or patient.
“After confusing, mixed messages from leaders at HHS earlier this week, we are relieved to see today that the CDC updated its schedules for child and adolescent immunizations to allow families to maintain the choice to immunize their children against COVID in consultation with their doctor,” American Academy of Pediatrics president Susan Kressly said in a statement from the organization.
In a June 1 interview with the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Makary confirmed that the recommendation to vaccinate “should be with the patient and their doctor.”
However, he also criticized ACIP as a “kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.”
NPR reports that the shamed Theranos founder/CEO is providing advice to Evans, but the startup denies that claim
Prison bars can’t block Elizabeth Holmes from finding her way back into the news spotlight. The disgraced founder and former CEO of Theranos is reportedly advising her partner Billy Evans on his new artificial intelligence (AI) diagnostic startup company, named Haemanthus after the blood lily.
According to sources who spoke with NPR, Evans’ new company Haemanthus, Inc. is developing a blood testing device and has patented a process that uses Raman spectroscopy, which, according to NPR, “has been shown to help diagnose ALS, also called Lou Gehrig’s disease, as well as some forms of cancer. It has also been used to discover improvised explosive devices on battlefields.”
Evans has already raised millions of dollars for the fledgling startup, NPR reported, adding that a source claimed finances for the company have come from “mostly friends, family, and other supporters so far.”
According to Newsweek, Evans’ goal is to raise $50 million toward the development of a “medical testing product.”
The company will “do medical tests using bodily fluids,” Newsweek reported, adding, “An image of the alleged device published by The New York Times is eerily similar to Theranos’ ‘Edison’ testing machine.”
Elizabeth Holmes is currently housed in a federal facility in Bryan, Texas. Sources told NPR that she has been “providing advice” to Billy Evans, her partner, on his new AI/medical testing company Haemanthus, which denied those claims stating on X that Holmes “has no role, now or future.” (Photo copyright: Wikimedia Commons.)
Haemanthus Denies Holmes’ Involvement
Holmes has reportedly been providing insight to Evans throughout her prison term, though her role with his budding company is unclear, NPR noted.
As previously reported by Dark Daily, Holmes is “barred from receiving payments from federal health programs for services or products, which significantly restricts her ability to work in the healthcare sector.”
Haemanthus denied Holmes’ involvement with the company, claiming that she “has no formal role” and that “Haemanthus is not Theranos 2.0,” Fortune reported.
Previous lengthy posts by Haemanthus on social media platform X fully denied any involvement with Holmes but have since been deleted. The company now uses their platform to curtly retort the significance of Holmes’ involvement, leaning on their advancements and high standards. “Skepticism is rational. We must clear a higher bar,” they said. “When The NY Times contacted us, we invited them to see our lab, tech, and team. They declined. The headline was already written. Our reality inconvenient.”
Further posts on X showcase Haemanthus’ desire to have the same groundbreaking prowess Holmes clung to throughout her Theranos venture. The company claims to have developed “the world’s first AI-native sensors for health,” adding, “Our technology captures thousands of biomarkers simultaneously.”
And the Holmes Saga Continues
Haemanthus is comprised of about a dozen people, including individuals who “worked with Evans at Luminar Technologies, which develops sensor technology for autonomous vehicles, according to the company’s patent and Delaware incorporation paperwork,” NPR reported.
Holmes is currently serving an 11-year federal prison sentence for her role in fraud involving Silicon Valley startup Theranos, which boasted clinical laboratory blood-test breakthroughs that turned out to be riddled with faulty equipment and fraudulent results.
Though whistleblowers brought Holmes scheme to the light, she has never admitted wrongdoing for her actions and continues to claim her innocence. In May, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals denied her request for a rehearing of her case.
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.
Inability to access clinical laboratory test results forced hospitals to suspend critical procedures and surgeries causing major disruptions to healthcare
Cyberattacks continue to shut down the ability of hospitals to process orders for clinical laboratory tests, medical imaging, and prescriptions. One such cyberattack recently took place against Ascension, the largest nonprofit Catholic health system in the United States. It took more than a month for the health network’s electronic health record (EHR) system to be fully restored, according to a cybersecurity event press release.
Immediately following the event, Ascension announced it had hired a third party company to resolve the fallout from the cyberattack.
“On Wednesday, May 8, we detected unusual activity on select technology network systems, which we now believe is due to a cybersecurity event. … Access to some systems have been interrupted … We have engaged Mandiant, a third party expert, to assist in the investigation and remediation process, and we have notified the appropriate authorities,” a press release states.
Based in Reston, Va., Mandiant is an American cybersecurity firm and a subsidiary of Google.
Cyberattacks are happening more frequently and medical professionals need to be aware that patient care can be severely disrupted by such attacks. The Ascension attack locked its employees out of the healthcare provider’s computer databases, rendering medical personnel unable to track and coordinate patient care. The health network’s EHR, phones, and databases used to order certain clinical laboratory tests, imaging services, procedures, and medications were all affected.
Hospital employees, including two doctors and a registered nurse, spoke anonymously to the Detroit Free Press regarding the issues at their facilities resulting from the cyberattack.
“It’s so, so dangerous,” said the nurse, describing the immediate aftermath of the cyberattack. “We are waiting four hours for head CT [computed tomography scan] results on somebody having a stroke or a brain bleed. We are just waiting. I don’t know why they haven’t at least paused the ambulances and accepting transfers because we physically … don’t have the capacity to care for them right now.”
“In some cases, what are supposed to be unique medical record numbers assigned to patients when they register in the emergency department at Ascension St. John [Detroit, Mich.] have been given to more than one patient at a time,” Detroit Free Press reported. “Because of that, the nurse told the Free Press she couldn’t be confident that a patient’s blood test results actually were his own.”
“We’ve started to think about these as public health issues and disasters on the scale of earthquakes or hurricanes,” Jeff Tully, MD (above), Associate Clinical Professor, Anesthesiology, and co-director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California-San Diego, told NPR. “These types of cybersecurity incidents should be thought of as a matter of when and not if,” he added. Inability to verify clinical laboratory test results or access patients’ electronic medical records endangers patients and undermines the confidence of critical healthcare workers. (Photo copyright: UC San Diego.)
Losing Track of Patients and Their Records
According to the HIPAA Journal’sH1, 2024 Healthcare Data Breach Report, “In H1 [first half of the fiscal year], 2024, 387 data breaches of 500 or more [healthcare] records were reported to OCR, which represents an 8.4% increase from H1, 2023, and a 9.3% increase from H1, 2022.”
After the Ascension cyberattack, the healthcare organization’s computer systems were inoperable, and its pharmacy services were temporarily closed. Medical orders for clinical laboratory testing, imaging tests, and prescriptions had to be handwritten on paper and faxed to appropriate departments, which led to long wait times for patients.
There were cases where singular medical record numbers were assigned to multiple patients. Staff resorted to Google documents, paper charting, and text messaging to communicate with one another. But they still lost track of some patients.
“For a lot of our nurses, they’ve never paper charted at all,” said Connie Smith, a charge capture coordinator and head of the Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals, in a ThinkStack blog post. “We were using forms that we pulled out of drawers that hadn’t seen the light of day in a long, long time.”
“They are texting me to find out where the patient went,” a St. John Hospital Emergency Room physician anonymously told the Free Press immediately following the Ascension cyberattack. “They don’t even know where the patient is going or if they’ve been admitted. People are getting lost.
“The pharmacy is getting requests for patient medications, and they have no idea where the patient is in the hospital,” the doctor continued. “Some of the attending physicians are putting in orders for medications, somewhat dangerous medications, and we have no idea if the medications are actually being administered. It’s a scary thing when your medical license is tied to this. If medication mistakes become lawsuits, they will follow us throughout our entire careers and that is not fair to us. It’s not fair to patients.”
According to online updates provided by Ascension, the cyberattack began when an employee downloaded a malicious file thinking it was a legitimate document. That allowed hackers to access seven of Ascension’s 25,000 servers. The resulting cyberattack stifled operations across the organization’s facilities and among its healthcare providers for weeks.
A June 12 update read, “we are pleased to announce that electronic health record (EHR) access has been restored across our ministries. This means that clinical workflow in our hospitals and clinics will function similarly to the way it did prior to the ransomware attack.” The updates did not mention how the attack was resolved or if a ransom was paid to restore the hospitals’ systems.
Preparing for System Disruptions
According to its website, St. Louis-based Ascension has 134,000 associates, 35,000 affiliated providers, and 140 hospitals serving communities in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
“Despite the challenges posed by the recent ransomware incident, patient safety continues to be our utmost priority. Our dedicated doctors, nurses, and care teams are demonstrating incredible thoughtfulness and resilience as we utilize manual and paper based systems during the ongoing disruption to normal systems,” Ascension noted in a Michigan Cybersecurity Event Update.
Clinical laboratory managers and anatomic pathology practice administrators may want to learn from Ascension’s experience and make advanced preparations that will secure patient information and enable their lab to continue functioning during a cyberattack. The Ascension cyberattack illustrates how easily computer systems containing critical information can be hacked and affect patient care.
Study results from Switzerland come as clinical laboratory scientists seek new ways to tackle the problem of antimicrobial resistance in hospitals
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory scientists engaged in the fight against antibiotic-resistant (aka, antimicrobial resistant) bacteria will be interested in a recent study conducted at the University of Basel and University Hospital Basel in Switzerland. The epidemiologists involved in the study discovered that some of these so-called “superbugs” can remain in the body for as long as nine years continuing to infect the host and others.
The researchers wanted to see how two species of drug-resistant bacteria—K. pneumoniae and E. coli—changed over time in the body, according to a press release from the university. They analyzed samples of the bacteria collected from patients who were admitted to the hospital over a 10-year period, focusing on older individuals with pre-existing conditions. They found that K. pneumoniae persisted for up to 4.5 years (1,704 days) and E. coli persisted for up to nine years (3,376 days).
“These patients not only repeatedly become ill themselves, but they also act as a source of infection for other people—a reservoir for these pathogens,” said Lisandra Aguilar-Bultet, PhD, the study’s lead author, in the press release.
“This is crucial information for choosing a treatment,” explained Sarah Tschudin Sutter, MD, Head of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, and of the Division of Hospital Epidemiology, who specializes in hospital-acquired infections and drug-resistant pathogens. Sutter led the Basel University study.
“The issue is that when patients have infections with these drug-resistant bacteria, they can still carry that organism in or on their bodies even after treatment,” said epidemiologist Maroya Spalding Walters, MD (above), who leads the Antimicrobial Resistance Team in the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “They don’t show any signs or symptoms of illness, but they can get infections again, and they can also transmit the bacteria to other people.” Clinical laboratories working with microbiologists on antibiotic resistance will want to follow the research conducted into these deadly pathogens. (Photo copyright: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
COVID-19 Pandemic Increased Antibiotic Resistance
The Basel researchers looked at 76 K. pneumoniae isolates recovered from 19 patients and 284 E. coli isolates taken from 61 patients, all between 2008 and 2018. The study was limited to patients in which the bacterial strains were detected from at least two consecutive screenings on admission to the hospital.
“DNA analysis indicates that the bacteria initially adapt quite quickly to the conditions in the colonized parts of the body, but undergo few genetic changes thereafter,” the Basel University press release states.
The researchers also discovered that some of the samples, including those from different species, had identical mechanisms of drug resistance, suggesting that the bacteria transmitted mobile genetic elements such as plasmids to each other.
One limitation of the study, the authors acknowledged, was that they could not assess the patients’ exposure to antibiotics.
Meanwhile, recent data from the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic might have exacerbated the challenges of antibiotic resistance. Even though COVID-19 is a viral infection, WHO scientists found that high percentages of patients hospitalized with the disease between 2020 and 2023 received antibiotics.
“While only 8% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had bacterial co-infections requiring antibiotics, three out of four or some 75% of patients have been treated with antibiotics ‘just in case’ they help,” the WHO stated in a press release.
WHO uses an antibiotic categorization system known as AWaRe (Access, Watch, Reserve) to classify antibiotics based on risk of resistance. The most frequently prescribed antibiotics were in the “Watch” group, indicating that they are “more prone to be a target of antibiotic resistance and thus prioritized as targets of stewardship programs and monitoring.”
“When a patient requires antibiotics, the benefits often outweigh the risks associated with side effects or antibiotic resistance,” said Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, Unit Head in the Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) Division at the WHO in the press release. “However, when they are unnecessary, they offer no benefit while posing risks, and their use contributes to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance.”
Citing research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), NPR reported that in the US, hospital-acquired antibiotic-resistant infections increased 32% during the pandemic compared with data from just before the outbreak.
“While that number has dropped, it still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels,” NPR noted.
The UPenn researchers have already developed an antimicrobial treatment derived from guava plants that has proved effective in mice, Vox reported. They’ve also trained an AI model to scan the proteomes of extinct organisms.
“The AI identified peptides from the woolly mammoth and the ancient sea cow, among other ancient animals, as promising candidates,” Vox noted. These, too, showed antimicrobial properties in tests on mice.
These findings can be used by clinical laboratories and microbiologists in their work with hospital infection control teams to better identify patients with antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria who, after discharge, may show up at the hospital months or years later.
