HHS Office of Inspector General was the latest to examine the quality control problems that led to distribution of inaccurate test to clinical laboratories nationwide
Failure on the part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce accurate, dependable SARS-CoV-2 clinical laboratory test kits at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to draw scrutiny and criticism of the actions taken by the federal agency.
In the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, the CDC distributed faulty SARS-CoV-2 test kits to public health laboratories (PHLs), delaying the response to the outbreak at a critical juncture. That failure was widely publicized at the time. But within the past year, two reports have provided a more detailed look at the shortcomings that led to the snafu.
“We identified weaknesses in CDC’s COVID-19 test kit development processes and the agencywide laboratory quality processes that may have contributed to the failure of the initial COVID-19 test kits,” the OIG stated in its report.
Prior to the outbreak, the agency had internal documents that were supposed to provide guidance for how to respond to public health emergencies. However, “these documents do not address the development of a test kit,” the OIG stated.
“If the CDC can’t change, [its] importance in health in the nation will decline,” said microbiologist Jill Taylor, PhD (above), Senior Adviser for the Association of Public Health Laboratories in Washington, DC. “The coordination of public health emergency responses in the nation will be worse off.” Clinical laboratories that were blocked from developing their own SARS-CoV-2 test during the pandemic would certainly agree. (Photo copyright: Columbia University.)
Problems at the CDC’s RVD Lab
Much of the OIG’s report focused on the CDC’s Respiratory Virus Diagnostic (RVD) lab which was part of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD). The RVD lab had primary responsibility for developing, producing, and distributing the test kits. Because it was focused on research, it “was not set up to develop and manufacture test kits and therefore had no policies and procedures for developing and manufacturing test kits,” the report stated.
The RVD lab also lacked the staff and funding to handle test kit development in a public health emergency, the report stated. As a result, “the lead scientist not only managed but also participated in all test kit development processes,” the report stated. “In addition, when the initial test kit failed at some PHLs, the lead scientist was also responsible for troubleshooting and correcting the problem.”
To verify the test kit, the RVD lab needed samples of viral material from the agency’s Biotechnology Core Facility Branch (BCFB) CORE Lab, which also manufactured reagents for the kit.
“RVD Lab, which was under pressure to quickly create a test kit for the emerging health threat, insisted that CORE Lab deviate from its usual practices of segregating these two activities and fulfill orders for both reagents and viral material,” the report stated.
This increased the risk of contamination, the report said. An analysis by CDC scientists “did not determine whether a process error or contamination was at fault for the test kit failure; however, based on our interviews with CDC personnel, contamination could not be ruled out,” the report stated.
The report also cited the CDC’s lack of standardized systems for quality control and management of laboratory documents. Labs involved in test kit development used two different incompatible systems for tracking and managing documents, “resulting in staff being unable to distinguish between draft, obsolete, and current versions of laboratory procedures and forms.”
Outside Experts Weigh In
The OIG report followed an earlier review by the CDC’s Laboratory Workgroup (LW), which consists of 12 outside experts, including academics, clinical laboratory directors, state public health laboratory directors, and a science advisor from the Association of Public Health Laboratories. Members were appointed by the CDC Advisory Committee to the Director.
This group cited four major issues:
Lack of adequate planning: For the “rapid development, validation, manufacture, and distribution of a test for a novel pathogen.”
Ineffective governance: Three labs—the RVD Lab, CORE Lab, and Reagent and Diagnostic Services Branch—were involved in test kit development and manufacturing. “At no point, however, were these three laboratories brought together under unified leadership to develop the SARS-CoV-2 test,” the report stated.
Poor quality control and oversight: “Essentially, at the start of the pandemic, infectious disease clinical laboratories at CDC were not held to the same quality and regulatory standards that equivalent high-complexity public health, clinical and commercial reference laboratories in the United States are held,” the report stated.
Poor test design processes: The report noted that the test kit had three probes designed to bind to different parts of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid gene. The first two—N1 (topology) and N2 (intracellular localization)—were designed to match SARS-CoV-2 specifically, whereas the third—N3 (functions of the protein)—was designed to match all Sarbecoviruses, the family that includes SARS-CoV-2 as well as the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak.
The N1 probe was found to be contaminated, the group’s report stated, while the N3 probe was poorly designed. The report questioned the decision to include the N3 probe, which was not included in European tests.
Also lacking were “clearly defined pass/fail threshold criteria for test validation,” the report stated.
Advice to the CDC
Both reports made recommendations for changes at the CDC, but the LW’s were more far-reaching. For example, it advised the agency to establish a senior leader position “with major responsibility and authority for laboratories at the agency.” This individual would oversee a new Center that would “focus on clinical laboratory quality, laboratory safety, workforce training, readiness and response, and manufacturing.”
In addition, the CDC should consolidate its clinical diagnostic laboratories, the report advised, and “laboratories that follow a clinical quality management system should have separate technical staff and space from those that do not follow such a system, such as certain research laboratories.”
The report also called for collaboration with “high functioning public health laboratories, hospital and academic laboratories, and commercial reference laboratories.” For example, collaborating on test design and development “should eliminate the risk of a single point of failure for test design and validation,” the LW suggested.
CBS News reported in August that the CDC had already begun implementing some of the group’s suggestions, including agencywide quality standards and better coordination with state labs.
However, “recommendations for the agency to physically separate its clinical laboratories from its research laboratories, or to train researchers to uphold new quality standards, will be heavy lifts because they require continuous funding,” CBS News reported, citing an interview with Jim Pirkle, MD, PhD, Director, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, at the CDC.
OIG warns that without adequate clinical laboratory testing healthcare organizations could see more deaths and increased spending
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists know that lab test volume decreased dramatically during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. That was primarily because community lockdowns stopped people from seeing their doctors for the standard range of chronic health conditions, many of which require clinical laboratory tests for diagnosis and chronic disease management.
• 24% reduction in Medicare Part B test volumes in March • 53% in April • 30% in May
The decline of Medicare patients visiting clinical laboratories continued through the balance of 2020. During the first 10 months of the pandemic—March through December 2020—Medicare beneficiaries who pursued lab testing decreased by about 9% compared to the same 10-month period in 2019, according to a news release.
This is a strong indicator that the government’s response to the pandemic had a measurable effect on clinical laboratory testing volume among all age groups, especially among the elderly.
“The cumulative decline in lab test volume across all client labs for [March 9 to April 12] was just over 40%. But in that time, some of our lab customers were hit with a decline of maybe 50% to 60% in test volume,” Kyle Fetter (above), COO, XIFIN, told The Dark Report in 2020. Clinical laboratory testing that originates from a routine patient visit to a doctor—such as blood testing—may have been affected the most, Fetter explained. (Photo copyright: XIFIN.)
Clinical Laboratory Tests Key to Well-being of Patients with Chronic Conditions
The OIG study was limited to Medicare beneficiaries and thus did not provide information about testing fall-off among people who have private health insurance. But in “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report reported early in 2020 on a 40% decline in test volumes and the pandemic’s varying effects on clinical labs, anatomic pathology (AP) groups, and AP subspecialties.
The OIG’s Report in Brief on its study recognized that medical laboratory testing is critical to helping healthcare providers manage chronic conditions that affect patients’ well-being and increase their healthcare costs.
“Lab tests are important for beneficiaries with chronic medical conditions, which are associated with hospitalizations, billions of dollars in Medicare costs, and deaths,” the OIG said.
“The information may be useful to stakeholders involved in ensuring that beneficiaries avoid the potential bad outcomes that may result from missing or delaying appropriate care,” the report noted.
Overall, 23.7 million Medicare beneficiaries received medical laboratory tests during the first 10 months of the pandemic, down 2.4 million from 26.1 million in 2019, the OIG reported.
Overall Medicare lab test volume and spending also declined during the reported period:
Part B clinical laboratory tests for Medicare beneficiaries decreased 15% from 419.9 million tests in 2019 to 358.4 million tests in the first 10 months of the pandemic.
Medicare spending for these tests decreased 16% from $6.6 billion in 2019 to $5.5 billion during the first 10 months of the pandemic.
“OIG’s audit of Part B clinical laboratory tests, reimbursed under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) is a useful benchmark for how Medicare beneficiaries received fewer lab tests during the pandemic, especially during the early months,” said Robert Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and The Dark Report.
Medical Laboratory Tests That Were Down Most During COVID-19
The following 10 clinical laboratory tests experienced a 10% or more decline in Medicare beneficiaries seeking them during the pandemic period as compared to pre-pandemic, according to the OIG report:
Comprehensive urine culture test fell 16% to three million Medicare patients.
Uric acid level blood down 13% to 1.9 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Evaluation of antimicrobial drug decreased 17% to 1.74 million Medicare patients.
Folic acid level down 12% to 1.73 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Urinalysis manual test plunged 28% to 1.4 million Medicare patients.
Beyond Medicare, Clinical Laboratory Test Volume Dropped 40%
OIG was not the only organization to analyze medical laboratory testing volume during the pandemic’s early phase.
The Dark Report correlated data tracked by XIFIN, a San Diego-based health information technology (HIT) company providing revenue cycle management services to clinical laboratories and pathology groups. XIFIN’s collected data showed a steep drop in routine test volume as COVID-19 testing ramped up.
“Starting in the third week of March, we saw medical laboratories suffer a sharp drop in routine testing. But at about the same time, many labs began to offset those revenue losses with testing for the novel coronavirus,” Kyle Fetter, XIFIN’s then Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services told The Dark Report in 2020. Fetter is now XIFIN’S Chief Operating Officer.
“Over four weeks beginning March 9, we saw a cumulative drop of over 40% in test volume from all of our lab clients,” he added.
According to XIFIN’s data, lab specialty organizations experienced the following drop in routine testing during the period March 9 to April 16, 2020:
58% at clinical laboratories.
61% at hospital outreach laboratories.
52% at molecular and genetic testing laboratories.
44% at anatomic pathology (AP) groups.
70% to 80% at AP dermatology and other AP subspecialties.
Many medical laboratories are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on testing volume.
Notably, the OIG’s report acknowledges the importance of adequate clinical laboratory testing and declares that—without these essential lab tests to manage some healthcare conditions—the healthcare industry could see increased morbidity, deaths, and Medicare spending.
Regulators and lawmakers are considering proposed changes to CLIA and PAMA involving medical laboratory services
Clinical laboratories and pathology groups should monitor a series of federal regulatory developments underway this fall. The proposals and documents will potentially affect how lab managers and staff do their jobs and how much Medicare reimbursement medical laboratories receive for certain diagnostic tests next year.
Among the initiatives under consideration are the following:
Below are details about these laboratory-related federal bills and regulatory documents that observant laboratory managers will want to track in the coming months.
“Clinical laboratories need to make sure that they have proper requisitions and documentation for genetic testing that involves telemedicine.” Danielle Tangorre, JD (above), a partner at law firm Robinson and Cole LLP in Albany, NY, told Dark Daily. (Photo copyright: Robinson and Cole LLP.)
CLIA Fee Increases and Testing Personnel Changes
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is examining fee and personnel changes for CLIA. Officials from CMS are reviewing public comments on the proposal ahead of publishing a final rule.
Among other changes, the proposal would:
Institute a 20% across-the-board increase on existing fees.
Establish a biennial increase of CLIA fees for follow-up surveys, substantiated complaint surveys, and revised certificates.
Add doctoral, master’s, and bachelor’s degrees in nursing to qualify testing personnel for high and moderate complexity testing.
“The Practitioner does not have sufficient contact with or information from the purported patient to meaningfully assess the medical necessity of the items or services ordered or prescribed.
“The Telemedicine Company compensates the Practitioner based on the volume of items or services ordered or prescribed, which may be characterized to the Practitioner as compensation based on the number of purported medical records that the Practitioner reviewed.
“The Telemedicine Company only furnishes items and services to Federal health care program beneficiaries and does not accept insurance from any other payor.
“The Telemedicine Company does not expect Practitioners (or another Practitioner) to follow up with purported patients nor does it provide Practitioners with the information required to follow up with purported patients (e.g., the Telemedicine Company does not require Practitioners to discuss genetic testing results with each purported patient).”
And more.
“In the telehealth space, the issue the OIG has flagged is that genetic tests are being ordered without patient interaction or with only brief telephonic conversations,” Danielle Tangorre, JD, a partner at law firm Robinson & Cole LLP in Albany, N.Y., told Dark Daily.
New Bill May Eliminate 2023 Medical Laboratory Payment Cuts Under PAMA
Medical labs and pathology groups face payment cuts of up to 15% for 800 lab tests on the Medicare Clinical Lab Fee Schedule (CLFS) on Jan. 1, 2023, as part of PAMA.
The bill proposes to move regulatory oversight of LDTs from CLIA to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Champions of the bill argue that FDA regulation is needed for in vitro clinical tests (IVCTs) because they are similar to medical devices and bring with them patient safety concerns.
The bill seemed ready for a Senate vote over the summer but stalled. On Sept. 30, Congress passed a short-term resolution to keep the federal government funded. During negotiation, the VALID Act was removed from the larger spending package, according to Boston law firm Ropes and Gray.
Expect discussion to renew in Congress about the VALID Act after the mid-term elections.
Clinical laboratory leaders and pathology group managers will want to closely monitor the progress of these four federal legislative and regulatory developments. Each of the possible actions described above would significantly change the status quo in the compliance requirements and reimbursement arrangements for both clinical laboratory testing and anatomic pathology services.
It did not take long for fraudsters to pursue hundreds of billions of federal dollars designated to support SARS-CoV-2 testing and it is rare when federal prosecutors bring cases only a few months after illegal lab testing schemes are identified
As if the COVID-19 pandemic weren’t bad enough, unscrupulous clinical laboratory operators quickly sought to take advantage of the critical demand for SARS-CoV-2 testing and defraud the federal government.
Unfortunately for the many defendants in these cases, federal investigations into alleged cases of fraud were launched with noteworthy speed. As a result of these investigations into alleged healthcare fraud by clinical laboratories and other organizations during fiscal year (FY) 2020, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the US government has recovered $1.8 billion.
The federal prosecutions involved dozens of medical laboratory owners and operators who paid back “hundreds of millions in alleged federal healthcare program losses,” Goodwin Life Sciences Perspectives explained.
When combined with similar efforts starting in prior years, the program has returned to the federal government and private individuals a total of $3.1 billion, the DOJ noted.
“In its 24th year of operation, the program’s continued success confirms the soundness of a collaborative approach to identify and prosecute the most egregious instances of healthcare fraud, to prevent future fraud and abuse, and to protect program beneficiaries,” the report states.
According to the graphic above, which is based on analysis by B2B research company MarketsandMarkets, “North America will dominate the healthcare fraud analytics market from 2020–2025.” As clinical laboratory testing represents a significant portion of the fraud, medical lab managers will want to remain vigilant. (Graphic copyright: MarketsandMarkets.)
COVID-19 Pandemic an Opportunity for Fraud
The HHS report notes that the COVID-19 pandemic required CMS to develop a “robust fraud risk assessment process” to identify clinical laboratory fraud schemes, such as offering COVID-19 tests in exchange for personal details and Medicare information.
“In one fraud scheme, some labs are targeting retirement communities claiming to offer COVID-19 tests but are drawing blood and billing federal healthcare programs for medically unnecessary services,” the HHS report notes.
Still other alleged schemes involved billing for expensive tests and services in addition to COVID-19 testing. “For example, providers are billing a COVID-19 test with other far more expensive tests such as the Respiratory Pathogen Panel (RPP) and antibiotic resistance tests,” the report says.
“Other potentially unnecessary tests being billed along with a COVID-19 test include genetic testing and cardiac panels CPT (current procedural terminology) codes. Providers are also billing respiratory, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and dermatologic pathogen code sets with the not otherwise specified code CPT 87798,” the report states.
Different Types of Healthcare Organizations Investigated in 2020
Beyond clinical laboratories, the HHS’ 124-page report also shares criminal and civil investigations of other healthcare organizations and areas including:
clinics,
drug companies,
durable medical equipment,
electronic health records,
home health providers,
hospice care,
hospitals and healthcare systems,
medical devices,
nursing home and facilities,
pharmacies, and
physicians/other practitioners.
According to the DOJ, “enforcement actions” in 2020 included:
1,148 new criminal healthcare fraud investigations opened,
440 defendants convicted of healthcare fraud and related crimes,
1,079 civil healthcare fraud investigations opened, and
1,498 pending civil health fraud matters at year-end.
“Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigative efforts resulted in over 407 operational disruptions of criminal fraud organizations and the dismantlement of the criminal hierarchy of more than 101 healthcare fraud criminal enterprises,” the DOJ reported.
Furthermore, the report said OIG investigations in 2020 led to:
578 criminal actions against people or organizations for Medicare-related crimes,
781 civil actions such as false claims, and
2,148 people and organizations eliminated from Medicare and Medicaid participation.
Implications for Clinical Laboratories
In 2020, OIG issued 178 reports, completed 44 evaluations, and made 689 recommendations to HHS divisions.
Clinical laboratory leaders may be most interested in those related to patient identification as a means to combating fraud and Medicare Part B lab testing reimbursement.
The HHS report says, “Medicare Advantage (MA) encounter data continue to lack National Provider Identifiers (NPIs) for providers who order and/or refer … clinical laboratory services,” adding that, “Almost half of MA organizations believe that using NPIs for ordering providers is critical for combating fraud.”
Additionally, the report states, “Medicare Part B spending for lab tests increased to $7.6 billion in 2018, despite lower payment rates for most lab tests. The $459 million spending increase was driven by:
“increased spending on genetic tests,
“ending the discount for certain chemistry tests, and the
“move to a single national fee schedule.”
Medical laboratory leaders may be surprised to learn that federal healthcare investigators were so vigorous in their investigations, even during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Vigilance is critical to ensure labs do not fall under the DOJ’s scrutiny. This HHS report, which describes the types and dollars involved in fraudulent schemes by clinical labs and other providers, could help inform revisions to federal compliance regulations and statutes.
VA Office of Inspector General recommends changes in management processes after doctor is sentenced to long federal prison term
In a compelling report, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that a host of management failures and “deficiencies in the facility’s quality management processes” at an Arkansas VA hospital contributed to “thousands of diagnostic errors” throughout the tenure of the facility’s Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services Robert Morris Levy, MD.
“Any one of these breakdowns could cause harmful results,” the report states. “Occurring together and over an extended period of time, the consequences were devastating, tragic, and deadly.”
The OIG report’s findings on how hospital and laboratory administrators dealt with Levy over the years of his employment at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center demonstrate why clinical and pathology lab leaders need to be constantly vigilant in how various quality and compliance procedures are administered in their laboratories. When people and processes are not meeting acceptable standards, it is patients who are at risk of being harmed.
In January, the federal court in Arkansas sentenced Levy to “240 months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release and ordered [him] to pay $497,745.70 in restitution for one count each of mail fraud and involuntary manslaughter,” according to court documents.
In its coverage of the federal case against Robert Morris Levy, MD (above in a jailhouse photo), former Chief of Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services at the Fayetteville VA Medical Center, The Washington Post wrote, “Levy’s supervisors failed to heed early warnings that he was endangering patients and then were slow to act, according to internal VA documents, court filings, and interviews with 20 congressional officials, veterans and current and former VA employees.” Clinical laboratory managers and hospital pathologists would be well advised to study the VA’s conclusions in its recent report. (Photo copyright: The Washington Post.)
VA Pathologist ReceivedMultiple Suspensions, then Termination
Following his removal in April 2018, the OIG assembled a team of pathologists to review nearly 34,000 cases interpreted by Levy since he began working at the VA hospital. They identified more than 3,000 errors, of which 589 were classified as “major diagnostic discrepancies” potentially having a negative impact on patient care.
Of the 589, 34 were deemed serious enough to require institutional disclosures, defined as a discussion with the patient or the patient’s representative revealing “that an adverse event has occurred during the patient’s care that resulted in or is reasonably expected to result in death or serious injury.”
The OIG report cited at least two deaths likely resulting from misdiagnoses.
Levy’s hospital privileges were initially suspended in March 2016 following a blood alcohol test indicating he was legally intoxicated while at work. He was reinstated about six months later after completing a treatment program and agreeing to submit to random drug testing.
His privileges were suspended again in October 2017 after he showed signs of impairment during a hospital committee meeting. He was terminated in April 2018 after he was arrested for allegedly driving while intoxicated (DWI) during work hours.
Federal Court Indicts Levy on Multiple Counts
Shortly after the OIG team began reviewing Levy’s cases, a separate OIG group launched a criminal investigation. Levy admitted to investigators that he had been an alcoholic for 30 years, the report stated, and that he had “purchased a substance, 2-methyl-2-butanol (2M2B), online that could be ingested, was similar to alcohol but more potent, and was not detectable using routine drug and alcohol testing methods.”
Citing the federal indictment, the OIG report noted that Levy passed 42 drug and alcohol tests following his reinstatement at the hospital in 2016.
In August 2019, federal authorities charged Levy with three counts of involuntary manslaughter along with multiple counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements. The wire and mail fraud charges were related to his 2M2B purchases.
Levy pleaded guilty in June 2020 and was sentenced on January 22, 2021. In addition to the 20-year prison term, he was ordered to pay approximately $498,000 in restitution to VA. The OIG report noted that Levy has appealed the sentence.
And in “Arkansas Pathologist Faces Three Manslaughter Charges,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report, noted that “The outcome of [the Levy] case could be a precedent that gives other prosecutors the confidence that they can file criminal charges in cases where evidence shows that a pathologist’s actions contributed to diagnostic errors that directly contributed to the death of one or more patients.”
“This sentence should send a strong message that those who abuse their positions of trust in caring for veterans will be held accountable,” said VA Inspector General Michael J. Missal in a federal Department of Justice (DOJ) press release. “Our thoughts are with all those harmed by Dr. Levy’s actions, and we hope they find some small measure of comfort from what happened here today.” (Photo copyright: Military Times.)
OIG Finds Numerous ‘Deficiencies in Quality Management’
In its report, OIG found deficiencies in quality management going back to Levy’s original appointment as Pathology and Laboratory Medical Services Chief.
He was initially hired in September 2005 as a locum tenens (temporary) provider and appointed as full-time service chief a month later. This was despite a DWI conviction from 1996 and a stay of only eight months with his previous employer.
Neither would have barred the doctor as a potential candidate; however, the OIG report states, “the OIG is concerned that a rigorous process was not in place to better evaluate his clinical competency at the time he was hired.”
And that was just the beginning.
In his role as service chief, Levy was responsible for the Path and Lab quality management program with assistance from a subordinate staff pathologist, “which made the process susceptible to subversion,” the report states.
The VHA requires a second pathologist to review certain findings, such as diagnosis of a new cancer malignancy. But in some cases, “it was determined that Dr. Levy was entering concurrence statements into some patients’ electronic health records (EHR) when a second pathologist had not agreed with the interpretation or diagnosis,” the OIG report states.
In addition, second reads sometimes “were communicated by sticky notes, which provided Dr. Levy the opportunity to alter or ignore the results,” the OIG reported.
Inherent Conflict of Interest, Fear of Reprisals, and OIG Recommendations
The periodic privileging process, which grants ongoing hospital privileges, was based in part on a “10% peer review” conducted by the staff pathologist. “The involvement of a subordinate in the peer review process of a supervisor creates an inherent conflict of interest,” the OIG report stated. And in some cases, appraisals of the doctor’s competence came from non-pathologists.
The OIG report suggested that the Veteran’s Health Administration (VHA) re-examine its guidance on the peer review, which requires cases to be randomly selected. Instead, the report suggests that targeting specific kinds of cases, such as those with higher risk of interpretation error, could be more effective in analyzing a pathologist’s performance.
The OIG report also noted failures in dealing with the doctor’s impairment and fostering a “culture of accountability.” Hospital staff, apparently, reported signs of impairment as early as 2014, including incidents when the doctor smelled of alcohol and displayed hand tremors. But hospital leadership failed to “vigorously address allegations of impairment,” the OIG report states. And in interviews with the OIG, some staffers expressed fear of reprisal if they reported what they saw.
The OIG report offers 10 recommendations to the VA, including practices related to hiring processes, the 10% peer review, and alcohol and drug testing. It makes two additional recommendations to the director of the Ozarks VA health system: one related to the credentialing processes and the other aimed at ensuring staff and patients can report concerns without fear of reprisal.
Clinical laboratory managers and hospital pathologists may want to review these recommendations and consider the value of applying them in their own practices.
