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.
Theranos founder and former CEO continues down the path she began by defrauding her investors and lying to clinical laboratory leaders about her technology’s capabilities
As a result of the ban, 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,” ARS Technica reported.
So, Holmes, who is 39-years old, is basically banned for life. This is in addition to her 11-year prison sentence which was paired with $452,047,200 in restitution.
“The exclusion was announced by Inspector General Christi Grimm of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General,” ARS Technica noted, adding that HHS-OIG also “excluded former Theranos President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani from federal health programs for 90 years.” This is on top of the almost 13-year-long prison sentence he is serving for fraud.
“The Health and Human Services Department can exclude anyone convicted of certain felonies from Medicare, Medicaid, and Pentagon health programs,” STAT reported.
“Accurate and dependable diagnostic testing technology is imperative to our public health infrastructure,” said Inspector General Christi Grimm (above) in an HHS-OIG statement. “As technology evolves, so do our efforts to safeguard the health and safety of patients, and HHS-OIG will continue to use its exclusion authority to protect the public from bad actors.” Observant clinical laboratory leaders will recognize this as yet another episode in the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos fraud saga they’ve been following for years. (Photo copyright: HHS-OIG.)
Why the Ban?
“The Office of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cited Holmes’ 2022 conviction for fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud as the reason for her ban,” The Hill reported.
“False statements related to the reliability of these medical products can endanger the health of patients and sow distrust in our healthcare system,” Grimm stated in the HHS-OIG statement, which noted, “The statutory minimum for an exclusion based on convictions like Holmes’ is five years.
“When certain aggravating factors are present, a longer period of exclusion is justified,” the statement continued. “The length of Holmes’ exclusion is based on the application of several aggravating factors, including the length of time the acts were committed, incarceration, and the amount of restitution ordered to be paid.”
Rise and Fall of Elizabeth Holmes
Readers of Dark Daily’s e-briefs covering the Holmes/Theranos fraud saga will recall details on Holmes’ journey from mega success to her current state of incarceration for defrauding her investors.
In November 2022, she was handed an 11-year prison sentence for not disclosing that Theranos’ innovative blood testing technology, Edison, was producing flawed and false results. Theranos had “raised hundreds of millions of dollars, named prominent former US officials to its board, and explored a partnership with the US military to use its tests on the battlefield,” STAT reported.
To get Holmes physically into prison was a journey unto itself. At one point, evidence showed her as a potential flight risk. “In the same court filings, prosecutors said Holmes and her partner, William Evans, bought one-way tickets to Mexico in December 2021, a fact confirmed by her lawyers,” Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report revealed in “Elizabeth Holmes’ Appeal Questions Competence of CLIA Lab Director.”
Drama around her move into prison continued. “The former CEO’s attorneys are making last-minute legal moves to delay her prison sentence while she appeals her guilty verdict,” Dark Daily reported.
At the same time, Holmes appeared to be on a mission to revamp her public image.
In the Times piece, Holmes talked about her plans to continue to pursue a life in healthcare. “In the story, Holmes contended that she still thinks about contributing to the clinical laboratory field. Holmes told The Times that she still works on healthcare-related inventions and will continue to do so if she reports to prison,” The Dark Report covered in “Elizabeth Holmes Still Wants ‘To Contribute’ in Healthcare.”
In the meantime, her legal fees continued to mount beyond her ability to pay. “Holmes’ prior cadre of lawyers quit after she could not compensate them, The Times reported,” The Dark Report noted. “One pre-sentencing report by the government put her legal fees at more than $30 million,” according to The New York Times.
Apparently, this closes the latest chapter in the never-ending saga of Elizabeth Holmes’ fall from grace and ultimate conviction for defrauding her investors and lying to healthcare executives, pathologists, and clinical laboratory leaders.
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.
COVID lab testing company reportedly was paid up to $124 million for COVID-19 testing
What do an axe-throwing lounge, a donut shop, and a COVID-19 testing company have in common? All three were under the ownership of the same husband and wife. Apparently, though, COVID-19 medical laboratory testing was more lucrative. It’s been reported this married couple’s testing company received as much as $124 million just from federal health programs.
The co-owners are now being sued by multiple state’s attorney generals for allegedly failing to deliver SARS-CoV-2 test results and/or for delivering COVID-19 test results that “were falsified or inaccurate,” according to NBC News.
Chicago-based Center for COVID Control (CCC)—an operator of 300 pop-up COVID testing sites nationwide—faces investigations from state and federal authorities amid allegations of improper procedures and business practices. The company voluntarily suspended operations in January, when the allegations first surfaced, according to a company press release.
The founders, who had no prior clinical laboratory experience, now say they have turned their attention from running the sites to handling the investigations, USA Today reported. The newspaper was the first to publicly report problems with the company and its associated lab, Doctors Clinical Laboratory (DCL), both of which have the same address in suburban Chicago.
According to USA Today, “The Center for COVID Control was incorporated in December 2020, according to Illinois state filings. The business, which describes itself as a ‘test collection marketing and management firm,’ worked closely with Doctors Clinical Lab. Regulators didn’t visit the lab for an on-site inspection until the end of September of the following year, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Regulators found the lab was not reporting coronavirus test results to public health officials.”
Questionable Collection Procedures for COVID-19 Testing
An earlier USA Today story by reporter Grace Hauck described an outdoor COVID-19 collection site in Chicago run by a man operating from a small shack powered by a generator.
“As he opens the door, piles of plastic bags, apparently grouped by test type, can be seen in crates on the ground,” Hauck reported. “He encourages test-takers to scan a QR code with their phones, fill out an online form with identifying information, and write a digitally-generated string of numbers on a paper sheet inside the plastic test kit bag.”
Hauck’s story noted complaints from readers about shoddy specimen collection procedures, conflicting or errant clinical laboratory test results, and failure to receive COVID-19 results in a timely manner.
Block Club Chicago, a non-profit news site, reported on Jan. 13 that inspectors from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had uncovered numerous instances of “non-compliance” and “deficiencies” at DCL.
CMS lab inspectors found that DCL “could not process or store PCR test samples appropriately—while it was being inundated with tests,” the news site reported. “Over an 11-day period in November, the lab received 84,436 PCR test samples; over that period, it processed and reported 43,240 test results, according to the [CMS] report.”
Specific problems included:
Inadequate staffing, training, and quality controls at the clinical laboratory.
A lack of freezers needed to store test samples.
Failure to maintain confidentiality of patient information.
Failure to label samples with identifying information.
Failure to log complaints from test recipients.
USA Today reported that the FBI executed a search warrant at the companies’ suburban Chicago offices on Jan. 22.
State Actions against Doctors Clinical Laboratory and CCC
In addition to the federal actions, state attorneys general in Minnesota and Washington State both filed lawsuits against Center for COVID Control (CCC) and Doctors Clinical Laboratory (DCL).
“When Minnesotans and people from around the country tested with these companies to keep themselves and their families safe, they trusted they would get correct [COVID-19 test] results on time,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in a statement announcing a lawsuit against the two companies. “I’m holding these companies accountable that sent back false or inaccurate [COVID-19 test] results, when they sent them back at all, for deceiving Minnesotans and undermining the public’s trust in testing.” (Photo copyright: Office of Minnesota Attorney General.)
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit in King County Superior Court on Jan. 31. “Center for COVID Control contributed to the spread of COVID-19 when it provided false negative results,” he stated in a news release. “These sham testing centers threatened the health and safety of our communities.”
On Feb. 17, Ferguson announced that the court had granted a preliminary injunction that prohibited CCC from providing testing services in the state.
NBC News reported that authorities in other states have also taken actions against the company. Oregon and Illinois launched civil investigations, while “Massachusetts and Rhode Island have issued cease and desist letters to the company, and local regulators in Washington and California shut down several of its sites for operating without a license,” the newspaper reported.
Big Money in COVID-19 Testing
USA Today reported that CCC was launched in December 2020 by Akbar Syed, 35, and Aleya Siyaj, 29, a married couple. Siyaj is listed as being CEO of CCC since June 2021, according to her LinkedIn profile.
“Doctors Clinical Lab is registered under another person’s name in state records, but federal documents and multiple former employees and business partners claimed Siyaj and Syed run the lab and Center for COVID Control,” Block Club Chicago reported.
USA Today reported that DCL received more than $124 million in federal reimbursement for COVID-19 clinical laboratory testing and treatment. The paper also described a lavish lifestyle for Syed and Siyaj, including recent purchases of a $1.36 million mansion and multiple luxury cars. Asked on social media site TikTok about the source of his wealth, Syed stated, “COVID money,” according to USA Today.
Siyaj and Syed have denied wrongdoing, stating that they are now focused on “responding and cooperating with legal probes, and to clearing our good names,” according to a statement provided to USA Today.
Regulatory Loopholes
One question about CCC and DCL is how they were able to escape regulatory scrutiny. “Some experts said unscrupulous lab operators can take advantage of a regulatory opening that allows labs to register, test, and bill before inspectors finish a CLIA certificate survey,” USA Today reported. “In other cases, investors might purchase or establish management agreements with labs and begin testing before inspectors get in to verify the lab’s reliability.”
Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to continue to watch the news, as other examples of fraud and incompetence by new companies that rushed into the COVID-19 lab testing marketplace are uncovered and investigated by both state and federal regulators.
Further, some of these companies may have generated more than $1 billion in payments from public and private sources after launching testing operations in the months after the arrival of the pandemic.
