The trade association is publicly promoting the benefits of biomarker testing and AI’s benefits to diagnostics
One of the core tenets to getting federal lawmaker support for business is to tell them what an industry does. In that vein, the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) has released a new promotion that highlights applications of companion diagnostics, rapid whole genome sequencing, drug screening, biomarker testing, and infectious disease management.
One of the end goals? To sway Congress to take action against proposed reimbursement cuts to clinical lab test rates.
The ACLA campaign, known as the “Power of Knowing,” took center stage during a panel discussion at the ACLA Annual Meeting, held Feb. 27 in Washington, DC. One objective, panelists said, is to draw attention to the profession’s role in prevention and early detection of diseases, according to report from Medtech Insight.
“The association is working hard to demonstrate to policymakers the value of clinical laboratory testing through the Power of Knowing as they make policy decisions on reimbursement and clinical laboratory infrastructure that’s necessary for robust patient access to these innovative diagnostics,” said panel moderator Elyse Oveson, according to Medtech Insight. Oveson serves as ACLA chief of advocacy operations.
In March 2024, ACLA released digital ads urging Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA), which would have prevented a 15% cut in Medicare reimbursement for approximately 800 laboratory tests.
“A sustainable reform of the Medicare payment system for clinical laboratory services is vital to protect and enhance patient care, foster innovation, and ensure the stability of clinical laboratories nationwide,” ACLA president Susan Van Meter said at the time.
“If patients don’t have their biomarkers profiled for them at diagnosis and again at progression, there’s a very real chance that they would be put on the incorrect therapy that could lead to them having real harm in their health. So, we view biomarkers as critical,” said Nikki Martin (above), senior director of precision medicine initiatives for the LUNGevity Foundation, during the 2025 ACLA Annual Meeting. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Martin told attendees that biomarker tests should be part of the standard of care in lung cancer diagnosis, Medtech Insight reported. These tests analyze blood or other patient samples to identify molecules associated with specific diseases.
“For patients with non-small cell lung cancer, biomarkers are everything,” said Martin during the panel discussion. Many patients with advanced metastatic cancer, she said, “are not receiving comprehensive biomarker testing, and if they’re not, then they’re at risk of having much worse outcomes.”
Edelmayer discussed progress in developing biomarker tests for early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. “The momentum is palpable among the research community,” she said. “We’re now starting to see the shift into implementation and more types of tools and technologies being available to clinicians to help patients.”
However, Edelmayer acknowledged that progress in developing Alzheimer’s tests and treatments has been slow.
“There’s never going to be a single test to help diagnose Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. “We recognize that it’s going to be a combination approach.”
New Video Campaign
The campaign’s latest advertising is summed up in a 90-second sizzle reel in which clinical laboratory leaders discuss various ways in which the profession supports healthcare.
One theme in the video is the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the profession. “AI-enabled diagnostics are tools that use machine learning to analyze vast amounts of data from patient records to genomic profiles,” said Kate Sasser, PhD, chief scientific officer of Tempus, in the video. “These systems can recognize patterns in the data that humans may not easily see and help clinicians detect diseases earlier and more accurately.”
“By harnessing these cutting-edge tools, we can move closer to a world where treatments are no longer one size fits all but are instead tailored to the unique genetic and molecular profile of each patient,” said Elias Zerhouni, MD, president and vice chairman of OPKO Health, in a recent video produced as part of the ACLA’s Power of Knowing campaign.
The campaign website includes additional videos as well as downloadable graphics that can be shared on social media.
Two former FDA commissioners who support changing oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) say FDA’s regulatory playbook is ‘outdated’
Congress’ attempts to avoid a government shutdown due to a lack of funding presents a final chance this year for two different clinical laboratory bills to be pushed through.
As Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, noted in “VALID and SALSA Acts Still Pending in Congress,” a standalone vote on either bill is unlikely this year. Instead, they would need to be attached to the larger spending bill. (If you’re not a subscriber to The Dark Report, check out our free trial.)
In an article for STAT, former FDA Commissioners Scott Gottlieb, MD (left), and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD (right), wrote, “The FDA is currently working from an outdated regulatory playbook that has left gaps in its oversight of safety and effectiveness and makes it more difficult to introduce new innovations. The [VALID Act] would strengthen protections for consumers and patients for both diagnostic tests and cosmetics and make it easier for manufacturers to introduce better products.” (Photo copyrights: FDA/American Well.)
Political Parties Negotiating
At press time, a draft spending bill had not yet been introduced to Congress as lawmakers from both political parties negotiate funding levels.
A source told The Dark Report that until legislators hammer out those details, add-ons such as the VALID Act or SALSA are stalled. There is no guarantee either lab measure will be added to the spending bill.
“We don’t have agreements to do virtually anything,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reporters on Dec. 6, according to Reuters. “We don’t even have an overall agreement on how much we want to spend,” he added. Reuters reported that Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were $25 billion apart in their proposals.
Congress could also pass a continuing resolution to keep the government open for a short time, which would allow lawmakers more opportunity to negotiate.
Former FDA Chiefs Weigh In
Meanwhile, proponents of the VALID Act have publicly turned the heat up for the bill. For example, STAT recently ran two commentaries—including a joint piece from a pair of former FDA commissioners—in support of the VALID Act.
Currently, LDTs are regulated through the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA). However, supporters of the VALID Act argue that the complexity of modern LDTs deserves more scrutiny.
“The VALID Act would create a consistent standard for all tests, regardless of the kind of facility they were developed in or made in, as well as a modern regulatory framework that’s uniquely designed for the recent and emerging technologies being used to develop tests,” wrote Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD, in STAT on Dec. 5.
Gottlieb and McClellan served as FDA commissioners from 2017-2019 and 2002-2004 respectively. They both currently serve on various boards for biotech and healthcare companies.
Pathologists, Clinical Lab Directors Express Concerns about VALID Act
Opponents of the VALID Act contend that LDT innovation will be stifled if clinical laboratories, particularly those at academic medical centers, need to spend the time and money to go through formal FDA approval. There is evidence that working pathologists in academic settings have legitimate concerns about the negative consequences that might result if the VALID Act was passed as currently written.
In “Might Valid Act Support Be Waning in Congress?” The Dark Report covered how on June 1 more than 290 pathologists and clinical laboratory directors sent a grassroots letter to a Senate committee asking for a series of concessions to be made for academic medical center labs under the VALID Act.
It is reasonable to assert that the majority of clinical laboratory professionals and pathologists are supportive of the SALSA bill, which would stop the next round of scheduled price cuts—as much as a 15% price reduction to many tests—to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS). That is not true of support for the VALID Act, as currently written. Sizeable segments of the diagnostics industry have taken opposing positions regarding passage of that legislation.
For these reasons, both bills will be closely watched in coming weeks as Congress works to fund the federal government while, at the same time, incorporating a variety of other bills under the omnibus bill, which is a considered a “must pass” by many senators and representatives.
Organizations representing clinical laboratories and other critical healthcare providers urged Congress to pass the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act by January 1, 2023, to prevent deep cuts in reimbursements
Lessons about the essential role of clinical laboratories during a pandemic was the central theme in a significant publication released recently. The authors were the presidents of two of the nation’s largest healthcare companies and their goal was to connect the value clinical labs delivered during the COVID-19 pandemic to the financial threat labs face should the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) fee cuts coming to the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) be implemented.
In an article for RealClearPolicy, healthcare executives William G. Morice II, MD, PhD (left), CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, and Matt Sause (right), President of Roche Diagnostics North America wrote, “Without PAMA reform, labs could face drastically reduced reimbursement for commonly performed lab tests for a host of diseases.” (Photo copyrights: Mayo Clinic Laboratories/Roche Diagnostics.)
IVD Companies and Clinical Laboratories Sound Alarm
Morice and Sause warn that—without PAMA reform—the nation’s vital medical laboratories will face “drastically reduced reimbursement” for commonly performed lab tests for diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Reimbursement cuts may cause clinical labs serving “the most vulnerable and homebound” to reduce services or close, they noted.
“To emerge from nearly three years of a pandemic by sending the signal that austerity is our nation’s health policy when it comes to testing and diagnostics would be a significant mistake,” they wrote.
“If the proposed cuts to reimbursements for diagnostic tests are allowed to take effect, disparities caused by challenges with accessing diagnostic tests will likely grow even further,” the authors continued.
However, they added, “The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act [SALSA] would reform PAMA to require accurate and representative data from all laboratory segments that serve Medicare beneficiaries to be collected to support a commonsense Medicare fee schedule that truly represents the market.”
How PAMA Affects Clinical Laboratory Reimbursements
PAMA, which became law in 2014, was aimed at marrying Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) reimbursement rates to rates medical laboratories receive from private payers, the National Independent Laboratory Association (NILA) explained in a news release.
But from the start, in its implementation of the PAMA statute, the methods used by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to collect data on lab test prices paid by private payers—which were the basis for calculating new lab test prices for the Medicare program—were criticized by many laboratory professionals and other health experts.
Critics frequently pointed out that several types of clinical laboratories were excluded from reporting their private payer lab test prices. Thus, the data collected and used by CMS did not accurately represent the true range of prices paid for clinical lab tests by private health insurance plans, said lab industry groups.
CMS regulations “exclude most hospital outreach laboratories and physician office laboratories from data collection. This approach depresses median prices and has led to deep cuts to lab reimbursement. Many tests were cut up to 30% in 2018 when the new system went into effect,” the America Association for Clinical Chemistry (AACC) noted in a statement.
On September 8, just weeks after publication of the article authored by Morice and Sause, 26 organizations representing clinical laboratories and diagnostics manufacturers sent a letter to Congressional leaders. In it they described the financial impact on labs due to the current law’s omission of some outreach and physician office lab testing, and they urged the passage of the SALSA legislation.
“The significant under-sampling led to nearly $4 billion in cuts to those labs providing the most commonly ordered test services for Medicare beneficiaries,” the organizations wrote in their letter. “For context, the total CLFS spend for 2020 was only $8 billion.”
Reimbursement Cuts to Lab Tests are Coming if SASLA Not Passed
“Without Congressional action, beginning on Jan. 1, 2023, laboratories will face additional cuts of as much as 15% to some of the most commonly ordered laboratory tests,” the NILA said.
“Enactment of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA/H.R. 8188/S.4449) is urgently needed this year, to allow laboratories to focus on providing timely, high quality clinical laboratory services for patients, continuing to innovate, and building the infrastructure necessary to protect the public health,” NILA added.
In an editorial she wrote for Clinical Lab Products, titled, “Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation,” Kristina Martin, Clinical Pathology Operations Director, Department of Pathology, University of Michigan Medicine said, “The SALSA legislation provides a permanent, pragmatic approach to evaluating the CLFS, eliminating huge swings, either positive or negative as it pertains to Medicare reimbursement. It also allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of data to be collected from a broader sampling of laboratory sectors.”
Uses statistical sampling for widely available tests performed by a “representative pool of all clinical laboratory market segments.”
Introduces annual “guardrails” aimed at creating limits for reductions as well as increases in CLFS rates.
Excludes Medicaid managed care rates since they are not true “market rates.”
Gives labs the option to exclude mailed remittances from reporting if less than 10% of claims.
Eases clinical labs’ reporting requirements by changing data collection from three years to four.
Make Your Views Known
Proponents urge Congress to act on SALSA before the end of the year. Clinical laboratory leaders and pathologists who want to express their views on SALSA, test reimbursement, and the importance of access to medical laboratory testing can do so through Stop Lab Cuts.org. The website is sponsored by the ACLA.
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.
Potentially increasing the revenue write-off burden for clinical laboratories, HRSA changes, insurance contracting, policy and coverage questions for genetic and genomic testing, and patient relationship disconnects will expose cracks in lab test claim generation and billing processes
Last year it was estimated that collection agencies held $140 billion in unpaid medical bills, in addition to the amount of unpaid bills in pre-collection status, according to a New York Times report. More recently, the American Hospital Association showed that hospitals have provided upwards of $700 billion in uncompensated care since 2000, with over $40 billion in 2019 alone.
Because strategies to collect the unpaid can be complicated and time-consuming, many healthcare organizations, including clinical laboratories, choose to write off these uncollectible bills. Dark Daily and The Dark Report have covered clinical laboratory revenue challenges for many years. In considering the paths forward, software-as-a-service (SaaS) provider FrontRunner Healthcare (FrontRunnerHC) recently provided snapshots into the how and where of improved collections.
Fixing Data Issues that Lead to Forfeited Clinical Laboratory Revenue
The underpinnings of unpaid lab tests are many. In a recent interview with Dark Daily, FrontRunnerHC CEO and Founder John (JD) Donnelly estimated that about one-third of claims (prior to submission) include incorrect or missing patient information, such as insurance policy identification or demographics. These gaps undermine an organization’s ability to get paid. Donnelly estimates that bad-debt write-offs for commercial payer claims average over 15% of charges. To address these challenges, the company’s clean claims SaaS provides “instantaneous” patient insurance, demographic, and financial information.
Whether lower-dollar accessions such as routine testing, or the higher-dollar accessions of genetic tests, uncollected payments add up. Donnelly said that, in 2021, almost one-third of the company’s clients uncovered revenue ranging from $1 million to over $90 million using the software. Donnelly also estimated that the return for clients averages eight times the value of the investment in using the automated solution.
In one example, Sonora Quest, a joint venture between Banner Health and Quest Diagnostics, reported a 10-15% decline in write-offs due to aged claims, a savings of over $1million annually, as published in a case study. “As an aside, in a presentation at the Executive War College last November, they also attributed improvements in patient satisfaction measures to the software, including a 65% decrease in abandoned calls, 28% improvement in their call service factor, and 19% decrease in patient call volumes,” stated Donnelly.
Questions About Cost of Care Likely Cause Stress for Patients
As many know, nonpay issues are problematic not only for lab businesses and anatomic pathology practices but also for patients and their families who have little predictability with their cost of care in the midst of stressful health events. “From the time a patient is registered to the time the claim is paid, there are more challenges than people realize that jeopardize the patient’s experience as well as the provider’s ability to get reimbursed,” Donnelly explained. Medical laboratory administrators have struggled to respond, often by using traditional manual methods such as call centers, or more recently by considering the use of data automation tools.
From the patient payment perspective, Donnelly said, a good strategy is having the ability, on demand, to understand each patient’s specific financial situation and likelihood to pay. For example, using FrontRunnerHC’s software to gauge patients’ propensity to pay and determine financial disposition strategies, lab administrators may choose to offer payment plans or hardship discounts to those falling under the federal poverty level (FPL). Or they may choose to send a collection agency only the past-due accounts for patients who have a low likelihood to pay rather than sending them all past due accounts and focus in-house efforts on the others. One genetics lab client who recently started leveraging these software capabilities “is already seeing more than 5% in incremental net collections,” according to Donnelly.
Further, an estimated 2 million people switch insurance plans each month, reported Axios. “That velocity of change is tough for providers to manage, but it’s critical as insurance eligibility and registration issues are the number one reason for claims denials,” Donnelly said.
For a sense of the magnitude of the problem, “Between 25 and 33 cents of every dollar you spend on medical care pays for health care’s back office,” wrote Dana Miller Ervin in September 2021 for a series of investigations called “The Price We Pay,” published at WFAE 90.7 news in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Every medical provider and laboratory in the country has to negotiate with insurance companies. And since there are 900 health insurers, 6,000 hospitals and more than 100,000 physician practices—many of which are independent of larger systems—there are hundreds of thousands of negotiations.”
New Clinical Laboratory Business Challenges Making News Now
All these issues affecting revenue cycle management (RCM) for independent clinical laboratories, hospital and health system laboratories, and physician office laboratories could be compounded by three emerging issues.
Donnelly said that many lab clients have yet to be reimbursed for COVID tests they have performed, despite their HRSA-required due diligence prior to submitting the claims before the deadline. To avoid additional reimbursement risk, many labs have made the decision to stop testing the uninsured or charge them for it, ABC News reported in late March. As of early April, however, Congress was in discussions to re-fund at least some of the Uninsured Program, reported Politico.
Secondly, and also daunting, are the questions surrounding payer coverage and reimbursement for genetic tests and genomic testing. Thanks to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups increasingly must collect deductibles that may be the full amount of the test – and directly from patients rather than from insurance companies. Therefore, there is more demand from patients to understand their expected cost before the test, Donnelly added.
Problems can arise, for both labs and patients, if they don’t know whether a test has been preauthorized for medical necessity or if they lack accurate insurance information such as in-network or out-of-network. “Getting all the needed and accurate info upfront prior to it going into the LIS [Laboratory Information System] can be a reimbursement game changer,” stated Donnelly.
“For a high complexity, high-throughput diagnostic lab, an efficient workflow is critical,” stated Kyle Koeppler, President of nuCARE Medical Solutions Inc., a FrontRunnerHC client. “Capturing the correct patient demographics and insurance information at patient intake increases the accuracy of every order and makes every process involving patient information much more efficient,” Koeppler shared. “It’s simply too costly to risk having inaccurate information at intake.”
And lest we forget, the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) is looming with its reimbursement cuts planned through 2026, and requirements of many labs to report private payer rates on a test-by-test basis. While delayed again, the 2023 PAMA reporting requirements and payment cuts must not be ignored, and planning is needed in order to ensure appropriate reimbursement, Donnelly added.
Addressing Long Payment Cycles for Claims, Dead Ends, and Decreased Collection Rates
The CAQH report cites that data automation resulted in efficiency savings of $122 billion annually for the US healthcare system in 2020 yet “meaningful opportunities for additional savings remain.”
Data automation can reduce the burden of labor-intensive functions in coding, billing, filing appeals, and collecting from payers and patients and, therefore, reduce overall RCM costs. The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare’s (CAQH) 2020 Index reported, “Considering the millions of times these transactions occur every day, the savings potential across the healthcare economy [from streamlining administrative processes] is significant.”
“One way to avoid potential write-offs is by reworking a claim, but the rework is often left undone,” stated John (JD) Donnelly (above), CEO and Founder of FrontRunnerHC. “The better way to avoid a potential write-off is to ensure you’ve got a clean claim in the first place.” (Photo copyright: FrontRunnerHC.)
The intended outcome is an increase in the total amount of revenue collected from the same number of claims.
To that end, FrontRunnerHC’s software links critical data within its partner ecosystem. This ecosystem includes the well-established credit reporting agencies as well as data available through connected healthcare payers and providers equipped with electronic data interchange (EDI) capabilities. “While an employee may be able to manually work about six accessions in an hour, clients can process approximately 40,000 patients in an hour through software automation, leaving staff to work on more value-added initiatives,” stated Donnelly.
Ideally, missing and inaccurate patient information or insurance verification, which are crucial for producing prompt payments and clean claims, should be corrected before a specimen is collected, Donnelly said. However, if the laboratory is nursing aging accounts receivable (AR), Donnelly advises an audit and cleanup of the AR backlog as a first step to quickly fix information errors and reduce write-offs. “In your AR bucket of $10 million, you may have $3 million that’s collectible or $9.8 million that’s collectible. By leveraging software to clean up what can be collected, clients can go after the money they deserve.”
Improve Collections Through Data Automation While Assisting in the Patient Financial Journey
With the rise of telehealth/telemedicine, healthcare consumerism, and care delivered to nontraditional sites, it makes sense that the idea of the clinical laboratory as a silent partner in healthcare could be changing.
“Could we one day see patients asked for not only their preferred pharmacy but their preferred clinical laboratory as well?” Donnelly pondered and added, “I think the answer is yes, and it’s sooner than many think.”
Understanding the patient’s experience is a key step in providing patient-centered care. Therefore, patient experience programs that originate at clinical laboratories where specimens are processed, but before specimens have been collected, could make these labs more visible in their markets and enable them to capitalize on the advantages of data automation to sustainably improve revenue cycle management.
“The patient’s financial journey which runs in parallel to their clinical journey can get pretty bumpy, and those bumps impact their overall experience as well as the provider’s bottom line,” added Donnelly. “Getting accurate patient information upfront and catching any changes to the information as needed throughout the process helps clients create a smoother patient journey by enabling them to quickly manage through the bumps or eliminate them altogether.”
—Liz Carey
This article was produced in collaboration with FrontRunnerHC.
