How medical laboratories can show value through process improvement methods and analytics will be among many key topics presented at the upcoming Lab Quality Confab conference
Quality management is the clinical laboratory’s best strategy for surviving and thriving in this era of shrinking lab budgets, PAMA price cuts, and value-based payment. In fact, the actions laboratories take in the next few months will set the course for their path to clinical success and financial sustainability in 2020 and beyond.
But how do medical laboratory managers and pathologists address these challenges while demonstrating their lab’s value? One way is through process improvement methods and another is through the use of analytics.
Clinical pathologists, hospital lab leaders, and independent lab executives have told Dark Daily that the trends demanding their focus include:
Ensuring needed resources and appropriate tests,
while the lab is scrutinized by insurance companies and internally by hospital
administration;
“Our impact on patient care, in many cases, is very
indirect. So, it is difficult to point to outcomes that occur. We know things
we do matter and change patient care, but objectively showing that is a real
struggle. And we are being asked to do more than we ever had before, and those
are the two big things that keep me up at night these days,” he added.
This is where process improvement methods and analytics are
helping clinical laboratories understand critical issues and find opportunities
for positive change.
“You need to have a strategy that you can adapt to a changing landscape in healthcare. You have to use analytics to guide your progress and measure your success,” Patricia Nortmann, System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare, Erlanger, Ky., told Dark Daily.
Clinical Laboratories Can Collaborate Instead of Compete
Prior to a joint venture with TriHealth in Cincinnati, St. Elizabeth lab leaders used data to inform their decision-making. Over about 12 years preceding the consolidation of labs they:
Implemented front-end automation outside the core area and in the microbiology lab.
“We are now considered a regional reference lab in the state
of Kentucky for two healthcare organizations—St. Elizabeth and TriHealth,”
Nortmann said.
Thanks to these changes, the lab more than doubled its
workload, growing from 2.1 million to 4.3 million outreach tests in the core
laboratory, she added.
Christopher Doern, PhD (left), Director of Microbiology and Associate Professor of Pathology at Virginia Commonwealth University Health System; Patricia Nortmann (center), System Director of Laboratory Services at St. Elizabeth Healthcare; and Joseph Cugini (right), Manager Client Solutions at Health Network Laboratories, will present practical solutions and case studies in quality improvement and analytics for clinical laboratory professionals at the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab, October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Using Analytics to Test the Tests
Clinical laboratories also are using analytics and information technology (IT) to improve test utilization.
At VCH Health, Doern said an analytics solution interfaces
with their LIS, providing insights into test orders and informing decisions
about workflow. “I use this analytics system in different ways to answer
different questions, such as:
How are clinicians using our tests?
When do things come to the lab?
When should we be working on them?
“This is important for microbiology, which is a very delayed
discipline because of the incubation and growth required for the tests we do,”
he said.
Using analytics, the lab solved an issue with Clostridium
difficile (C diff) testing turnaround-time (TAT) after associating it with
specimen transportation.
Inappropriate or duplicate testing also
can be revealed through analytics. A physician may reconsider a test after discovering
another doctor recently ordered the same test. And the technology can guide
doctors in choosing tests in areas where the related diseases are obscure, such
as serology.
Avoiding Duplicate Records While
Improving Payment
Another example of process
improvement is Health Network Laboratories (HNL) in Allentown, Pa. A team there established an enterprise master patient index (EMPI) and implemented digital tools to find and eliminate
duplicate patient information and improve lab financial indicators.
“The system uses trusted sources of data to make sure data is clean and the lab has what it needs to send out a proper bill. That is necessary on the reimbursement side—from private insurance companies especially—to prevent denials,” Joseph Cugini, HNL’s Manager Client Solutions, told Dark Daily.
HNL reduced duplicate records in its database from 23% to
under one percent. “When you are talking about several million records, that is
quite a significant improvement,” he said.
Processes have improved not only on the billing side, but in
HNL’s patient service centers as well, he added. Staff there easily find
patients’ electronic test orders, and the flow of consumers through their
visits is enhanced.
Learn More at Lab Quality Confab Conference
Cugini, Doern, and Nortmann will speak on these topics and more during the 13th Annual Lab Quality Confab (LQC), October 15-16, 2019, at the Hyatt Regency in Atlanta, Ga. They will offer insights, practical knowledge, and case studies involving Lean, Six Sigma, and other process improvement methods during this important 2-day conference, a Dark Dailynews release notes.
Register for LQC, which is produced by Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report, online at https://www.labqualityconfab.com/register, or by calling 512-264-7103.
As PAMA brings estimated Medicare reimbursement cuts of up to 30% over the next three years to a range of typically high-volume tests and diagnostics, medical laboratories that wish to stay competitive must understand the needs of managed care payers and learn how to optimize collections, reduce denials, and communicate value effectively or risk their financial health
Recent years have seen major shifts in consolidation, automation, and efficiency analysis to help streamline both workflows and cashflows. However, the threat from the current and coming cuts to Medicare lab test prices will be particularly acute for smaller independent laboratories and hospital/health system lab outreach programs. These labs will continue to feel added strain due to reduced reimbursement across 25 of the most common tests billed to Medicare.
And, that doesn’t account for subsequent cuts, which are estimated to reach nearly 30% over the next three years.
Cost of Service Disparities/In-Network Status Further Impact Clinical Labs
If the CLFS reductions weren’t enough, labs face another threat—managed care and commercial payers aligning with big national laboratories and narrowing networks in an attempt to lower costs and provide maximum return for both patients and shareholders. For smaller and independent laboratories, this represents a double threat.
In the first situation, larger laboratories can offer services at lower costs due to increased automation, batch processing, and other scale advantages. This means that while the lower CLFS rates will impact the financial integrity of larger labs, the actual margin lost is less than that of smaller laboratories and facilities that face higher costs to perform tests and provide services.
Compounding the situation, commercial and managed care payers searching out the best value for their patients and shareholders tend to narrow their networks by excluding many independent clinical lab companies and hospital lab outreach programs, amplifying this inherent disparity and skewing the advantage away from independent providers yet again.
Higher cost providers without a clear understanding of promoting their value to payers could have trouble obtaining in-network status. Yet, failing to obtain in-network status may reduce overall test quantities, further raise prices, and make smaller labs less competitive with larger national laboratories—a dangerous cycle with today’s competitive laboratory landscape.
Shifting Focus and Optimizing Managed Care Reimbursements
As the financial stability of Medicare reimbursements wanes, it is imperative that laboratories look to new methods to further increase efficiency and stabilize cashflows. Once a smaller portion of laboratory revenue, managed care organizations and commercial payers will be of increased importance as overall reimbursement rates continue to shrink in the face of healthcare reform and value-based care.
Special June 26 Webinar: Improving Managed Care Reimbursement Efficiency
Understanding not just what these payers are attempting to achieve for their organization—but also how they structure requirements and processes to support their goals—is an essential element of succeeding in this previously smaller share of the marketplace.
For those interested in learning more about critical concerns regarding managed care payers in the post-2018 CLFS landscape, Pathology Webinars is hosting a 90-minute webinar on Tuesday, June 26, 2018, at 2:00 PM Eastern.
The webinar will include presentations from two experts on a range of topics including:
Actionable steps to absorb the loss of Medicare revenue due to the impact of the 2018 CLFS reductions;
How managed care payers process network status and payments;
Who in the managed care chain of command should receive your value proposition;
How to better align your value propositions, policies, and workflows with the requirements of managed care and commercial payers; and,
Understanding the roles managed care payers expect clinical laboratories and anatomic pathologists to play in managing and reducing unnecessary testing.
The first speaker, Frank Dookie, MBA, will provide an inside look at:
How managed care payers function;
Their requirements and workflows; and,
What they look for when considering network status for a laboratory.
Dookie is a laboratory professional who has worked on the payer side for 28 years. He is passionate about the role that diagnostics play or can play in healthcare, and has spent his career working for instrumentation providers, clinical laboratories, the intermediary space between laboratories and managed care companies, and managed care companies.
The second speaker, Michael Snyder, will bring the entire payment process into sharp focus. He will cover:
Optimizing the collection process;
Identifying the purpose of each step, each review, and each team member involved; and,
Critical points laboratories must address to ensure payment.
Snyder is the Senior Vice President of Network Operations for Avalon Healthcare Solutions, LLC, a firm that provides comprehensive benefit management services to the health plan industry and has more than 30 years’ experience in clinical laboratory management.
Frank R. Dookie, MBA (left), Contracting Executive with a major managed care company in Woodbridge, N.J.; and Michael Snyder (right), Senior Vice President with Avalon Healthcare Solutions in Flemington, N.J., will provide critical insights and actionable details for clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology group leaders who want to ensure future revenues.
An Essential Opportunity to Improve Your Reimbursements
This critical webinar offers anatomic pathology groups and medical laboratory managers essential information and actionable next steps to immediately leverage the potential of managed care payers. Additionally, it provides insider insight to laboratories straining to retain financial integrity as reduced reimbursements and increased regulatory burdens strain budgets and cashflows.
To register for the webinar and see further details about discussion topics, use this link (or copy and paste the URL into your browser: https://pathologywebinars.com/current/managed-care-an-insiders-guide-to-improving-your-reimbursement-efficiency-with-strategies-that-work-626/).
As further Medicare payment reductions over the next three years drive reimbursements even lower, understanding how to capture the positive attention of payers—while working within the rules and policies driving their reimbursement decisions—will be an essential element of successful laboratory management and growth. Register now!
In filing Monday, lawsuit seeks to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements and to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately
Many clinical laboratory executives will welcome the news that a lab industry trade association has filed a lawsuit in federal court in an effort to delay and fix the final rule for Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) private payer lab test market price reporting that Medicare officials used to lower prices on the Medicare Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule (CLFS) that is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
The ACLA asked the US District Court for the District of Columbia to force HHS to comply with PAMA’s statutory requirements, to withhold applying the new CLFS until HHS has revised the final rule appropriately. The CLFS is due to take effect on Jan. 1.
Final Prices for the 2018 Part B Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule
Last month, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the final CLFS rates and said at the time that it did so in compliance with the 2016 final rule implementing changes to the Medicare clinical laboratory fee schedule under PAMA section 216.
“We have repeatedly advised CMS that there are significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule, which fail to follow the specific commands of the PAMA statute,” said ACLA President Julie Khani in an ACLA press release. “Contrary to Congress’ intent, instead of reforming Medicare reimbursement rates to reflect the broad scope of the laboratory market, the Secretary’s final rule will disrupt the market and prevent beneficiaries from having access to the essential laboratory services they need.”
Shown above is Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) speaking at the Executive War College on Laboratory and Pathology Management last May in New Orleans. In a press release announcing ACLA’s lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, Khani emphasized that many clinical laboratories had advised officials at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) about the “significant, substantive deficiencies in the final rule” for private payer market price reported that CMS designed. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
22 Healthcare Organizations Opposed Cuts to Clinical Laboratory Test Prices
The ACLA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), and more than 20 other organizations had urged CMS to suspend implementation of the new CLFS rates, which are scheduled to take effect Jan. 1. The organizations cited concerns over the data-collection process used to establish the rates, and the fact that the rates would cause clinical laboratories to struggle financially and possibly close. If the rates set under PAMA affect Medicare beneficiaries’ access to clinical lab testing, the law would have the opposite effect of its intent.
To bring the lawsuit, ACLA retained Mark D. Polston, JD, of the Washington, DC, law firm of King and Spaulding. A specialist in representing healthcare systems seeking to navigate Medicare regulations, Polston is the former Chief Litigation counsel for CMS and specializes in complicated Medicare reimbursement litigation. Recently, he successfully challenged Medicare’s so-called “two-midnight” rule that imposed a 0.2% rate cut on hospitals billing for some patients.
Medicare Program Prohibited Most Medical Laboratories from Reporting
Contrary to Congress’ directives, most laboratories were prohibited from reporting private payer data under CMS’ market-rate data-collection process, ACLA said in a prepared statement. “As a result, CMS failed to protect access to laboratory services for Medicare beneficiaries. This flawed process could cause serious financial harm to potentially thousands of hospitals, independent and physician office laboratories, and make it harder for Medicare beneficiaries to get access to medical testing, particularly in remote rural areas and in nursing homes that depend on laboratory testing services,” ACLA said.
In the lawsuit, ACLA alleged that more than 99.3% of hospitals were prohibited from reporting their market-rate data. It is believed that this is the first time this figure has been reported. In 2015, the lawsuit charged, more than 261,500 entities received Medicare payment for laboratory services but only 1,942 laboratories reported market-rate information in 2016 under the PAMA final rule. The 1,942 labs that reported market-rate data is about 0.7% of the total number of laboratories that serve Medicare beneficiaries, the lawsuit said.
Only 21 of 7,000 Hospital Laboratories Reported Data
“Moreover, contrary to Congress’ intent, the laboratories that did report information are not representative of the market as a whole,” the lawsuit added. “For example, although approximately 7,000 hospital laboratories billed Medicare for laboratory services in 2015—accounting for 24% of the Medicare payments made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule—no more than 21 hospital laboratories (and probably even fewer) reported information to the secretary, leaving hospital laboratories effectively unrepresented in the data collected by the secretary.
“Hospital laboratories are often the only laboratories available to patients in certain areas of the country, and the private payer rates they receive are often much higher than other laboratories, due to differences in competitive markets, volumes of services, and other factors,” the lawsuit charged.
The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication, provided a compelling example of the serious flaws in the market price study conducted by CMS. Writing about the state of Michigan, The Dark Report noted: “At Joint Venture Hospital Laboratory Network (JVHL), CEO John Kolozsvary said Michigan’s hospitals serve 70% of the office-based physicians in the state with outreach lab testing services. Included among these hospitals are the 120 JVHL member laboratory facilities.”
“Since our network, plus the outreach programs of another 25 or 30 hospitals, hold a significant share of outreach lab testing in Michigan, how can CMS conduct an accurate, representative market study of what private insurers pay for lab tests in Michigan if it doesn’t collect data on what private payers reimburse hospital lab outreach programs in Michigan?” stated Kolozsvary in his interview with The Dark Report.
Did CMS ‘Disregard and Violate’ PAMA Statute?
In the ACLA’s announcement of the lawsuit, Polston said, “CMS clearly disregarded and violated the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring commercial rate information to be reported and collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants. Instead, information was collected from less than 1% of US laboratories.”
In the press announcement, ACLA Board Chair Curt Hanson, MD, Chief Medical Officer of Mayo Medical Laboratories said, “This lawsuit reflects our obligation to those who are providing critical testing services, and to those millions of Americans who rely on the services our industry provides.” Others supporting the lawsuit include Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics.
Compliance with PAMA Law’s Statutory Requirements
In the lawsuit, ACLA seeks to require HHS to comply with the statutory requirements and to set aside the provisions in the final rule, “that unlawfully exempts thousands of laboratories from the reporting obligations that Congress imposed” under PAMA. A central feature of PAMA Section 216 is that laboratories must report market rate data so that HHS can ensure that Medicare reimbursement rates closely reflect the rates laboratories receive from private payers, the lawsuit said.
“ACLA was a strong supporter of Congress’ market-based reforms, which resulted in the most extensive changes to the system for reimbursing clinical laboratories since 1984,” the lawsuit said.
In challenging the final regulations, the lawsuit said HHS disregarded and violated, “the statute’s specific, unambiguous directives requiring that all applicable laboratories report relevant data.”
Congress Specified Which Medical Laboratories Are Obligated to Report
“In imposing these requirements, Congress took care to specify which laboratories would be obligated to report market data to ensure that information would be collected from a broad, diverse group of market participants,” the lawsuit said. “Congress made clear that any ‘laboratory’ would be required to report data if, ‘with respect to its revenues under [the Medicare program], a majority of such revenues are from’ the Physician Fee Schedule or the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule,” the lawsuit charged.
In promulgating the regulations, however, HHS, disregarded Congress’ instructions and “unreasonably and arbitrarily exempted significant categories and large numbers of laboratories that meet the statutory definition from the reporting requirements that Congress imposed,” the lawsuit said.
“The secretary’s final rule fatally undermines one of PAMA’s purposes, which is to require a broad spectrum of Medicare-participating laboratories to report market information to the secretary. Instead, in ultra vires (Latin for “beyond the powers”) fashion, the secretary has carved out large categories of laboratories—ultimately resulting in the exclusion of some 99.3% of the laboratory market—from the statutory reporting requirements,” the lawsuit charged. Ultra vires acts fall outside the authority of the organization in question.
In the lawsuit, the ACLA claims under:
count 1: ultra vires agency action not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority;
count 4: violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, injunctive and declaratory relief.
Seeking an Injunction to Have HHS Secretary to Withhold or Suspend Final Rule
In its final section, “Prayer for Relief,” the lawsuit asks the court to vacate, “any agency action found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;” to require the Secretary of HHS to comply with the statutory requirements, “including faithfully implementing the statutory definition of ‘applicable laboratory;’” and enter an “injunction that (1) directs the Secretary to withdraw or suspend his final rule until such time as it can be brought into compliance with the statute, and (2) directs the Secretary to withhold applying the new Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule until such time as the Secretary has made appropriate revisions to his final rule.” The lawsuit also asked the court to award to the ACLA “costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
To offset the loss of revenue from the price cuts to Medicare Part B clinical laboratory tests, labs will need to aggressively—but wisely—slash costs to balance their budgets
Many experienced industry executives expect this to be the single most financially disruptive event to hit the clinical laboratory profession in more than 20 years. This will not only have a substantial negative financial impact on all labs—large and small—but two sectors of the clinical lab industry are considered to be so financially vulnerable they could cease to exist.
At Greatest Risk of Financial Failure are Community Laboratories
The first sector is comprised of smaller community lab companies that operate in towns and rural areas. These labs are at the greatest risk because they are the primary providers of lab testing services to the nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities in their neighborhoods. And because they have a high proportion of Medicare Part B revenue.
Thus, the expected Medicare price cuts to the high-volume automated lab tests—such as chemistry panels and CBCs (complete blood count) that are the bread-and-butter tests for these labs—will swiftly move them from minimal profit margins to substantial losses. Since these labs have a cost-per-test that is significantly higher than the nation’s largest public lab companies, they will be unable to financially survive the 2018 Medicare fee cuts.
The second sector at risk is comprised of rural hospitals and modest-sized community hospitals. What officials at CMS and their consulting companies overlooked when they created the PAMA (Protecting Access to Medicare Act) private payer market price reporting rule is that these hospitals provide lab testing services to nursing homes and office-based physicians in their service areas.
Because of the low volumes of testing in these hospital labs, they also have a larger average cost-per-test than the big public labs. Thus, the 2018 cuts to Medicare Part B lab test prices will erode or erase any extra margin from this testing that now accrues to these hospitals.
Rural and Small Community Hospitals Rely on Lab Outreach Revenue
The financial disruption these Medicare lab test price cuts will cause to rural and community hospitals is a real thing. These hospitals rely on outreach lab test revenues to subsidize many other clinical services within the hospital. One rural hospital CEO confirmed the importance of lab outreach revenue to her organization. Michelle McEwen, FACHE, CEO of Speare Memorial Hospital in Plymouth, N.H., spoke to The Dark Report in 2012 about the financial disruption that was happening when a major health insurer excluded her hospital’s laboratory from its network.
Speare Memorial is a 25-bed critical access hospital in the central part of the state between the lakes region and the White Mountain National Forest. McEwen was blunt in her assessment of the importance of clinical laboratory outreach revenues to her hospital. “The funds generated by performing these [outreach] lab tests are used to support the cost of providing laboratory services to all patients 24/7, including stat labs for emergency patients and inpatients,” McEwen explained. “These funds also help support other services in the hospital where losses are typically incurred, such as the emergency room and obstetric programs.” (See “Critical Access Hospitals Losing Lab Test Work,” The Dark Report, April 2, 2012.)
All Medical Laboratories Will Suffer Financial Pain from Medicare Price Cuts
But it is not just community lab companies and rural hospitals that are at risk of financial failure as the Medicare Part B cuts are implemented by CMS on Jan. 1, 2018. Any clinical laboratory serving Medicare patients will experience a meaningful drop in revenue. Many larger hospital and health system laboratories are recasting their financial projections for 2018 to identify how big a drop in revenue they will experience and what cost-cutting strategies will be needed to at least break even on their lab outreach business.
This explains why the first big trend of 2018 will be substantial revenue cuts from the Medicare program. It also explains why the second big trend of 2018 will be smart cost-cutting as labs attempt to balance their books and lower spending proportional to the reduced income they project.
Labs Have a Decade of Successful Cost-Cutting, More Cuts are Difficult
Aggressive cost-cutting, however, puts the nation’s medical laboratories at risk for a different reason. For the past decade, most well-run labs have already harvested the low-hanging fruit from obvious sources of cost reduction. They installed latest-generation automation. They re-engineered workflows using the techniques of Lean, Six Sigma, and process improvement.
During these same years, most medical laboratories also reduced technical staff and trimmed management ranks. That has created two new problems:
First, there are not enough managers in many labs to both handle the daily flow of work while also tackling specific projects to cut costs and boost productivity. Basically, these labs are already at their management limit, with no excess capacity for their lab managers to initiate and implement cost-cutting projects.
Second, technical staffs are already working at near peak capacity. Increased use of automation at these labs has reduced lab costs because labs were able to do the same volume of testing with fewer staff. However, the reduced staffs that oversee the lab automation are now working at their own peak capacity. Not only are they highly stressed from the daily routine, they also do not have spare time to devote to new projects designed to further cut costs.
Each Year Will Bring Additional Cuts to Medicare Part B Lab Prices
This is why all clinical laboratories in the United States will find it difficult to deal with the Medicare Part lab test fee cuts that will total $400 million during 2018. And what must be remembered is that, in 2019 and beyond, CMS officials will use the PAMA private payer market price reporting rule to make additional fee cuts. Over 10 years, CMS expects these cuts will reduce spending by $5.4 billion from the current spending level.
Taken collectively, all these factors indicate that many medical laboratories in the United States will not survive these Medicare fee cuts. The basic economics of operating a clinical laboratory say that less volume equals a higher average cost per test and higher volume equals a lower average cost per test.
Medical Labs with Highest Costs Most at Risk of Failure from Price Cuts
What this means in the marketplace is that labs with the highest average cost per test make the least profit margin on a fee-for-service payment. The opposite is true for labs with the lowest average cost per test. They will make a greater profit margin on that same fee-for-service payment.
Carry this fundamental economic principle of medical laboratory operations forward as Medicare Part B lab test fee cuts happen in 2018. Labs with the highest average cost per test will be first to go from a modest profit or break-even to a loss. As noted earlier, the clinical lab sectors that have the highest average cost per test are smaller community labs, along with rural and community hospitals. That is why they will be first to go out of business—whether by sale, bankruptcy, or by simply closing their doors.
Learning How to Cut Lab Costs While Protecting Quality
Every pathologist and lab administrator seeking the right strategies to further cut costs in their lab, while protecting quality and enhancing patient services, will want to consider sending a team from their laboratory to the 11th Annual Lab Quality Confab that takes place in New Orleans on October 24-25, 2018.
Anticipating the greater need for shrewd cost-cutting that also protects the quality of the lab’s testing services, this year’s Lab Quality Confab has lined up more than 51 speakers and 39 sessions. Of particular interest are these extended workshops that come with certifications:
Lab Quality Confab is recognized for its use of lab case studies—taught by the nation’s early adopter lab organizations. Certification classes are available to gain proficiency in the use of Lean methods and Six Sigma tools, such as:
Developing single-piece and small batch workflow to cut TAT and lift productivity.
Given the strong interest in smart ways to cut costs, boost productivity, and balance revenue-versus-cost, registrations for this year’s Lab Quality Confab is running at a record pace. The full agenda can be viewed at this link (or copy this URL and paste into your browser: http://www.labqualityconfab.com/agenda).
Of special interest to lab leaders preparing to stay ahead of the financial impact of the Medicare Part B fee cuts, Lab Quality Confab offers deep discounts for four or more attendees from the same lab organization. This allows your lab’s most effective cost-cutters to see, hear, and learn together, so that when they return they can get a flying start helping you align your lab’s costs to the expected declines in revenue that will happen on Jan. 1, 2018.
While multiple studies show reference pricing is an effective approach to reduce the cost of testing and procedures, medical laboratories and consumers alike must continue to focus on quality to ensure positive outcomes
The Dark Report in its September 2016 issue highlighted how reference pricing is positioned to become one of the biggest contributors to price erosion medical laboratories and pathology groups have faced in more than a decade. The issue featured details of a 2016 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine outlining how Safeway’s use of reference pricing for clinical laboratory tests decreased laboratory spending for itself and employees by 32% between 2011 and 2013—a total savings of more than $2.5-million.
That issue of The Dark Report also highlights a similar use of reference pricing by CalPERS (California Public Retirement System) that involved hip and knee replacement surgeries. CalPERS saw a 30% reduction in the cost of these surgeries after 12 months.
These highly publicized efforts have fueled interest in how reference pricing might work for other businesses, insurers, and the US government. The 2014 Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) is already collecting private payer rates paid to laboratories for tests. This data will then be used to create new rate-based fee schedules in 2018.
Speaking with Joseph Burns, Managing Editor of The Dark Report, about the outcome and potential rise of reference pricing, study author James C. Robinson, PhD, of University of California Berkeley noted that, “Any discussion about how to contain inappropriate healthcare utilization is challenging. By contrast, significant price variation is the low-hanging fruit. Employers would much rather save money by having patients travel to cheaper clinical labs than get into some esoteric discussion about whether a clinical procedure is appropriate or not.”
Quality is Key to Both Avoiding Price Erosion and Improving Patient Outcomes
There’s no question that reference pricing has forever changed the landscape of clinical laboratory pricing. Paired with increased pricing transparency and easier access to pricing information through platforms such as Castlight Health, Healthcare Blue Book, and Change Healthcare Corporation, consumers and businesses can quickly compare prices across a range of service providers.
However, in April, Leah Binder, President and CEO of The Leapfrog Group, published an article in Forbes that highlights the potential downsides to price shopping for laboratory testing and medical care.
“Differences among providers in quality can eliminate any cost advantages,” stated Binder in the Forbes article. “Some purchasers assume they can get around this problem by targeting reference pricing only for procedures that don’t vary in quality. When quality is all the same, decisions can pivot on price alone. Unfortunately, no such procedures exist. Extreme variation is the hallmark of our healthcare system.”
As reference pricing continues to force more consumers to shoulder a portion of medical laboratory testing costs, prices for more expensive laboratories are likely to continue eroding unless they can convince consumers that their services are higher quality or produce better results. (Graphic copyright: California Public Retirement System.)
Binder cites a study in Spine Journal’s April 2017 issue regarding diagnostic error rates for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The study involved a 63-year-old woman seeking relief from low back pain. Over a three-week span, she received 10 different scans. These scans resulted in 49 different findings. Of these findings, none were repeated across all 10 scan reports provided to her physician.
“As a result,” the study’s authors concluded, “where a patient obtains his or her MRI examination, and which radiologist interprets the examination, may have a direct impact on radiological diagnosis, subsequent choice of treatment, and clinical outcome.”
Binder reinforced this, stating, “Purchasers should still pursue reference pricing and try to incorporate considerations of utilization and quality to the extent they have the data. Never assume any procedure is like a commodity—largely the same quality everywhere.”
High-Cost Medical Laboratories Likely to Face a Decision Between Volume or Price Erosion
A 2016 study by Health Care Cost Institute found the average pricing of 240 common medical services varied by as much as 200% between states. Within states, prices fluctuated as much as 300%.
Thus, for pathology groups and medical laboratories in the upper percentiles for their region, referencing pricing is likely to impact volume. Even if adoption of reference pricing by payers or self-insured business groups remains stable, price cuts due to PAMA loom on the horizon. As reported by Dark Daily in December 2016, price cuts to the Part B clinical laboratory fee schedule could add up to $400 million in reduced Medicare payments in 2018 alone.
This is particularly troublesome for hospital laboratory outreach programs, where Medicare patients commonly represent 40% to 70% of outreach lab volumes. The combination of reduced volume and reduced Medicare pricing could have dire financial consequences.
It will remain essential for medical laboratories to differentiate their services from those of lower-cost competitors to avoid volume and price erosion. Continuing to optimize test utilization, improving laboratory efficiency, and emphasizing the value of services rendered will help to further strengthen lab positions and reduce the impact of coming change.
