Judge decides injuries claimed by pathologists are not antitrust injuries and that plaintiffs have no standing to bring antitrust lawsuit
Four pathologists who filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging their former employer “engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive practices” in an effort to maintain a monopoly on clinical pathology services in central Iowa had their lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. Two related state lawsuits are still pending, one in which the plaintiffs are the defendants.
It is common for pathologists in a community to leave one pathology practice and either establish a new practice or join a nearby practice. What is less common is litigation that involves the original group practice and the departed pathologists.
Thus, this example of lawsuits and counter lawsuits is interesting because it creates court rulings about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments asserted by both plaintiffs and defendants in situations where pathologists leave their employer but continue to practice in the same community.
The court decisions in these cases demonstrate how judges are handling these issues involving antitrust allegations, market share, and non-compete agreements.
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” wrote federal judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, JD (above), in her order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology practices can learn from the decisions handed down in this court case. (Photo copyright: Wikipedia.)
Pathologists Accuse Defendants of Suppressing Competition
In their original complaint, which was filed May 13, 2024, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the plaintiffs said that, beginning in 2021, IPA “strongly pressured” them to sign an employment agreement that would have prevented them from launching a competing practice in the Des Moines area. They refused to comply, but “the administrator of these corporations told these pathologists that the Agreement was in effect even though they had not signed it,” the complaint states.
On October 2022, they informed IPA that they intended to leave to form their own pathology practice, according to the complaint.
The new practice, Goldfinch Laboratory in Urbandale, Iowa, began offering pathology services in February 2023.
“Prior to the formation of Goldfinch, IPA was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that was not exclusively tied to one source of referrals,” the complaint states. In addition, “it was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that offered dermatopathology services.”
After they notified IPA and RLC of their intention to leave, the plaintiffs alleged that the employer engaged in a series of efforts to “suppress competition” and monopolize the local market for pathology and dermatopathology services.
Plaintiffs Allege Defendants’ Behavior Could Have Harmed Patients
The pathologists were barred from entering IPA’s offices, leaving potential referring physicians with the impression that “these pathologists were no longer practicing,” the complaint states, and preventing them from “maintaining on-going relations with potential referral sources.”
IPA, the complaint alleges, “refused to share biopsy slides with Goldfinch pathologists when those slides were required for continuity of care of the patient—even though this practice was contrary to the standard of care and could well have caused harm to patients.” The complaint characterized this as “an effort to induce referral sources not to make referrals to Goldfinch.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that IPA and RLC made “false and deceptive statements to dissuade referral sources from making referrals to Goldfinch,” for example by claiming that legal problems would force the practice to close.
Given their “monopoly power” in the local market, the plaintiffs argued, IPA and RLC “were able to charge supracompetitive prices for their services.” A $1.4 million contract with one hospital corporation was “in the top 5% of Part A contracts in the United States,” the complaint alleges, and rural hospitals paid “at least 400% of the actual Medicare fee schedule amount for the technical component of pathology services for Medicare patients.”
Defendants’ Response to Allegations
In their motion to dismiss the suit, the defendants argued that Goldfinch was “a classic ‘disgruntled competitor’” that had not demonstrated an “antitrust injury” as defined by federal and state law.
“Goldfinch’s owners used to work for IPA and RLC, voluntarily left, and now seek to litigate their personal financial losses under the guise of federal and state antitrust claims,” the motion states.
The defendants also argued that Goldfinch lacked standing to file an antitrust claim.
Goldfinch “alleges the ‘antitrust practices’ of IPA and RLC are harmful to patients and other payers for pathology and dermatopathology services,” the motion states. “But patients and payers are quite capable of noticing and seeking redress for the alleged harms and Goldfinch need not do so on their behalf.”
In addition, the defendants argued, Goldfinch failed to adequately define a “plausible” product market or geographic market that was subject to the alleged monopoly power.
“Goldfinch’s alleged geographic market is vaguely ill-defined as ‘central Iowa,’” the motion states. “But there is a difference between the service area and a geographic market.” The motion cited an earlier decision in which the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit “deemed a relevant market for a pathology practice to be nationwide.”
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” she wrote. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally. These injuries, instead, are a result of Defendants’ alleged actions targeting Goldfinch and demonstrate an injury to Goldfinch as a competitor—the loss of some patients and referral sources.”
She also agreed with the defendants that Goldfinch lacked sufficient standing to bring an antitrust claim, and that the plaintiffs had failed “to adequately allege a relevant market for pathology and dermatopathology services.”
Goldfinch filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 10.
State Lawsuits Pending
Meanwhile, both parties are awaiting a decision in a state court lawsuit in which the Goldfinch partners are the defendants, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
IPA filed the suit late in 2022, shortly after learning that the four pathologists planned to leave and start their own practice. It alleged “breach of contract, breach of the common law duty of loyalty, civil conspiracy and tortious interference,” Iowa Capital Dispatchreported at the time, claiming that the pathologists were improperly attempting to lure clients away.
In a related case, Goldfinch pathologists Milless and Halverson have filed a state discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, “alleging they were paid $200,000 to $350,000 annually, which they claim was far less than what some of the less qualified male doctors were paid,” Iowa Capital Dispatch reported. That case goes to trial in August.
This is a plethora of lawsuits involving pathologists and the pathology practices in the communities where they formally practiced. Pathologists and group pathology managers may find useful insights from a study of the legal arguments made by the two parties, as well as the decisions laid down by judges in these court cases.
Underfunding of clinical laboratories has led to similar worker walkouts in multiple Australasian nations
Once again, cuts in government spending on pathology services has forced healthcare workers to walk off the job in Australia. This is in line with other pathology doctor and clinical laboratory workers strikes in New Zealand and other Australasian nations over the past few years.
Announcement of a planned closure of the pathology laboratory at 30-bed Cootamundra Hospital in Australia to make room for expanding the emergency department spurred the health worker walkouts.
“Health staff from Cootamundra Hospital, alongside pathology workers from Deniliquin, Tumut, Griffith, Wagga Wagga, and Young will rally in front of their respective facilities” to draw attention to the effect closing the lab would have on critical healthcare services across those areas, Region Riverina reported.
The strikes are drawing attention to unfair pay and poor working conditions that underfunding has brought to the state-run healthcare systems in those nations. They also highlight how clinical laboratories worldwide are similarly struggling with facility closings, unfair pay, and unachievable workloads.
“The proposed closure of Cootamundra’s pathology lab is a short-sighted decision that will have far-reaching consequences for patient care in the region,” NSW Health Services Union (HSU) Secretary Gerard Hayes (above) told Region Riverina. Similar arguments have been made for years concerning the underfunding, pay disparities, and poor working conditions in New Zealand’s government-run clinical laboratories and pathology practices that has led to worker strikes there as well. (Photo copyright: HSU.)
Australia Pathology Lab Closure Stokes Fears
Cootamundra Hospital’s strike was spurred by a planned closure of its pathology laboratory. In May, employees learned of the plans to close the lab as well as surgery and birthing centers to accommodate expansion of the emergency department, Region Riverina reported.
“Pathology workers are already in short supply and this move could see us lose highly skilled professionals from the NSW Health system altogether,” New South Wales (NSW) Health Services Union (HSU) Secretary Gerard Hayes told Region Riverina.
The cuts would not only be detrimental to the area, it would significantly affect patient care, he added.
“This lab is not just profitable; it’s a vital lifeline for Cootamundra Hospital’s [surgical] theater lists and maternity unit,” he said. “Without this lab, patients will face significantly longer wait times for life-saving diagnostic information. This delay could severely impact our ability to provide timely care, especially in emergencies.”
Echoing those sentiments, HSU Union Official Sam Oram told Region Riverina that closing the Cootamundra Hospital lab would put pressure on labs in Wagga and Young and would continue a trend of closing smaller pathology labs. Oram, who organizes for members in Canberra and Murrumbidgee Local Health District, noted that smaller labs in Tumut and Deniliquin could be in danger as well.
“Why should people living in rural and regional areas have fewer and inferior services to Australians living in metropolitan areas?” Michael McCormack, MP, Federal Member for Riverina and former deputy prime minister of Australia, asked Parliament in June, Region Riverinareported. “There’s no right or proper answer to that question. They simply should not,” he added.
Tasmania’s Troubles
Medical scientists recently walked off the job at Launceston General Hospital in Tasmania, Australia, to protest “the government’s ‘inaction’ on recruiting more staff,” according to Pulse Tasmania. The hospital’s lab has a staff shortage of 17 employees, requiring the remaining staff members to handle a much increased workload, Ryan Taylor, a medical laboratory scientist with the Tasmanian Department of Health, told Pulse Tasmania.
“This shortfall is leading to significant and unacceptable challenges … which are causing the Tasmanian community from receiving vital test results that are essential for their health,” Lucas Digney, Industrial Champion, Health and Community Services Union (HACSU) leader, told Pulse Tasmania.
New Zealand Struggles with Its Healthcare Workers
Aotearoa, as New Zealand is known by its indigenous Polynesian population, also struggles with health worker walkouts.
“Medical labs are an essential organ of the health system. Many were stupidly privatized years ago, others still operate within Te Whatu Ora [aka Health New Zealand, the publicly funded healthcare system] with all the resource shortages and stress that go with that,” Newsroom said of the country’s plight in 2023. “There was a view that competition in medical labs would produce greater efficiency, but it has actually produced a mess.”
Dark Daily has covered the ongoing strife in New Zealand’s clinical laboratories over many years. Previous ebriefs highlighted how the strikes were causing delays in critical clinical laboratory blood testing and surgical procedures.
Underfunding in clinical laboratories continues to cause work stoppages in the Australasian countries. But as Dark Daily readers know, it is a growing problem among European nations and in the United States as well.
Research results call into question the safety and dependability of using artificial intelligence in medical diagnosis, a development that should be watched by clinical laboratory scientists
ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot that returns answers to written prompts, has been tested and found wanting by researchers at the University of Florida College of Medicine (UF Health) who looked into how well it could answer typical patient questions on urology. Not good enough according to the researchers who conducted the study.
AI is quickly becoming a powerful new tool in diagnosis and medical research. Some digital pathologists and radiologists use it for data analysis and to speed up diagnostic modality readings. It’s even been said that AI will improve how physicians treat disease. But with all new discoveries there comes controversy, and that’s certainly the case with AI in healthcare.
Many voices in opposition to AI’s use in clinical medicine claim the technology is too new and cannot be trusted with patients’ health. Now, UF Health’s study seems to have confirmed that belief—at least with ChatGPT.
The study revealed that answers ChatGPT provided “fell short of the standard expected of physicians,” according to a UF Health new release, which called ChatGPT’s answers “flawed.”
The questions posed were considered to be common medical questions that patients would ask during a visit to a urologist.
The researchers believes their study is the first of its kind to focus on AI and the urology specialty and which “highlights the risk of asking AI engines for medical information even as they grow in accuracy and conversational ability,” UF Health noted in the news release.
“I am not discouraging people from using chatbots,” said Russell S. Terry, MD (above), an assistant professor in the UF College of Medicine’s department of urology and the study’s senior author, in a UF Health news release. “But don’t treat what you see as the final answer. Chatbots are not a substitute for a doctor.” Pathologists and clinical laboratory managers will want to monitor how developers improve the performance of chatbots and other applications using artificial intelligence. (Photo copyright: University of Florida.)
UF Health ChatGPT Study Details
UF Health’s study featured 13 of the most queried topics from patients to their urologists during office visits. The researchers asked ChatGPT each question three times “since ChatGPT can formulate different answers to identical queries,” they noted in the news release.
The urological conditions the questions covered included:
The researchers then “evaluated the answers based on guidelines produced by the three leading professional groups for urologists in the United States, Canada, and Europe, including the American Urological Association (URA). Five UF Health urologists independently assessed the appropriateness of the chatbot’s answers using standardized methods,” UF Health noted.
Notable was that many of the results were inaccurate. According to UF Health, only 60% of responses were deemed appropriate from the 39 evaluated responses. Outside of those results, the researchers noted in their Urology paper, “[ChatGPT] misinterprets clinical care guidelines, dismisses important contextual information, conceals its sources, and provides inappropriate references.”
When asked, for the most part ChatGPT was not able to accurately provide the sources it referenced for its answers. Apparently, the chatbot was not programmed to provide such sources, the UF Health news release stated.
“It provided sources that were either completely made up or completely irrelevant,” Terry noted in the new release. “Transparency is important so patients can assess what they’re being told.”
Further, “Only 7 (54%) of 13 topics and 21 (54%) of 39 responses met the BD [Brief DISCERN] cut-off score of ≥16 to denote good-quality content,” the researchers wrote in their paper. BD is a validated healthcare information assessment questionnaire that “provides users with a valid and reliable way of assessing the quality of written information on treatment choices for a health problem,” according to the DISCERN website.
ChatGPT often “omitted key details or incorrectly processed their meaning, as it did by not recognizing the importance of pain from scar tissue in Peyronie’s disease. As a result … the AI provided an improper treatment recommendation,” the UF Health study paper noted.
Is Using ChatGPT for Medical Advice Dangerous to Patients?
Terry noted that the chatbot performed better in some areas over others, such as infertility, overactive bladder, and hypogonadism. However, frequently recurring UTIs in women was one topic of questions for which ChatGPT consistently gave incorrect results.
“One of the more dangerous characteristics of chatbots is that they can answer a patient’s inquiry with all the confidence of a veteran physician, even when completely wrong,” UF Health reported.
“In only one of the evaluated responses did the AI note it ‘cannot give medical advice’ … The chatbot recommended consulting with a doctor or medical adviser in only 62% of its responses,” UF Health noted.
For their part, ChatGPT’s developers “tell users the chatbot can provide bad information and warn users after logging in that ChatGPT ‘is not intended to give advice,’” UF Health added.
Future of Chatbots in Healthcare
In UF Health’s Urology paper, the researchers state, “Chatbot models hold great promise, but users should be cautious when interpreting healthcare-related advice from existing AI models. Additional training and modifications are needed before these AI models will be ready for reliable use by patients and providers.”
UF Health conducted its study in February 2023. Thus, the news release points out, results could be different now due to ChatGPT updates. Nevertheless, Terry urges users to get second opinions from their doctors.
“It’s always a good thing when patients take ownership of their healthcare and do research to get information on their own,” he said in the news release. “But just as when you use Google, don’t accept anything at face value without checking with your healthcare provider.”
That’s always good advice. Still, UF Health notes that “While this and other chatbots warn users that the programs are a work in progress, physicians believe some people will undoubtedly still rely on them.” Time will tell whether trusting AI for medical advice turns out well for those patients.
The study reported above is a useful warning to clinical laboratory managers and pathologists that current technologies used in ChatGPT, and similar AI-powered solutions, have not yet achieved the accuracy and reliability of trained medical diagnosticians when answering common questions about different health conditions asked by patients.
This is good news for clinical laboratories that already perform medical testing for telehealth providers and an opportunity for medical labs that do not, it is an opportunity to do so
Telemedicine visits have become commonplace since the arrival of COVID-19. Before the pandemic, telehealth was primarily used to give remote patients access to quality healthcare providers. But three years later both patients and physicians are becoming increasingly comfortable with virtual office visits, especially among Millennial and Gen Z patients and doctors.
Now, a recent study by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) suggests that there could be a significant financial advantage for hospitals that conduct telemedicine. This would be a boon to clinical laboratories that perform medical testing for telemedicine providers.
According to Digital Health News, in July 2017 Penn Medicine launched a 24/7/365 copayment-free telemedicine program for its employees called Penn Medicine OnDemand. To engage with a telemedicine provider, patients must have a smartphone or tablet with a front-facing camera and updated operating system.
Telemedicine Visits Cost Less than In-Office Doctor Appointments
An analysis of the OnDemand program’s data collected from its inception through the end of 2019 found that the telemedicine appointment per-visit cost averaged around $380, whereas the cost of an in-person visit at an emergency department, primary care office, or urgent care clinic averaged around $493.
Typically, Penn Medicine’s employees used the telemedicine program for common, low risk health complaints. Healthcare conditions that many patients might otherwise not seek treatment for if an in-office visit was inconvenient.
“The data we analyzed pre-date the pandemic. It was a time when people were just putting a toe in the water and wondering, ‘Let me see if telemedicine could treat my needs,’” Krisda Chaiyachati MD, an internal medicine physician and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Penn Medicine, told Digital Health News. Chaiyachati lead the research team that conducted the telemedicine study.
“These days, people seem willing to jump in for an appropriate set of conditions,” he added. “The good news is that we made care easier while saving money, and we think the savings could be higher in the future.”
Chaiyachati and his colleagues found that telemedicine can save employers healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of care.
“The conditions most often handled by OnDemand are low acuity—non-urgent or semi-urgent issues like respiratory infections, sinus infections, and allergies—but incredibly common, so any kind of cost reduction can make a huge difference for controlling employee benefit costs,” Krisda Chaiyachati MD (above), a Penn Medicine physician and the study’s lead researcher, told Digital Health News. Clinical laboratories that already perform testing for telemedicine providers may see an increase in test orders once hospitals learn of the costs savings highlighted in the Penn Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Penn Medicine.)
Telemedicine on the Rise
The idea is not new. In late 2018, Planned Parenthood launched the Planned Parenthood Direct mobile app in New York State. The app provides New York patients with access to birth control, emergency contraception, and UTI treatment with no in-person visit required.
The program has since expanded across the country. Users of the app can connect with a physician to go over symptoms/needs, and the be sent a prescription within a business day to the pharmacy of their choice.
The concept is similar to Penn Medicine OnDemand, which gives patients 24/7 year around access to treatment for common and low-acuity medical issues in a convenient, virtual process.
Telemedicine was on the rise in other parts of the healthcare industry before the pandemic. According to “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic” published by Julia Shaver, MD, Kaiser Permanente, in the journal Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 76% of US hospital systems had utilized some form of telemedicine by 2018. This rate grew exponentially while the healthcare system had to navigate a world with COVID-19 on the rise.
And, apparently, quality of care does not suffer when moved from in-person to virtual settings. Two studies conducted by The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) found telemedicine to be effective and that “common concerns about telemedicine don’t hold up to scrutiny,” according a news release.
In her New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the studies, Kathleen Fear, PhD, URMC’s Director of Data Analytics, Health Lab, and her co-authors, wrote: “Three beliefs—that telemedicine will reduce access for the most vulnerable patients; that reimbursement parity will encourage overuse of telemedicine; and that telemedicine is an ineffective way to care for patients—have for years formed the backbone of opposition to the widespread adoption of telemedicine.”
However, URMC’s study found the opposite to be true. The NEJM authors wrote, “there is no support for these three common notions about telemedicine. At URMC, the most vulnerable patients had the highest uptake of telemedicine; not only did they complete a disproportionate share of telemedicine visits, but they also did so with lower no-show and cancellation rates. It is clear that … telemedicine makes medical care more accessible to patients who previously have experienced substantial barriers to care.
“Importantly, this access does not come at the expense of effectiveness. Providers do not order excessive amounts of additional testing to make up for the limitations of virtual visits. Patients do not end up in the ER or the hospital because their needs are not met during a telemedicine visit, and they also do not end up requiring additional in-person follow-up visits to supplement their telemedicine visit,” the NEJM authors concluded.
“Not only did our most vulnerable patients not get left behind—they were among those engaging the most with, and benefiting the most from, telemedicine services. We did not see worse outcomes or increased costs, or patients needing an increased amount of in-person follow up. Nor did we find evidence of overuse. This is good care, and it is equitable care for vulnerable populations,” Fear said in the news release.
“For patients, the message is clear and reassuring: Telemedicine is an effective and efficient way of receiving many kinds of healthcare,” she added.
Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
Dark Daily has covered the fast growing world of telemedicine in many ebriefs over the years.
As telemedicine broadens its reach across the healthcare world, clinical laboratories and pathology groups would be wise to seek collaboration with health plans and providers of telemedicine to figure out where sample collection and testing fits into this new virtual healthcare space.
Sessions at this annual medical laboratory conference demonstrated that lab outreach continues to be a productive clinical and business line at numerous hospitals and IDNs
Sept. 26-Chicago: During the past 24 months, there have been multiple news stories announcing that different hospitals or integrated delivery networks (IDNs) had signed agreements to sell their clinical laboratory outreach businesses to one of the two multi-billion-dollar commercial lab corporations. Some Wall Street analysts have taken these lab outreach acquisitions as a sign that hospitals are struggling to compete in the outreach laboratory marketplace. They predict that the big commercial labs will continue to scoop up hospital laboratory outreach businesses at a brisk pace.
However, this may be an example of popular wisdom not reflecting the true state of the outpatient/outreach market for clinical laboratory testing services. Evidence of the contrary view—that many hospitals and IDNs have flourishing lab outreach programs—was in plain view last week here in the Windy City.
During last week’s “Leveraging the Laboratory” outreach conference in Chicago, produced by Mayo Clinic Laboratories, the individuals pictured above each presented different aspects of success in operating an effective hospital clinical laboratory outreach program. Front row top to bottom they are Henry Givray, Leadership’s Calling; Brianne Newton, Mayo Clinic Laboratories; Nilesh Kachalia, Yuma Medical Center; Trudie Milner, PhD, Yuma Regional Medical Center. And rear row top to bottom: Robert Michel, The Dark Report; Tony Bull, Medical University of South Carolina; Nicholas Rambow, Corewell Health; Jane Hermansen, Mayo Clinic Laboratories; Ellen Dijkman Dulkes, Mayo Clinic Laboratories. (Photo copyright: The Dark Report.)
Optimism was High at Mayo’s Lab Outreach Conference
Throughout the two days of the conference, there was enthusiasm for the viability of hospital laboratory outreach programs. There was also optimism that these local and regional outreach businesses will continue to be profitable and can support better patient care. Had any of the Wall Street analysts been in attendance, they would have heard the other side of the coin about the profitability and viability of hospital laboratory outreach programs—a story documented by the presentations of different hospital and IDNs that operate flourishing lab outreach programs.
“What makes this meeting unique is that it is the longest-running and biggest conference devoted to best practices in hospital and health system laboratory outreach programs,” said Jane Hermansen, Manager, Outreach and Network Development at Mayo Clinic Laboratories. “There are signs that increased integration within multi-hospital health systems requires a common lab test menu with consistent methodologies and reference ranges.
“During the conference, we heard many participants describe one part of their lab testing services to office-based physicians as ‘inreach’ when it involves employed providers of the parent health system,” she continued. “This is evidence that health system administration recognizes the value of a full longitudinal lab test record for their patients—whether from inpatient, inreach, or outreach testing.
“As well, this year’s exceptionally large attendance shows that hospital-based labs across the United States are forging ahead with their lab outreach services in ways that generate many benefits,” Hermansen noted. “The most important is to help physicians deliver better care to patients. At the same time, the added test volumes from a productive hospital laboratory outreach program improves the productivity of the laboratory while generating much needed income that helps that lab’s parent organization.”
Day one of this two-day event featured presentations about successful hospital laboratory outreach programs. Speakers included:
Day two was organized around hands-on workshops that addressed the management, operational, financial, and sales/marketing elements that make up a growing, dynamic hospital laboratory outreach business. Attendees were fully engaged in these sessions as they learned best practices. Innovations and clever approaches to increasing physician and patient satisfaction were shared during peer-to-peer exchanges.
Local Clinical Laboratories Serving their Communities
Hospital laboratories are uniquely positioned to deliver value to the physicians and other providers in the towns and regions they served. The obvious benefit is that the lab, its employees, and its clinical pathologists all live in the community. They have professional relationships that may go back decades with the physicians who order medical laboratory tests for their patients.
These local hospital labs can report many test results on the same day that they get the specimens from the doctors’ offices. Another benefit for those physicians and patients is that when a hospital lab performs all the tests originated in inpatient, outreach, and outpatient settings, it has a full longitudinal record of a patient’s lab test results, which often covers years of testing. This is important when patients show up in specialists’ offices or hospital emergency departments. Physicians in these settings can see all of the patient’s lab test history, and the tests are performed with the same methodology and have the same reference ranges.
Ways to Differentiate Hospital Laboratory Outreach Services
Hospital and health system laboratory outreach programs have multiple ways to differentiate their lab testing services. During his presentation, Tony Bull, System Administrative Officer, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, provided the following list of different benefits that a lab outreach program can offer to local physicians, patients, and consumers:
Ease of access
Patient experience
Couriers
Pricing
Payer contracts
Customer service
Marketing and sales
Physician perception
One point of competitive advantage the speakers emphasized was the outreach laboratory’s access to lab test data. When lab data is combined with patient demographics and other sets of data, an outreach laboratory can develop clinically actionable intelligence that helps physicians and health insurers improve patient care, while lowering the total cost of care. When packaged correctly, these enriched data offerings can generate a new source of revenue for lab outreach programs.
Given the tough finances experienced by health systems and hospitals across the United States in recent years, it’s notable that the attendees at Mayo Clinic Laboratories’ “Leveraging the Laboratory” conference reported positive growth and profitable results from their laboratory outreach programs.
That’s solid evidence that there continues to be an opportunity for pathologists and clinical laboratory leaders of IDNs to ramp up their laboratory outreach businesses to win new client-physicians and produce additional cash flow for their labs.