Demand for low cost, convenient access to doctors and drugs is driving transformation to decentralized medical care, and retail pharmacy chains see opportunity in offering primary care services
Retail pharmacies and pharmacists continue to play a growing role in healthcare as consumer demand for lower cost and convenience pushes the nation’s medical landscape away from centralized healthcare systems. Clinical laboratories have seen this in the increasing trend of consumers seeking vaccinations and home-health tests at their local drug stores.
Results of a pair of surveys dubbed “Pharmacy Next” conducted by Wolters Kluwer Health revealed that 58% of people are now willing to be treated for non-emergency healthcare conditions in non-traditional medical environments, such as retail pharmacies and clinics.
This is a finding that clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should incorporate into their labs’ strategic planning. It portends a shift in care away from the traditional primary care clinic—typically located in the campus around the community hospital—and toward retail pharmacies. Labs will want to capture the test referrals originating from the primary care clinics located in retail pharmacies.
This willingness to access medical care in non-traditional environments is especially true among people in Generation Y (Millennials) and Generation Z (Zoomers)—people born between 1981-1996 (Gen Y) and 1997-2012 (Gen Z), according to Journey Matters.
“As we saw in last year’s survey, primary care decentralization is continuing—the traditional one doctor-one patient, single point of coordination is vanishing, and this is especially evident in younger generations,” said Peter Bonis, MD, Wolters Kluwer’s Chief Medical Officer, in a press release.
The online surveys of more than 2,000 US adults was weighted by age, gender, household income, and education to be representative of the entire population of the United States.
“By preparing for this shift today, providers can work in concert across care sites to deliver the best care to patients,” said Peter Bonis, MD, Wolters Kluwer Health Chief Medical Officer, in a press release. “Likewise, newer care delivery models, like retail pharmacies and clinics, can ensure they’re ready to meet the expectations of healthcare consumers, who will increasingly be turning to them for a growing range of care needs.” Clinical laboratories may find new revenue opportunities working with the primary care clinics operating within local retail pharmacists and clinicians. (Photo copyright: Wolters Kluwer.)
Key Findings of the Wolters Kluwer Pharmacy Next Studies
Some key insights of the surveys include:
Care is rapidly decentralizing with 58% stating they are likely to visit a local pharmacy for non-emergency medical care.
Younger generations are signaling lasting change within the industry as they are more open to non-traditional styles of care.
61% of respondents envision most primary care services being provided at pharmacies, retail clinics, or pharmacy clinics within the next five years. Of the respondents, 70% of Millennials, 66% of Gen Z, 65% of Gen X, and 43% of Baby Boomers believe this transition will occur.
Consumers are worried about prescription costs and availability.
92% of respondents said physicians and pharmacists should inform patients of generic options.
59% of surveyed consumers have concerns about drug tampering and theft when it involves mail order or subscription prescription services.
One in three respondents believe convenience is more important than credentials in non-emergency situations.
The survey indicates that healthcare consumers across multiple generations are open to a shift in some medical services from doctors to pharmacists. However, there were some notable differences between generations.
Respondents of the Baby Boomer (55%) and Gen X (57%) generations stated they would trust a physician assistant with medication prescriptions, while only 42% of Gen Z and 47% of Millennial respondents felt the same way.
Additionally, Boomers (57%) and Gen X (67%) said they would feel comfortable with a nurse practitioner issuing their prescriptions, while only 44% of Gen Z and 53% of Millennials said they would.
Increased Comfort with Genetic Testing at Pharmacies
The surveys also showed that younger generations are more open to the field of pharmacogenomics, which combines pharmacology and genomics to analyze how an individual’s genetic makeup (aka, heredity) affects the efficacy and reactions to certain drugs. This is a key component of precision medicine.
Overall, 68% of individuals polled believe their individual genomic data could guide prescription decisions, with Millennials (77%) and Gen Z (74%) being the primary believers. Additionally, 88% of respondents stated they see an incentive for health insurers to cover genomic testing, and 72% said they would be open to genetic testing for personalized medical care.
But pharmacists and clinicians should be aware that advancing pharmacogenomics will require addressing privacy concerns. According to the Wolters Kluwer study, 57% of Gen Z and 53% of Millennials have apprehension surrounding genetic testing due to privacy risks, with 35% of Gen X and Boomers holding that same opinion.
Healthcare Staff Shortages, Drug Cost a Concern
Survey respondents are also concerned about pharmacy staff shortages and expenditures when seeking care at a pharmacy. Half of the participants are worried they will receive the wrong medication, half worry about getting the incorrect dosage, and almost half (47%) fear receiving the wrong directions due to overburdened pharmacy employees.
More people in Gen Z (59%) and Millennials (60%) had these concerns compared to Gen X (44%) and Boomers (38%).
Sadly, a distressing 44% of those surveyed admitted to not filling a prescription due to the costs. That number jumps to a staggering 56% among individuals with no health insurance, compared to 42% for insured patients.
“From hospitals to doctors’ offices, from pharmacies to pharma and beyond, healthcare must move to more affordable and accessible primary care models, adopt innovations that help deliver more personalized care, and address persistent safety and cost concerns that consumers have about their medications,” said Bonis in the press release.
Can Pharmacies Deliver Primary Care as Well as Doctor’s Offices?
Pharmacies may be logical setting for at least some non-emergency health services. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 90% of the US population live within five miles of a pharmacy and about 72% of visits to physician’s offices involve the prescribing and monitoring of medication therapies.
“We’re not talking about complicated services. We’re talking low-acuity, very basic care,” said Anita Patel, PharmD, Vice President of Pharmacy Services Development for Walgreens, at the HIMSS conference.
Pharmacies across the country continue to add more healthcare services to their available public offerings. This trend will likely persist into the future as healthcare becomes more expensive, wait times for physician appointments increases, and medical staff shortages rise. Thus, there may be opportunities for clinical laboratories to support pharmacists and doctors working in retail settings.
Radboud University researchers fear oncology, molecular biology, pharmacology, and other cell-centric medical research efforts are at risk due to verification that at least 30,000 studies published in 33,000 scientific journals included data derived from misidentified or contaminated cell lines
Many research findings that underpin the science behind various diagnostic technologies used regularly by clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may not be valid. This is because a large number of published studies may have used misidentified or contaminated cell lines.
Biomedical scientists have known for a long time that many research papers exist containing reports on the wrong cells due to cell line misidentification. And yet, few studies have measured the true scope of the problem. Until now. Researchers at Radboud University in the Netherlands have determined that this problem may have influenced the findings of thousands of published research studies and upon which many other research studies were conducted.
Because clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups use assays and diagnostic tests that are developed as a result of these research studies, identifying how many published papers have inaccurate findings that cannot be duplicated would affect how and when it is appropriate for physicians to order certain medical laboratory tests and rely on the results.
Additionally, cancer research is based on cell line studies as well. Thus, it may prove necessary to restudy existing published findings and revise them as appropriate. In turn, these new findings might change how and when some cancer tests are ordered and the results interpreted.
“We considered a reference to this original article as a good proxy for the usage of a cell line,” the researchers noted in their study published in the journal PLOS ONE. “Since typically the original papers are focused on reporting the establishment of the cell line only.”
They focused on misidentified cell lines that were caused by HeLa cells, also known as “immortalized cells.” HeLa cells have been used in scientific research for decades. They were the first mass-producible cells that could be used in vitro, making them highly desirable for biomedical research.
However, the process of creating immortalized cells involves mutation, during which contamination can be introduced by other cells. Immortalized cells can be identified as one type of cell when in fact they are actually another type of cell.
Research scientists have been aware of this problem for about as long as immortalized cells have been in use. They attempt to take it into account when completing their analyses, though not always successfully.
The Radboud researchers found 32,655 records of primary literature based on contaminated cell lines. They then cross-referenced the ICLAC Register of Misidentified Cell Lines with a range of databases to determine if articles were available for each of the 451 cell lines listed on Table One of the ICLAC Register.
With this information, they further researched published articles in the Web of Science database using cell line identifiers. They noted both primary literature and any citation report entries for each cell line.
The researchers noted in their published study, “As we only searched for cell lines known to be misidentified, this constitutes a conservative estimate of the scale of contamination in the primary literature. Moreover, to avoid false positives, we excluded several cell lines, such as the ones with non-unique identifiers or the cell lines for which verified stock is still in circulation.”
Their estimate for secondary contaminated literature based off primary articles is larger still. “In total, we can conservatively estimate the citations to the primary contaminated primary literature at over 500,000, excluding self-citations,” the authors noted in their PLOS ONE article. “Thereby leaving traces in a substantial share of the biomedical literature.” They concluded, “… the amount of research potentially building on false grounds remains worrisome.”
Impact of Contaminated Cell Lines on Research, Clinical Laboratory Communities
Many of the assays and diagnostic tests performed by clinical laboratories and pathology groups were developed using cell line research. Should further scrutiny into the ability to duplicate and verify study findings fail to produce positive outcomes, it might call into question the validity and appropriate use of these tests.
For the research community, these findings represent yet another call to promote accountability and define standards for verifying authenticity of cell lines to further strengthen research findings.
The Radboud researchers ranked the number of contaminated articles they discovered by research area. Top affected areas include:
Oncology
Molecular Biology
Pharmacology
Cell Biology
Immunology
The distribution of contaminated primary literature over the research areas as defined by Web of Science. Only the 25 most affected research areas are included. (Graphic copyright: PLOS ONE.)
Addressing the Problem of Cell Line Contamination and Misidentification
Adapting the ever-growing body of published medical literature to reflect the known misidentifications, as well as the possibility of invalid results, will be a major undertaking. Ultimately, resolving this problem could require changes to practices and procedures currently used by research facilities and medical laboratories.
While the cost to authenticate cell lines adds to the bottom line of research projects, the money spent on research that becomes invalidated by misidentified cell lines is far greater.
In a 2015 Retraction Watch article, Leonard P. Freeman, PhD, President, Global Biological Standards Institute, notes, “An NIH RePORT search identified 9,000 active projects using cell lines, totaling $3.7 billion. Required use of authentication techniques would affect over $900 million in research dollars annually.”
Additionally, failure to adapt authentication as a part of standard operations brings other consequences. “A 2004 survey reported that just one-third of laboratories authenticate their cell lines,” Freeman noted. “10 years later, a Sigma-Aldrich survey found that only 37% of respondents ‘validate the purity and identity before first use’ of cell lines. Understanding the existing barriers that prevent implementation of universal cell authentication is central to changing this sad state of affairs.”
Mixed Recommendations for Fixing Inaccurate Published Studies
Of course, none of this will change the vast body of archived literature that might contain errors due to misidentification. Recommendations for addressing this aspect of the problem vary. The Radboud study authors suggest posting notes on any previously published articles stating that misidentified cell lines were used.
However, in a STAT article, Ivan Oransky, MD, and Adam Marcus, Managing Editor, Gastroenterology and Endoscopy News, co-founders of Retraction Watch, recommend more severe measures. “When we polled readers of Retraction Watch last December about the issue, 55% said journals should correct papers known to describe contaminated or misidentified cell lines, and more than 40% said retraction was the right choice.”
Thanks to the Radboud study, as cell lines continue to power the innovations of modern biomedical research, concerns will surely increase surrounding cell-line authentication and research findings. For pathology groups and medical laboratories, staying abreast of these developments will work to ensure data validity and reduce reputation and liability concerns.
