News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel

News, Analysis, Trends, Management Innovations for
Clinical Laboratories and Pathology Groups

Hosted by Robert Michel
Sign In

Looming Government Shutdown Opens Door for Congress to Possibly Pass Clinical Laboratory Bills

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FDA commissioners who support changing oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) say FDA’s regulatory playbook is ‘outdated’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.

The Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development (VALID) Act and Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA) could be added to a year-end spending package that will fund government operations. Without the spending bill, the government will shut down on Dec. 16 and not re-open until funding is appropriated.

The VALID Act proposes to move oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). SALSA seeks to reduce lab test reimbursement cuts scheduled for Jan. 1 under the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA).

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.)

Scott Gottlieb, MD and Mark McClellan, MD

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Scott Gottlieb, MD (left), and Mark McClellan, MD, PhD (right), wrote, “The FDA is currently working from an outdated regulatory playbook that has left gaps in its oversight of safety and effectiveness and makes it more difficult to introduce new innovations.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.

Scott Wallask

Related Information:

H.R.4128 – VALID Act of 2021

S.4449 – Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

Congress Needs to Update FDA’s Ability to Regulate Diagnostic Tests, Cosmetics

US Congress Could Punt Funding Bill into 2023, McConnell Says

VALID and SALSA Acts Still Pending in Congress

Might Valid Act Support Be Waning in Congress?

Presidents of Roche Diagnostics and Mayo Clinic Laboratories Discuss PAMA Reform and Upcoming Deep Cuts to Reimbursement for Common Lab Test

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.

The two healthcare executives are William G. Morice II, MD, PhD, CEO/President, Mayo Clinic Laboratories in Rochester, Minn., and Matt Sause, President of Roche Diagnostics North America in Indianapolis. On January 1, 2023, Sause will become Global CEO of Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland.

They published their article in RealClearPolicy titled, “Medicare Cuts for Diagnostic Tests Would Show the Government Has Taken the Wrong Lessons from COVID-19.”

William G. Morice II, MD, PhD and Matt Sause

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 organizations included the:

“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.”

According to an ACLA fact sheet, SALSA:

  • 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.

Donna Marie Pocius

Related Information:

Medicare Cuts for Diagnostic Tests Would Show the Government Has Taken the Wrong Lessons from COVID-19

H.R.8188: Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

S.4449: Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

NILA Applauds Introduction of the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

AACC Supports Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

Letter from Leading Provider Groups on Passing the Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act

Be a Labvocate: Help Pass SALSA Legislation

Set a Sustainable Path for Patient Access to Laboratory Services, and Keep Our Clinical Laboratory Infrastructure Healthy

Four Regulatory Developments Coming This Fall That Are Relevant for Clinical Laboratory Leaders and Pathology Group Managers

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.

As The Dark Report noted in “Clinical Laboratories Face 20% Increase in CLIA Fees,” opposition to the new nurse qualifications is coming from the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other groups. (If you are not a subscriber to The Dark Report, you can start a free trial by clicking here.)

Seven Characteristics of Potential Telemedicine Fraud That Affect Clinical Laboratories

In July, on the heels of federal prosecutors indicting 13 defendants for alleged genetic testing and telemedicine fraud, the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a warning about telemedicine fraud.

The Special Fraud Alert, “OIG Alerts Practitioners to Exercise Caution When Entering into Arrangements with Purported Telemedicine Companies,” outlines seven “suspect characteristics” of telemedicine that might point to fraudulent Medicare billing.

The characteristics include:

  • “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.

However, a bipartisan bill is before Congress that may change things. The Saving Access to Laboratory Services Act (SALSA) seeks to accomplish three things:

  • Eliminate the scheduled Jan. 1 price cuts.
  • Reduce future payment decreases to the Medicare CLFS under PAMA.
  • Reconfigure how CMS calculates lab test payments for the CLFS.

At last check, the bill was before the Senate Finance Committee. Proponents are hopeful a vote will come before PAMA’s Jan. 1 cuts occur.

The Dark Report explored the SALSA Act in detail in “PAMA Cuts Might Be Reduced to Zero for 2023.”

Changes to LDT Oversight in VALID Act Sidelined for Now

In “Proposed FDA Approval of Laboratory Developed Tests Will Reduce Innovation,” Dark Daily reported on the Verifying Accurate Leading-Edge IVCT Development Act (VALID Act) and why its opponents believe it stifles diagnostic innovation.

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.

Scott Wallask

Related Information:

Clinical Laboratories Face 20% Increase in CLIA Fees

OIG Alerts Practitioners to Exercise Caution when Entering into Arrangements with Purported Telemedicine Companies

PAMA Cuts Might Be Reduced to Zero for 2023

Proposed FDA Approval of Laboratory Developed Tests Will Reduce Innovation

Congress Enacts Clean Reauthorization of FDA User Fees, Leaving Uncertain Future for Important Policy Reforms

;