Switching from non-profit to for-profit may affect how clinical laboratories operate in the new healthcare system
Shifting away from fee-for-service payment models and towards value-based healthcare is the goal of many non-profit hospital systems. One such transformation is underway at Summa Health, one of the largest integrated delivery networks (IDNs) in Ohio. On January 17, venture capital firm General Catalyst announced that its subsidiary—Health Assurance Transformation Corporation (HATCo)—had entered into an agreement to purchase Summa Health.
“HATCo’s investment into Summa Health will drive not only near-term benefit to the organization and the patients it serves but also sustainable, long-term transformation through a true shift to value-based care and access to new revenue streams, resources, innovations, and technologies,” states a General Catalyst news release penned by Marc Harrison, MD, CEO of HATCo.
Harrison was formerly President and CEO of Intermountain Healthcare, a 33 hospital not-for-profit IDN in Salt Lake City, Utah. This is a noteworthy fact because Intermountain Health has a national reputation as an innovative multi-hospital health system. Some observers believe that Harrison’s involvement signals that General Catalyst believes it has a care model that can deliver better patient care in a profitable manner.
“Under its new structure, Summa will become a for-profit organization, and General Catalyst says it will introduce new tech-enabled solutions that aim to make care more accessible and affordable,” CNBCreported.
“This is the first time that anybody has done anything quite like this,” Harrison told CNBC. “There are many digital health solutions that are out there as point solutions. This is the first holistic transformation of a health system to a thoughtful combination of digital and in-person care.”
“Our intent is to build on and augment the system’s considerable strengths. First and foremost, we share Summa Health’s commitment to serving all members of the community,” wrote HATCo CEO Marc Harrison, MD (above), in a news release. “The Summa Health team also shares our belief that achieving healthcare transformation will require a shift to value-based care … Together, we intend to demonstrate that a model that is better for patients can also be good for business, creating a blueprint for other health systems to effectively serve all people in their communities.” How this shift will affect Summa’s clinical laboratories remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: General Catalyst.)
Betting on Healthcare
In 2023, General Catalyst, an American venture capital firm headquartered in Cambridge, Mass., unveiled its Health Assurance Transformation Corporation (HATCo) and began shopping for a health system to buy.
HATCo has 20 healthcare systems in a network that spans 43 states and four countries, according to Healthcare Dive. The company’s news release states it has been focused on three areas since its start-up:
Helping its partners on their “transformation journeys.”
Planning to “acquire and operate a health system for the long-term.”
“The goal of the purchase is for the health system to act as a proving ground for General Catalyst to test ways to improve hospital operations and patient care, without risk aversion or cash shortfalls, management said,” Healthcare Dive reported.
Thus, the firm’s announcement to purchase a health system last October “sent shockwaves through the healthcare industry” according to Healthcare Dive.
“At its core, General Catalyst’s long-term Health Assurance thesis is that value-based care not only is good for patients, but also can be a successful business model if deployed with innovative technology at meaningful scale. Its rationale for buying a health system is a belief that it can improve on the traditional model of not-for-profit health system governance and management by embedding new incentives,” wrote Christopher Kerns, CEO and co-founder of Washington, D.C-based research firm Union Healthcare Insight, in a blog post analysis.
General Catalyst’s HATCo may offer up “a profit motive, a longer time horizon, and a channel for dozens of innovative companies to demonstrate value,” he noted.
“The single biggest barrier to promising young healthcare companies is an inability to scale. Many of their innovations—in digital health, patient engagement, revenue cycle workflow, etc.—require willing health system partners who are famously conservative in their investments and service providers, and rarely take risks on newbies. The addition of Summa provides an open laboratory for those innovations,” Kerns added.
Is the Summa Health Deal Good for Healthcare?
Some in the industry were taken aback by General Catalyst’s announcement.
“A lot of people feel like a PE (private equity) or venture capital company owning a hospital is kind of like asking Freddy Krueger to come babysit your kids. It just makes people a little nervous, and it doesn’t feel quite aligned with this concept of healthcare being a human right,” John Bass, CEO of Hashed Health, a Nashville, Tenn.-based healthcare venture studio, told CNBC.
Nevertheless, it’s a moot point. HATCo is moving forward with its purchase of Summa Health.
“For this bet to work, Summa will have to be a solid proving ground for [General Catalyst’s] portfolio companies. And that means either Summa itself will have to grow, or it will have to act as a force multiplier for its other value-based portfolio companies to justify the considerable capital expended. I have to say, that’s a tall order, but not an insane one,” said Kerns in the Union Healthcare Insight blog post.
Healthcare managers may find it interesting to follow HATCo and Summa Health on their planned journey. The results may speak for themselves. Either way, clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology group practices in HATCo’s health system may be in for some interesting changes.
From ‘new-school’ rules of running a clinical laboratory to pharmacy partnerships to leveraging lab data for diagnostics, key industry executives discussed the new era of clinical laboratory and pathology operations
Opening keynotes at the 28th Annual Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management taking place in New Orleans this week covered three main forces that healthcare and medical laboratory administrators should be preparing to address: new consumer preferences, new care models, and new payment models.
“COVID-19 didn’t change a whole lot of things in one sense, but it accelerated a lot of trends that were already happening in healthcare,” said Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, and Founder of the Executive War College, during his opening keynote address to a packed ballroom of conference attendees. “Healthcare is transforming, and the transformation is far more pervasive than most consumers appreciate.
“Disintermediation, for example, is taking traditional service providers and disrupting them in substantial ways, and if you think about the end of fee-for-service, be looking forward because your labs can be paid for the value you originate that makes a difference in patient care,” Michel added.
Another opportunity for clinical laboratories, according to Michel, is serving Medicare Advantage plans which have soared in enrollment. “Lab leaders should be studying Medicare Advantage for how to integrate Medicare Advantage incentives into their lab strategies,” he said, highlighting the new influence of risk adjustment models which use diagnostic data to predict health condition expenditures.
Opening sessions at this week’s annual Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management, presented by Robert L. Michel (above), Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report, discussed demand for delivering healthcare services—including medical laboratory testing—as consumer preferences evolve, new care models are designed, and as payers seek value over volume. While these three forces may be challenging at the outset, they also create opportunities for clinical laboratories and pathology groups—a focal point of the Executive War College each year. (Photo copyright: The Dark Intelligence Group.)
Medical Laboratories Must Adapt to ‘New-School’ Rules
During his keynote address, Stan Schofield, Vice President and Managing Principal at The Compass Group, noted that while the basic “old-school” rules of successfully running a clinical laboratory have not changed—e.g., adding clients, keeping clients, creating revenue opportunities, getting paid, and reducing expenses—the interpretation of each rule has changed. The Compass Group is a trade federation based in South Carolina that serves not-for-profit healthcare integrated delivery networks (IDNs), including 32 health systems and 600 hospitals.
Schofield advised that when it comes to adding new clients under the “new-school” rules of lab management, clinical laboratory directors must be aware of and adapt to hospital integrations of core labs, clinical integrations across health systems, seamless services, direct contracting with employers in insurance relationships, and direct-to-consumer testing. Keeping clients, Schofield said, involves five elements:
Strong customer service.
A tailored metrics program for quality services based on what is important to a lab’s clients.
Balanced scorecards that look at the business opportunity and value proposition with each client.
Monitoring patients’ experiences and continuous improvement.
Participation in all payer agreements.
As to the problem of commoditization of laboratory goods and services, Schofield said, “Right now, we’re facing the monetization of the laboratory. We’re going to swiftly move from commoditization to monetization to commercialization.”
Pharmacies Enter the Clinical Laboratory Market
In another forward looking keynote address, David Pope, PharmD, CDE, Chief Pharmacy Officer at OmniSYS, XiFin Pharmacy Solutions, discussed the “test to treat” trend which could bring clinical laboratories and pharmacies together in new partnerships.
Diagnostics and pharmacy now intersect, according to Pope. “Pharmacists are on the move, and they are true contender as a new provider for you,” he said. “An area of pharmacy that is dependent upon labs is specialty medications.”
Specialty medicines now account for 55% of prescription spending, up from 28% in 2011, driven by growth in auto-immune and oncology, Pope noted. Other examples include companion diagnostics required for targeted treatments pertaining to all major cancers, and new areas like thalassemia (inherited blood disorders), obesity, next-generation sequencing, and pharmacogenomics, in addition to routine testing such as liver function and complete blood count (CBC).
Federal legislation may soon recognize pharmacists as healthcare providers who will be trained to perform specific clinical services, Pope said. Some states already recognize pharmacists as providers, he noted, explaining that pharmacies need lab data for three primary reasons:
Service—Pharmacies can act as a referral source to clinical laboratories. When referring, pharmacies may need to communicate lab test results to patients or providers to coordinate care.
Value-based care—Pharmacies would draw on data to counsel, prescribe, and coordinate care for chronic disease management, among other services.
Diagnostics and pharmacogenetics—Specialty medication workflows require documented test results within a specific timeframe prior to dispensing.
Another point Pope made: Large pharmacies are seeking lab partners. Labs that can provide rapid turnaround time and good pricing on complex tests provide pharmacies with partnership opportunities.
Using AI to Create Patients’ ‘Digital Twins’ That Help Identify Disease and Improve Care
High-tech healthcare technology underlies many opportunities in the clinical laboratory and pathology market, as evidenced throughout the Executive War College’s 2023 curriculum. An ongoing challenge for labs, however, is how to produce the valuable datasets that all labs have the potential to generate.
“It feels like we’ve come so far,” explained Brad Bostic, CEO of hc1 during his keynote address. “We’ve got the internet. We’ve got the cloud. All of this is amazing, but in reality, we have this massive proliferation of data everywhere and it’s very difficult to know how to actually put that into use. And nobody’s generating more data than clinical laboratories.
“Every single interaction with a patient that generates data gives you this opportunity to create the idea of a ‘digital twin.’ That means that labs are creating a mathematical description of what a person’s state is and using that information to look at how providers can optimally diagnose and treat that person. Ultimately, it is bigger than just one person. It’s hundreds of millions of people that are generating all this data, and many of these people fall into similar cohorts.”
This digital twin opportunity is heavily fueled by medical laboratory testing, Bostic said, adding that labs need to be able to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to:
“I recommend lab leaders sit down with their teams and any outside partners they trust and identify what are their lab’s goals,” Bostic stated. “Think about how this technology can advance a lab’s mission. Look at strategy holistically—everything from internal operations to how patient care is affected.”
Healthcare industry watchdog Group Leapfrog says that if CMS suppresses the data “all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk”
For some time, hospitals and clinical laboratories have struggled with transparency regulation when it comes to patient outcomes, test prices, and costs. So, it is perplexing that while that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) pushes for more transparency in the cost of hospital care and quality, the federal agency also sought to limit public knowledge of 10 types of medical and surgical harm that occurred in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even though the CMS announced in its August 1 final rule (CMS-1771-F) that it was “pausing” its plans to suppress data relating to 10 measures that make up the Patient Safety and Adverse Events Composite (PSI 90), a part of the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, it is valuable for hospital and medical laboratory leaders to understand what the federal agency was seeking to accomplish.
According to USA Today, medical complications at hospitals such as pressure ulcers and falls leading to fractures would be suppressed in reports starting next year. Additionally, CMS “also would halt a program to dock the pay of the worst performers on a list of safety measures, pausing a years-long effort that links hospitals’ skill in preventing such complications to reimbursement,” Kaiser Health News reported.
The proposed rule’s executive summary reads in part, “Due to the impact of the COVID-19 PHE on measure data used in our value-based purchasing (VBP) programs, we are proposing to suppress several measures in the Hospital VBP Program and HAC Reduction Program … If finalized as proposed, for the FY 2023 program year, hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program will not be given a measure score, a Total HAC score, nor will hospitals receive a payment penalty.”
In a fact sheet, CMS noted that its intent in proposing the rule was neither to reward nor penalize providers at a time when they were dealing with the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, new safety protocols for staff and patients, and an unprecedented rise in inpatient cases.
“We want the public to have complete trust in the data and will only be providing data we have determined has a high confidence of credibility and accuracy,” said CMS Chief Medical Officer Lee Fleisher, MD (above), Director of the CMS Center for Clinical Standards and Quality in a statement, Axios reported. Clinical laboratory leaders would find it more difficult to compare the performance of their hospitals against peer hospitals, should this proposed rule take effect as written. (Photo copyright: Lee Fleisher.)
Groups Opposed to the CMS Proposal
Like healthcare costs, quality data need to be accessible to the public, according to a health insurance industry representative. “Cost data, in the absence of quality data, are at best meaningless, and at worst, harmful. We see this limitation on collection and publication of data about these very serious safety issues as a step backward,” Robert Andrews, JD, CEO, Health Transformation Alliance, told Fortune.
The Leapfrog Group, a Washington, DC-based non-profit watchdog organization focused on healthcare quality and safety, urged CMS to reverse the proposal. The organization said on its website that it had collected 270 signatures on letters to CMS.
“Dangerous complications, such as sepsis, kidney harm, deep bedsores, and lung collapse, are largely preventable yet kill 25,000 people a year and harm 94,000,” wrote the Leapfrog Group in a statement. “Data on these complications is not available to the public from any other source. If CMS suppresses this data, all of us will be in the dark on which hospitals put us most at risk.”
Leah Binder, Leapfrog President/CEO, told MedPage Today she is concerned the suppression of public reporting of safety data may continue “indefinitely” because CMS does not want “to make hospitals unhappy with them.”
AHA Voices Support
Meanwhile, the American Hospital Association noted that the CMS “has made this proposal to forgo calculating certain hospital bonuses and penalties due to the impact of the pandemic,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“We agree with CMS that it would be unfair to base hospital incentives and penalties on data that have been skewed by the unprecedented impacts of the pandemic,” said Akin Demehin, AHA Senior Director, Quality and Safety Policy, in a statement to Healthcare Dive.
Though CMS’ plans to limit public knowledge of medical and surgical complications have been put on hold, medical laboratory leaders will want to stay abreast of CMS’ next steps with this final rule. Suppression of hospital harm during a period of increased demand for hospital transparency could trigger a backlash with healthcare consumers.
Though pathology salaries rank 16th among 29 medical specialties, it is in the top 10 among specialties that attract women and respondents say that comes with a lot of paperwork
Despite “hardships” brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, 18,000 physicians in more than 29 medical specialties who participated in Medscape’s 2021 Physician Compensation Report said that, overall, their 2020 income was similar to prior years. Pathologists reported earnings in 2020 of $316,000, $28,000 below the average specialist’s salary of $344,000.
The average pathologist’s salary ranked 16th among medical specialty salaries.
Compared to 2019, medical specialists on average made $2,000 less in 2020. The average salary for primary care doctors was $242,000 in 2020, down $1,000 from 2019, according to a Medscapenews release.
“Physicians experienced a challenging year on numerous fronts, including weathering the volatile financial impact of lockdowns,” said Leslie Kane, Senior Director, Medscape Business of Medicine, in the news release. “Our report shows that many were able to pivot to use telemedicine and focus on tactics that would protect their practices.”
Medscape, a health information provider that is part of the WebMD network, said that in addition to telehealth, doctors turned to MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015) value-based payment reward programs and other strategies to minimize the effects of office closures last year.
“COVID took a terrible emotional toll on physicians and healthcare workers, and many are still struggling financially, but our findings showed that physicians will innovate and change quickly to meet the needs of patients through extremely difficult times,” said Leslie Kane (above), Senior Director, Medscape’s Business of Medicine, in the news release. Pathologists who were at the center of the nation’s COVID-19 pandemic response would likely echo her sentiments. (Photo copyright: Medscape.)
Pathology Salary Unchanged
To complete its study, Medscape asked physicians to take a 10-minute online survey. The reported findings included responses from 17,903 physicians (61% male, 36% female) practicing in more than 29 specialties between October 2020 and February 2021.
Pathologists who participated in the survey reported no change in their annual salary since 2019. Other specialties that reported no salary change include:
Family medicine,
Infectious diseases,
Ophthalmology, and
Orthopedics/orthopedic surgery.
Top 10 Medical Specialty Salaries
Medscape’s report listed these top-10 medical specialties as earning the highest salaries (see the graphic below for the full list of medical specialties surveyed):
Contrary to what many specialists reported, plastic surgeons did not experience slowdowns in appointments during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, not only did plastic surgeons earn the most, at 10% they are the medical specialists who got the biggest increase in pay of previous years as well.
According to the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS), which conducted its own salary survey of its member surgeons, “70% of AAFPRS surgeons report an increase in bookings and treatments over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, with nine in 10 facial plastic surgeons indicating an increase of more than 10%. Surgical procedures are the most common procedures as part of this upsurge, perhaps cancelling out any decreases that might have resulted from the economic crisis and lockdowns.”
Other specialist salaries which Medscape found increased in 2020 include:
Oncology: up 7%
Rheumatology and cardiology: up 5%
Diabetes/endocrinology: up 4%
Neurology, critical care, psychiatry: up 3%
General surgery, urology, public health/preventive medicine: up 2%
Medical specialties that reported reductions in salary included:
Otolaryngology and allergy/immunology: down 9%
Pediatrics and anesthesiology: down 5%
Dermatology: down 4%
Pulmonary medicine, physical medicine, gastroenterology, and radiology: down 3%
Emergency medicine and internal medicine: down 1%
About 92% of physicians surveyed indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic caused their income to decline. Also, 22% of doctors noted they experienced loss of work hours.
Pathologists Received Low Average Bonuses
Reporting on receipt of incentive bonuses, Medscape ranked pathology in the bottom half of its list with $42,000 as an average bonus. The top incentive bonuses went to those practicing:
Orthopedics/orthopedics surgery: $116,000
Ophthalmology: $87,000
Otolaryngology: $72,000
About 59% of primary care physicians and 55% of specialists surveyed reported receiving an incentive bonus.
Pathologists Rank High in Job Satisfaction
In responding to a question about compensation, pathologists ranked near the top (seventh position) with 64% saying they are content with their pay. Others expressing salary satisfaction included:
Oncology: 79%
Psychiatry: 69%
Plastic surgery: 68%
Dermatology: 67%
Public health/preventive medicine: 66%
Radiology: 65%
Pathology: 64%
Pathology Popular Among Women MDs
Medscape found that women MDs chose certain medical specialties more often than others, including pathology, which ranked eighth. The top eight specialties employing female physicians are:
Pediatrics: 61%
Obstetrics/gynecology: 59%
Diabetes/endocrinology: 50%
Family medicine: 47%
Dermatology: 46%
Infectious diseases: 46%
Internal medicine: 44%
Pathology: 43%
Specialties with the fewest female physicians are:
Plastic and general surgery: 20%
Cardiology: 14%
Urology: 11%
Orthopedics/orthopedics surgery: 9%
Pathology a Leader in Paperwork
Medscape also surveyed physicians as to the estimated hours they spend per week on paperwork and administration. Here, pathology ranked the fifth highest with 19%, while radiologists and hospital-based physicians were third from the bottom with 11.6%.
Specialists that reported the highest hours spent on paperwork include:
Amid a trying year, the Medscape survey respondents made an encouraging point: 78% of them said they would choose medicine as a career again. And 85% of pathologists said they would choose the same specialty.
Medscape’s report may be helpful to hospital-based clinical laboratory leaders preparing salary budgets and to pathologists in salary negotiations and determining professional responsibilities.
“Pathologists and medical laboratories may have to demonstrate efficiency and effectiveness to stay in the insurer’s networks and get paid for their services
In recent years, Medicare officials have regularly introduced new care models that include quality metrics for providers involved in a patient’s treatment. Now comes news that a national health insurer is launching an innovative cancer-care model that includes quality metrics for medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups that deliver diagnostic services to patients covered by this program.
Anatomic pathologists and clinical laboratories know that cancer patients engage with many aspects of healthcare. And that, once diagnoses are made, the continuum of cancer care for these patients can be lengthy, uncomfortable, and quite costly. Thus, it will be no surprise that health insurers are looking for ways to lower their costs while also improving the experience and outcomes of care for their customers.
To help coordinate care for cancer patients while simultaneously addressing costs, Humana, Inc., (NYSE:HUM) has started a national Oncology Model-of-Care (OMOC) program for its Medicare Advantage and commercial members who are being treated for cancer, Humana announced in a press release.
What’s important for anatomic pathologists and clinical
laboratories to know is that the program involves collecting performance
metrics from providers and ancillary services, such as clinical laboratory,
pathology, and radiology. These metrics will determine not only if doctors and
ancillary service providers can participate in Humana’s networks, but also if
and how much they get paid.
Anatomic pathologists and medical laboratory leaders will want to study Humana’s OMOC program carefully. It furthers Humana’s adoption of value-based care over a fee-for-service payment system.
How Humana’s OMOC Program Works
According to Modern Healthcare, “Humana will be looking at several measures to determine quality of cancer care at the practices including inpatient admissions, emergency room visits, medications ordered, and education provided to patients on their illness and treatment.”
As Humana initiates the program with the first batch of
oncologists and medical practices across the US, it also will test performance criteria
that anatomic pathologist groups will need to meet to participate in the
insurer’s network and be paid for services.
The insurer’s metrics address access to care, clinical status assessments, and patient education. Physicians can earn rewards for enhancing their patients’ navigation through healthcare, while addressing quality and cost of care, reported Health Payer Intelligence.
“The experience for cancer care is fragmented,” Bryan Loy, MD (above), Corporate Medical Director of Humana’s Oncology, Laboratory, and Personalized Medicine Strategies Group, told Modern Healthcare. Loy is board-certified in anatomic and clinical pathology, as well as hematology. “Humana wants to improve the patient experience and health outcomes for members. We are looking to make sure the care is coordinated.” (Photo copyright: National Lung Cancer Roundtable/American Cancer Society.)
Humana claims its OMOC quality and cost measurements are
effective in the areas of:
inpatient admissions,
emergency room visits,
medical and pharmacy drugs,
laboratory and pathology services, and
radiology.
To help cover reporting and other costs associated with
participation in the OMOC program, Humana is offering physician practices
analytics data and care coordinating payments, notes Modern Healthcare.
“The practices that improve their own performance over a one-year period will see the care coordination fee from Humana increase,” Julie Royalty, Humana’s Director of Oncology and Laboratory Strategies, told Modern Healthcare.
Value-Based Care Programs are Expensive
Due to the cost of collecting data and increasing staff capabilities to meet program parameters, participating in value-based care models can be costly for medical practices, according to Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Darwin Research Group (DRG), which studies emerging payer models.
Some of the inaugural medical practices in the Humana OMOC
include:
Southern Cancer Center, Alabama;
US Oncology Network, Arizona;
Cancer Specialists of North Florida;
Michigan Healthcare Professionals;
University of Cincinnati Physicians Company; and
Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Texas.
Other Payers’ Value-Based Cancer Care Programs
“Depending upon which part of the country you’re in,
alternative payment models in oncology are becoming the norm not the exception,”
noted the DRG study. “Humana is a little late to the party.”
Darwin Research added that Humana may realize benefits from
having observed other insurance company programs, such as:
Humana is not the only payer offering value-based cancer care programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Oncology Care Model is a five-year model (2016 through 2021) involving approximately 175 practices and 10 payers throughout America (see above). The healthcare networks and insurers have made payment arrangements with their patients for chemotherapy episode-of-care services, noted a CMS fact sheet. (Graphic copyright: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.)
Humana’s Other Special Pay Programs
Humana has developed other value-based bundled payment
programs as well. It has episode-based
models that feature open participation for doctors serving Humana Medicare
Advantage members needing:
total hip or knee joint replacement (available
nationwide since 2018); and
spinal fusion surgery (launched in 2019).
Humana also started a maternity episode-of-care bundled
payment program last year for its commercial plan members.
In fact, more than 1,000 providers and Humana value-based
relationships are in effect. They involve more than two-million Medicare
Advantage members and 115,000 commercial members.
Clearly, Humana has embraced value-based care. And, to
participate, anatomic pathology groups and medical laboratories will need to be
efficient and effective in meeting the payer’s performance requirements, while
serving their patients and referring doctors with quality diagnostic services.
