To reduce health care costs and improve population health, accountable care organizations (ACOs) rely heavily on diagnostics. Improvements in the efficiency, cost effectiveness and clinical utility of diagnostic services can go a long way in helping ACOs achieve their goals.
Diagnostics is an area where laboratorians can add immense value, especially during pre- and post-analytical test phases. In this article, our ACO experts explore five areas where labs might make a positive difference.
ACOs are vast. In the case of River Health, where Les Duncan is Vice President for Accountable Care Initiatives, their network includes over 350 health care providers (HCPs) in a 16,000 square-mile area. Within that space, all sorts of different labs operate: hospital, private, commercial, national-level…you name it.
Those labs produce a chorus of data. But the data are often discordant. Labs use different scales, equipment and reference ranges. This means there is little data standardization.
Primary care physicians (PCPs) need to know about this data disharmony. They’re the quarterbacks directing patient care in an ACO. Accurate data must flow to them and inform evidence-based medical decisions for each patient.
Laboratorians can help PCPs understand:
A few of today’s tests are relatively well harmonized, such as glucose, calcium and sodium. But achieving greater data harmony in more areas will be a daunting task, given the variety of tests available and the multiple ways many can be ordered. This makes the role of laboratorians even more important in raising awareness of the issue and assisting PCPs with practical solutions.
Solving the dual problems of over- and underutilization of tests requires lab expertise. A reduction in unnecessary tests and an increase in proper test ordering will help ACOs control costs and improve care.
Multiple opportunities exist for laboratorians to step in and help optimize test ordering. Labs can provide tremendous value in any of the following ways:
Let’s say there are about 50 lab tests that are considered commodities today. Where those tests are performed doesn’t matter so much: the data will be harmonious and therefore actionable.
But what happens when patients in an ACO become really sick and the commodity tests no longer apply? When therapeutic drug monitoring is called for, reference ranges change, testing methodologies differ and the odds of HCPs ordering the wrong tests increase.
Laboratorians can add value by providing consultative services to assist HCPs with complicated test ordering. Genetic testing, for example, is a hot new area of opportunity. For many genetic tests, reference ranges do not yet exist. As a result, there is an enormous need for consultative services with both pre-analytical test ordering and post-analytical data interpretation.
Here’s an example of how a joint effort to optimize genetic test ordering helped improve safety and save money for a hospital, patients and payers. It’s adapted from the experience of Michael Astion, MD, PhD, HTBE, Medical Director for the Department of Laboratories at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
1/3 of tests costing >$700 were ordered incorrectly
11% of those could be cancelled
6% were medical errors
The rest were expensive, bundled tests of questionable quality
Adjudicating test cases
Flagging expensive test orders in EMRs
Collaborating with HCPs to order the correct tests
The PLUGS Program has been very gratifying. It’s a place where patient safety meets cost containment. We no longer pay for costly tests we don’t need. It’s very helpful for the participating labs.
Division Chief of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Professor of Laboratory Medicine
Seattle Children's Hospital
Fast turnaround times (TATs) on lab tests are vitally important to ACOs. Effectively managing wellness requires HCPs to take advantage of every “teachable moment” with patients. Currently, patient adherence to annual wellness visits is low (see Why Success Hinges on Infrastructure). When patients do show up, having lab results on hand makes interactions with HCPs far more productive.
In an ideal world, more labs would be capable of delivering point-of-care testing. Consider these two examples of how point-of-care lab results might improve the patient experience and the likelihood of better outcomes.
If lab results show a patient is at risk for diabetes, clinicians can provide counseling right then and there during the visit. Exhortations to modify one’s lifestyle and diet become more urgent when HCPs can point to dangerously elevated values face-to-face with patients.
If an HCP could finger stick her patient and get the international normalized ratio (INR) within minutes, she could make any necessary dose adjustments on the spot. A preferable scenario to sending the test to the lab, waiting days for the results and calling the patient back later.
Point-of-care testing might also mitigate the risk of HCPs failing to retrieve results of tests they ordered in office or in the hospital. Though our lab leaders cite this as far less of a problem than patient nonadherence, it does occur.
Ultimately, point-of-care testing is an economic decision and an issue of scale. Large hospital systems often have labs on-site that provide a full complement of testing services, delivering point-of-care results within the institution. For smaller practices, however, investing in the necessary personnel, services and machines is not economically viable.
But accelerating TAT is. When labs accelerate their TAT, they increase their value to ACOs.
We’ve come full circle back to the issue of data harmony. The emergence of precision medicine as an approach to care renders harmonization of data more important than ever before.
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) testing provides a prime example. The sensitive BCR-ABL test is used to detect the fusion gene responsible for CML. Oncologists use the results to determine whether or not appropriate therapeutic effect is being achieved and if a medication change is warranted.
Before a new medication can be prescribed, a companion molecular diagnostic is needed to ascertain if the patient will be resistant to the therapy. Resistance testing of this sort can be performed on multiple platforms at multiple labs. Therein lies the danger.
Results from resistance tests performed on different platforms are not equal. In some cases, patients who receive the test in one lab may improve after changing their medication while patients from another lab worsen. This suggests that the testing platform plays a significant role in the accuracy of the resistance results, with direct consequences to care.
As laboratorians, we all need to be cognizant of testing platforms and their impact on precision medicine
Look for opportunities like these in your own lab. When you find them, proactively reach out and lend your expertise to ACOs. Doing so will help you play a valuable role in improving diagnostics to secure positive outcomes for patients, providers and all major players in ACOs.
Laboratory Quality Assurance and Standardization Programs—Lipid Standardization Program
By Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
A comprehensive look at the CDC’s Lipid Standardization Program, which strives to lessen the risk of variable results from labs using different methodologies.
NIH Fact Sheets: Point-of-Care Diagnostic Testing
By National Institute of Health
This fact sheet details technologies and techniques to enable effective point-of-care testing today and in the future.
Companion Diagnostics? For Cancer Care, We Need Better Ones
By Elaine Schattner
This article from Forbes argues the need for more accurate tests in the rapidly growing field of companion diagnostics in cancer care.