How to Keep Your Existing LDTs on the Market

How to Keep Your Existing LDTs on the Market

How to Keep Your Existing LDTs on the Market

Labs have some tough decisions to make now that the FDA has issued a final rule giving it authority to regulate LDTs. Labs offering LDTs prior to publication of the final rule on May 6 have three choices: 1) comply with the new FDA regs and keep their LDTs on inhouse test menus; 2) switch to an FDA-cleared test kit (if available); or 3) ignore the FDA regs and risk potential enforcement actions and fines. For expert advice on option 1 from regulatory attorney Christine Bump.

Christine Bump, a regulatory attorney at Penn Avenue Law & Policy (Washington, DC), has been guiding laboratories and test manufacturers through the FDA’s premarket clearance process and post market compliance requirements for 20 years. Below we summarize Bump’s
advice for keeping existing LDTs on the market.

FDA Stage 1 requirements for currently marketed LDTs
Nearly all LDTs, including currently marketed LDTs (prior to May 6, 2024), “unmet need” LDTs performed by “integrated” health systems and NYS CLEP-approved tests, must meet Stage 1 requirements by May 6, 2025.

Stage 1 includes FDA Medical Device Reporting (MDR), which will require laboratories to report adverse events for any LDT that they perform. Under FDA’s regulations, an adverse event is any event that reasonably suggests that a device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, or would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the event happens again. An adverse event report would therefore be required for an incorrect test result that has, may, or could cause such consequences. The incorrect test result could be caused by instrument malfunctions as well as mislabeled or contaminated specimens.

An adverse event report must generally be reported to the FDA within 30 days after the lab became aware of the error. The regulations require specific information be included in the report, and labs will also need to file\ a report that describes what corrective action they took, or if they chose to remove that LDT from their test menu.

An adverse event report could prompt the FDA to ask follow-up questions or schedule an on-site inspection.

The FDA is especially sensitive to incorrect test results that delayed patient treatment or caused
unnecessary treatment (or had the potential to do so).

Stage 1 also requires labs to maintain complaint files for each LDT they offer, including the date the complaint was received; the name, address, and phone number of the complainant; the nature and details of the complaint; any corrective action taken, etc. Specific records and reports
must also be maintained and submitted regarding corrections and removals of tests, including for
repairs, adjustments, relabeling, etc.

FDA Stage 2 requirements for currently marketed LDTs
Once again, Stage 2 requirements apply to nearly all LDTs and become effective May 6, 2026.

Stage 2 requires each laboratory to be registered with the FDA and list all of the LDTs they perform.

Stage 2 also requires labs to submit labeling for each LDT they offer. Labeling includes test performance information and a summary of supporting validation. As part of its review of labeling, the FDA plans to look closely at claims of superior performance and whether those claims are adequately substantiated. This includes any test claims made on a lab’s website, brochures or by sales reps.

Labeling information is typically included as a package insert or affixed to test kit box for FDA-cleared or approved IVD tests. However, since LDTs are not distributed in boxed test kits, it is unclear exactly where the label for an LDT will need to be placed. Labels might be required on the LDT test requisition form, but this hasn’t been confirmed yet. We’re waiting for the FDA to issue more guidance on label requirements.

FDA Stage 3 requirements for currently marketed LDTs

By May 6, 2027, currently marketed as well as “unmet need” LDTs developed and used within “integrated” health systems need to be in compliance with the records requirements of the quality system regulation. These records relate to the device master record, the device history record, and the quality system record. (Note: Complaint file record requirements are already covered under Stage 1.)

The device master records must include information about device specifications, production process specifications, quality assurance procedures and specifications, packaging and labeling specifications, and procedures and methods for installation, maintenance, and servicing.

The device history records must include information about the dates and quantity manufactured, the quantity released for distribution, acceptance records, information to identify each production unit and device identifiers.

Labs must have the required information compiled, documented, and in a records system that is accessible and readily available to FDA investigators during inspections.

FDA On-site Inspections
All registered lab facilities performing LDTs are subject to scheduled on-site inspections by the FDA every two years. FDA inspections are completely different than and are independent of CMS CLIA and CAP inspections. FDA inspectors will be focused on reviewing LDT test records and files. However, the reality is that the FDA already lacks the resources to perform regularly scheduled on-site inspections of existing test kit manufacturers. The agency may have difficulty keeping up with the thousands of new lab facilities that fall under its purview as a result of its final rule. 

March 2024 CLIA Database

March 2024 CLIA Database

March 2024 CLIA Database

Laboratory Economics is offering a database of over 318,000 Clinical Lab Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certified laboratory facilities. The database is freshly updated as of March 31, 2024 and includes more than 8,000 independent labs, 122,000 physician-office labs, 9,000 hospital labs and all other labs. 

Importantly, the database includes all 3,470 new CLIA-certified labs that have been formed so far in 2024, including 231 new moderate/high-complexity labs and 3,239 waived testing labs. 

Metro areas showing the greatest number of new lab formations include New York City (202 labs), Seattle (180 labs), Los Angeles (159 labs), Dallas (122 labs), Miami-Ft. Lauderdale (120 labs), Houston (104 labs), Atlanta (74 labs) and Chicago (62 labs). 

A Must-Have for all vendors selling to medical laboratories!

  • Data is available for all 50 states and Puerto Rico
  • Includes all 7,000+ CAP-accredited labs
  • Find new customers to grow your sales
  • Create targeted lists by location or start date to focus on your best opportunities
  • Identify under served markets for geographic expansion
  • Save time and money by using accurate and up-to-date data

New Lab Formations Continue To Boom

New Lab Formations Continue To Boom

New Lab Formations Continue To Boom

The extraordinary demand for Covid-19 PCR, antigen and antibody testing continues to fuel a record number of new CLIA-certified lab formations, according to the latest CMS data analyzed by Laboratory Economics. More than 7,000 new CLIA lab certificates were issued in the second quarter (April 1-June 30, 2021). The all-time high (12,000+ new CLIA labs) occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020. The boom has created a huge demand for lab workers that had already been in short supply before the pandemic. 

PAMA Reporting Period Delay Is Welcome News For Labs

PAMA Reporting Period Delay Is Welcome News For Labs

PAMA Reporting Period Delay Is Welcome News For Labs

On December 20, President Trump signed into law a spending package that included provisions of The LAB Act. The legislation delays the PAMA
private-payer data reporting schedule by one year, in order to give more time for all labs, especially hospital outreach labs, to gather and report data. The new schedule does not change the data collection period (Jan. 1 to June 30, 2019), but does delay the reporting of that data to CMS until Jan. 1 to March 31, 2021.

The reporting delay comes as a big relief to hospital outreach labs. Even the nation’s more sophisticated hospital outreach labs were planning to devote substantial billing and IT staff to meet the original deadline. The delay should allow more labs to report more complete and accurate payment data.

Furthermore, the delay will give ACLA a fighting chance to get something out of its PAMA lawsuit with CMS, notes lab industry consultant Dennis Weissman. “The original reporting schedule might have rendered the lawsuit moot. Now it has more time to move through the courts,” notes Weissman.

Julie Khani, President of the American Clinical Laboratory Assn., notes that there was broad bipartisan support for The LAB Act in both the House and Senate. In particular, she cites Rep. Scott Peters (D-CA), who introduced the House bill and raised The LAB Act with Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) at a committee mark-up meeting earlier this year.

In addition to the delayed data reporting, The LAB Act directs the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) to conduct a study to review how CMS has implemented the privatepayer-based Clinical Lab Fee Schedule (CLFS) under PAMA. As part of this study, MedPAC is to consider the least disruptive ways for CMS to collect data from labs and the most accurate and representative methods to determine payments rates, including the use of statistical methods for estimating rates that are representative of the whole lab market. MedPAC must report its findings to CMS and Congressional committees no later than 18 months from the enactment of The LAB Act (i.e., by late June 2021).

MedPAC is an independent U.S. federal body comprised of 17 members appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States. MedPAC’s Chair is Francis Crosson, MD, a former executive at the integrated managed care plan Kaiser Permanente. Its Vice Chair is Paul Ginsburg, PhD, a professor of health policy at the University of Southern California.

Of course there is no guarantee that MedPAC’s study recommendations will be favorable or that they will be acted upon by CMS or Congress.

Furthermore, using statistical sampling methods to capture a representative share of all sectors of the lab market (independents, hospital outreach and POLs) may be extremely complicated, notes Laboratory Economics. That’s because provider market share can vary widely for each of the 1,000+ CPT test codes on the CLFS.

Delayed Reporting Guarantees a Fourth Year of Cuts in 2021

The one-year delay in reporting means that CMS will continue to use pricing data from the initial PAMA survey to formulate CLFS rates for 2021. This guarantees rate cuts averaging 10-15% for most high-volume tests next year when the max reduction cap becomes 15%.

As highlighted in the last issue of Laboratory Economics, three straight years of 10% annual rate cuts (2018-2020) have not fully lowered many high-volume lab tests down to the median CLFS rates set by the initial PAMA survey. For example, after three years of the max 10% annual rate reduction, the comprehensive metabolic panel (CPT 80053) will still need another 14% cut next year to reach the median rate determined by the initial PAMA survey.

Any potential benefit from delayed PAMA reporting and the inclusion of more hospital outreach labs won’t occur until 2022.

Swedish Flag