Read on Twitter
This isn't a good idea (& would cause more problems than reducing "late"COVID-19 tests reimbursements IMO).
1. The "punishment" of revoking an EUA. Any large lab has multiple platforms which MIGHT include their own EUA approved test. This would just limit test capacity further. https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1334027877390688256
1. The "punishment" of revoking an EUA. Any large lab has multiple platforms which MIGHT include their own EUA approved test. This would just limit test capacity further. https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1334027877390688256
2. Reference labs, where the greatest slowdowns still exist, fill a necessary testing void for healthcare systems that can't afford their own testing.
Or when their in-house test platforms go down.
We all want sufficient in-house tests. But ref labs help meet bottom lines.
Or when their in-house test platforms go down.
We all want sufficient in-house tests. But ref labs help meet bottom lines.
If labs start rejecting specimens likely to be delayed past, say 72hrs, rural/distal healthcare systems (who rely most on ref labs) would be most affected.
By what metric would you ethically triage which patients or systems' pre-procedure testing you do? https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1334038036322131968?s=20
By what metric would you ethically triage which patients or systems' pre-procedure testing you do? https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1334038036322131968?s=20
3. And disagree that a delayed result is "misleading and dangerous."
I even disagree that it's "useless." It's just less useful.
A test is a snapshot. It's misleading & dangerous if used to justify inappropriate behaviors in the time before & after the result is received.
I even disagree that it's "useless." It's just less useful.
A test is a snapshot. It's misleading & dangerous if used to justify inappropriate behaviors in the time before & after the result is received.
4. Just the complexity of fiddling with the FDA's emergency use authorization process…
EUAs don't take into account collection-to-result time since that is impacted by externalities like specimen transport or staffing.
To "revoke" and "reinstate" an EUA if TAT improves? How?
EUAs don't take into account collection-to-result time since that is impacted by externalities like specimen transport or staffing.
To "revoke" and "reinstate" an EUA if TAT improves? How?
I read the replies and conversation in this thread. I'm not saying anything that other laboratorians aren't pointing out.
But this is an idea where the "fix" would create far more problems than solutions.
But this is an idea where the "fix" would create far more problems than solutions.
A LOT of things have contributed to less-than-ideal COVID turnaround times in this country.
We could've used a nationalized testing strategy, deployment of manufacturing capacity to create supplies (and PPE for that matter!), incentivized manufacturers, streamlined LDTs…
We could've used a nationalized testing strategy, deployment of manufacturing capacity to create supplies (and PPE for that matter!), incentivized manufacturers, streamlined LDTs…
I don't have the best answer to solving turnaround time delays. As a country we're testing more than ever. More hospitals & labs than ever have in-house COVID testing.
Where gaps in supplies, logistics & funding exist, we need to try & fill those gaps. But FYI this isn't how.
Where gaps in supplies, logistics & funding exist, we need to try & fill those gaps. But FYI this isn't how.
