Rachana Pradhan, Kaiser Health News

The federal government is reconsidering a decision that breast cancer patients, plastic surgeons, and members of Congress have protested would limit women’s options for reconstructive surgery.

On June 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plans to reexamine how doctors are paid for a type of breast reconstruction known as DIEP flap, in which skin, fat, and blood vessels are harvested from a woman’s abdomen to create a new breast.

The procedure offers potential advantages over implants and operations that take muscle from the abdomen. But it’s also more expensive. If patients go outside an insurance network for the operation, it can cost more than $50,000. And, if insurers pay significantly less for the surgery as a result of the government’s decision, some in-network surgeons would stop offering it, a plastic surgeons group has argued.

The DIEP flap controversy, spotlighted by CBS News in January, illustrates arcane and indirect ways the federal government can influence which medical options are available – even to people with private insurance. Often, the answers come down to billing codes – which identify specific medical services on forms doctors submit for reimbursement – and the competing pleas of groups whose interests are riding on them.

Medical coding is the backbone for “how business gets done in medicine,” said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, a physician at Washington University in St. Louis who researches health economics and policy.

CMS, the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid, maintains a list of codes representing thousands of medical services and products. It regularly evaluates whether to add codes or revise or remove existing ones. In 2022, it decided to eliminate a code that has enabled doctors to collect much more money for DIEP flap operations than for simpler types of breast reconstruction.

In 2006, CMS established an “S” code – S2068 – for what was then a relatively new procedure: breast reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP flap). S codes temporarily fill gaps in a parallel system of billing codes known as CPT codes, which are maintained by the American Medical Association.

Codes don’t dictate the amounts private insurers pay for medical services; those reimbursements are generally worked out between insurance companies and medical providers. However, using the narrowly targeted S code, doctors and hospitals have been able to distinguish DIEP flap surgeries, which require complex microsurgical skills, from other forms of breast reconstruction that take less time to perform and generally yield lower insurance reimbursements.

CMS announced in 2022 that it planned to eliminate the S code at the end of 2024 – a move some doctors say would slash the amount surgeons are paid. (To be precise, CMS announced it would eliminate a series of three S codes for similar procedures, but some of the more outspoken critics have focused on one of them, S2068.) The agency’s decision is already changing the landscape of reconstructive surgery and creating anxiety for breast cancer patients.

Kate Getz, a single mother in Morton, Ill., learned she had cancer in January at age 30. As she grappled with her diagnosis, it was overwhelming to think about what her body would look like over the long term. She pictured herself getting married one day and wondered “how on earth I would be able to wear a wedding dress with only having one breast left,” she said.

She thought a DIEP flap was her best option and worried about having to undergo repeated surgeries if she got implants instead. Implants generally need to be replaced every 10 years or so. But after she spent more than a month trying to get answers about how her DIEP flap surgery would be covered, Ms. Getz’s insurer, Cigna, informed her it would use a lower-paying CPT code to reimburse her physician, Ms. Getz said. As far as she could see, that would have made it impossible for Ms. Getz to obtain the surgery.

Paying out of pocket was “not even an option.”

“I’m a single mom. We get by, right? But I’m not, not wealthy by any means,” she said.

Cost is not necessarily the only hurdle patients seeking DIEP flaps must overcome. Citing the complexity of the procedure, Ms. Getz said, a local plastic surgeon told her it would be difficult for him to perform. She ended up traveling from Illinois to Texas for the surgery.

The government’s plan to eliminate the three S codes was driven by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a major lobbying organization for health insurance companies. In 2021, the group asked CMS to discontinue the codes, arguing that they were no longer needed because the AMA had updated a CPT code to explicitly include DIEP flap surgery and the related operations, according to a CMS document.

For years, the AMA advised doctors that the CPT code was appropriate for DIEP flap procedures. But after the government’s decision, at least two major insurance companies told doctors they would no longer reimburse them under the higher-paying codes, prompting a backlash.

Physicians and advocacy groups for breast cancer patients, such as the nonprofit organization Susan G. Komen, have argued that many plastic surgeons would stop providing DIEP flap procedures for women with private insurance because they wouldn’t get paid enough.

Lawmakers from both parties have asked the agency to keep the S code, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who have had breast cancer, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

CMS at its June 1 meeting will consider whether to keep the three S codes or delay their expiration.

In a May 30 statement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association spokesperson Kelly Parsons reiterated the organization’s view that “there is no longer a need to keep the S codes.”

In a profit-driven health care system, there’s a tug of war over reimbursements between providers and insurance companies, often at the expense of patients, said Dr. Joynt Maddox.

“We’re in this sort of constant battle” between hospital chains and insurance companies “about who’s going to wield more power at the bargaining table,” Dr. Joynt Maddox said. “And the clinical piece of that often gets lost, because it’s not often the clinical benefit and the clinical priority and the patient centeredness that’s at the middle of these conversations.”

Elisabeth Potter, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in DIEP flap surgeries, decided to perform Ms. Getz’s surgery at whatever price Cigna would pay.

According to Fair Health, a nonprofit that provides information on health care costs, in Austin, Tex. – where Dr. Potter is based – an insurer might pay an in-network doctor $9,323 for the surgery when it’s billed using the CPT code and $18,037 under the S code. Those amounts are not averages; rather, Fair Health estimated that 80% of payment rates are lower than or equal to those amounts.

Dr. Potter said her Cigna reimbursement “is significantly lower.”

Weeks before her May surgery, Ms. Getz received big news – Cigna had reversed itself and would cover her surgery under the S code. It “felt like a real victory,” she said.

But she still fears for other patients.

“I’m still asking these companies to do right by women,” Ms. Getz said. “I’m still asking them to provide the procedures we need to reimburse them at rates where women have access to them regardless of their wealth.”

In a statement, Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the insurer remains “committed to ensuring that our customers have affordable coverage and access to the full range of breast reconstruction procedures and to quality surgeons who perform these complex surgeries.”

Medical costs that health insurers cover generally are passed along to consumers in the form of premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

For any type of breast reconstruction, there are benefits, risks, and trade-offs. A 2018 paper published in JAMA Surgery found that women who underwent DIEP flap surgery had higher odds of developing “reoperative complications” within 2 years than those who received artificial implants. However, DIEP flaps had lower odds of infection than implants.

Implants carry risks of additional surgery, pain, rupture, and even an uncommon type of immune system cancer.

Other flap procedures that take muscle from the abdomen can leave women with weakened abdominal walls and increase their risk of developing a hernia.

Academic research shows that insurance reimbursement affects which women can access DIEP flap breast reconstruction, creating a two-tiered system for private health insurance versus government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance generally pays physicians more than government coverage, and Medicare doesn’t use S codes.

Lynn Damitz, a physician and board vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the group supports continuing the S code temporarily or indefinitely. If reimbursements drop, some doctors won’t perform DIEP flaps anymore.

A study published in February found that, of patients who used their own tissue for breast reconstruction, privately insured patients were more likely than publicly insured patients to receive DIEP flap reconstruction.

To Dr. Potter, that shows what will happen if private insurance payments plummet. “If you’re a Medicare provider and you’re not paid to do DIEP flaps, you never tell a patient that it’s an option. You won’t perform it,” Dr. Potter said. “If you take private insurance and all of a sudden your reimbursement rate is cut from $15,000 down to $3,500, you’re not going to do that surgery. And I’m not saying that that’s the right thing to do, but that’s what happens.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The federal government is reconsidering a decision that breast cancer patients, plastic surgeons, and members of Congress have protested would limit women’s options for reconstructive surgery.

On June 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plans to reexamine how doctors are paid for a type of breast reconstruction known as DIEP flap, in which skin, fat, and blood vessels are harvested from a woman’s abdomen to create a new breast.

The procedure offers potential advantages over implants and operations that take muscle from the abdomen. But it’s also more expensive. If patients go outside an insurance network for the operation, it can cost more than $50,000. And, if insurers pay significantly less for the surgery as a result of the government’s decision, some in-network surgeons would stop offering it, a plastic surgeons group has argued.

The DIEP flap controversy, spotlighted by CBS News in January, illustrates arcane and indirect ways the federal government can influence which medical options are available – even to people with private insurance. Often, the answers come down to billing codes – which identify specific medical services on forms doctors submit for reimbursement – and the competing pleas of groups whose interests are riding on them.

Medical coding is the backbone for “how business gets done in medicine,” said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, a physician at Washington University in St. Louis who researches health economics and policy.

CMS, the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid, maintains a list of codes representing thousands of medical services and products. It regularly evaluates whether to add codes or revise or remove existing ones. In 2022, it decided to eliminate a code that has enabled doctors to collect much more money for DIEP flap operations than for simpler types of breast reconstruction.

In 2006, CMS established an “S” code – S2068 – for what was then a relatively new procedure: breast reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP flap). S codes temporarily fill gaps in a parallel system of billing codes known as CPT codes, which are maintained by the American Medical Association.

Codes don’t dictate the amounts private insurers pay for medical services; those reimbursements are generally worked out between insurance companies and medical providers. However, using the narrowly targeted S code, doctors and hospitals have been able to distinguish DIEP flap surgeries, which require complex microsurgical skills, from other forms of breast reconstruction that take less time to perform and generally yield lower insurance reimbursements.

CMS announced in 2022 that it planned to eliminate the S code at the end of 2024 – a move some doctors say would slash the amount surgeons are paid. (To be precise, CMS announced it would eliminate a series of three S codes for similar procedures, but some of the more outspoken critics have focused on one of them, S2068.) The agency’s decision is already changing the landscape of reconstructive surgery and creating anxiety for breast cancer patients.

Kate Getz, a single mother in Morton, Ill., learned she had cancer in January at age 30. As she grappled with her diagnosis, it was overwhelming to think about what her body would look like over the long term. She pictured herself getting married one day and wondered “how on earth I would be able to wear a wedding dress with only having one breast left,” she said.

She thought a DIEP flap was her best option and worried about having to undergo repeated surgeries if she got implants instead. Implants generally need to be replaced every 10 years or so. But after she spent more than a month trying to get answers about how her DIEP flap surgery would be covered, Ms. Getz’s insurer, Cigna, informed her it would use a lower-paying CPT code to reimburse her physician, Ms. Getz said. As far as she could see, that would have made it impossible for Ms. Getz to obtain the surgery.

Paying out of pocket was “not even an option.”

“I’m a single mom. We get by, right? But I’m not, not wealthy by any means,” she said.

Cost is not necessarily the only hurdle patients seeking DIEP flaps must overcome. Citing the complexity of the procedure, Ms. Getz said, a local plastic surgeon told her it would be difficult for him to perform. She ended up traveling from Illinois to Texas for the surgery.

The government’s plan to eliminate the three S codes was driven by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a major lobbying organization for health insurance companies. In 2021, the group asked CMS to discontinue the codes, arguing that they were no longer needed because the AMA had updated a CPT code to explicitly include DIEP flap surgery and the related operations, according to a CMS document.

For years, the AMA advised doctors that the CPT code was appropriate for DIEP flap procedures. But after the government’s decision, at least two major insurance companies told doctors they would no longer reimburse them under the higher-paying codes, prompting a backlash.

Physicians and advocacy groups for breast cancer patients, such as the nonprofit organization Susan G. Komen, have argued that many plastic surgeons would stop providing DIEP flap procedures for women with private insurance because they wouldn’t get paid enough.

Lawmakers from both parties have asked the agency to keep the S code, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who have had breast cancer, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

CMS at its June 1 meeting will consider whether to keep the three S codes or delay their expiration.

In a May 30 statement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association spokesperson Kelly Parsons reiterated the organization’s view that “there is no longer a need to keep the S codes.”

In a profit-driven health care system, there’s a tug of war over reimbursements between providers and insurance companies, often at the expense of patients, said Dr. Joynt Maddox.

“We’re in this sort of constant battle” between hospital chains and insurance companies “about who’s going to wield more power at the bargaining table,” Dr. Joynt Maddox said. “And the clinical piece of that often gets lost, because it’s not often the clinical benefit and the clinical priority and the patient centeredness that’s at the middle of these conversations.”

Elisabeth Potter, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in DIEP flap surgeries, decided to perform Ms. Getz’s surgery at whatever price Cigna would pay.

According to Fair Health, a nonprofit that provides information on health care costs, in Austin, Tex. – where Dr. Potter is based – an insurer might pay an in-network doctor $9,323 for the surgery when it’s billed using the CPT code and $18,037 under the S code. Those amounts are not averages; rather, Fair Health estimated that 80% of payment rates are lower than or equal to those amounts.

Dr. Potter said her Cigna reimbursement “is significantly lower.”

Weeks before her May surgery, Ms. Getz received big news – Cigna had reversed itself and would cover her surgery under the S code. It “felt like a real victory,” she said.

But she still fears for other patients.

“I’m still asking these companies to do right by women,” Ms. Getz said. “I’m still asking them to provide the procedures we need to reimburse them at rates where women have access to them regardless of their wealth.”

In a statement, Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the insurer remains “committed to ensuring that our customers have affordable coverage and access to the full range of breast reconstruction procedures and to quality surgeons who perform these complex surgeries.”

Medical costs that health insurers cover generally are passed along to consumers in the form of premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

For any type of breast reconstruction, there are benefits, risks, and trade-offs. A 2018 paper published in JAMA Surgery found that women who underwent DIEP flap surgery had higher odds of developing “reoperative complications” within 2 years than those who received artificial implants. However, DIEP flaps had lower odds of infection than implants.

Implants carry risks of additional surgery, pain, rupture, and even an uncommon type of immune system cancer.

Other flap procedures that take muscle from the abdomen can leave women with weakened abdominal walls and increase their risk of developing a hernia.

Academic research shows that insurance reimbursement affects which women can access DIEP flap breast reconstruction, creating a two-tiered system for private health insurance versus government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance generally pays physicians more than government coverage, and Medicare doesn’t use S codes.

Lynn Damitz, a physician and board vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the group supports continuing the S code temporarily or indefinitely. If reimbursements drop, some doctors won’t perform DIEP flaps anymore.

A study published in February found that, of patients who used their own tissue for breast reconstruction, privately insured patients were more likely than publicly insured patients to receive DIEP flap reconstruction.

To Dr. Potter, that shows what will happen if private insurance payments plummet. “If you’re a Medicare provider and you’re not paid to do DIEP flaps, you never tell a patient that it’s an option. You won’t perform it,” Dr. Potter said. “If you take private insurance and all of a sudden your reimbursement rate is cut from $15,000 down to $3,500, you’re not going to do that surgery. And I’m not saying that that’s the right thing to do, but that’s what happens.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

The federal government is reconsidering a decision that breast cancer patients, plastic surgeons, and members of Congress have protested would limit women’s options for reconstructive surgery.

On June 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plans to reexamine how doctors are paid for a type of breast reconstruction known as DIEP flap, in which skin, fat, and blood vessels are harvested from a woman’s abdomen to create a new breast.

The procedure offers potential advantages over implants and operations that take muscle from the abdomen. But it’s also more expensive. If patients go outside an insurance network for the operation, it can cost more than $50,000. And, if insurers pay significantly less for the surgery as a result of the government’s decision, some in-network surgeons would stop offering it, a plastic surgeons group has argued.

The DIEP flap controversy, spotlighted by CBS News in January, illustrates arcane and indirect ways the federal government can influence which medical options are available – even to people with private insurance. Often, the answers come down to billing codes – which identify specific medical services on forms doctors submit for reimbursement – and the competing pleas of groups whose interests are riding on them.

Medical coding is the backbone for “how business gets done in medicine,” said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, a physician at Washington University in St. Louis who researches health economics and policy.

CMS, the agency overseeing Medicare and Medicaid, maintains a list of codes representing thousands of medical services and products. It regularly evaluates whether to add codes or revise or remove existing ones. In 2022, it decided to eliminate a code that has enabled doctors to collect much more money for DIEP flap operations than for simpler types of breast reconstruction.

In 2006, CMS established an “S” code – S2068 – for what was then a relatively new procedure: breast reconstructions with deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (DIEP flap). S codes temporarily fill gaps in a parallel system of billing codes known as CPT codes, which are maintained by the American Medical Association.

Codes don’t dictate the amounts private insurers pay for medical services; those reimbursements are generally worked out between insurance companies and medical providers. However, using the narrowly targeted S code, doctors and hospitals have been able to distinguish DIEP flap surgeries, which require complex microsurgical skills, from other forms of breast reconstruction that take less time to perform and generally yield lower insurance reimbursements.

CMS announced in 2022 that it planned to eliminate the S code at the end of 2024 – a move some doctors say would slash the amount surgeons are paid. (To be precise, CMS announced it would eliminate a series of three S codes for similar procedures, but some of the more outspoken critics have focused on one of them, S2068.) The agency’s decision is already changing the landscape of reconstructive surgery and creating anxiety for breast cancer patients.

Kate Getz, a single mother in Morton, Ill., learned she had cancer in January at age 30. As she grappled with her diagnosis, it was overwhelming to think about what her body would look like over the long term. She pictured herself getting married one day and wondered “how on earth I would be able to wear a wedding dress with only having one breast left,” she said.

She thought a DIEP flap was her best option and worried about having to undergo repeated surgeries if she got implants instead. Implants generally need to be replaced every 10 years or so. But after she spent more than a month trying to get answers about how her DIEP flap surgery would be covered, Ms. Getz’s insurer, Cigna, informed her it would use a lower-paying CPT code to reimburse her physician, Ms. Getz said. As far as she could see, that would have made it impossible for Ms. Getz to obtain the surgery.

Paying out of pocket was “not even an option.”

“I’m a single mom. We get by, right? But I’m not, not wealthy by any means,” she said.

Cost is not necessarily the only hurdle patients seeking DIEP flaps must overcome. Citing the complexity of the procedure, Ms. Getz said, a local plastic surgeon told her it would be difficult for him to perform. She ended up traveling from Illinois to Texas for the surgery.

The government’s plan to eliminate the three S codes was driven by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, a major lobbying organization for health insurance companies. In 2021, the group asked CMS to discontinue the codes, arguing that they were no longer needed because the AMA had updated a CPT code to explicitly include DIEP flap surgery and the related operations, according to a CMS document.

For years, the AMA advised doctors that the CPT code was appropriate for DIEP flap procedures. But after the government’s decision, at least two major insurance companies told doctors they would no longer reimburse them under the higher-paying codes, prompting a backlash.

Physicians and advocacy groups for breast cancer patients, such as the nonprofit organization Susan G. Komen, have argued that many plastic surgeons would stop providing DIEP flap procedures for women with private insurance because they wouldn’t get paid enough.

Lawmakers from both parties have asked the agency to keep the S code, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who have had breast cancer, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

CMS at its June 1 meeting will consider whether to keep the three S codes or delay their expiration.

In a May 30 statement, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association spokesperson Kelly Parsons reiterated the organization’s view that “there is no longer a need to keep the S codes.”

In a profit-driven health care system, there’s a tug of war over reimbursements between providers and insurance companies, often at the expense of patients, said Dr. Joynt Maddox.

“We’re in this sort of constant battle” between hospital chains and insurance companies “about who’s going to wield more power at the bargaining table,” Dr. Joynt Maddox said. “And the clinical piece of that often gets lost, because it’s not often the clinical benefit and the clinical priority and the patient centeredness that’s at the middle of these conversations.”

Elisabeth Potter, MD, a plastic surgeon who specializes in DIEP flap surgeries, decided to perform Ms. Getz’s surgery at whatever price Cigna would pay.

According to Fair Health, a nonprofit that provides information on health care costs, in Austin, Tex. – where Dr. Potter is based – an insurer might pay an in-network doctor $9,323 for the surgery when it’s billed using the CPT code and $18,037 under the S code. Those amounts are not averages; rather, Fair Health estimated that 80% of payment rates are lower than or equal to those amounts.

Dr. Potter said her Cigna reimbursement “is significantly lower.”

Weeks before her May surgery, Ms. Getz received big news – Cigna had reversed itself and would cover her surgery under the S code. It “felt like a real victory,” she said.

But she still fears for other patients.

“I’m still asking these companies to do right by women,” Ms. Getz said. “I’m still asking them to provide the procedures we need to reimburse them at rates where women have access to them regardless of their wealth.”

In a statement, Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the insurer remains “committed to ensuring that our customers have affordable coverage and access to the full range of breast reconstruction procedures and to quality surgeons who perform these complex surgeries.”

Medical costs that health insurers cover generally are passed along to consumers in the form of premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses.

For any type of breast reconstruction, there are benefits, risks, and trade-offs. A 2018 paper published in JAMA Surgery found that women who underwent DIEP flap surgery had higher odds of developing “reoperative complications” within 2 years than those who received artificial implants. However, DIEP flaps had lower odds of infection than implants.

Implants carry risks of additional surgery, pain, rupture, and even an uncommon type of immune system cancer.

Other flap procedures that take muscle from the abdomen can leave women with weakened abdominal walls and increase their risk of developing a hernia.

Academic research shows that insurance reimbursement affects which women can access DIEP flap breast reconstruction, creating a two-tiered system for private health insurance versus government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Private insurance generally pays physicians more than government coverage, and Medicare doesn’t use S codes.

Lynn Damitz, a physician and board vice president of health policy and advocacy for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said the group supports continuing the S code temporarily or indefinitely. If reimbursements drop, some doctors won’t perform DIEP flaps anymore.

A study published in February found that, of patients who used their own tissue for breast reconstruction, privately insured patients were more likely than publicly insured patients to receive DIEP flap reconstruction.

To Dr. Potter, that shows what will happen if private insurance payments plummet. “If you’re a Medicare provider and you’re not paid to do DIEP flaps, you never tell a patient that it’s an option. You won’t perform it,” Dr. Potter said. “If you take private insurance and all of a sudden your reimbursement rate is cut from $15,000 down to $3,500, you’re not going to do that surgery. And I’m not saying that that’s the right thing to do, but that’s what happens.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.

Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.

The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.

A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.

Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.

Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.

During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
 

Too little too late

The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.

The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.

The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.

Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.

“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.

The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.

In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.

“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.

Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”

While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.

“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
 

Waiting And wondering

Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.

“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.

In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.

“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”

Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.

Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.

In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.

“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.

In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.

Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.

Would she push to get a test?

“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”

KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.

Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.

The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.

A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.

Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.

Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.

During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
 

Too little too late

The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.

The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.

The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.

Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.

“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.

The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.

In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.

“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.

Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”

While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.

“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
 

Waiting And wondering

Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.

“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.

In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.

“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”

Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.

Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.

In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.

“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.

In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.

Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.

Would she push to get a test?

“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”

KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

As the novel coronavirus snaked its way across the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early February distributed 200 test kits it had produced to more than 100 public health labs run by states and counties nationwide.

Each kit contained material to test a mere 300-400 patients. And labs, whether serving the population of New York or tiny towns in rural America, apparently received the same kits.

The kits were distributed roughly equally to locales in all 50 states. That decision presaged weeks of chaos, in which the availability of COVID-19 tests seemed oddly out of sync with where testing was needed.

A woman in South Dakota with mild symptoms and no fever readily got the test and the results. Meanwhile, political leaders and public officials in places like New York, Boston, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay area – all in the throes of serious outbreaks – couldn’t get enough tests to screen ill patients or, thereby, the information they needed to protect the general public and stem the outbreak of the virus, whose symptoms mimic those of common respiratory illnesses.

Rapid testing is crucial in the early stages of an outbreak. It allows health workers and families to identify and focus on treating those infected and isolate them.

Yet health officials in New York and such states as New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Georgia confirmed that they each initially got one test kit, calling into question whether they would have even stood a chance to contain the outbreaks that would emerge. They would soon discover that the tests they did receive were flawed, lacking critical components, and delivering faulty results.

During those early weeks, the virus took off, infecting thousands of people and leading to nationwide social distancing and sheltering in place. Public health officials are just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that early bungling of testing, which is likely to haunt the country in the months to come.
 

Too little too late

The first shipment to Washington state arrived more than 2 weeks after officials there announced the first U.S. case of coronavirus, and at a moment when deadly outbreaks of the disease were already festering in places like the Life Care Center in Kirkland. Within weeks, three dozen people infected with COVID-19 would die at the nursing home in the suburbs of Seattle.

The spread of COVID-19 would not take long to overwhelm the state, which as of March 20, 2020, had more than 1,300 cases.

The Trump administration in recent days has attempted to speed testing for the virus after early missteps hampered the government’s response to contain the contagion, and officials have had to respond to a barrage of criticism from public health experts, state officials, and members of Congress.

Federal health officials have eased the process for university and commercial labs to perform their own tests, and they are ramping up their capacity. As of March 16, public and private labs in the United States had the ability to test more than 36,000 people a day, according to estimates compiled by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, a figure expected to rapidly escalate in coming weeks. That figure, however, can vary considerably by state and does not indicate how many tests are actually given to patients.

“We are now beginning to see that they have spread out in a prioritized way. We asked them to prioritize the regions that were mostly affected,” Deborah Birx, the coronavirus response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said March 18 of private labs’ testing, without elaboration.

The scaling up of testing is set to take place after weeks of faltering and hundreds, if not thousands, of undiagnosed people spreading the virus. For example, New York’s state health department received a faulty CDC test kit on Feb. 8 for 800 patient specimens, an amount that’s consistent with other states, according to a spokesperson. It later began testing patients with a test that state officials developed based on the CDC protocol and has significantly increased testing – as of March 20, more than 7,200 people had tested positive statewide.

In New York City, the first batch was obtained on Feb. 7.

“The other state and local public health laboratories got test kits as they became available,” said Eric Blank, chief program officer of the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

Places in the middle of the country with no outbreaks had the luxury of time to plan. For example, Missouri officials have had about 800 tests to work with, leading to only 395 performed so far in the region by public health labs – 26 of which were positive. When private lab tests are accounted for, as of March 20 there were 47 confirmed cases.

Health care providers and public health staff in the state, however, benefited from the fact that there is less international travel to the region, according to infectious disease expert Steven Lawrence, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

“This is very similar to 1918 with the influenza pandemic – St. Louis had more time to prepare and was able to put measures in place to flatten the curve than, say, Philadelphia,” Dr. Lawrence said. “Seattle didn’t have an opportunity to prepare as much in advance.”

While commercial labs are coming online, strict restrictions are limiting testing capabilities, Dr. Lawrence said.

“The state has had their hands tied,” he added.
 

Waiting And wondering

Because of a widespread lag in testing, it is still a mystery for thousands of people to know whether they’ve come into contact with an infected person until well after it happens. As of March 20, the pandemic had killed more than 11,000 globally. More than 16,000 Americans were confirmed infected and at least 216 have died.

“CDC will distribute tests based on where they can do the most good. But without hospital-based testing and commercial testing, it will not be possible to meet the need,” said Tom Frieden, who led the CDC during President Obama’s administration and is a former commissioner of the New York City Health Department.

In California, public school teacher Claire Dugan, whose state was among the hardest hit in the initial wave of U.S. coronavirus cases, was told she didn’t qualify for testing because she had not traveled abroad to any country with an outbreak of the virus or been in contact with an infected person. Ms. Dugan, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area and is already medically fragile after a stray bullet nearly killed her while driving 4 years ago, sought a test from her doctor after registering a temperature of 100.7° F earlier this month.

“There are a lot of layers as to why this is so messed up,” said Ms. Dugan, who relies on a feeding tube and said she sought a test not only to protect herself but her students. “It’s community spreading right now, so it’s kind of silly we’re still insisting on [the early criteria for testing]. How would I know?”

Since the CDC’s initial distribution, states have been reordering more tests through the office’s International Reagent Resource – a long-standing tool that public health labs have relied on. They have also revised testing protocols to use only one sample per person, which boosts the number of people screened.

Yet problems still abound with tests or other materials needed to be able to detect the virus. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said on March 12 that county public health labs can’t use all of the 8,000 test kits the state has because they are missing key components.

In Pennsylvania, state officials weren’t able to begin testing until March 2 because of problems with the CDC’s initial kit, according to Nate Wardle, a spokesperson at its department of health. New York received two newly manufactured CDC test kits on Feb. 29 and also began performing tests March 2, according to its health department.

“We are still limited on extraction kits,” Mandy Cohen, the Health & Human Services secretary in North Carolina, said in an interview in mid-March. Officials earlier this month could test only 300 patients because of shortages in the extraction materials needed to register whether the novel coronavirus is present.

In North Dakota, Loralyn Hegland wrote her physician’s practice an email on March 10 with the subject line “dry cough,” wondering if she should come in for testing after learning that was one symptom of COVID-19. The recommendation she got echoes those of countless others across the United States, saying her risk of being exposed was very low because she hadn’t traveled outside the United States and had not come into contact with a person who had been “definitely” diagnosed with the virus.

Ms. Hegland, who lives in Fargo, didn’t have a fever but decided to shelter herself, anyway, out of caution.

Would she push to get a test?

“What’s the point?” she said. “You can’t know what you don’t know. It’s just that simple. How else do you explain it to people when you’re not testing?”

KHN Midwest correspondent Lauren Weber in St. Louis contributed to this article.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.