The BioFire® FilmArray® System set a new standard by taking a syndromic approach to infectious disease diagnostics. It features a broad grouping of probable pathogens in one rapid test, maximizing the chance of getting the right answer in a clinically relevant timeframe.
BioFire’s customer base includes hospitals that want to run comprehensive molecular tests in-house instead of sending individual tests to outside reference labs. The BioFire System—which includes the system instruments and consumable pouches—indeed presents a higher up-front investment and ongoing costs to hospitals that already pay top dollar for testing, equipment, and treatment.
However, the speed, accuracy, and comprehensive target menu of the BioFire® FilmArray® Panels can facilitate significant long-term cost savings benefits compared to lower-cost standard-of-care options, making it a worthwhile investment that ultimately saves your institution time and money.
1 Patient Sample > Multiple Tests Ordered > Results Take Hours to Days > Individual Results in Separate Reports > Longer Patient Hospital Stay
When faced with a critically ill patient, hospital healthcare providers often must choose carefully between tests that are fast and tests that are highly accurate. Testing comprehensively tends to involve a serial approach, which can incur downstream costs and waste precious time. This means that the infectious agent might not be identified by the time physicians need to make critical patient management decisions.
With standard-of-care methods like bacterial culture or targeted influenza tests, the right test might not be ordered first, or it might not be ordered at all. Costs associated with downstream testing may rise, patient care may be prolonged or compromised, and the risks of adverse outcomes and patient dissatisfaction may rise.
BioFire Syndromic Testing
1 Patient Sample > 1 Comprehensive Test > About 1 Hour > Multiple Results in 1 Easy-to-Read Report > Better Patient Management
Syndromic testing from BioFire is a front-line solution to the challenges of infectious disease diagnostics. Requiring one patient sample and about one hour, a BioFire syndromic test targets the most common pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes associated with a patient’s particular syndrome. With all-in-one integration of nucleic acid extraction, amplification via multiplex PCR, and detection, this approach dramatically increases the probability of identifying a pathogen sooner.
A molecular syndromic test can help doctors avoid the laborious guesswork and downstream cost of serial testing. It can promote antimicrobial stewardship and optimize patient management, including admission, isolation, cohorting, and antimicrobial therapy.
The BioFire System is fast, accurate, and comprehensive, empowering healthcare providers to choose the right test, the first time.
How Does the BioFire System Save Money in the Long Run?
Every year, influenza alone accounts for up to $167 billion in healthcare costs.1 Targeted Flu A/B and RSV testing is the standard of care, but this approach can run the risk of missing several pathogen detections and co-detections. Additionally, these rapid targeted tests tend to have sensitivities ranging from only 50 to 70%.
With 97.1% sensitivity, the BioFire® FilmArray® Respiratory 2 Panel simultaneously tests for 21 of the usual respiratory season suspects in about an hour.2 Getting a pathogen-specific result from a front-line test can lead to several cost-saving benefits, including:
- Significantly reduced hospital length of stay3
- Less time to targeted treatment, including shorter antibiotic durations, avoiding unnecessary antibiotic use, and promoting antimicrobial stewardship goals4
- More informed infection control decisions, including shortened isolation times and optimal patient cohorting5
The COVID-19 pandemic has especially brought to light the heavy burdens that respiratory illnesses can place on hospitals and healthcare providers. Click here to learn about BioFire’s syndromic SARS-CoV-2 assay.
For a single patient with pneumonia, a hospital will spend an average of $36,000 to diagnose and treat them.6 In the US, this economic burden amounts to about $10.6 billion dollars annually.7
A CDC-funded study demonstrated that standard-of-care pneumonia culture did not identify a pathogen in 62%—over half—of patients tested. In about an hour, the BioFire® FilmArray® Pneumonia Panel detects the nucleic acid of 33 targets, including bacteria, viruses, and antimicrobial resistance genes most associated with pneumonia—even if the organism will not grow in culture.
Rapidly determining the etiology of pneumonia, and helping distinguish colonizing bacteria from true infectious agents with semi-quantitative PCR results, can facilitate these cost-savings benefits:
- De-escalation of antibiotics in up to half of cases for an average reduction of 6.2 days of antibiotic therapy per patient9
- Adjustment of antibiotic courses in up to 71% of cases10
- Identification of a pathogen not covered by empiric therapy in patients who failed empiric therapy11
Using a rapid pathogen-specific result to get patients on effective targeted therapy as soon as possible can help reserve high-cost hospital resources—like emergency room visits or ICU beds—for patients that need them most.
Bloodstream Infection Testing
Bloodstream infections can become both costly and deadly in just a matter of hours. In fact, septicemia is the most expensive condition treated in US hospitals, accounting for over $23 million in healthcare costs every year.12 Depending on severity, a single case of sepsis costs an average of $7,970 but can cost as much as $44,027.13
The BioFire® Blood Culture Identification 2 Panel identifies 43 organisms in positive blood culture 70% faster than standard-of-care methods.14This can save over $3,000 per patient in overall hospital costs related to sepsis.15 These savings can provide a variety of benefits to patients and hospitals, including:
- Fewer days spent in the ICU16,17
- Decreased length of hospital stay16,17
- Decreased pharmacy costs16,17
- Reduced treatment for patients with coagulase-negative staphylococci contaminated blood cultures15
Distinguishing between bacterial and viral etiologies of meningitis/encephalitis is as challenging as it is important. Several pathogenic etiologies present with similar symptoms, and standard-of-care testing often fails to identify a pathogen and results can take days when it does.
A pathogen-specific result from the BioFire® FilmArray® Meningitis/Encephalitis Panel—which tests for 14 of the most common bacteria, viruses, and fungi associated with central nervous system infections—can contribute to cost savings in several ways, including:
- ~2.5x increased pathogen detection compared to standard of care methods, enabling specific etiologic diagnoses18,19
- Reducing hospital length of stay by an average of 2 days for both pediatric and adult patients20,21
- Reduced antibiotic and antiviral therapy by 2 days for both pediatric and adult patients20,22
Traditional stool testing methods are slow, labor intensive, and often fail to reveal the etiology of a patient’s gastrointestinal symptoms. Physicians are frequently left to make patient management decisions without a reliable laboratory result.
The BioFire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal Panel targets 22 of the pathogens most likely to cause gastrointestinal infections, including bacteria, viruses, and parasites. Rapid results in one easy-to-read report help physicians identify an organism faster, leading to significant cost savings benefits, including:
- Reducing downstream stool tests and procedures, such as endoscopies, CT scans, X-rays, and ultrasounds23
- Reducing the average length of stay by 12 hours per patient24
- Prescribing fewer antibiotics23
How Much Does the BioFire System Cost?
The exact pricing of onboarding the BioFire System depends on several factors, which is why you can request a quote or a free demonstration at your institution.
In addition to the many potential downstream and long-term savings demonstrated by ongoing clinical studies, the BioFire Reimbursement and Market Access Team collaborates with both government and private payers, as well as other important stakeholders, to ensure favorable and up-to-date health plan policies for syndromic testing, including Common Procedural Technology (CPT®) codes. These reimbursement options help make the BioFire System an accessible investment for any size institution.
The BioFire Reimbursement and Market Access Team can be reached at email@example.com and 385-770-1956. They are available to answer questions about reimbursement rates, coding, denials and appeals, and understanding health plan policies.
- Forum of International Respiratory Societies. (2016) The Global Impact of Respiratory Disease – Second Edition.
- The stated performance is the aggregate of the prospective data in the BioFire RP2 Panel clinical study.
- Martinez R, et al. (2016) CVS Poster.
- Brendish N, et al. (2017) Lancet Resp Med. 5(5):401.
- Pettit N, et al. (2015) J. Med Microbiol. 64:312.
- Broulette J, et al. (2013) American Health & Drug Benefits. 6(8):494-503.
- Pfunter A, et al. (2013) HCUP Statistical Brief #146.
- Jain S, et al. (2015) The New England Journal of Medicine. 3(5):415-227.
- Buchan BW, et al. (2020) J Clin Microbiol. Vol. 58.
- DeBoer D, et al. (2019) CVS Poster.
- Enne V, et al. (2019) ECCMID Poster.
- Torio C, et al. (2016) Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Statistical Brief 204.
- CMS.gov. (2015) National and State Summaries of Inpatient Charge Data. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Medicare-Provider-Charge-Data/Inpatient2015.
- MacVane S, et al. (2016) J Clin Microbiol. Vol. 54.
- Pardo J, et al. (2016) Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 84(2):159-164.
- Cowden R, et al. (2016) IDWeek Poster.
- Kim J, et al. (2015) ASM Microbe Poster.
- Evans M, et al. (2020) Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 96(2):114935.
- Posnakoglou L, et al. (2020) Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis.
- Moffa MA, et al. (2020) Antibiotics (Basel). 26;9(6):F282.
- O’Brien MP, et al.(2018) Pediatr Infect Dis J. 37(9):868-871.
- Hagen A, et al. (2020) BMC Pediatr. 5;20(1):56.
- Axelrad J, et al. (2019) J Clin Micrbiol. 27;57(3). E01776-18
- Beal S, et al. (2018) J Clin Microbiol. 56(1). E01457-17.