So. Treat a patient for a viral infection they did NOT test positive for when they could have a bacterial infection that can be treated much easier. That is a money grab. Plan and simple and ripe for a lawsuit that will cost exponentially more than the facility will make with a incentivized diagnosis. Pretty sure she is just doing the board's bidding.

You guys talking about heart disease and bacterial infections are ignoring the key measure of 'belief'. There are fairly conclusive tests for many things and while many symptoms are similar, they are not identical. The body reacts differently to different medical issues.

It is of course malpractice to treat someone for something you don't, in your professional medical opinion, believe. People may still do it... Pain pill dispensaries and medical MJ cards... but that's not what we're talking about. Eagle, THAT is a money grab... and I can't say it doesn't ever happen, but that's by far the exception rather than the rule. The practice exists to protect patients. First, do no harm. Telling someone that you honestly and professionally believe they have a virus that could easily spread and put their friends and families at risk is not malpractice, nor a money grab, if that is what they honestly believe.

The tests are about 85% accurate in the lab, under ideal conditions. My experience with flu tests is that I had certain nurses whose 'positive' results were a fraction of everyone else at my facilities. It's possible that it was just how things worked, but we sent them for more training on test administration, and frequently saw demonstrable changes in their counts. You can't 'fake' a positive result because someone else has to verify it.

As to the daily numbers of tests....
There are all sorts of things that people need to be more careful about when looking at the reported data

Among them:
States don't all follow the same rules for reporting, and the numbers put out by the CDC come from the states. Some states report all positive results 'today' (at the end of the day) using self-reporting by providers. Some use clinical data meaning they report the results when the charts are signed which could be days later. Some report 1 number... and others differentiate between positive viral tests (which shows an active virus) vs positive antibody tests (which shows a previous, perhaps asymptomatic test) At least 250k of the 'daily' reported tests have actually been antibody tests... which means they were reported on 7/24, but if they aren't in a risky group, the infection may have been in March.

As for the multiple tests, states differ there as well.

This information all has value in data analysis.... but many of those using it today aren't engaging in data analysis... they are instead either ignorant, unaware or 'selling something'. They SOMETIMES put the explanations down in the fine print of any official release of data, but almost never in a news story about that release.