A test that identifies risk means little if doctors have no way to act on it
A new blood test launched by LabCorp offers pregnant women a window into risk they could not previously see — a chance to know, as early as the first trimester, whether preeclampsia may lie ahead. The test arrives with impressive accuracy figures but also with a sobering caveat: knowing a danger is coming does not yet mean medicine knows how to stop it. In a country where one in twenty-five pregnancies is touched by this condition, and where Black women bear its weight at dramatically higher rates, the question this test raises is not merely scientific but deeply moral — who will have access to this knowledge, and what will the system do with it once they do.
- Preeclampsia strikes without warning after 20 weeks, kills without a cure, and falls hardest on Black women — making early detection not just a medical goal but an urgent equity imperative.
- LabCorp's new first-trimester blood test claims 90% accuracy in identifying risk, a figure that sounds like a breakthrough but has yet to be tested against the messy realities of clinical practice.
- Leading obstetricians are pushing back, warning that a test revealing risk is only as valuable as the interventions that follow — and right now, evidence-based responses to early preeclampsia detection remain thin.
- Insurance coverage is still being negotiated, and at a list price of $240, access is already an open question — raising fears that the test could deepen the very disparities it might otherwise help close.
- The Preeclampsia Foundation's CEO, who lost a daughter to the condition in 1998, sees transformative potential in the test — but only if it reaches all women equitably and doctors are trained to act on what it reveals.
LabCorp has introduced the first U.S. blood test capable of identifying preeclampsia risk during the first trimester — administered between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation, it predicts whether a woman will develop the condition before 34 weeks, with 90% sensitivity and specificity. The company's chief medical officer described it as an objective early-warning tool for doctors, priced at roughly $240 while insurance negotiations continue.
Preeclampsia is a serious, sometimes fatal complication marked by high blood pressure, protein in the urine, and potential organ damage. It has no cure except delivery, typically emerges after 20 weeks, and affects about one in 25 U.S. pregnancies. Black women experience it at rates 60% higher than white women — a disparity that makes any conversation about the test inseparable from questions of equity and access.
The medical establishment is cautious. The interim CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists questioned whether the test should be used broadly, and more pointedly, whether early detection changes outcomes at all without proven interventions to act on the information. Yale's chief of obstetrics added that the test's value in patient management has not been demonstrated — even for women with prior preeclampsia, who are already closely monitored.
Eleni Tsigas, CEO of the Preeclampsia Foundation, brings a different kind of authority to the debate. In 1998, she was diagnosed with preeclampsia weeks before her due date; her daughter was stillborn. She believes a test like this could have changed everything for her — and could spare other families the shock of a last-minute emergency. But she is clear-eyed about the conditions required for that promise to hold: equitable access across income and race, and physicians who know how to translate a positive result into meaningful care. Without both, she warns, the test risks becoming one more tool that widens the gap it was meant to close.
LabCorp announced this week that it has launched the first blood test available in the United States capable of identifying a woman's risk for preeclampsia during the first trimester of pregnancy. The test can be administered between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation and is designed to predict whether a woman will develop the condition before 34 weeks. According to the company, it achieves 90% sensitivity and 90% specificity—meaning it correctly identifies pregnancies at high risk while also accurately ruling out those at low risk.
Preeclampsia is a serious, sometimes fatal complication marked by elevated blood pressure, excessive protein in the urine, or signs of organ damage. It typically emerges after the 20-week mark, and there is no cure except delivery of the baby. In severe cases, doctors can manage symptoms with blood pressure medications, but the condition remains unpredictable and dangerous. Roughly one in 25 pregnancies in the United States are affected. The burden falls disproportionately on Black women, who experience preeclampsia at rates 60% higher than white women, a disparity that underscores broader inequities in maternal health care.
LabCorp's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, Dr. Brian Caveney, framed the test as a step forward in prenatal care, giving doctors an objective tool to assess risk earlier than they can now. The company is negotiating with health insurers about coverage and has set a list price of approximately $240. The test works by measuring four biomarkers associated with preeclampsia risk.
Yet significant skepticism exists within the medical establishment. Dr. Christopher Zahn, interim CEO of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, told CNN that it remains unclear whether the test will actually help predict preeclampsia accurately or whether it should be used for all pregnant patients. More fundamentally, he noted that without proven interventions to prevent or reduce the disease's impact once identified, the test's clinical value is questionable. A blood test that identifies risk means little if doctors have no evidence-based way to act on that information. Dr. Christian Pettker, chief of obstetrics at Yale-New Haven Hospital, echoed the concern, saying the test's utility in patient management has not been demonstrated and that it may not be better than current prenatal care standards. He suggested that even for women who had preeclampsia in previous pregnancies—arguably the group most likely to benefit—the test may offer limited additional value, since those patients are already closely monitored.
Eleni Tsigas, CEO of the Preeclampsia Foundation, offered a different perspective rooted in personal tragedy. In 1998, she was diagnosed with preeclampsia just 11 weeks before her due date. Her daughter was stillborn as a result of complications from the condition. She said that had such a test existed then, it could have fundamentally changed her experience. If implemented properly, she believes it has the potential to eliminate the shocking, last-minute emergencies that preeclampsia can trigger. But she also sounded a note of caution: the test's benefits will only materialize if it reaches all women regardless of socioeconomic status, and if doctors know how to use the information it provides. Without equitable access and education, she warned, the test risks widening rather than closing the racial disparities already visible in maternal and newborn health outcomes. The question now is whether the medical system will rise to meet that challenge.
Notable Quotes
Before a screening test can be successfully employed, there needs to be an evidence-based intervention to either prevent or reduce the impact of the disease.— Dr. Christopher Zahn, interim CEO, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
If it's done right, it has the potential to eliminate those surprise cases of preeclampsia and reduce racial disparities in maternal health outcomes.— Eleni Tsigas, CEO, Preeclampsia Foundation
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So LabCorp says this test is 90% accurate. Why are doctors so skeptical?
Because accuracy at detecting risk isn't the same as knowing what to do about it. If the test tells you a woman is at high risk for preeclampsia, what's the next step? There's no proven way to prevent it or reduce its severity based on early detection alone.
But wouldn't knowing the risk earlier give doctors more time to monitor her?
In theory, yes. But doctors already monitor pregnant women. The real question is whether this test changes the outcome. Right now, there's no evidence it does.
What about the racial disparities mentioned—Black women getting preeclampsia at much higher rates?
That's the human stakes. A test like this could theoretically help close that gap if it's available to everyone and if doctors actually use it to intervene. But if it only reaches wealthy women, or if there's no intervention to offer, it just becomes another tool that widens the divide.
The woman from the Preeclampsia Foundation lost her daughter. Does that change the calculus?
It does for her, absolutely. She's saying that even an imperfect tool could have saved her daughter's life by catching the condition earlier. But the doctors are saying we don't know that yet. We need evidence, not hope.
So what happens next?
That's the real question. The test is here. Insurers will decide whether to cover it. Doctors will decide whether to use it. And somewhere in that process, we'll find out whether it actually saves lives or just creates anxiety.