A 45-year-old woman donates blood and receives a wellness panel showing elevated liver enzymes. An automated system flags her result as “abnormal” with instructions to “follow-up with your doctor.” She has no primary care physician. She calls the blood center, who refers her to the third-party company who actually performed the test. She calls the company, who advises her to “consult a healthcare provider.” Three weeks later, after two emergency department visits and mounting anxiety, repeat testing shows normal values, with the original result attributed to transient elevation from recent exercise. Who is responsible for preventing such a calamity? This vignette reflects a broader pattern now emerging in transfusion medicine. Over the past decade, direct-to-consumer and direct-access laboratory testing have expanded rapidly, driven by promoters of timely care, increased consumer demand, and for-profit commercial entities facilitating patient-initiated ordering.1-7 While these models may improve access for some individuals, broad testing in low-pretest-probability populations generates incidental abnormalities and false positives that lead to unnecessary testing, imaging, referrals, and procedures without any clear benefit and possibly introducing unintentional harm.4, 5, 8-12 Additionally, despite enabling patient-driven decision-making, the subsequent workload (e.g., result interpretation, follow-up coordination, patient counseling) falls to clinicians and health systems that did not initiate the testing, would not necessarily have recommended it, and often lack clear follow-up guidance or reimbursement mechanisms. Marketing partnerships between blood collection centers and wellness testing companies represent an emerging donor incentive model.13 For instance, GoodLabs, which exhibited at the 2025 Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) Annual Meeting, markets wellness panels to blood centers as a donor recruitment and retention mechanism, claiming these “improve show rates, satisfaction, and lifetime value”.13 Their “comprehensive” panels assess 75–76 biomarkers covering hematologic, cardiac, endocrine, inflammatory, renal, hepatic, and nutritional parameters, with results delivered via smartphone app. Under this business model, blood centers pay per successful donation, creating a financial incentive structure where wellness testing becomes integral to the recruitment value proposition rather than an incidental benefit. While AABB's exhibitor criteria require professional relevance and subject exhibits to approval, these standards do not evaluate the clinical appropriateness of broad screening panels.14 Accordingly, while exhibition does not imply endorsement, presentation in this setting (i.e., the field's flagship meeting) may nonetheless confer perceived legitimacy to such services. Blood centers face genuine and pressing recruitment challenges. Ensuring a sufficient blood supply is an essential public health goal, yet blood centers are experiencing sustained declines in new donors and an aging donor base.15-18 Traditional recruitment strategies have shown diminishing returns, and the urgency of maintaining adequate blood inventory drives exploration of novel approaches. Patients need blood, and when standard methods fail to generate sufficient donations, it is understandable that blood centers would consider alternative incentive models—including wellness testing—to attract health-conscious donors who might not otherwise engage with donation programs. The appeal of wellness testing as a recruitment tool is straightforward. It offers donors something of tangible value (health information that many in the United States would pay hundreds of dollars to obtain) while potentially attracting individuals interested in preventive health. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis, particularly in the US healthcare system, where many individuals lack consistent primary care access and face significant barriers to routine health monitoring.19, 20 Notably, “wellness” testing at the time of blood donation is not entirely new. Blood centers have previously explored cholesterol screening as a donor wellness incentive,21 yet field experiments evaluating free cholesterol testing found no significant effect on donation rates among either new or lapsed donors, and subsequent large-scale studies of comprehensive health checks as retention strategies have produced similarly inconsistent results.22, 23 The intuitive appeal of health testing as an incentive, it appears, does not reliably translate into sustained behavioral change. What has changed is the confluence of scale, immediacy, and communication infrastructure, where large test menus can now be ordered easily, resulted quickly, and delivered directly to a donor's smartphone via automated messaging. In the donation context, this evolution introduces specific risks, including coercive incentives (donate to learn about your health), diagnostic inaccuracy (including perceptions of test characteristics and value to the donor), therapeutic misconception (that testing constitutes medical care), moral hazard (where the testing company and blood center are insulated from downstream harms and thus have weaker incentives to prevent them), and substitution effects driven by inequities in access to care (attracting individuals who lack primary care access and may use donation as a healthcare substitute).24-26 Volunteer blood donation operates in a context that fundamentally differs from typical direct-to-consumer testing, creating specific considerations that warrant attention. First, volunteer blood donation depends on a social contract whereby individuals give freely to help others, and the system protects their safety and privacy in return. This relationship is built on trust. Donors may interpret wellness testing offered during donation as clinically endorsed or medically supervised, not recognizing it as elective consumer screening without formal medical review included in either the pre- or post-testing phases. When abnormal results arrive, donors may expect the blood center to explain their meaning and arrange appropriate follow-up. Conversely, when they receive “normal” results, donors may feel unduly reassured about their overall health without counseling concerning potential false-negative results. These expectations create a mismatch between what donors anticipate and what blood centers can deliver. Theoretically, disappointment arising from unmet expectations could diminish the donor-blood center relationship and reduce future donation activity, paradoxically undermining the very recruitment goal the testing was meant to serve. Second, blood centers collect blood which is manufactured into products; they do not provide longitudinal medical care and do not have a doctor-patient relationship with their donors. They generally lack the core elements of primary care infrastructure, such as ongoing patient relationships, integrated medical records, clinical space, referral networks, and liability and staffing models designed for follow-up and longitudinal management. In addition, standard blood center operations do not yield any insight into whether a donor has a regular source of medical care or not. When wellness testing generates abnormal results requiring interpretation, confirmatory testing, or specialist referral, blood centers will struggle to meet a donor's likely need for guidance and coordination. This challenge is amplified when test menus include assays with limited evidence for screening use or unclear meaning in asymptomatic individuals—tests that many primary care clinicians would not routinely order, and for which even specialists may have limited guidance on how to counsel asymptomatic patients (e.g., leptin; anti-müllerian hormone AMH; fatty acid “OmegaCheck” panels).27 Professional society guidance, for example, discourages routine AMH testing in women who are not seeking fertility care, underscoring the risks of deploying specialty-context biomarkers as general wellness screening.28 More broadly, direct-to-consumer testing models raise well-described concerns about the lack of integrated clinical interpretation and the creation of downstream burdens by results that are difficult to contextualize.4, 29 The fundamental question becomes: who is responsible when a donor receives an abnormal result? Third, international standards establish voluntary, nonremunerated donation as essential for blood safety.16, 17, 30 While material incentives of varying scale, from tokens of appreciation to substantial prizes such as gift cards, vehicles, and major event experiences, have existed without clear evidence of systematic harm to blood safety,31, 32 wellness testing occupies a qualitatively different category. Unlike material rewards, wellness testing delivers personalized biological information unique to each donor, data that individuals may actively seek and pay for out of pocket. This personalized dimension may engage a fundamentally different motivational calculus, one that more directly ties the act of donation to individual health gain and may therefore more potently reshape donor motivation in ways that could compromise screening integrity. These features (i.e., trust-based relationships, operational limitations, and regulatory constraints) distinguish blood donation from other direct-to-consumer testing contexts and suggest that specific safeguards may be warranted. When individuals donate primarily to obtain test results rather than to help recipients, they may underreport risk factors during screening interviews, presumably to avoid deferral that would prevent access to desired testing.33-39 This “test-seeking” behavior is well documented in HIV screening contexts. In one Brazilian study, HIV test-seeking donors were significantly less likely to disclose risk behaviors compared to repeat voluntary donors.34 Wellness testing may create analogous dynamics, but with broader reach. A donor motivated by the prospect of free health panels faces an implicit choice: honestly report factors that might trigger deferral (recent tattoo, medication use, travel history) and forfeit access to testing worth hundreds of dollars, or minimize disclosure and proceed with donation. This pressure operates whether or not donors consciously recognize it, and the transactional framing (“donate to get your results”) may normalize selective disclosure over time, reinforcing the pattern that giving socially desirable answers enables access to desired benefits. Beyond individual test-seeking, wellness incentives may reshape the donor pool itself. Motivational crowding theory posits that introducing salient extrinsic incentives can weaken the intrinsic prosocial motives that sustain voluntary behavior, either by reframing the activity in transactional terms or by undermining the donor's self-perception as an altruistic actor.40, 41 Evidence for this mechanism in the blood donation context is nuanced. Monetary incentives have shown crowding-out effects in some settings, while nonmonetary incentives, including conventional health checks, have generally not, with donors tending to perceive them as congruent with the effort of donating rather than as transactional rewards.42, 43 In charitable giving more broadly, even small tangible rewards can reduce subsequent donations when they draw attention away from altruistic motives toward a cost–benefit mindset.40 Contemporary wellness testing, however, may occupy a different position on this spectrum. Unlike a cholesterol result, these panels carry substantial financial value. Whether an incentive of this salience and personal utility operates more like a nonmonetary congruent reward or more like a quasi-financial benefit remains an open empirical question; the existing literature has not yet directly examined incentives of this type. What can be said is that placing donation as a pathway to personal health gain risks attracting a more test-motivated donor pool while potentially undermining the altruistic orientation that supports long-term retention, a risk that warrants prospective study as these programs expand. If wellness testing programs attract individuals whose primary motivation is obtaining laboratory results, deferral rates may decline not because donor risk profiles have genuinely improved, but because honest disclosure has decreased. Importantly, this dynamic may manifest asymmetrically across the donation pathway, whereby predonation deferrals may fall as at-risk donors navigate the screening interview, while post-donation donor deferral and component withdrawal may paradoxically rise as mandatory infectious disease testing detects higher rates of reactive units among collections. The latter scenario carries compounded consequences, as collected units consume processing resources before discard, and in rare window-period cases may pose residual transmission risk before reactivity is confirmed. This erosion of screening integrity could therefore occur gradually and in ways that aggregate statistics obscure, underscoring the need for prospective monitoring that explicitly tracks donor motivation, self-reported risk behaviors, and both pre- and post-donation screening outcomes over time. Blood donors meet specific health criteria and are generally healthier than age-matched non-donors (i.e., the “healthy donor effect”).44, 45 Most donors lack symptoms or clinical indications for wellness tests being offered. This low pretest probability creates a statistical challenge whereby even highly accurate tests may generate more false positives than true positives when disease prevalence is low. For example, if you screen a population for a condition with 2% prevalence, even with a test with 95% specificity (and high sensitivity), more than two-thirds of “positive” results are false alarms. Blood centers are already familiar with this concept, as the vast majority of initial reactive infectious disease markers do not confirm.46 The donation context amplifies these problems. For blood donors who lack established primary care and pursue donation-associated testing precisely because they are disengaged from routine healthcare, automated results create additional burdens. Donors who receive abnormal results may face barriers finding appropriate follow-up. Those who do pursue follow-up may undergo unnecessary and/or duplicative testing and procedures for findings that prove clinically insignificant, which studies have shown cause substantial anxiety and downstream costs.47-49 the very that the wellness panel in with donor centers may be to donors to engage in follow-up testing, particularly if they direct-to-consumer testing even of the donation Donors may results with blood center during subsequent donations, creating that are not to In cases where blood centers do of abnormal results, they may feel to donors on findings that have not clinically supply and donor retention for results that prove clinically one patient-initiated testing data for true from clinical longitudinal and follow-up infrastructure, resources that may not in donation-associated wellness testing programs. from wellness are wellness programs have screening incentives to yet testing of populations to diagnostic and downstream harms with The blood donation setting risks these dynamics, but with additional concerns to the integrity of the donor screening and the trust-based of the donor if of the who donate blood each wellness testing, downstream could translate into of dollars in potentially harms such as anxiety, unnecessary and from When a donor receives a potentially abnormal result, who is and responsible for appropriate If the donor the third-party does not have a primary care and the blood center for guidance, who If the donor the automated and the finding genuine who for the In the United value with documented and Blood centers have to to donor or but these systems do not translate to abnormal diagnostic test results from wellness Wellness testing may results directly to donors automated or from the donor has may be as “abnormal” or normal without clinical context, without of the donor's values, and without the to assess whether findings warrant routine follow-up no at When donors receive concerning results and the blood center for guidance, face a While many US blood center medical have and thus are well to interpret laboratory values, they are not to provide clinical arrange follow-up care, or the longitudinal that abnormal results may the between donation and testing may create donor expectations that the blood center can and will provide clinical This mismatch between donor expectations and blood center with unclear of between blood centers and third-party testing creates potential in when or results require follow-up. the may fall on primary care already that US are being to interpret patient-initiated laboratory panels and follow-up for incidental findings despite limited clinical context and unclear wellness testing could this A is that donors may seek review at Patients are to results into consumer such as smartphone health or to into large for In this abnormal results can trigger downstream (e.g., additional testing, care from without the of clinical context, confirmatory testing, or The result is a in which the blood center the how results are they consumer yet donors may perceive these as responsible because the data from a donation-associated Blood donation for collection and use of blood and for testing to and donors. wellness testing is fundamentally It is not for donation, generates information to transfusion and is often delivered with data Wellness testing collect health and longitudinal results for population health or commercial data can be when with donation test results, and Donors may not that like or can include creating for to or data The regulatory offers limited health information to third-party or consumer it may fall and in have increased the and of on with about how their data will be These privacy concerns carry material In the United while the and the use of health and information in health these generally do not to or long-term care where medical are to health results screening can therefore create future disclosure if or may to or This risk is particularly for otherwise donors who testing clinically and may face of The are particularly high in transfusion where donor is to to donate donor and on expanded health testing blood donation found that whether such fall the of what they the blood collection to and many were whether their existing health information being and to was by the perceived of the testing, with as rather than donor and data was a and that examined rather than testing, the concerns about and who are highly for wellness that of US are about how companies use the personal data they yet many direct-to-consumer testing models on privacy and terms of that rather than data If donors to their health information was in ways they did not anticipate or data with use in commercial or other erosion of could the donor-blood center relationship and reduce future donation In a system already recruitment privacy or perceived of donor data could the very blood that wellness testing programs to Blood centers that wellness testing partnerships do not compromise donor privacy or create for data use that donors would not anticipate when to help goal is not to access to personal health information or patient to receive appropriate to health data can be and many individuals, including blood donors, more information about their health. In an where individuals and healthcare despite limited clinical the appeal of health data delivered via smartphone is donation-associated health tests genuine unmet donation now in the example, as evidence from the that monitoring in donors, particularly among is significantly and deferrals while both donor health and blood center These programs what responsible donor health testing can like when the is specific and the result is and the to already the donation The is not whether donors have access to health but how that access is and and what to to wellness testing genuinely rather than potentially information delivered a that supports a both the need to the blood supply and the to that recruitment do not create new risks for donors or healthcare If society to use wellness testing to blood donation, elements would need to be in First, any wellness testing would benefit from clear for result interpretation, follow-up coordination, and value management. This either partnerships with healthcare systems or blood resources that would represent significant the falls on donors, emergency and primary care menus would be and rather than comprehensive panels designed for A might assays with clear utility for donation safety and donor health while being about tests with low yield in asymptomatic populations broad included test would benefit from a documented for wellness testing be explicitly from donation with clear that donation is not on This may be by the wellness testing explicitly an benefit of donation, rather than an or benefit. Donors would benefit from information about data retention, and third-party direct-to-consumer models often these in terms of and other professional could recognize the need to what standards or to donation-associated wellness testing, that were not designed with this in on test value medical and monitoring could help blood centers navigate this more These elements represent what would be to minimize risks, not necessarily what is resources and The between what responsible would require and what is in the blood centers genuine pressure to in recruitment limited to the downstream that wellness testing is and strategies that recruitment and retention Blood centers genuine and donor creates pressure to new approaches. Wellness testing is being precisely because methods have not the recruitment and patients need blood donation with wellness testing is not a that the donation into a for consumer may donation, but they risk long-term The goal is not to but to that recruitment strategies rather than compromise the safety and which blood donation an adequate blood supply is but not at the of donor or the integrity of the donation system itself. was for this of the report a of to this The in this are of the and do not necessarily the of their not to this as no were or during the
Jacobs et al. (Sat,) studied this question.