The History and Impact of Molecular Coding Changes on Coverage and Reimbursement of Molecular Diagnostic Tests: Transition from Stacking Codes to the Current Molecular Code Set Including Genomic Sequencing Procedures

Costs of biomarker testing among patients with metastatic lung or thyroid cancer in the USA: a real-world commercial claims database study

OBJECTIVE

This real-world retrospective database study quantified the costs of biomarker testing in a US population of patients with lung or thyroid cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The commercial claims IBM Marketscan database, a de-identified real-world dataset, was used to identify patients diagnosed with lung or thyroid cancer between 1/2015 and 12/2019. Eligible patients were 18 years or older with two or more lung or thyroid diagnosis codes. Patients were excluded who had evidence of prior cancer diagnoses. Subgroup analyses evaluated eligible patients with metastatic disease. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate commercial insurance plan payer and patient out-of-pocket costs for diagnostic testing overall as well as by test procedure code and payer type. Costs were adjusted to 2020 US dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 23,633 patients with lung cancer were eligible, 13,320 of whom had metastatic disease. There were 36,867 patients with thyroid cancer, 2,241 of whom had metastatic disease. Biomarker codes were observed among 68.4/75.8% (lung/metastatic lung) and 18.2/42.3% (thyroid/metastatic thyroid). Few patients had codes for comprehensive biomarker tests (5.2/6.7% lung/metastatic lung, 0.3/2.2% thyroid/metastatic thyroid) Among those with biomarker tests, the median per-patient total payer lifetime costs of all biomarker testing were $394/$462 (lung/metastatic lung) and $148/$232 (thyroid/metastatic thyroid). Total lifetime biomarker costs for payers ranged from a median of $128 (consumer-driven health plans) to $477 (preferred provider organizations). Median lifetime patient out-of-pocket costs were $0.00 for both tumor types and all payer types except for consumer-driven health plans ($12 for thyroid and $10 for metastatic lung).

CONCLUSIONS

While comprehensive testing adds to the cost of biomarker testing, these data suggest the relatively low lifetime cost of biomarker testing for both payers and patients. Costs for biomarker testing should not be a limitation to access among these populations with commercial insurance plans in the US.

Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology

Policy Points American health care policy must be critically assessed to establish the role it plays in sustaining and alleviating the health disparities that currently exist in molecular genetic testing. It is critical to understand the economic and sociocultural influences that drive patients to undergo or forgo molecular testing, especially in marginalized patient populations. A multipronged solution with actions necessary from multiple stakeholders is required to reduce the cost of health care, rebalance regional disparities, encourage physician engagement, reduce data bias, and earn patients' trust.

CONTEXT

The health status of a population is greatly influenced by both biological processes and external factors. For years, minority and low socioeconomic patient populations have faced worse outcomes and poorer health in the United States. Experts have worked extensively to understand the issues and find solutions to alleviate this disproportionate burden of disease. As a result, there have been some improvements and successes, but wide gaps still exist. Diagnostic molecular genetic testing and so-called personalized medicine are just now being integrated into the current American health care system. The way in which these tests are integrated can either exacerbate or reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We provide case scenarios-loosely based on real-life patients-so that nonexperts can see the impacts of complex policy decisions and unintentional biases in technology without needing to understand all the intricacies. We use data to explain these findings from an extensive literature search examining both peer-reviewed and gray literature.

FINDINGS

Access to diagnostic molecular genetic testing is not equitable or sufficient, owing to at least five major factors: (1) cost to the patient, (2) location, (3) lack of provider buy-in, (4) data-set bias, and (5) lack of public trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular genetic pathology can be made more equitable with the concerted efforts of multiple stakeholders. Confronting the five major factors identified here may help us usher in a new era of precision medicine without its discriminatory counterpart.

Financing and Reimbursement Models for Personalised Medicine: A Systematic Review to Identify Current Models and Future Options

BACKGROUND

The number of healthcare interventions described as 'personalised medicine' (PM) is increasing rapidly. As healthcare systems struggle to decide whether to fund PM innovations, it is unclear what models for financing and reimbursement are appropriate to apply in this context.

OBJECTIVE

To review financing and reimbursement models for PM, summarise their key characteristics, and describe whether they can influence the development and uptake of PM.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Econlit to identify studies published in English between 2009 and 2021, and reviews published before 2009. Grey literature was identified through Google Scholar, Google and subject-specific webpages. Articles that described financing and reimbursement of PM, and financing of non-PM were included. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively to report on the models, as well as facilitators, incentives, barriers and disincentives that could influence PM development and uptake.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three papers were included. Research and development of PM was financed through both public and private sources and reimbursed largely through traditional models such as single fees, Diagnosis-Related Groups, and bundled payments. Financial-based reimbursement, including rebates and price-volume agreements, was mainly applied to targeted therapies. Performance-based reimbursement was identified mainly for gene and targeted therapies, and some companion diagnostics. Gene therapy manufacturers offered outcome-based rebates for treatment failure for interventions including Luxturna®, Kymriah®, Yescarta®, Zynteglo®, Zolgensma® and Strimvelis®, and coverage with evidence development for Kymriah® and Yescarta®. Targeted testing with OncotypeDX® was granted value-based reimbursement through initial coverage with evidence development. The main barriers and disincentives to PM financing and reimbursement were the lack of strong links between stakeholders and the lack of demonstrable benefit and value of PM.

CONCLUSIONS

Public-private financing agreements and performance-based reimbursement models could help facilitate the development and uptake of PM interventions with proven clinical benefit.

Clinical Utilization, Utility, and Reimbursement for Expanded Genomic Panel Testing in Adult Oncology

PURPOSE

The routine use of large next-generation sequencing (NGS) pan-cancer panels is required to identify the increasing number of, but often uncommon, actionable alterations to guide therapy. Inconsistent coverage and variable payment is hindering NGS adoption into clinical practice. A review of test utilization, clinical utility, coverage, and reimbursement was conducted in a cohort of patients diagnosed with high-risk cancer who received pan-cancer panel testing as part of their clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel (CCCP), a 467-gene panel designed to detect DNA variations in solid and liquid tumors, was performed in the Laboratory of Personalized Genomic Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Utilization was characterized at test order. Results were reviewed by a molecular pathologist, followed by a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board where clinical utility was classified by consensus. Reimbursement was reviewed after payers provided final coverage decisions.

RESULTS

NGS was performed on 359 high-risk tumors from 349 patients. Reimbursement data were available for 246 cases. The most common reason providers ordered CCCP testing was for patients diagnosed with a treatment-resistant or recurrent tumor (n = 214; 61%). Findings were clinically impactful for 229 cases (64%). Molecular alterations that may inform future therapy in the event of progression or relapse were found in 42% of cases, and a targeted therapy was initiated in 23 cases (6.6%). The majority of tests were denied coverage by payers (n = 190; 77%). On average, insurers reimbursed 10.75% of the total NGS service charge.

CONCLUSION

CCCP testing identified clinically impactful alterations in 64% of cases. Limited coverage and low reimbursement remain barriers, and broader reimbursement policies are needed to adopt pan-cancer NGS testing that benefits patients into clinical practice.

Genetic testing utilization for patients with neurologic disease and the limitations of claims data

Objective

To determine the utilization of genetic testing in patients seen by a neurologist within a large private insurance population.

Methods

Using the Optum health care claims database, we identified a cross-sectional cohort of patients who had been evaluated by a neurologist no more than 30 days before initial genetic testing. Within this group, we then categorized genetic testing between 2014 and 2016 on the basis of the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to molecular and genetic testing. We also evaluated the International Classification of Disease Version 9 Clinical Code Classifications (ICD-9 CCS) associated with testing.

Results

From 2014 to 2016, a total of 45,014 claims were placed for 29,951 patients who had been evaluated by a neurologist within the preceding 30 days. Of these, 29,926 (66.5%) were associated with codes that were too nonspecific to infer what test was actually performed. Among those claims where the test was clearly identifiable, 7,307 (16.2%) were likely obtained for purposes of neurologic diagnosis, whereas the remainder (17.2%) was obtained for non-neurological purposes. An additional 3,793 claims (8.4%) wherein the test ordered could not be clearly identified were associated with a neurology-related ICD-9 CCS.

Conclusions

Accurate assessment of genetic testing utilization using claims data is not possible given the high prevalence of nonspecific codes. Reducing the ambiguity surrounding the CPT codes and the actual testing performed will become even more important as more genetic tests become available.

Clinically Integrated Molecular Diagnostics in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma

Adenoid cystic carcinoma is a rare but aggressive type of salivary gland malignancy. This article addresses the need for more effective, biomarker‐informed therapies in rare cancers, focusing on clinical utility and financial sustainability of integrated next‐generation sequencing in routine practice.

Background.

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is an aggressive salivary gland malignancy without effective systemic therapies. Delineation of molecular profiles in ACC has led to an increased number of biomarker‐stratified clinical trials; however, the clinical utility and U.S.‐centric financial sustainability of integrated next‐generation sequencing (NGS) in routine practice has, to our knowledge, not been assessed.

Materials and Methods.

In our practice, NGS genotyping was implemented at the discretion of the primary clinician. We combined NGS‐based mutation and fusion detection, with MYB break‐apart fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and MYB immunohistochemistry. Utility was defined as the fraction of patients with tumors harboring alterations that are potentially amenable to targeted therapies. Financial sustainability was assessed using the fraction of global reimbursement.

Results.

Among 181 consecutive ACC cases (2011–2018), prospective genotyping was performed in 11% (n = 20/181; n = 8 nonresectable). Testing identified 5/20 (25%) NOTCH1 aberrations, 6/20 (30%) MYB‐NFIB fusions (all confirmed by FISH), and 2/20 (10%) MYBL1‐NFIB fusions. Overall, these three alterations (MYB/MYBL1/NOTCH1) made up 65% of patients, and this subset had a more aggressive course with significantly shorter progression‐free survival. In 75% (n = 6/8) of nonresectable patients, we detected potentially actionable alterations. Financial analysis of the global charges, including NGS codes, indicated 63% reimbursement, which is in line with national (U.S.‐based) and international levels of reimbursement.

Conclusion.

Prospective routine clinical genotyping in ACC can identify clinically relevant subsets of patients and is approaching financial sustainability. Demonstrating clinical utility and financial sustainability in an orphan disease (ACC) requires a multiyear and multidimensional program.

Implications for Practice.

Delineation of molecular profiles in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) has been accomplished in the research setting; however, the ability to identify relevant patient subsets in clinical practice has not been assessed. This work presents an approach to perform integrated molecular genotyping of patients with ACC with nonresectable, recurrent, or systemic disease. It was determined that 75% of nonresectable patients harbor potentially actionable alterations and that 63% of charges are reimbursed. This report outlines that orphan diseases such as ACC require a multiyear, multidimensional program to demonstrate utility in clinical practice.

Landscape of granted US patents in personalized diagnostics for oncology from 2014 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

Personalized diagnostic testing (PDx) is a key component of the precision medicine toolkit and has shown the most development in cancer applications. Recent changes in the regulatory and legal landscapes regarding PDx development and commercialization have brought uncertainties to both intellectual property strategies and business model development. While the regulatory and legal uncertainties have been well-documented, there has been little reported analysis of the recent patent landscape and movement of IP into the PDx market. Areas covered: This article provides a snapshot landscape analysis of cancer-associated PDx US granted patents from 2014 to 2018, with a focus on claim types, biomarkers, and associated detection strategies, and assignee-specific IP portfolio analyses. Expert opinion: Patent-driven research is commonplace in the legal world for performing patentability, clearance, and validity analyses. The results from this review show that patent-driven analysis is also insightful for understanding strategies to build IP portfolios around biomarker and detection platforms, identifying partners and competitors, and driving PDx technologies into the market. This information is an important source of business intelligence and can provide companies or investors with valuable information for making strategic decisions in developing and commercializing PDx technologies.

Perspectives on the Affordability of Precision Medicine

This commentary highlights the article by Hsiao et al, who explore the recent migration of Current Procedural Terminology codes for reimbursement of genomic tests.