Enabling Equal Access to Molecular Diagnostics: What Are the Implications for Policy and Health Technology Assessment?

Paving the path for implementation of clinical genomic sequencing globally: Are we ready?

Despite the emerging evidence in recent years, successful implementation of clinical genomic sequencing (CGS) remains limited and is challenged by a range of barriers. These include a lack of standardized practices, limited economic assessments for specific indications, limited meaningful patient engagement in health policy decision-making, and the associated costs and resource demand for implementation. Although CGS is gradually becoming more available and accessible worldwide, large variations and disparities remain, and reflections on the lessons learned for successful implementation are sparse. In this commentary, members of the Global Economics and Evaluation of Clinical Genomics Sequencing Working Group (GEECS) describe the global landscape of CGS in the context of health economics and policy and propose evidence-based solutions to address existing and future barriers to CGS implementation. The topics discussed are reflected as two overarching themes: (1) system readiness for CGS and (2) evidence, assessments, and approval processes. These themes highlight the need for health economics, public health, and infrastructure and operational considerations; a robust patient- and family-centered evidence base on CGS outcomes; and a comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary approach.

International health initiative: Development and pilot testing of a molecular diagnostics training program in Romania

OBJECTIVES

The implementation of nucleic acid testing in laboratory medicine has revolutionized clinical diagnosis. Unfortunately, incorporation of these technologies in less developed countries remains a challenge. Despite Romania's recent economic growth, the country is in dire need of medical and laboratory staff trained in modern technologies. The aim of the study was to develop a curriculum that could easily be delivered to laboratory professionals in Romania and to pilot test the effectiveness of the training in increasing their understanding of molecular tests.

METHODS

The program was developed in accordance with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) quality training standards. It was offered to 50 laboratory professionals and consisted of online, asynchronous lectures and optional synchronous review sessions. Training effectiveness was evaluated using CDC guidelines based on pre- and postassessment questions answered anonymously.

RESULTS

Forty-two people participated in the program, and 32 (81%) completed the training successfully. Based on 16 participants' self-assessment, the course was successful in improving learners' overall knowledge of molecular diagnostics-specifically, their understanding of molecular techniques and how to interpret results. Those participants were highly satisfied with the overall training.

CONCLUSIONS

The piloted platform presented here is promising and can be a foundation for future larger-scale studies in countries with developing health systems.

Decision impact studies, evidence of clinical utility for genomic assays in cancer: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Decision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in cancer prognostic research in recent years. These studies aim to evaluate the impact of a genomic test on decision-making and appear to be a new form of evidence of clinical utility. The objectives of this review were to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care and categorize the types of clinical utility outcomes reported.

METHODS

We conducted a search of four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, from inception to June 2022. Empirical studies that reported a "decision impact" assessment of a genomic assay on treatment decisions or recommendations for cancer patients were included. We followed scoping review methodology and adapted the Fryback and Thornbury Model to collect and analyze data on clinical utility. The database searches identified 1803 unique articles for title/abstract screening; 269 articles moved to full-text review.

RESULTS

87 studies met inclusion criteria. All studies were published in the last 12 years with the majority for breast cancer (72%); followed by other cancers (28%) (lung, prostate, colon). Studies reported on the impact of 19 different proprietary (18) and generic (1) assays. Across all four levels of clinical utility, outcomes were reported for 22 discrete measures, including the impact on provider/team decision-making (100%), provider confidence (31%); change in treatment received (46%); patient psychological impacts (17%); and costing or savings impacts (21%). Based on the data synthesis, we created a comprehensive table of outcomes reported for clinical utility.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review is a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of decision impact studies and their influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies in cancer care. The results imply that DIS are positioned to provide evidence of clinical utility and impact clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making in cancer care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr.

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.

Critical Factors and Economic Methods for Regulatory Impact Assessment in the Medical Device Industry

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

The future of genomics in Ireland - focus on genomics for health

Genomics is revolutionizing biomedical research, medicine and healthcare globally in academic, public and industry sectors alike. Concrete examples around the world show that huge benefits for patients, society and economy can be accrued through effective and responsible genomic research and clinical applications. Unfortunately, Ireland has fallen behind and needs to act now in order to catch up. Here, we identify key issues that have resulted in Ireland lagging behind, describe how genomics can benefit Ireland and its people and outline the measures needed to make genomics work for Ireland and Irish patients. There is now an urgent need for a national genomics strategy that enables an effective, collaborative, responsible, well-regulated, and patient centred environment where genome research and clinical genomics can thrive.  We present eight recommendations that could be the pillars of a national genomics health strategy.

Costs of in-house genomic profiling and implications for economic evaluation: a case example of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

OBJECTIVES

Genomic profiling in oncology is vital for determining eligible patients for mutation-specific targeted therapies. Use of commercial genomic testing has the potential to improve patient outcomes. Economic evaluations of in-house genomic profiling typically only include material costs while external commercial services include many other factors. Using non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as an example, this study sought to characterize the unique challenges of costing testing services and their impact on results of economic evaluations.

METHODS

Structured interviews with Canadian oncologists, pathologists, and laboratory directors were conducted to identify material and non-material costs associated with genomic-testing laboratories to allow estimation of a more complete cost of in-house testing, with NSCLC cost-per-test calculated using annual operational costs and NSCLC-specific testing volume. A health and budget impact model of in-house versus external commercial profiling services was used to compare the impact of non-material costs on results.

RESULTS

In-house testing costs, limited to materials, was $133/single-gene test and $1,400/panel. For a laboratory running 1,300 in-house tests/year, total annual non-material costs included equipment maintenance ($6,842), labor ($502,313; technicians, administrative, and medical staff), shipping/reporting and software updates ($146,050), for an additional $519/test. The combined cost of $652/single-gene and $1,919/panel was compared to a cost of $6,194 for a commercial external test. Based on current Canadian testing patterns and anticipated utilization of external testing, inclusion of in-house non-material costs reduced the estimated 3-year budget impact by 12%.

CONCLUSION

When conducting economic evaluation to assess the value of introducing external tests, it is critical that non-material costs of standard testing strategies be measured and incorporated.

Shedding Light on Reimbursement Policies of Companion Diagnostics in European Countries

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring access to precision medicine has been an issue because in some European countries, desynchronized reimbursement decision-making occurs between the medicine and the companion diagnostic (CDx). This has resulted in cases in which precision medicine is reimbursed but not the CDx. In overcoming this issue, an alignment of the decision-making process for reimbursement between the 2 entities should be considered. As pharmaceutical reimbursement procedures are meticulously covered in the literature, we set out to systematically map in vitro diagnostic (IVD) reimbursement procedures and identify policies for aligning these procedures with the pharmaceutical reimbursement procedures.

METHODS

We selected 8 European countries for this analysis. For each country, we characterized the national benefit basket entailing the IVD medical acts in outpatient care, evaluated the procedure for inclusion, and identified alternative reimbursement practices for CDx. Targeted searches, using publicly accessible sources, were conducted to identify relevant reimbursement policies and laws.

RESULTS

We systematically describe the reimbursement process in 8 European countries. Alternative procedures for CDx reimbursement were identified in Belgium and Germany. Alternative policies attributed to the practice of precision medicine were identified in England and Italy. In France, some CDx are included in the "coverage with evidence" development program. Specifically, the health technology assessment agencies of France and England commented on the assessment of companion diagnostics and their clinical utility.

CONCLUSION

CDx reimbursement procedures have recently been implemented in some countries. This was seemingly done primarily to ensure access to the precision medicine and only secondary to the value they would provide.