Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative

The Diagnostic Landscape of Adult Neurogenetic Disorders

Neurogenetic diseases affect individuals across the lifespan, but accurate diagnosis remains elusive for many patients. Adults with neurogenetic disorders often undergo a long diagnostic odyssey, with multiple specialist evaluations and countless investigations without a satisfactory diagnostic outcome. Reasons for these diagnostic challenges include: (1) clinical features of neurogenetic syndromes are diverse and under-recognized, particularly those of adult-onset, (2) neurogenetic syndromes may manifest with symptoms that span multiple neurological and medical subspecialties, and (3) a positive family history may not be present or readily apparent. Furthermore, there is a large gap in the understanding of how to apply genetic diagnostic tools in adult patients, as most of the published literature focuses on the pediatric population. Despite these challenges, accurate genetic diagnosis is imperative to provide affected individuals and their families guidance on prognosis, recurrence risk, and, for an increasing number of disorders, offer targeted treatment. Here, we provide a framework for recognizing adult neurogenetic syndromes, describe the current diagnostic approach, and highlight studies using next-generation sequencing in different neurological disease cohorts. We also discuss diagnostic pitfalls, barriers to achieving a definitive diagnosis, and emerging technology that may increase the diagnostic yield of testing.

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

Private Payer and Medicare Coverage Policies for Use of Circulating Tumor DNA Tests in Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is used to select initial targeted therapy, identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance, and measure minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment. Our objective was to review private and Medicare coverage policies for ctDNA testing.

METHODS

Policy Reporter was used to identify coverage policies (as of February 2022) from private payers and Medicare Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA tests. We abstracted data regarding policy existence, ctDNA test coverage, cancer types covered, and clinical indications. Descriptive analyses were performed by payer, clinical indication, and cancer type.

RESULTS

A total of 71 of 1,066 total policies met study inclusion criteria, of which 57 were private policies and 14 were Medicare LCDs; 70% of private policies and 100% of Medicare LCDs covered at least one indication. Among 57 private policies, 89% specified a policy for at least 1 clinical indication, with coverage for ctDNA for initial treatment selection most common (69%). Of 40 policies addressing progression, coverage was provided 28% of the time, and of 20 policies addressing MRD, coverage was provided 65% of the time. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the cancer type most frequently covered for initial treatment (47%) and progression (60%). Among policies with ctDNA coverage, coverage was restricted to patients without available tissue or in whom biopsy was contraindicated in 91% of policies. MRD was commonly covered for hematologic malignancies (30%) and NSCLC (25%). Of the 14 Medicare LCD policies, 64% provided coverage for initial treatment selection and progression, and 36% for MRD.

CONCLUSIONS

Some private payers and Medicare LCDs provide coverage for ctDNA testing. Private payers frequently cover testing for initial treatment, especially for NSCLC, when tissue is insufficient or biopsy is contraindicated. Coverage remains variable across payers, clinical indications, and cancer types despite inclusion in clinical guidelines, which could impact delivery of effective cancer care.

Genetic counselors' experience with reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket cost for multi-cancer gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p < 0.0001). Perceived patient willingness to pay more than $100 was significantly higher for HCPs than for genetic counseling(41% versus 22%, respectively, p < 0.01). In sum, genetic counselors' widespread selection and ordering of HCPs is driven more by clinical indications and patient preferences than payment considerations. Respondents perceived that testing is more often reimbursed by insurance than genetic counseling, and patients are more willing to pay for an HCP than for genetic counseling. Policy efforts should address this incongruence in reimbursement and patient OOP share. Patient-centered communication should educate patients on the benefit of genetic counseling.

Association between Health Insurance Type and Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Breast and Ovarian Cancer

As genetic testing becomes increasingly incorporated into clinical practice to aid in both the diagnosis and risk assessment of genetic diseases, patients benefit from genetic counseling to support their understanding of test results either before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is imperative for patient care. It is well established that health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States as individuals without insurance are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance plans and benefits also influence patients’ access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of women undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk (2.3%), even among subgroups of women at risk due to family or personal history (6.5%). Women with health insurance were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for breast/ovarian cancer risk, particularly those with military and private insurance plans, than those without health insurance after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are needed to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

Genetic Testing and/or Counseling for Colorectal Cancer by Health Insurance Type

Genetic testing is increasingly used in clinical practice to assist with the diagnosis of genetic diseases and/or provide information about disease risk, and genetic counseling supports patient understanding of test results before and/or after genetic testing. Therefore, access to genetic testing and counseling is important for patient care. Health insurance coverage is a major determinant of access to health care in the United States. Uninsured individuals are less likely to have a regular source of health care than their insured counterparts. Different health insurance types and benefits also influence access to health care. Data on the association of health insurance and uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for cancer risk are limited. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, we examined the uptake of genetic testing and/or counseling for colorectal cancer (CRC) risk by health insurance type. We found that only a small proportion of individuals undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk (0.8%), even among subgroups of individuals at risk due to family or personal history (3.7%). Insured individuals were more likely to undergo genetic testing and/or counseling for CRC risk, particularly those with Military and Private insurance plans, after adjusting for various demographic, socioeconomic, and health risk covariates. Further investigations are warranted to examine potential disparities in access and health inequities.

The Challenge of Genetic Variants of Uncertain Clinical Significance : A Narrative Review

Genomic tests expand diagnostic and screening opportunities but also identify genetic variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Only a minority of VUSs are likely to prove pathogenic when later reassessed, but resolution of the uncertainty is rarely timely. That uncertainty adds complexity to clinical decision making and can result in harms and costs to patients and the health care system, including the time-consuming analysis required to interpret a VUS and the potential for unnecessary treatment and adverse psychological effects. Current efforts to improve variant interpretation will help reduce the scope of the problem, but the high prevalence of rare and novel variants in the human genome points to VUSs as an ongoing challenge. Additional strategies can help mitigate the potential harms of VUSs, including testing protocols that limit identification or reporting of VUSs, subclassification of VUSs according to the likelihood of pathogenicity, routine family-based evaluation of variants, and enhanced counseling efforts. All involve tradeoffs, and the appropriate balance of measures is likely to vary for different test uses and clinical settings. Cross-specialty deliberation and public input could contribute to systematic and broadly supported policies for managing VUSs.

Hereditary cancer panel testing challenges and solutions for the latinx community: costs, access, and variants

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOCs) are common among the Latinx population, and risk testing is recommended using multi-gene hereditary cancer panels (HCPs). However, little is known about how payer reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses impact provider ordering of HCP in the Latinx population. Our objective is to describe key challenges and possible solutions for HCP testing in the Latinx population. As part of a larger study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key provider informants (genetic counselors, oncologist, nurse practitioner) from safety-net institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area. We used a deductive thematic analysis approach to summarize themes around challenges and possible solutions to facilitating HCP testing in Latinx patients. We found few financial barriers for HCP testing for the Latinx population due to laboratory patient assistance programs that cover testing at low or no cost to patients. However, we found potential challenges related to the sustainability of low-cost testing and out-of-pocket expenses for patients, access to cascade testing for family members, and pathogenic variants specific to Latinx. Providers questioned whether current laboratory payment programs that decrease barriers to testing are sustainable and suggested solutions for accessing cascade testing and ensuring variants specific to the Latinx population were included in testing. The use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to HCP testing among the US population; however, other barriers are present that may impact testing use in the Latinx population and must be addressed to ensure equitable access to HCP testing for this population.

US private payers' perspectives on insurance coverage for genome sequencing versus exome sequencing: A study by the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER)

PURPOSE

There is limited payer coverage for genome sequencing (GS) relative to exome sequencing (ES) in the U.S. Our objective was to assess payers' considerations for coverage of GS versus coverage of ES and requirements payers have for coverage of GS. The study was conducted by the NIH-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER).

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of private payer organizations (payers, N = 12) on considerations and evidentiary and other needs for coverage of GS and ES. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We described four categories of findings and solutions: demonstrated merits of GS versus ES, enhanced methods for evidence generation, consistent laboratory processes/sequencing methods, and enhanced implementation/care delivery. Payers see advantages to GS vs. ES and are open to broader GS coverage but need more proof of these advantages to consider them in coverage decision-making. Next steps include establishing evidence of benefits in specific clinical scenarios, developing quality standards, ensuring transparency of laboratory methods, developing clinical centers of excellence, and incorporating the role of genetic professionals.

CONCLUSION

By comparing coverage considerations for GS and ES, we identified a path forward for coverage of GS. Future research should explicitly address payers' conditions for coverage.

Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

Private Payer and Medicare Coverage for Circulating Tumor DNA Testing: A Historical Analysis of Coverage Policies From 2015 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Clinical adoption of the sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for cancer has rapidly increased in recent years. This sequencing is used to select targeted therapy and monitor nonresponding or progressive tumors to identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Our study objective was to review available coverage policies for cancer ctDNA-based testing panels to examine trends from 2015 to 2019.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available private payer policies and Medicare national coverage determinations and local coverage determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA-based panel tests for cancer. We coded variables for each year representing policy existence, covered clinical scenario, and specific ctDNA test covered. Descriptive analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We found that 38% of private payer coverage policies provided coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing as of July 2019. Most private payer policy coverage was highly specific: 87% for non-small cell lung cancer, 47% for EGFR gene testing, and 79% for specific brand-name tests. There were 8 final, 2 draft, and 2 future effective final LCDs (February 3 and March 15, 2020) that covered non-FDA-approved ctDNA-based tests. The draft and future effective LCDs were the first policies to cover pan-cancer use.

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing for cancer indications increased from 2015 to 2019. The trend in private payer and Medicare coverage is an increasing number of coverage policies, number of positive policies, and scope of coverage. We found that Medicare coverage policies are evolving to pan-cancer uses, signifying a significant shift in coverage frameworks. Given that genomic medicine is rapidly changing, payers and policymakers (eg, guideline developers) will need to continue to evolve policies to keep pace with emerging science and standards in clinical care.

Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

To examine the temporal trajectory of insurance coverage for next-generation tumor sequencing (sequencing) by private US payers, describe the characteristics of coverage adopters and nonadopters, and explore adoption trends relative to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Coverage Determination (CMS NCD) for sequencing.

METHODS

We identified payers with positive coverage (adopters) or negative coverage (nonadopters) of sequencing on or before April 1, 2019, and abstracted their characteristics including size, membership in the BlueCross BlueShield Association, and whether they used a third-party policy. Using descriptive statistics, payer characteristics were compared between adopters and nonadopters and between pre-NCD and post-NCD adopters. An adoption timeline was constructed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine payers had a sequencing policy. Positive coverage started November 30, 2015, with 1 payer and increased to 33 (48%) as of April 1, 2019. Adopters were less likely to be BlueCross BlueShield members (P < .05) and more likely to use a third-party policy (P < .001). Fifty-eight percent of adopters were small payers. Among adopters, 52% initiated coverage pre-NCD over a 25-month period and 48% post-NCD over 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase, but continued variability, in coverage over 3.5 years. Temporal analyses revealed important trends: the possible contribution of the CMS NCD to a faster pace of coverage adoption, the interdependence in coverage timing among BlueCross BlueShield members, the impact of using a third-party policy on coverage timing, and the importance of small payers in early adoption. Our study is a step toward systematic temporal research of coverage for precision medicine, which will inform policy and affordability assessments.

Intellectual Structure and Evolutionary Trends of Precision Medicine Research: Coword Analysis

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine (PM) is playing a more and more important role in clinical practice. In recent years, the scale of PM research has been growing rapidly. Many reviews have been published to facilitate a better understanding of the status of PM research. However, there is still a lack of research on the intellectual structure in terms of topics.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify the intellectual structure and evolutionary trends of PM research through the application of various social network analysis and visualization methods.

METHODS

The bibliographies of papers published between 2009 and 2018 were extracted from the Web of Science database. Based on the statistics of keywords in the papers, a coword network was generated and used to calculate network indicators of both the entire network and local networks. Communities were then detected to identify subdirections of PM research. Topological maps of networks, including networks between communities and within each community, were drawn to reveal the correlation structure. An evolutionary graph and a strategic graph were finally produced to reveal research venation and trends in discipline communities.

RESULTS

The results showed that PM research involves extensive themes and, overall, is not balanced. A minority of themes with a high frequency and network indicators, such as Biomarkers, Genomics, Cancer, Therapy, Genetics, Drug, Target Therapy, Pharmacogenomics, Pharmacogenetics, and Molecular, can be considered the core areas of PM research. However, there were five balanced theme directions with distinguished status and tendencies: Cancer, Biomarkers, Genomics, Drug, and Therapy. These were shown to be the main branches that were both focused and well developed. Therapy, though, was shown to be isolated and undeveloped.

CONCLUSIONS

The hotspots, structures, evolutions, and development trends of PM research in the past ten years were revealed using social network analysis and visualization. In general, PM research is unbalanced, but its subdirections are balanced. The clear evolutionary and developmental trend indicates that PM research has matured in recent years. The implications of this study involving PM research will provide reasonable and effective support for researchers, funders, policymakers, and clinicians.

Clinical utility of hereditary cancer panel testing: Impact of PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D results on patient management and adherence to provider recommendations

BACKGROUND

Although management guidelines exist for several genes associated with a 2-fold to 5-fold increase in the relative risk for certain cancers, the value of testing for them remains controversial.

METHODS

De-identified personal and family history data for 654 individuals with pathogenic variants (PVs) in PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and/or RAD51D were analyzed for pretest and post-test candidacy for guideline-recommended management of cancer risk. These individuals were invited to complete a survey about provider recommendations and their adherence.

RESULTS

Twenty-four percent of CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, or NBN PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of annual breast magnetic resonance imaging screening before genetic testing, with the remaining 76% appropriate only after testing. No BRIP1, RAD51C, or RAD51D PV carriers were appropriate for consideration of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy before genetic testing; 100% were appropriate only after testing. Seventeen percent of CHEK2 PV carriers were appropriate for earlier and more frequent colonoscopy before genetic testing, with the remaining 83% appropriate only after testing. Provider recommendations for annual breast magnetic resonance imaging, consideration of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, and earlier and more frequent colonoscopy were reported by 42%, 26%, and 66% of breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer risk PV carriers, respectively, before genetic testing, versus 82%, 79%, and 81%, respectively, after testing. Nearly all respondents had planned or undertaken provider-recommended management.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing for PALB2, ATM, CHEK2, NBN, BRIP1, RAD51C, and RAD51D changed management for those carrying PVs. Provider recommendations were aligned with guidelines, and patients adhered to recommendations, both of which are critical for reducing both long-term cancer morbidity and mortality.

Building evidence and measuring clinical outcomes for genomic medicine

Human genomic sequencing has potential diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic value across a wide breadth of clinical disciplines. One barrier to widespread adoption is the paucity of evidence for improved outcomes in patients who do not already have an indication for more focused testing. In this Series paper, we review clinical outcome studies in genomic medicine and discuss the important features and key challenges to building evidence for next generation sequencing in the context of routine patient care.

Insurance coverage does not predict outcomes of genetic testing: The search for meaning in payer decisions for germline cancer tests

In this work, we explore the results of germline cancer genetic tests in individuals whose insurance would not cover this testing. We enrolled 31 patients with a personal history of cancer whose health insurer denied coverage for a clinical germline cancer panel genetic test recommended by a medical genetics provider into a study providing exome sequencing and return of cancer-related results. Five participants (16%) had a pathogenic variant identified related to increased cancer risk. Three participants (10%) had a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in a gene related to their cancer history. These rates are not significantly different than the 12% rate of pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and VUS in 1,462 patients approved by insurance to have a similar clinical germline cancer test (p = .59 for P/LP variants; p = .87 for VUS; Shirts et al., Genet Med, 18:974, 2016). Health insurance guidelines may not meaningfully differentiate between patients with cancer who are likely to benefit from germline cancer genetic testing and those who will not. Failure to identify pathogenic variants in this research cohort would have led to suboptimal care. Strategic evaluation of current germline cancer genetic testing coverage policies is needed to appropriately deliver precision medicine.

Horizon Scan Of Clinical Laboratories Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing involves the analysis of genes known to affect response to medications. The field has been projected as a leading application of personalized or precision medicine, but the use of PGx tests has been stymied, in part, by the lack of clinical evidence of utility and reported low provider awareness. Another factor is the availability of testing. The range and types of PGx tests available have not been assessed to date. In the period September 2017-January 2018 we analyzed the numbers and types of PGx tests offered by clinical testing laboratories in the US. Of the 111 such labs that we identified, we confirmed that 76 offered PGx testing services. Of these, 31 offered only tests for single genes; 30 offered only tests for multiple genes; and 15 offered both types of tests. Collectively, 45 laboratories offered 114 multigene panel tests covering 295 genes. The majority of these tests did not have any clinical guidelines. PGx tests vary in type and makeup, which presents challenges in appropriate test evaluation and selection for providers, insurers, health systems, and patients alike.

Genetic testing in steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome: why, who, when and how?

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) is a common cause of chronic kidney disease in childhood and has a significant risk of rapid progression to end-stage renal disease. The identification of over 50 monogenic causes of SRNS has revealed dysfunction in podocyte-associated proteins in the pathogenesis of proteinuria, highlighting their essential role in glomerular function. Recent technological advances in high-throughput sequencing have enabled indication-driven genetic panel testing for patients with SRNS. The availability of genetic testing, combined with the significant phenotypic variability of monogenic SRNS, poses unique challenges for clinicians when directing genetic testing. This highlights the need for clear clinical guidelines that provide a systematic approach for mutational screening in SRNS. The likelihood of identifying a causative mutation is inversely related to age at disease onset and is increased with a positive family history or the presence of extra-renal manifestations. An unequivocal molecular diagnosis could allow for a personalised treatment approach with weaning of immunosuppressive therapy, avoidance of renal biopsy and provision of accurate, well-informed genetic counselling. Identification of novel causative mutations will continue to unravel the pathogenic mechanisms of glomerular disease and provide new insights into podocyte biology and glomerular function.

The Global Market for Next-Generation Sequencing Tests Continues Its Torrid Pace

The market for next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) has grown dramatically. Health care decision-makers need empirical evidence on market growth and future trends in order to develop appropriate strategies and policies, but little has been published about the nature and size of these trends. We provide a snapshot of market trends through 2020. We found rapid growth of clinical NGS - the global clinical NGS services market was $2.2 billion in 2015 and is forecast to reach $7.7 billion by 2020. The reproductive health NGS test market is the largest market followed by the oncology NGS test market. The largest market is for tests that sequence >50 genes but not the entire exome or genome. Markets are growing rapidly in countries outside of the US. Despite rapid NGS test growth, there are a number of key issues that will need to be addressed to facilitate appropriate future growth.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.

Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care

Introduction

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has greatly expanded due to enhanced understanding of the role of genes in drug response and advances in DNA-based testing technology development. As many primary care visits result in a prescription, the use of PGx testing may be particularly beneficial in this setting. However, integration of PGx testing may be limited as no uniform approach to delivery of tests has been established and providers are ill-prepared to integrate PGx testing into routine care.

Areas covered

In this paper, the readiness of primary care practitioners are reviewed as well as strategies to address these barriers based on published research and ongoing activities on education and implementation of PGx testing.

Expert Commentary

Widespread integration of PGx testing will warrant continued education and point-of-care decisional support. Primary care providers may also benefit from consultation services or team-based care with laboratory medicine specialists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.

EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for multi-gene panels and sequencing tests (panels), and to compare these findings with the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.

METHODS

We used the University of California at San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Registry to identify coverage policies for panels issued by five of the largest US private payers. We reviewed each policy and categorized the evidence cited within as: clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), budget impact studies, and clinical guidelines. We compared the evidence cited in these coverage policies for panels with the evidence cited in policies for other intervention types (pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tests and imaging, and surgical interventions) as reported in a previous study.

RESULTS

Fifty-five coverage policies for panels were included. On average, payers cited clinical guidelines in 84 percent of their coverage policies (range, 73-100 percent), clinical studies in 69 percent (50-87 percent), technology assessments 47 percent (33-86 percent), systematic reviews or meta-analyses 31 percent (7-71 percent), and CEAs 5 percent (0-7 percent). No payers cited budget impact studies in their policies. Payers less often cited clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, and CEAs in their coverage policies for panels than in their policies for other intervention types. Payers cited clinical guidelines in a comparable proportion of policies for panels and other technology types.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers in our sample less often cited clinical studies and other evidence types in their coverage policies for panels than they did in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.

Genetic Testing in a Population-Based Sample of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Survivors from the REACH Randomized Trial: Cost Barriers and Moderators of Counseling Mode

Background: This study evaluates predictors of BRCA1/2 testing among breast and ovarian cancer survivors who received genetic counseling as part of a randomized trial and evaluates moderators of counseling mode on testing uptake.Methods: Predictors of BRCA1/2 testing within one year postcounseling were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression in a population-based sample of breast and ovarian cancer survivors at increased hereditary risk randomly assigned to in-person counseling (IPC; n = 379) versus telephone counseling (TC; n = 402). Variables that moderated the association between counseling mode and testing were identified by subgroup analysis.Results: Testing uptake was associated with higher perceived comparative mutation risk [OR = 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.57] in the adjusted analysis. Those without cost barriers had higher testing uptake (OR = 18.73; 95% CI, 7.09-49.46). Psychologic distress and perceived comparative mutation risk moderated the effect of counseling and testing. Uptake between IPC versus TC did not differ at low levels of distress and risk, but differed at high distress (26.3% TC vs. 44.3% IPC) and high perceived comparative risk (33.9% TC vs. 50.5% IPC).Conclusions: Cost concerns are a strong determinant of testing. Differences in testing uptake by counseling mode may depend on precounseling distress and risk perceptions.Impact: Cost concerns may contribute to low testing in population-based samples of at-risk cancer survivors. Precounseling psychosocial characteristics should be considered when offering in-person versus telephone counseling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(12); 1772-80. ©2017 AACR.

A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine's rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.

METHODS

PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.

CONCLUSIONS

As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.