The State of State Biomarker Testing Insurance Coverage Laws.

This Viewpoint discusses laws mandating insurance coverage of biomarker testing to broaden access to care for patients with cancer.

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.

Clinical validity and utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC): a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has become a promising tool to guide first-line (1L) targeted treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). This study aims to estimate the clinical validity (CV) and clinical utility (CU) of ctDNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) for oncogenic driver mutations to inform 1L treatment decisions in aNSCLC through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase to identify randomized control trials or observational studies reporting CV/CU on ctDNA testing in patients with aNSCLC. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects models to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Progression-free/overall survival (PFS/OS) was summarized for CU studies. Results: Eighteen studies were identified: 17 CV only, 2 CU only, and 1 both. Thirteen studies were included for the meta-analysis on multi-gene detection. The overall sensitivity and specificity for ctDNA detection of any mutation were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) respectively. However, sensitivity varied greatly by driver gene, ranging from 0.29 (95% CI, 0.13-0.53) for ROS 1 to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.63-0.86) for KRAS . Two studies compared PFS with ctDNA versus tissue-based testing followed by 1L targeted therapy found no significant differences. One study reported OS curves on ctDNA-matched and tissue-matched therapies but no hazard ratios were provided. Conclusion: ctDNA testing demonstrated an overall acceptable diagnostic accuracy in aNSCLC patients, however, sensitivity varied greatly by driver mutation. Further research is needed, especially for uncommon driver mutations, to better understand the CU of ctDNA testing in guiding targeted treatments for aNSCLC.

The Health Inequality Impact of Liquid Biopsy to Inform First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid biopsy (LB) followed by, if needed, tissue biopsy (TB) (LB-first strategy) relative to a TB-only strategy to inform first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) from a US payer perspective by which we quantify the impact of LB-first on population health inequality according to race and ethnicity. METHODS: With a health economic model, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs per patient were estimated for each subgroup. Given the lifetime risk of aNSCLC, and assuming equally distributed opportunity costs, the incremental net health benefits of LB-first were calculated, which were used to estimate general population quality-adjusted life expectancy at birth (QALE) by race and ethnicity with and without LB-first. The degree of QALYs and QALE differences with the strategies was expressed with inequality indices. Their differences were defined as the inequality impact of LB-first. RESULTS: LB-first resulted in an additional 0.21 (95% uncertainty interval: 0.07-0.39) QALYs among treated patients, with the greatest gain observed among Asian patients (0.31 QALYs [0.09-0.61]). LB-first resulted in an increase in relative inequality in QALYs among patients, but a minor decrease in relative inequality in QALE. CONCLUSIONS: LB-first to inform first-line aNSCLC therapy can improve health outcomes. With current diagnostic performance, the benefit is the greatest among Asian patients, thereby potentially widening racial and ethnic differences in survival among patients with aNSCLC. Assuming equally distributed opportunity costs and access, LB-first does not worsen and, in fact, may reduce inequality in general population health according to race and ethnicity.

Pain-Related Stigma and Its Associations With Clinical and Experimental Pain Severity in Youth With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Many children with chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions experience stigma which can have negative downstream consequences. This study compares ratings of clinical pain (current pain intensity and pain interference), experimental pain (temporal summation, cold water tolerance, and cold pain intensity), and pain-related stigma among three groups of youth with rheumatic conditions. The relations among ratings of pain-related stigma and pain variables were explored. METHODS: Eighty-eight youth aged 8-17 years with a diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA = 32), juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM = 31), or non-specific chronic pain (NSCP = 25) completed measures of clinical pain ratings (average 7-day pain intensity, day of assessment pain (DoA), and pain interference), experimental pain (cold pain tolerance, cold pain intensity, and temporal summation of mechanical pain), and pain-related stigma. Data analysis compared pain-related stigma and pain ratings across the three groups and examined the relations among pain-related stigma and pain ratings. RESULTS: Youth with JFM reported higher ratings of clinical pain and pain-related stigma than their counterparts with NSCP or JIA. However, there were no differences in experimental pain. Pain-related stigma was associated with greater ratings of pain interference, particularly for those with JIA and NSCP. Pain-related stigma was also associated with greater average daily pain intensity but not DoA. CONCLUSION: Youth with medically unexplained pain report greater stigma and worse pain than their peers; thus, robust assessment of pain in this population is necessary. Future work should longitudinally explore the impact of pain-related stigma on pain outcomes and treatment responses.

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.

Introducing the inaugural issue of Health Affairs Scholar: Emerging and Global Health Policy (HAS).

We are delighted to introduce readers to the inaugural issue of Health Affairs Scholar: Emerging and Global Health Policy (HAS). HAS is the new fully open access companion journal to Health Affairs. Building on Health Affairs' reputation as the leading journal of health policy thought and research, HAS serves as an additional forum for high-quality, peer-reviewed work from researchers worldwide. The journal fills a gap by focusing on both health policy and emerging issues that are historically less often addressed in "legacy" health policy journals. HAS will elevate emerging new research and policy analysis on healthcare technology, business models, and innovation; population health; global health policy; and important intersecting topics with health, such as the impact of climate change. The journal will also cover core health policy topics of healthcare costs, access to care, quality, and equity.

Ten health policy challenges for the next 10 years.

Health policies and associated research initiatives are constantly evolving and changing. In recent years, there has been a dizzying increase in research on emerging topics such as the implications of changing public and private health payment models, the global impact of pandemics, novel initiatives to tackle the persistence of health inequities, broad efforts to reduce the impact of climate change, the emergence of novel technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and artificial intelligence, and the increase in consumer-directed care. This evolution demands future-thinking research to meet the needs of policymakers in translating science into policy. In this paper, the Health Affairs Scholar editorial team describes "ten health policy challenges for the next 10 years." Each of the ten assertions describes the challenges and steps that can be taken to address those challenges. We focus on issues that are traditionally studied by health services researchers such as cost, access, and quality, but then examine emerging and intersectional topics: equity, income, and justice; technology, pharmaceuticals, markets, and innovation; population health; and global health.

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.

Geriatricians' Perspectives on the Multiple Dimensions of Utility of Genetic Testing for Alzheimer's Disease: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Research advancements in Alzheimer's disease (AD) raise opportunities for genetic testing to improve diagnostic and risk assessment. Despite emerging developments, it is unclear how geriatricians perceive the potential clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for their patients. Geriatricians' perspectives are essential to understanding potential ethical, policy, and clinical challenges. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we report on geriatricians' perspectives on the utility of genetic testing for AD. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with California geriatricians within different practices settings to collect and characterize their perspectives on genetic testing for AD. We used an adapted grounded theory approach to analyze recorded and transcribed interviews. RESULTS: We identified geriatricians' (n = 10) perspectives on the clinical and personal utility of testing, alongside their views on clinical care approaches for older adults. Geriatricians perceived minimal clinical utility of genetic testing for AD, though that may change with the availability of disease-modifying therapies. Yet, they recognized the potential personal utility of testing (e.g., assisting with future financial planning). Finally, geriatricians expressed concerns regarding patients' anxiety from learning about genetic status, particularly through direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing. CONCLUSION: Our data highlight that the decision to order genetic testing requires clinical and ethical considerations, including balancing limited clinical utility with the potential personal utility. Although DTC testing is available, geriatricians perceive that they have an important role in managing the decision to test and interpreting the results. Further research is needed to inform policy and ethical guidelines to support geriatricians' critical role to counsel patients considering clinical and DTC genetic testing.

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.

Multicancer Screening Tests: Anticipating And Addressing Considerations For Payer Coverage And Patient Access.

There is a tremendous public health need to identify potentially lethal cancers at earlier stages, when there is a greater chance for improved survival. Although in the US there are currently screening recommendations for only five cancers (breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, and prostate), new tests can screen for up to fifty cancers simultaneously based on a simple blood draw. However, these multicancer screening tests (also called "liquid biopsy" tests) will also present challenges to payers because of intrinsic features of the tests and the complexity of payer coverage assessments for screening tests. We describe these considerations while also offering potential solutions that can inform payers' decision making if these tests prove to be beneficial.

Assessments of the Value of New Interventions Should Include Health Equity Impact.

A formal evaluation of the health equity impact of a new intervention is hardly ever performed as part of a health technology assessment to understand its value. This should change, in our view. An evidence-based quantitative assessment of the health equity impact can help decision makers develop coverage policies, programme designs, and quality initiatives focused on optimizing both total health and health equity given the treatment options available. We outline the conceptual basis of how a new intervention can impact health equity and adopt distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision-analytic models to assess this quantitatively, using a newly US FDA-approved drug for Alzheimer's disease (aducanumab) as an example. We argue that gaps in the evidence base for the new intervention, for example, due to limited clinical research participation among racial and ethnic minority groups, do not preclude such an evaluation. Understanding these uncertainties has implications for fair pricing, decision making, and future research. If we are serious about population-level decision making that not only is focused on improving total health but also aims to improve health equity, we should consider routinely assessing the health equity impact of new interventions.

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.

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.

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.