Evaluation of out-of-pocket pay genetic testing in a publicly funded healthcare system.

When genetic tests are not funded publicly, out-of-pocket (OOP) pay options may be discussed with patients. We evaluated trends in genetic testing and OOP pay for two publicly funded British Columbia clinical programs serving >12 000 patients/year (The Hereditary Cancer Program [HCP] and Provincial Medical Genetics Program [PMGP]) between 2015-2019. Linear and regression models were used to explore the association of OOP pay with patient demographic variables at HCP. An interrupted time series and linear and logistic regression models were used on PMGP data to examine the effect of a change in the funding body. The total number of tests completed through PMGP, and HCP increased by 260% and 320%, respectively. OOP pay increased at HCP by 730%. The mean annual income of patients who paid OOP at HCP was ≥$3500 higher than in the group with funded testing (p < 0.0001). The likelihood of OOP pay increased at PMGP before the funding body change (OR per month: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10); while this likelihood had an immediate 87% drop when the change occurred (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.32). Patients with higher incomes are more likely to pay OOP. Financial barriers can create disparities in clinical outcomes. Funding decisions have a significant impact on rate of OOP pay.

Out-of-pocket and private pay in clinical genetic testing: A scoping review.

Full coverage of the cost of clinical genetic testing is not always available through public or private insurance programs, or a public healthcare system. Consequently, some patients may be faced with the decision of whether to finance testing out-of-pocket (OOP), meet OOP expenses required by their insurer, or not proceed with testing. A scoping review was conducted to identify literature associated with patient OOP and private pay in clinical genetic testing. Seven databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, PAIS, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the JBI Evidence-Based Practice database) were searched, resulting in 83 unique publications included in the review. The presented evidence includes a descriptive analysis, followed by a narrative account of the extracted data. Results were divided into four groups according to clinical indication: (1) hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, (2) other hereditary cancers, (3) prenatal testing, (4) other clinical indications. The majority of studies focused on hereditary cancer and prenatal genetic testing. Overall trends indicated that OOP costs have fallen and payer coverage has improved, but OOP expenses continue to present a barrier to patients who do not qualify for full coverage.

Secret Shopper Data on Private Prices in the Nursing Home Industry From 2008 to 2010.

Nationwide nursing home private-pay prices at the facility-level have not been available for researchers interested in studying this unique health care market. This study presents a new data source, Caregiverlist, for private-pay prices for private and semiprivate rooms for 12,000 nursing homes nationwide collected between 2008 and 2010. We link these data to publicly available national nursing home-level data sets to examine the relationship between price and nursing home characteristics. We also compare private-pay prices with average private-pay revenues per day for California nursing homes obtained from facilities' financial filings. On average, private-pay prices were $224 per day for private rooms compared with $197 per day for semiprivate rooms. We find that nursing homes that are nonprofit, urban, hospital-based, have a special care unit, chain-owned, and have higher quality ratings have higher prices. We find average revenues per day in California to be moderately correlated with prices reported by Caregiverlist.

Canadian genetic healthcare professionals' attitudes towards discussing private pay options with patients.

BACKGROUND: Just as there is inconsistency with respect to coverage of genomic testing with insurance carriers, there is interprovincial discrepancy in Canada. Consequently, the option of private pay (e.g., self pay) arises, which can lead to inequities in access, particularly when patients may not be aware of this option. There are currently no published data regarding how the Canadian genetics community handles discussions of private pay options with patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of genetic healthcare professionals (GHPs: medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and genetic nurses) practicing in Canada toward these discussions. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to members of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors to assess frequencies, rationale, and ethical considerations regarding these conversations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 144 respondents, 95% reported discussing private pay and 65% reported working in a clinic without a policy on this issue. There were geographic and practice-specific differences. The most common circumstance for these discussions was when a test was clinically indicated (e.g., but funding was denied) followed by when the patient initiated the conversation. The most frequently discussed tests included: multi-gene panels (73% of respondents), noninvasive prenatal testing (62%), and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (58%). Although 65% felt it was ethical to discuss private pay, 35% indicated it was "sometimes" ethical. CONCLUSION: With the increasing availability of genomic technologies, these findings inform how we practice and demonstrate the need for policy in this area.

Third-Party Payers . The Silver Bullet?

Healthcare reform brought about many changes in the healthcare industry including the hearing aid delivery model. Third-party payers (TPPs) became a growing trend with health insurance companies. The traditional hearing aid delivery model changed from provider and patient to provider, TPP, and patient. Due to the insertion of this middle man, profit can be diminished from the hearing aid sale, along with processes. Based on this decrease in revenue, decisions need to be made if using a TPP is profitable or even affordable for a clinic. Recent polls indicate more than half of those clinics polled currently do not participate with TPPs.