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.

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.

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.

Private payer coverage policies for ApoE-e4 genetic testing.

PURPOSE: ApoE-e4 has a well-established connection to late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) and is available clinically. Yet, there have been no analyses of payer coverage policies for ApoE. Our objective was to analyze private payer coverage policies for ApoE genetic testing, examine the rationales, and describe supporting evidence referenced by policies. METHODS: We searched for policies from the eight largest private payers (by member numbers) covering ApoE testing for late-onset AD. We implemented content analysis methods to evaluate policies for coverage decisions and rationales. RESULTS: Seven payers had policies with positions on ApoE testing. Five explicitly state they do not cover ApoE and two apply generic preauthorization criteria. Rationales supporting coverage decisions include: reference to guidelines or national standards, inadequate data supporting testing, characterizing testing as investigational, or that testing would not alter patients' clinical management. CONCLUSION: Seven of the eight largest private payers' coverage policies reflect standards that discourage ApoE testing due to a lack of clinical utility. As the field advances, ApoE testing may have an important clinical role, particularly considering that disease-modifying therapies are under evaluation by the US Food and Drug Administration. These types of field advancements may not be consistent with private payers' policies and may cause payers to reevaluate existing coverage policies.

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.

Use of Real-World Evidence in US Payer Coverage Decision-Making for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Tests: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions.

OBJECTIVES: Given the potential of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform understanding of the risk-benefit profile of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, we undertook a study to describe the current landscape of whether and how payers use RWE as part of their coverage decision making and potential solutions for overcoming barriers. METHODS: We performed a scoping literature review of existing RWE evidentiary frameworks for evaluating new technologies and identified barriers to clinical integration and evidence gaps for NGS. We synthesized findings as potential solutions for improving the relevance and utility of RWE for payer decision-making. RESULTS: Payers require evidence of clinical utility to inform coverage decisions, yet we found a relatively small number of published RWE studies, and these are predominately focused on oncology, pharmacogenomics, and perinatal/pediatric testing. We identified 3 categories of innovation that may help address the current undersupply of RWE studies for NGS: (1) increasing use of RWE to inform outcomes-based contracting for new technologies, (2) precision medicine initiatives that integrate clinical and genomic data and enable data sharing, and (3) Food and Drug Administration reforms to encourage the use of RWE. Potential solutions include development of data and evidence review standards, payer engagement in RWE study design, use of incentives and partnerships to lower the barriers to RWE generation, education of payers and providers concerning the use of RWE and NGS, and frameworks for conducting outcomes-based contracting for NGS. CONCLUSIONS: We provide numerous suggestions to overcome the data, methodologic, infrastructure, and policy challenges constraining greater integration of RWE in assessments of NGS.

Perspectives of US private payers on insurance coverage for pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing: Results of a study from the Program in Prenatal and Pediatric Genomic Sequencing (P3EGS).

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES. METHODS: We employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available. CONCLUSION: The perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers' coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers' views on ES's clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.

Private payer coverage policies for exome sequencing (ES) in pediatric patients: trends over time and analysis of evidence cited.

PURPOSE: Exome sequencing (ES) is being adopted for neurodevelopmental disorders in pediatric patients. However, little is known about current coverage policies or the evidence cited supporting these policies. Our study is the first in-depth review of private payer ES coverage policies for pediatric patients with neurodevelopmental disorders. METHODS: We reviewed private payer coverage policies and examined evidence cited in the policies of the 15 largest payers in 2017, and trends in coverage policies and evidence cited (2015-2017) for the five largest payers. RESULTS: There were four relevant policies (N = 5 payers) in 2015 and 13 policies (N = 15 payers) in 2017. In 2015, no payer covered ES, but by 2017, three payers from the original registry payers did. In 2017, 8 of the 15 payers covered ES. We found variations in the number and types of evidence cited. Positive coverage policies tended to include a larger number and range of citations. CONCLUSION: We conclude that more systematic assessment of evidence cited in coverage policies can provide a greater understanding of coverage policies and how evidence is used. Such assessments could facilitate the ability of researchers to provide the needed evidence, and the ability of clinicians to provide the most appropriate testing for patients.

Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.

Short-term costs of integrating whole-genome sequencing into primary care and cardiology settings: a pilot randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Great uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). METHODS: One hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months. RESULTS: The incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95% confidence interval -$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively. CONCLUSION: Short-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

The price of whole-genome sequencing may be decreasing, but who will be sequenced?

AIM: Since whole-genome sequencing (WGS) information can have positive and negative personal utility for individuals, we examined predictors of willingness to pay (WTP) for WGS. PATIENTS & METHODS: We surveyed two independent populations: adult patients (n = 203) and college seniors (n = 980). Ordinal logistic regression models were used to characterize the relationship between predictors and WTP. RESULTS: Sex, age, education, income, genomic knowledge and knowing someone who had genetic testing or having had genetic testing done personally were associated with significantly higher WTP for WGS. After controlling for income and education, males were willing to pay more for WGS than females. CONCLUSION: Differences in WTP may impact equity, coverage, affordability and access, and should be anticipated by public dialog about related health policy.

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.

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

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

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.