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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A Practical First Step Using Needs Assessment and a Survey Approach to Implementing a Clinical Pharmacogenomics Consult Service.

INTRODUCTION: Genetic-guided selection of non-oncologic medications is not commonly practiced in general, and at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Health, specifically. Understanding the unique position of clinicians with respect to clinical pharmacogenetics (PG) at a specific institution or practice is fundamental for implementing a successful PG consult service. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinicians' current practices, needs, and interests with respect to clinical PG at UCSF Health, a large tertiary academic medical center. METHODS: A list of 42 target medications with clinical PG recommendations was complied. Clinical specialties that routinely used the target medications were identified. A 12-question survey focused on practice of PG for target medications was developed. Pharmacists and physicians were surveyed anonymously in several clinical specialties. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 396 clinicians surveyed, 76 physicians and 59 pharmacists participated, resulting in 27% and 50% average response rates, respectively. The current use of PG in clinical practice for physicians and pharmacists was 29% and 32%, respectively, however this number varied across clinical specialties from 0% to 80%. Of clinicians whom reported they do not currently apply PG, 63% of physicians and 54% of pharmacists expressed interest in integrating PG. However, the level of interest varied from 20% to 100% across specialties. Of the respondents, 64% of physicians and 56% of pharmacists elected to provide contact information to investigators to further discuss their interest related to clinical PG. CONCLUSIONS: While PG is not uniformly practiced at UCSF Health, there is considerable interest in utilizing PG by the respondents. Our approach was successful at identifying clinicians and services interested in PG for specific drug-gene pairs. This work has set a foundation for next steps to advance PG integration at UCSF Health. Clinicians can adopt our approach as preliminary work to build a clinical PG program at their institutions.

Methodological Issues in Assessing the Economic Value of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests: Many Challenges and Not Enough Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Clinical use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests has been increasing, but few studies have examined their economic value. Several studies have noted that there are methodological challenges to conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to examine key methodological challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests, prioritize these challenges for future research, and identify how studies have attempted solutions to address these challenges. METHODS: We identified challenges for economic evaluations of NGS tests using prior literature and expert judgment of the co-authors. We used a modified Delphi assessment to prioritize challenges, based on importance and probability of resolution. Using a structured literature review and article extraction we then assessed whether published economic evaluations had addressed these challenges. RESULTS: We identified 11 challenges for conducting economic evaluations of NGS tests. The experts identified three challenges as the top priorities for future research: complex model structure, timeframe, and type of analysis and comparators used. Of the 15 published studies included in our literature review, four studies described specific solutions relevant to five of the 11 identified challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Major methodological challenges to economic evaluations of NGS tests remain to be addressed. Our results can be used to guide future research and inform decision-makers on how to prioritize research on the economic assessment of NGS tests.

Cost Analyses of Genomic Sequencing: Lessons Learned from the MedSeq Project.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize lessons learned while analyzing the costs of integrating whole genome sequencing into the care of cardiology and primary care patients in the MedSeq Project by conducting the first randomized controlled trial of whole genome sequencing in general and specialty medicine. METHODS: Case study that describes key methodological and data challenges that were encountered or are likely to emerge in future work, describes the pros and cons of approaches considered by the study team, and summarizes the solutions that were implemented. RESULTS: Major methodological challenges included defining whole genome sequencing, structuring an appropriate comparator, measuring downstream costs, and examining clinical outcomes. Discussions about solutions addressed conceptual and practical issues that arose because of definitions and analyses around the cost of genomic sequencing in trial-based studies. CONCLUSIONS: The MedSeq Project provides an instructive example of how to conduct a cost analysis of whole genome sequencing that feasibly incorporates best practices while being sensitive to the varied applications and diversity of results it may produce. Findings provide guidance for researchers to consider when conducting or analyzing economic analyses of whole genome sequencing and other next-generation sequencing tests, particularly regarding costs.