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.

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.

A logic model for precision medicine implementation informed by stakeholder views and implementation science.

PURPOSE: Precision medicine promises to improve patient outcomes, but much is unknown about its adoption within health-care systems. A comprehensive implementation plan is needed to realize its benefits. METHODS: We convened 80 stakeholders for agenda setting to inform precision medicine policy, delivery, and research. Conference proceedings were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. We mapped themes representing opportunities, challenges, and implementation strategies to a logic model, and two implementation science frameworks provided context. RESULTS: The logic model components included inputs: precision medicine infrastructure (clinical, research, and information technology), big data (from data sources to analytics), and resources (e.g., workforce and funding); activities: precision medicine research, practice, and education; outputs: precision medicine diagnosis; outcomes: personal utility, clinical utility, and health-care utilization; and impacts: precision medicine value, equity and access, and economic indicators. Precision medicine implementation challenges include evidence gaps demonstrating precision medicine utility, an unprepared workforce, the need to improve precision medicine access and reduce variation, and uncertain impacts on health-care utilization. Opportunities include integrated health-care systems, partnerships, and data analytics to support clinical decisions. Examples of implementation strategies to promote precision medicine are: changing record systems, data warehousing techniques, centralized technical assistance, and engaging consumers. CONCLUSION: We developed a theory-based, context-specific logic model that can be used by health-care organizations to facilitate precision medicine implementation.

Stakeholders' views on the value of outcomes from clinical genetic and genomic interventions.

PURPOSE: Robust evidence about the value of clinical genomic interventions (CGIs), such as genetic/genomic testing or clinical genetic evaluation, is limited. We obtained stakeholders' perspectives on outcomes from CGIs to help inform their value. METHODS: We used an adapted Delphi expert panel process. Two anonymous survey rounds assessed the value of 44 CGI outcomes and whether a third party should pay for them, with discussion in between rounds. RESULTS: Sixty-six panelists responded to the first-round survey and 60 to the second. Policy-makers/payers gave the lowest ratings for value and researchers gave the highest. Patients/consumers had the most uncertainty about value and payment by a third party. Uncertainty about value was observed when evidence of proven health benefit was lacking, potential harms outweighed benefits for reproductive outcomes, and outcomes had only personal utility for individuals or family members. Agreement about outcomes for which a third party should not pay included prevention through surgery with unproven health benefits, establishing ancestry, parental consanguinity, and paternity. CONCLUSION: Research is needed to understand factors contributing to uncertainty and stakeholder differences about the value of CGI outcomes. Reaching consensus will accelerate the creation of metrics to generate the evidence needed to inform value and guide policies that promote availability, uptake, and coverage of CGIs.

Coronary Artery Calcium Improves Risk Assessment in Adults With a Family History of Premature Coronary Heart Disease: Results From Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) or carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) among asymptomatic adults with a family history (FH) of premature coronary heart disease is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis enrolled 6814 adults without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Hard ASCVD events were ascertained over a median follow-up of 10.2 years. We estimated adjusted-hazard ratios for CAC and CIMT categories using Cox regression, both within and across FH status groups. Improvement in discrimination with CAC or CIMT added to variables from the ASCVD pooled cohort equation was also evaluated using receiver-operating characteristic curve and likelihood ratio analysis. Of 6125 individuals (62±10 years; 47% men) who reported information on FH, 1262 (21%) had an FH of premature coronary heart disease. Among these, 104 hard ASCVD events occurred. Crude incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) for hard ASCVD were 4.4 for CAC, 0 (n=574; 46% of the sample); 8.8 for CAC, 1 to 99 (n=368); 14.9 for CAC, 100 to 399 (n=178); and 20.8 for CAC, ≥400 (n=142). Relative to CAC=0, adjusted hard ASCVD hazard ratios for each CAC category among persons with an FH were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.87), 2.45 (1.31-4.58), and 2.80 (1.44-5.43), respectively. However, there was no increased adjusted hazard for hard ASCVD in high versus low CIMT categories. In participants with an FH of premature coronary heart disease, CAC improved discrimination of hard ASCVD events (P<0.001). However, CIMT did not discriminate ASCVD (P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of individuals reporting FH have zero CAC and may receive less net benefit from aspirin or statin therapy. Among persons with an FH, CAC is a robust marker of absolute and relative risk of ASCVD, whereas CIMT is not.

Assessing multilevel determinants of adoption and implementation of genomic medicine: an organizational mixed-methods approach.

PURPOSE: Adoption and implementation of evidence-based genetic and genomic medicine have been slow. We describe a methodology for identifying the influence of organizational factors on adoption and implementation of these services in health-care organizations. METHODS: We illustrate a three-component, mixed-methods health services research approach, including expert panels, qualitative interviews with key informants, and quantitative surveys completed by key informants. RESULTS: This research approach yielded a baseline assessment of existing genetic health-care models in the Veterans Health Administration and identified organizational barriers to and facilitators of adoption. In aggregate, the panel and key informant strategies created a communication network of relevant organizational stakeholders and a detailed foundation of organizational knowledge from which to design tools and models for implementation-level genetic/genomic translation. CONCLUSION: Expert panel and key informant strategies can be used to create a backdrop of stakeholder involvement and baseline organizational knowledge within which to plan translation research and to inform strategic planning and policies for adoption and implementation of genetic services in health-care organizations.

Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine.

Advances in genomics and related fields promise a new era of personalized medicine in the cancer care continuum. Nevertheless, there are fundamental challenges in integrating genomic medicine into cancer practice. We explore how multilevel research can contribute to implementation of genomic medicine. We first review the rapidly developing scientific discoveries in this field and the paucity of current applications that are ready for implementation in clinical and public health programs. We then define a multidisciplinary translational research agenda for successful integration of genomic medicine into policy and practice and consider challenges for successful implementation. We illustrate the agenda using the example of Lynch syndrome testing in newly diagnosed cases of colorectal cancer and cascade testing in relatives. We synthesize existing information in a framework for future multilevel research for integrating genomic medicine into the cancer care continuum.

Delivery of genomic medicine for common chronic adult diseases: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: The greatest public health benefit of advances in understanding the human genome may be realized for common chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and cancer. Attempts to integrate such knowledge into clinical practice are still in the early stages, and as a result, many questions surround the current state of this translation. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize current information on genetic health services for common adult-onset conditions by examining studies that have addressed the outcomes, consumer information needs, delivery, and challenges in integrating these services. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE articles published between January 2000 and February 2008. STUDY SELECTION: Original research articles and systematic reviews dealing with common chronic adult-onset conditions were reviewed. A total of 3371 citations were reviewed, 170 articles retrieved, and 68 articles included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted by one reviewer and checked by another with disagreement resolved by consensus. Variables assessed included study design and 4 key areas: outcomes of genomic medicine, consumer information needs, delivery of genomic medicine, and challenges and barriers to integration of genomic medicine. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-eight articles contributed data to the synthesis: 5 systematic reviews, 8 experimental studies, 35 surveys, 7 pre/post studies, 3 observational studies, and 10 qualitative reports. Three systematic reviews, 4 experimental studies, and 9 additional studies reported on outcomes of genetic services. Generally there were modest positive effects on psychological outcomes such as worry and anxiety, behavioral outcomes have shown mixed results, and clinical outcomes were less well studied. One systematic review, 1 randomized controlled trial, and 14 other studies assessed consumer information needs and found in general that genetics knowledge was reported to be low but that attitudes were generally positive. Three randomized controlled trials and 13 other studies assessed how genomic medicine is delivered and newer models of delivery. One systematic review and 19 other studies assessed barriers; the most consistent finding was the self-assessed inadequacy of the primary care workforce to deliver genetic services. Additional identified barriers included lack of oversight of genetic testing and concerns about privacy and discrimination. CONCLUSION: Many gaps in knowledge about organization, clinician, and patient needs must be filled to translate basic and clinical science advances in genomics of common chronic diseases into practice.

Familial risk assessment for early-onset coronary heart disease.

PURPOSE: We examined the performance of a familial risk assessment method that stratifies risk for early-onset coronary heart disease by considering the number of relatives with coronary disease, degree of relationship, lineage, and age at diagnosis. METHODS: By using data from the HealthStyles 2003 survey, we assessed the associations between familial risk and early-onset coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and obesity. By using area under the curve statistics, we evaluated the discriminatory ability of various risk assessment models. RESULTS: Of 4,035 respondents, 60% were female and 72% were white, with a mean age of 48.8 years. After adjustment for demographics, strong and moderate risk were significantly associated with approximately a five- and twofold risk of early-onset coronary disease, respectively. After adjustment for demographics and personal history of cardiovascular disease, strong familial risk was also significantly associated with diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and obesity. A risk assessment model that included familial risk, demographics, and personal history of diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and obesity was most optimal with an area under the curve statistic of 87.2% CONCLUSIONS: Familial risk assessment can stratify risk for early-onset coronary heart disease. Several conditions associated with increased familial risk can be prevented. These results have important implications for risk assessment and risk-reducing interventions.

Clinical application of genetic risk assessment strategies for coronary artery disease: genotypes, phenotypes, and family history.

Individuals with genetic predisposition to atherosclerosis have an increased risk for developing coronary artery disease (CAD), especially at young ages. They may derive the greatest benefit from traditional preventive strategies and strategies targeting novel,emerging risk factors. Because CAD is a complex, multifactorial disorder, global risk assessment has been recognized as an effective approach in preventing CAD and its manifestations. The systematic collection and interpretation of family history information is currently the most appropriate screening approach to identify individuals with genetic susceptibility to CAD. Much of the familial aggregation of CAD might be explained by familial aggregation of established risk factors and emerging CAD risk factors. Tests to assess genetic risk for CAD are primarily biochemical analyses that measure the different pathways involved in development and progression of disease. Some of these can guide and explain responses to treatment.