Genetics professionals are key to the integration of genetic testing within the practice of frontline clinicians.

PURPOSE: Genetic tests have become widely available. We sought to understand the use of genetic tests in the practice of frontline clinicians within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to clinicians at 20 VA facilities. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and pharmacists were eligible. We excluded genetics providers and clinicians not seeing patients. We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate the associations between clinician characteristics and experience with genetics. RESULTS: The response rate was 11.3% (1207/10,680) and of these, 909 respondents were eligible. Only 20.8% of the respondents reported feeling prepared to use genetic tests and 13.0% of the respondents were currently ordering genetic tests; although, it was usually only 1 or 2 a year. Delivery of genetic tests without involving genetics providers was preferred by only 7.9% of the respondents. Characteristics positively associated with currently ordering genetic tests included practice in clinical and research settings, believing improving genetics knowledge could alter their practice, feeling prepared to use genetic tests, and referral of at least 1 patient to genetics in the past year. CONCLUSION: Most VA clinicians don't feel prepared to use genetic tests. Those with genetic testing experience are more likely to consult genetics providers. The demand for genetics providers should increase as frontline clinicians use genetic tests in their practice.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

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.

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.

Laboratory business models and practices: implications for availability and access to germline genetic testing.

PURPOSE: Germline testing laboratories have evolved over several decades. We describe laboratory business models and practices and explore their implications on germline testing availability and access. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with key informants using purposive sampling. We interviewed 13 key informants representing 14 laboratories. We used triangulation and iterative data analysis to identify topics concerning laboratory business models and practices. RESULTS: We characterized laboratories as full-service (FSL), for-profit germline (PGL), and not-for-profit germline (NGL). Relying on existing payer contracts is a key characteristic of the FSL business models. FSLs focus on high-volume germline tests with evidence of clinical utility that have reimbursable codes. In comparison, a key business model characteristic of PGLs is direct patient billing facilitated by commodity-based pricing made possible by investors and industry partnerships. Client billing is a key business model characteristic of NGLs. Because many NGLs exist within academic settings, they are challenged by their inability to optimize laboratory processes and billing practices. CONCLUSION: Continued availability of, and access to germline testing will depend on the financial success of laboratories; organizational characteristics of laboratories and payers; cultural factors, particularly consumer interest and trust; and societal factors, such as regulation and laws surrounding pricing and reimbursement.

Primary care providers' responses to unsolicited Lynch syndrome secondary findings of varying clinical significance.

PURPOSE: How primary care providers (PCPs) respond to genomic secondary findings (SFs) of varying clinical significance (pathogenic, uncertain significance [VUS], or benign) is unknown. METHODS: We randomized 148 American Academy of Family Physicians members to review three reports with varying significance for Lynch syndrome. Participants provided open-ended responses about the follow-up they would address and organized the SF reports and five other topics in the order they would prioritize responding to them (1 = highest priority, 6 = lowest priority). RESULTS: PCPs suggested referrals more often for pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (72% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). PCPs were also more likely to address further workup, like a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy, in response to pathogenic variants or VUS than benign variants (43% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). The likelihoods of addressing referrals or further workup were similar when PCPs reviewed pathogenic variants and VUS (both p > 0.46). SF reports were prioritized highest for pathogenic variants (2.7 for pathogenic variants, 3.6 for VUS, 4.3 for benign variants, all p ≤ 0.014). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that while PCPs appreciated the differences in clinical significance, disclosure of VUS as SFs would substantially increase downstream health-care utilization.

Systematic evidence-based review: outcomes from exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability.

PURPOSE: Exome and genome sequencing (ES/GS) are performed frequently in patients with congenital anomalies, developmental delay, or intellectual disability (CA/DD/ID), but the impact of results from ES/GS on clinical management and patient outcomes is not well characterized. A systematic evidence review (SER) can support future evidence-based guideline development for use of ES/GS in this patient population. METHODS: We undertook an SER to identify primary literature from January 2007 to March 2019 describing health, clinical, reproductive, and psychosocial outcomes resulting from ES/GS in patients with CA/DD/ID. A narrative synthesis of results was performed. RESULTS: We retrieved 2654 publications for full-text review from 7178 articles. Only 167 articles met our inclusion criteria, and these were primarily case reports or small case series of fewer than 20 patients. The most frequently reported outcomes from ES/GS were changes to clinical management or reproductive decision-making. Two studies reported on the reduction of mortality or morbidity or impact on quality of life following ES/GS. CONCLUSION: There is evidence that ES/GS for patients with CA/DD/ID informs clinical and reproductive decision-making, which could lead to improved outcomes for patients and their family members. Further research is needed to generate evidence regarding health outcomes to inform robust guidelines regarding ES/GS in the care of patients with CA/DD/ID.

Pharmacogenetic testing in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA): policy recommendations from the VHA Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee.

PURPOSE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee is charged with making recommendations about whether specific pharmacogenetic tests should be used in healthcare at VHA facilities. We describe a process to inform VHA pharmacogenetic testing policy. METHODS: After developing consensus definitions of clinical validity and utility, the Subcommittee identified salient drug-gene pairs with potential clinical application in VHA. Members met monthly to discuss each drug-gene pair, the evidence of clinical utility for the associated pharmacogenetic test, and any VHA-specific testing considerations. The Subcommittee classified each test as strongly recommended, recommended, or not routinely recommended before drug initiation. RESULTS: Of 30 drug-gene pair tests reviewed, the Subcommittee classified 4 (13%) as strongly recommended, including HLA-B*15:02 for carbamazepine-associated Stevens-Johnston syndrome and G6PD for rasburicase-associated hemolytic anemia; 12 (40%) as recommended, including CYP2D6 for codeine toxicity; and 14 (47%) as not routinely recommended, such as CYP2C19 for clopidogrel dosing. CONCLUSION: Only half of drug-gene pairs with high clinical validity received Subcommittee support for policy promoting their widespread use across VHA. The Subcommittee generally found insufficient evidence of clinical utility or available, effective alternative strategies for the remainders. Continual evidence review and rigorous outcomes research will help promote the translation of pharmacogenetic discovery to healthcare.

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.

The value of genetic testing: beyond clinical utility.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of genetic testing from the perspective of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical leadership. METHODS: We administered an Internet-based survey to VA clinical leaders nationwide. Respondents rated the value (on a 5-point scale) of each of six possible reasons for genetic testing. Bivariate and linear regressions identified associations between value ratings and environmental, organizational, provider, patient, and encounter characteristics. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 353; 63% response rate) represented 92% of VA medical centers. Tests that inform clinical management had the highest value rating (58.6%), followed by tests that inform disease prevention (56.4%), reproductive options (50.1%), life planning (43.9%), and a suspected (39.9%) or established (32.3%) diagnosis. Factors positively associated with high value included a culture that fosters adoption of genomics, specialist versus primary care provider, genetic tests available on laboratory menus, availability of genetic testing guidelines, clinicians knowing when to request genetics referrals, and availability of genetics professionals. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the varied value of genetic testing from the perspective of clinical leadership within a health-care system. Engaging organizational leadership in understanding the various reasons for genetic testing and its value beyond clinical utility may increase adoption of genetic tests to support patient-centered care.Genet Med advance online publication 15 December 2016.

Electronic health record interventions at the point of care improve documentation of care processes and decrease orders for genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether electronic health record (EHR) tools improve documentation of pre- and postanalytic care processes for genetic tests ordered by nongeneticists. METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, controlled, pre-/postintervention study of EHR point-of-care tools (informational messages and template report) for three genetic tests. Chart review assessed documentation of genetic testing processes of care, with points assigned for each documented item. Multiple linear and logistic regressions assessed factors associated with documentation. RESULTS: Preimplementation, there were no significant site differences (P > 0.05). Postimplementation, mean documentation scores increased (5.9 (2.1) vs. 5.0 (2.2); P = 0.0001) and records with clinically meaningful documentation increased (score >5: 59 vs. 47%; P = 0.02) at the intervention versus the control site. Pre- and postimplementation, a score >5 was positively associated with abnormal test results (OR = 4.0; 95% CI: 1.8-9.2) and trainee provider (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.2-4.6). Postimplementation, a score >5 was also positively associated with intervention site (OR = 2.3; 95% CI: 1.1-5.1) and specialty clinic (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.1-3.6). There were also significantly fewer tests ordered after implementation (264/100,000 vs. 204/100,000; P = 0.03), with no significant change at the control site (280/100,000 vs. 257/100,000; P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: EHR point-of-care tools improved documentation of genetic testing processes and decreased utilization of genetic tests commonly ordered by nongeneticists.Genet Med 19 1, 112-120.

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.

Reporting genomic secondary findings: ACMG members weigh in.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to survey American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics members about secondary findings from clinical genome-scale sequencing. METHODS: A Web-based survey was mailed to 1,687 members of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Exploratory factor analysis identified underlying factors assessed by survey items. Linear regression assessed associations between factor scores and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: The response rate was 29%. Four factors explained 51% of the survey variance: best practices, patient preferences, guidance, and informed consent. Most agreed with "best practice" items describing seeking and reporting of secondary findings as consistent with medical standards, having sufficient evidence, and, for adults, the benefits generally outweighing potential harms. There was lack of agreement regarding benefits versus harms for children and impact on health-care resources. The majority agreed that patient preferences should be considered, including ability to opt out, and that informed consent was feasible and critical. Characteristics significantly associated with factor scores included country of residence, sequencing experience, and years in practice. CONCLUSION: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics should update a list of genes to be assessed when clinical genome-scale sequencing is performed. Informed consent is necessary, and reporting of secondary findings should be optional. Research on implementation of secondary findings reporting is needed.

Factors influencing organizational adoption and implementation of clinical genetic services.

PURPOSE: We sought to identify characteristics of genetic services that facilitate or hinder adoption. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews in five clinical specialties (primary care, medical oncology, neurology, cardiology, pathology/laboratory medicine) within 13 Veterans Administration facilities. RESULTS: Genetic services (defined as genetic testing and consultation) were not typically characterized by informants (n = 64) as advantageous for their facilities or their patients; compatible with organizational norms of low cost and high clinical impact; or applicable to patient populations or norms of clinical care. Furthermore, genetic services had not been systematically adopted in most facilities because of their complexity: knowledge of and expertise on genetic testing was limited, and organizational barriers to utilization of genetic services were formidable. The few facilities that had some success with implementation of genetic services had knowledgeable clinicians interested in developing services and organizational-level facilitators such as accessible genetic test-ordering processes. CONCLUSION: Adoption and implementation of genetic services will require a multilevel effort that includes education of providers and administrators, opportunities for observing the benefits of genetic medicine, strategies for reducing the complexity of genomic medicine, expanded strategies for accessing genetics expertise and streamlining utilization, and resources dedicated to assessing the value of genetic information for the outcomes that matter to health-care organizations.

Delivery of clinical genetic consultative services in the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the delivery of genetic consultative services for adults, we examined the prevalence and organizational determinants of genetic consult availability and the organization of these services in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of Veterans Health Administration clinical leaders. We summarized facility characteristics using descriptive statistics. Multivariate logistic regression assessed associations between organizational characteristics and consult availability. RESULTS: We received 353 survey responses from key informants representing 141 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Clinicians could obtain genetic consults at 110 (78%) Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. Cancer genetic and neurogenetic consults were most common. Academic affiliation (odds ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-8.6) and provider education about genetics (odds ratio = 2.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-7.8) were significantly associated with consult availability. The traditional model of multidisciplinary specialty clinics or coordinated services between geneticists and other providers was most prevalent, although variability in the organization of these services was described, with consults available on-site, at another Veterans Affairs Medical Center, via telegenetics, or at non-Veterans Health Administration facilities. The emerging model of nongeneticists integrating genetics into their practices was also reported, with considerable variability by specialty. CONCLUSION: Both traditional and emerging models for genetic consultation are available in the Veterans Health Administration; however, there is variability in service organization that could influence quality of care.