RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Elective genomic testing (EGT) is increasingly available clinically. Limited real world evidence exists about attitudes and knowledge of EGT recipients. METHODS: After web-based education, patients who enrolled in an EGT program at a rural nonprofit healthcare system completed a survey that assessed attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions. RESULTS: From August 2020 to April 2022, 5,920 patients completed the survey and received testing. Patients most frequently cited interest in learning their personal disease risks as their primary motivation. Patients most often expected results to guide medication management (74.0%), prevent future disease (70.4%), and provide information about risks to offspring (65.4%). Patients were "very concerned" most frequently about the privacy of genetic information (19.8%) and how well testing predicted disease risks (18.0%). On average, patients answered 6.7 of 11 knowledge items correctly (61.3%). They more often rated their risks for colon and breast cancers as lower rather than higher than the average person, but more often rated their risk for a heart attack as higher rather than lower than the average person (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients pursued EGT because of the utility expectations, but often misunderstood the test's capabilities.
RESUMEN
Familial communication of results and cascade genetic testing (CGT) can extend the benefits of genetic screening beyond the patient to their at-risk relatives. While an increasing number of health systems are offering genetic screening as an elective clinical service, data are limited about how often results are shared and how often results lead to CGT. From 2018 to 2022, the Sanford Health system offered the Sanford Chip, an elective genomic test that included screening for medically actionable predispositions for disease recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics for secondary findings disclosure, to its adult primary care patients. We analyzed patient-reported data about familial sharing of results and CGT among patients who received Sanford Chip results at least 1 year previously. Among the patients identified with medically actionable predispositions, 94.6% (53/56) reported disclosing their result to at least one family member, compared with 46.7% (423/906) of patients with uninformative findings (p < 0.001). Of the patients with actionable predispositions, 52.2% (12/23) with a monogenic disease risk and 12.1% (4/33) with a carrier status reported that their relatives underwent CGT. Results suggest that while the identification of monogenic risk during elective genomic testing motivates CGT in many at-risk relatives, there remain untested at-risk relatives who may benefit from future CGT. Findings identify an area that may benefit from increased genetic counseling and the development of tools and resources to encourage CGT for family members.
RESUMEN
This paper describes one healthcare system's approach to strategically deploying genetic specialists and pharmacists to support the implementation of a precision medicine program. In 2013, Sanford Health initiated the development of a healthcare system-wide precision medicine program. Here, we report the necessary staffing including the genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, pharmacists, and geneticists. We examined the administrative and electronic medical records data to summarize genetic referrals over time as well as the uptake and results of an enterprise-wide genetic screening test. Between 2013 and 2020, the number of genetic specialists employed at Sanford Health increased by 190%, from 10.1 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 29.3 FTEs. Over the same period, referrals from multiple provider types to genetic services increased by 423%, from 1438 referrals to 7517 referrals. Between 2018 and 2020, 11,771 patients received a genetic screening, with 4% identified with potential monogenic medically actionable predisposition (MAP) findings and 95% identified with at least one informative pharmacogenetic result. Of the MAP-positive patients, 85% had completed a session with a genetics provider. A strategic workforce staffing and deployment allowed Sanford Health to manage a new genetic screening program, which prompted a large increase in genetic referrals. This approach can be used as a template for other healthcare systems interested in the development of a precision medicine program.
RESUMEN
Genetic testing has the potential to revolutionize primary care, but few health systems have developed the infrastructure to support precision population medicine applications or attempted to evaluate its impact on patient and provider outcomes. In 2018, Sanford Health, the nation's largest rural nonprofit health care system, began offering genetic testing to its primary care patients. To date, more than 11,000 patients have participated in the Sanford Chip Program, over 90% of whom have been identified with at least one informative pharmacogenomic variant, and about 1.5% of whom have been identified with a medically actionable predisposition for disease. This manuscript describes the rationale for offering the Sanford Chip, the programs and infrastructure implemented to support it, and evolving plans for research to evaluate its real-world impact.
RESUMEN
Reimbursement for genetic counseling services was examined at a single institution. Patient encounters utilizing the 96040 CPT® code from 7/31/2009 through 7/31/2013 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included billing records of patients seen by a physician the same day, self-pay, Medicaid, and Medicare patients. Of the 8,630 encounters with a genetic counselor, 582 encounters were eligible for review. Descriptive statistics (i.e., percentage of encounters receiving some level of reimbursement, average reimbursement rate, number of third party payors providing any level of reimbursement, and number of ICD-9 codes receiving any level of reimbursement) depicted reimbursement of the 96040 CPT® code for the encounters analyzed. Statistical analysis found a significant difference in reimbursement between third party payors that do and do not credential genetic counselors (p < .0001). There was no statistically significant difference between reimbursement rates for primary diagnostic ICD-9 codes when compared to primary diagnostic ICD-9 V codes used. Results will provide a useful baseline for local and national comparisons due to the paucity of data regarding CPT® 96040.