Influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings

Associations between subjective social status and predictors of interest in genetic testing among women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age

PURPOSE

Genetic testing for gene mutations which elevate risk for breast cancer is particularly important for women diagnosed at a young age. Differences remain in access and utilization to testing across social groups, and research on the predictors of interest in genetic testing for women diagnosed at a young age is limited.

METHODS

We examined the relationships between subjective social status (SSS) and variables previously identified as possible predictors of genetic testing, including genome sequencing knowledge, genetic worry, cancer worry, health consciousness, decision-making preferences, genetic self-efficacy, genetic-related beliefs, and subjective numeracy, among a cohort of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age.

RESULTS

In this sample (n = 1,076), those who had higher SSS had significantly higher knowledge about the limitations of genome sequencing (Odds Ratio (OR) = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01-1.21) and significantly higher informational norms (OR = 1.93; 95% CI = 1.19-3.14) than those with lower SSS. Similarly, education (OR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.79-4.22), health status (OR = 2.18; 95% CI = 1.44-3.31) were significant predictors among higher SSS women compared to lower SSS women in our multivariate analysis. Lower SSS women with low self-reported income (OR = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.08-0.20) had lower odds of genetic testing interest. Our results are consistent with some prior research utilizing proxy indicators for socioeconomic status, but our research adds the importance of using a multidimensional indicator such as SSS to examine cancer and genetic testing predictor outcomes.

CONCLUSION

To develop interventions to improve genetic knowledge, researchers should consider the social status and contexts of women diagnosed with breast cancer at a young age (or before 40 years old) to ensure equity in the distribution of genetic testing benefits.

The Role of Demographic and Clinical Factors in Germline Mutation Testing for Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommending genetic counseling in primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) vary. To further delineate current recommendations, this study examined genetic counseling referral patterns and rates of mutations in surgical patients with PHPT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-institution review was performed of adult patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for presumed sporadic PHPT. Genetic testing indications of hypercalcemia onset ≤ 40 years, multigland disease (MGD), family history (FHx) of PHPT, or other clinical indications suspicious for a PHPT-related endocrinopathy were examined by demographics and mutation detection rates.

RESULTS

Genetic counseling was performed in 237 (37.9%) of 625 patients. Counseling was discussed but not performed in 121 (19.4%) patients. No evidence was noted of genetic referral discussion in the remaining 267 (42.7%). Of these groups, patients who received genetic counseling were youngest, p < 0.001 [median age 55.3 (IQR 43.2, 66.7) years]. The majority of patients with indications of age ≤ 40 years (65.7%), FHx (78.0%), and other clinical indications (70.7%) underwent genetic counseling, while most with MGD (57.0%) did not. Eight mutations were detected in 227 patients (3.5%). Mutations included: MEN1 (n = 2), CDC-73 (n = 4), and CASR (n = 2). Detection was most common in patients with FHx (4/71, 5.6%), then age ≤ 40 years (3/66, 4.5%), and other clinical indications (3/80, 3.8%). No mutations were identified in 48 patients tested solely for MGD.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with onset of hypercalcemia age ≤ 40 years, positive FHx, or other clinical concerns underwent genetic counseling, while most with MGD did not. As no germline mutations were identified in patients with MGD alone, further investigation of MGD as a sole indication for genetic counseling may be warranted.

Biomarker Testing, Targeted Therapy and Clinical Trial Participation by Race Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Real-World Medicaid Database Study

Introduction

Biomarker testing in oncology is fundamental for targeted therapy use and clinical trial participation. Factors contributing to previously identified racial disparities in biomarker testing remain unclear. This study investigated biomarker testing, clinical trial participation, and targeted therapy by race among patients with metastatic lung cancer with Medicaid coverage in the United States.

Methods

The Merative MarketScan Medicaid claims database was used for this study to identify patients diagnosed with having metastatic lung cancer between 2017 and 2019 with at least 121 days of follow-up. Racial differences in biomarker testing, clinical trial enrollment, and targeted therapy use were analyzed using chi-square/t tests followed by logistic regression for confounding covariates.

Results

A total of 3845 patients were eligible. A total of 970 (25.2%) patients included in this study were Black. Biomarker testing was observed among 57.0%, targeted therapy among 4.6%, and 2.6% of the study cohort had evidence of clinical trial participation. No significant disparities between Black and White races were identified. Younger age and metastatic disease at initial diagnosis were the strongest independent factors associated with increased biomarker testing. Biomarker testing was positively associated with targeted therapy use (OR = 1.69, p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Patients with metastatic lung cancer with Medicaid coverage were found to have exceedingly low biomarker testing rates; only 57% had evidence of any biomarker testing. Although no consistent differences between Black and White races were identified, this study calls attention to care experienced by socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with metastatic lung cancer in the United States.

Safety Aspects of Herb Interactions: Current Understanding and Future Prospects

BACKGROUND

The use of herbal medicines is on the rise throughout the world due to their perceived safety profile. However, incidences of herb-drug, herb-herb and herb-food interactions considering safety aspects have opened new arenas for discussion.

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to provide comprehensive insights into the various types of herb interactions, the mechanisms involved, their assessment, and historical developments, keeping herbal safety at the central point of discussion.

METHODS

The authors undertook a focused/targeted literature review and collected data from various databases, including Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, Springer, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Conventional literature on herbal remedies, such as those by the WHO and other international or national organizations.

RESULTS

The article considered reviewing the regulations, interaction mechanisms, and detection of herb-herb, herb-drug and herb-food interactions in commonly used yet vital plants, including Glycyrrhiza glabra, Mentha piperita, Aloe barbadensis, Zingiber officinale, Gingko biloba, Withania somnifera, etc. The study found that healthcare professionals worry about patients not informing them about their herbal prescriptions (primarily used with conventional treatment), which can cause herb-drug/herb-food/herb-herb interactions. These interactions were caused by altered pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic processes, which might be explained using in-vivo, in-vitro, in-silico, pharmacogenomics, and pharmacogenetics. Nutrivigilance may be the greatest method to monitor herb-food interactions, but its adoption is limited worldwide.

CONCLUSION

This article can serve as a lead for clinicians, guiding them regarding herb-drug, herb-food, and herb-herb interactions induced by commonly consumed plant species. Patients may also be counseled to avoid conventional drugs, botanicals, and foods with a restricted therapeutic window.

Applying the framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions to increase family communication about hereditary cancer

Objective

Evaluate an intervention to increase family communication (FC) of positive hereditary cancer test results using the Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions (FDECI).

Methods

We developed 'programme theory' during the FDECI development phase by aligning intervention components with behavior change techniques (BCTs) and theoretical factors expected to improve FC. During the feasibility phase, we obtained feedback from 12 stakeholder interviews.

Results

Intervention components aligned with a total of 14 unique BCTs for which prior evidence links the BCT to theoretical factors that influence behavior change. Constructive stakeholder feedback included: more information desired, rewording to support autonomy by highlighting options, and improvements to navigation, visuals, and audio. Positive comments included: comprehensiveness of materials, modeling of conversations, and usefulness of the materials for helping a person prepare to share positive test results.

Conclusion

The first FDECI phases were helpful for improving the intervention and planning our ongoing effectiveness and future implementation phases.

Innovation

Our application of the FDECI is novel, including plans to test our 'programme theory' using coincidence analysis (CNA) to determine who accesses which intervention materials, how utilizing certain materials impact the aligned theoretical factors, and whether these in turn make a difference in the behavioral outcome.

Genetic Testing and Other Healthcare Use by Black and White Individuals in a Genomic Sequencing Study

INTRODUCTION

Early adopters play a critical role in the diffusion of medical innovations by spreading awareness, increasing acceptability, and driving demand. Understanding the role of race in the context of other characteristics of potential early adopters can shed light on disparities seen in the early implementation of genomic medicine. We aimed to understand the association between self-identified race and individual experience with genetic testing outside of the research context.

METHODS

We assessed factors associated with the odds of having ever received genetic testing prior to enrollment in a genomic sequencing study among 674 self-identified white and 407 self-identified African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean ("Black") individuals.

RESULTS

Controlling for individual determinants of healthcare use (demographics, personality traits, knowledge and attitudes, and health status), identifying as Black was associated with lower odds of prior genetic testing (OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.27-0.68], p < 0.001). In contrast, self-identified race was not associated with the use of non-genetic clinical screening tests (e.g., echocardiogram, colonoscopy). Black and white individuals were similar on self-reported personality traits tied to early adoption but differed by sociodemographic and resource facilitators of early adoption.

CONCLUSION

Persistent racial disparities among early adopters may represent especially-entrenched disparities in access to and knowledge of genomic technologies in clinical settings.

Neighborhood disadvantage, insurance status, and molecular profiling of patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is important for prognostication and determining eligibility for targeted therapies in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The use of NGS has increased in clinical practice, but variability in testing patterns still exist. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in molecular genetic sequencing in AML based on insurance status and area deprivation index (ADI), a validated metric of neighborhood disadvantage. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, cytogenetic and molecular data, and treatment patterns were collected retrospectively for 275 patients diagnosed with AML at a single institution. No significant differences in practice patterns and patient outcomes based on ADI rank were observed. In contrast, patients with Medicare or underinsured status were less likely to have genetic sequencing performed, were treated with less intensive regimens, and had inferior overall survival compared to those with Medicaid or private insurance. On univariate analysis, molecular genetic sequencing was associated with improved overall survival, suggesting that NGS data allows for better risk stratification and more informed therapeutic decision-making. These data highlight the current barriers to molecular genetic sequencing, demonstrate the positive benefits of NGS on clinical outcomes, and support universal coverage of NGS for all patients with AML.

Insurance denials and diagnostic rates in a pediatric genomic research cohort

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the amount and types of clinical genetic testing denied by insurance and the rate of diagnostic and candidate genetic findings identified through research in patients who faced insurance denials.

METHODS

Analysis consisted of review of insurance denials in 801 patients enrolled in a pediatric genomic research repository with either no previous genetic testing or previous negative genetic testing result identified through cross-referencing with insurance prior-authorizations in patient medical records. Patients and denials were also categorized by type of insurance coverage. Diagnostic findings and candidate genetic findings in these groups were determined through review of our internal variant database and patient charts.

RESULTS

Of the 801 patients analyzed, 147 had insurance prior-authorization denials on record (18.3%). Exome sequencing and microarray were the most frequently denied genetic tests. Private insurance was significantly more likely to deny testing than public insurance (odds ratio = 2.03 [95% CI = 1.38-2.99] P = .0003). Of the 147 patients with insurance denials, 53.7% had at least 1 diagnostic or candidate finding and 10.9% specifically had a clinically diagnostic finding. Fifty percent of patients with clinically diagnostic results had immediate medical management changes (5.4% of all patients experiencing denials).

CONCLUSION

Many patients face a major barrier to genetic testing in the form of lack of insurance coverage. A number of these patients have clinically diagnostic findings with medical management implications that would not have been identified without access to research testing. These findings support re-evaluation of insurance carriers' coverage policies.

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.

Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology

Policy Points American health care policy must be critically assessed to establish the role it plays in sustaining and alleviating the health disparities that currently exist in molecular genetic testing. It is critical to understand the economic and sociocultural influences that drive patients to undergo or forgo molecular testing, especially in marginalized patient populations. A multipronged solution with actions necessary from multiple stakeholders is required to reduce the cost of health care, rebalance regional disparities, encourage physician engagement, reduce data bias, and earn patients' trust.

CONTEXT

The health status of a population is greatly influenced by both biological processes and external factors. For years, minority and low socioeconomic patient populations have faced worse outcomes and poorer health in the United States. Experts have worked extensively to understand the issues and find solutions to alleviate this disproportionate burden of disease. As a result, there have been some improvements and successes, but wide gaps still exist. Diagnostic molecular genetic testing and so-called personalized medicine are just now being integrated into the current American health care system. The way in which these tests are integrated can either exacerbate or reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We provide case scenarios-loosely based on real-life patients-so that nonexperts can see the impacts of complex policy decisions and unintentional biases in technology without needing to understand all the intricacies. We use data to explain these findings from an extensive literature search examining both peer-reviewed and gray literature.

FINDINGS

Access to diagnostic molecular genetic testing is not equitable or sufficient, owing to at least five major factors: (1) cost to the patient, (2) location, (3) lack of provider buy-in, (4) data-set bias, and (5) lack of public trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular genetic pathology can be made more equitable with the concerted efforts of multiple stakeholders. Confronting the five major factors identified here may help us usher in a new era of precision medicine without its discriminatory counterpart.

Measuring quality and value in genetic counseling: The current landscape and future directions

Genetic counselors strive to provide high-quality genetic services. To do so, it is essential to define quality in genetic counseling and identify opportunities for improvement. This Professional Issues article provides an overview of the evaluation of healthcare quality in genetic counseling. The National Society of Genetic Counselors' Research, Quality, and Outcomes Committee partnered with Discern Health, a value-based healthcare policy consulting firm, to develop a care continuum model of genetic counseling. Using the proposed model, currently available quality measures relevant to genetic counseling in the US healthcare system were assessed, allowing for the identification of gaps and priority areas for further development. A total of 560 quality measures were identified that can be applied to various aspects of the care continuum model across a range of clinical specialty areas in genetic counseling, although few measures were specific to genetic counseling or genetic conditions. Areas where quality measures were lacking included: attitudes toward genetic testing, family communication, stigma, and issues of justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. We discuss these findings and other strategies for an evidence-based approach to quality in genetic counseling. Strategic directions for the genetic counseling profession should include a consolidated approach to research on quality and value of genetic counseling, development of quality metrics and patient-experience measures, and engagement with other improvement activities. These strategies will allow for benchmarking, performance improvement, and future implementation in accountability programs which will strengthen genetic counseling as a profession that provides evidence-based high-quality care to all patients.

Utilizing Public Health Frameworks and Partnerships to Ensure Equity in DNA-Based Population Screening

DNA-Based population screening in the United States has the promise to improve the health of all people in all communities. We highlight recent DNA-based population screening examples at the state, local, and individual level. Key public health principles and concepts with a focus on equity appear to be lacking in current efforts. We request ‘A Call to Action’ that involves all partners in DNA-based population screening. Potential actions to consider include: a) identification and elimination of systemic barriers that result in health inequities in DNA-based population screening and follow-up; b) creation of a national multidisciplinary advisory committee with representation from underserved communities; c) revisiting well-described public health screening principles and frameworks to guide new screening decisions and initiatives; d) inclusion of the updated Ten Essential Public Health Services with equity at the core in efforts at the local, state and national level.

Alignment of health plan coverage policies for somatic multigene panel testing with clinical guidelines in select solid tumors

Aim: Commercial plan coverage policies for multigene panel tests may vary and could result in geographic variation in coverage due to the fragmented nature of the commercial insurance market. This study aimed to characterize the alignment of multigene panel tests coverage policies to that of clinical guidelines, overall and by state. Materials & methods: We reviewed NCCN Guidelines^® for four tumors. Public coverage policies were identified via web search. Payer policies included those with the largest or second largest number of commercial lives in each state. Policies were classified as 'more restrictive' or 'consistent' with the guidelines. Results: Of 38 plans/policies reviewed, 71% were classified as 'more restrictive' than the guidelines, with variation in the number of commercial lives by state. Among these, 52% restricted on panel size and 63% restricted in all or select tumors. Conclusion: Most coverage policies were more restrictive. Clinical guideline clarity and state policies may improve alignment to guidelines and geographic variations.

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.