Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019

Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy

Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.

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.

State legislative trends related to biomarker testing

Comprehensive biomarker testing has become the standard of care for informing the choice of the most appropriate targeted therapy for many patients with advanced cancer. Despite evidence demonstrating the need for comprehensive biomarker testing to enable the selection of appropriate targeted therapies and immunotherapy, the incorporation of biomarker testing into clinical practice lags behind recommendations in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Coverage policy differences across insurance health plans have limited the accessibility of comprehensive biomarker testing largely to patients whose insurance covers the recommended testing or those who can pay for the testing, and this has contributed to health disparities. Furthermore, even when insurance coverage exists for recommended biomarker testing, patients may incur burdensome out-of-pocket costs depending on their insurance plan benefits, which may also create barriers to testing. Prior authorization for biomarker testing for some patients can add an administrative burden and may delay testing and thus treatment if it is not done in a timely manner. Recently, three states (Illinois, Louisiana, and California) passed laws designed to improve access to biomarker testing at the state level. However, there is variability among these laws in terms of the population affected, the stage of cancer, and whether the coverage of testing is mandated, or the legislation addresses only prior authorization. Advocacy efforts by patient advocates, health care professionals, and professional societies are imperative at the state level to further improve coverage for and access to appropriate biomarker testing.

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.

Trends in Use of Next-Generation Sequencing in Patients With Solid Tumors by Race and Ethnicity After Implementation of the Medicare National Coverage Determination

Importance

In March 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) for next-generation sequencing (NGS) to facilitate access to NGS testing among Medicare beneficiaries. It is unknown whether the NCD affected health equity issues for Medicare beneficiaries and the overall population.

Objective

To examine the association between the Medicare NCD and NGS use by insurance types and race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using electronic health record data derived from a real-world database. Data originated from approximately 280 cancer clinics (approximately 800 sites of care) in the US. Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma diagnosed from January 1, 2011, through March 31, 2020, were included.

Exposure

Pre- vs post-NCD period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patients were classified by insurance type and race and ethnicity to examine patterns in NGS testing less than or equal to 60 days after diagnosis. Difference-in-differences models examined changes in average NGS testing in the pre- and post-NCD periods by race and ethnicity, and interrupted time-series analysis examined whether trends over time varied by insurance type and race and ethnicity.

Results

Among 92 687 patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, mBC, or advanced melanoma, mean (SD) age was 66.6 (11.2) years, 51 582 (55.7%) were women, and 63 864 (68.9%) were Medicare beneficiaries. The largest racial and ethnic categories according to the database used and further classification were Black or African American (8605 [9.3%]) and non-Hispanic White (59 806 [64.5%]). Compared with Medicare beneficiaries, changes in pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends were similar in commercially insured patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .25). Pre- to post-NCD NGS testing trends increased at a slower rate among patients in assistance programs (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; P = .03) compared with Medicare beneficiaries. The rate of increase for patients receiving Medicaid was not statistically significantly different compared with those receiving Medicare (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.01; P = .07). The NCD was not associated with statistically significant changes in NGS use trends by racial and ethnic groups within Medicare beneficiaries alone or across all insurance types. Compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, increases in average NGS use from the pre-NCD to post-NCD period were 14% lower (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99; P = .04) among African American and 23% lower (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; P = .02) among Hispanic/Latino individuals; increases among Asian individuals and those with other races and ethnicities were similar.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that expansion of Medicare-covered benefits may not occur equally across insurance types, thereby further widening or maintaining disparities in NGS testing. Additional efforts beyond coverage policies are needed to ensure equitable access to the benefits of precision medicine.

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.

Association Between Medicare's National Coverage Determination and Utilization of Next-Generation Sequencing

PURPOSE

In 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) providing reimbursement for next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for beneficiaries with advanced or metastatic cancer and no previous NGS testing. We examined the association between NCD implementation and NGS utilization trends in Medicare beneficiaries versus commercially insured patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma with a de novo or recurrent advanced diagnosis from January 1, 2011, through December 30, 2019, using a nationwide US electronic health record-derived deidentified database. Patients were classified by insurance and by advanced diagnosis date. NGS testing was assessed by receipt of first NGS test result ≤ 60 days of advanced diagnosis. Interrupted time series analysis assessed NGS utilization pre- and post-NCD effective date by insurance type.

RESULTS

The utilization and repeat NGS testing analysis included 70,290 and 4,295 patients, respectively. Use of NGS rose from < 1% in 2011 to > 45% in Q4 2019 in aNSCLC while remaining < 20% in mBC and advanced melanoma. Among patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, or mBC, NGS testing increased post-NCD versus pre-NCD (P < .05). There was no significant difference in trends pre- and post-NCD between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured patients in any tumor. Repeat NGS testing was similar before the NCD (Medicare v commercial: 24.8% v 28.5%). Post-NCD, fewer Medicare beneficiaries had repeat NGS testing (27.7% v 36.0%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Trends in NGS utilization significantly changed post-NCD, although the magnitude of change was not significantly different by insurance type, indicating private insurers may also be incorporating NCD guidance. Implementation of the NCD may have limited use of repeat NGS testing in Medicare beneficiaries.

Novel Approach Using Administrative Claims to Evaluate Trends in Oncology Multigene Panel Testing for Patients Enrolled in Medicare Advantage Health Plans

PURPOSE

To develop an approach to identify and evaluate recent use of multigene panel testing over time.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database analysis using medical and pharmacy claims data. Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan members diagnosed with select malignant solid tumors were identified. The pattern of somatic genetic testing for each patient was evaluated from January 2016 through December 2018. Tests were classified by the number of genes tested in the panel: < 50 (small or medium) and ≥ 50 (large).

RESULTS

An initial feasibility study using our novel approach for identifying panel tests resulted in 2.4 and 1.2 times more large and medium panels, respectively, identified compared with using procedure codes alone. A total of 121,675 eligible patients were identified, with 131,915 unique cancer cases. Overall, 5,457 (4.5%) patients received any panel test from 2016 to 2018. We found the number of tests performed each quarter increased from 238 in Q1 of 2016 to 755 in Q4 of 2018. The highest number of cases were genitourinary cancers; however, the highest proportion of cancer-related genetic testing was among patients with respiratory cancer. Across all tumor types, the proportion of large-panel tests performed as a function of all multigene panel tests increased from 20.7% of tests in Q1 of 2016 to 46.4% of tests in Q4 of 2018. The three cancer categories with the highest count of cancer-related panel tests, respiratory cancer, GI cancer, and female reproductive cancer, had a consistently greater proportion receiving a panel test at any point postindex.

CONCLUSION

Across a variety of cancers, use of somatic, large-panel cancer-related genetic testing, as a proportion of all somatic cancer-related genetic testing, increased from 2016 to 2018, although testing overall was low.

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.