Coverage policy development for personalized medicine: private payer perspectives on developing policy for the 21-gene assay

Identifying Patterns and Barriers in OncotypeDX Recurrence Score Testing in Older Patients With Early-Stage, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Implications for Guidance and Reimbursement

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical patterns of utilization of OncotypeDX Recurrence Score (RS) in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer (BC) at an academic center with previously established internal reflex testing guidelines.

METHODS

RS testing in accordance with preexisting reflex criteria and predictors of utilization outside of reflex criteria were retrospectively analyzed for the years 2019-2021 in a quality improvement evaluation. Patients were grouped according to OncotypeDX testing within (cohort A) or outside (cohort B) of predefined criteria which included a cap at age older than 65 years.

RESULTS

Of 1,687 patients whose tumors had RS testing, 1,087 were in cohort A and 600 in cohort B. In cohort B, nearly half of patients were older than 65 years (n = 279; IQR, 67-72 years). For patients older than 65 years, those with RS testing were younger (median age: 69 v 73 years), with higher grade cancers (G2-3: 84.9% v 54.7%) and were more likely to be treated with chemotherapy (15.4% v 4.1%). Issues for implementation of RS testing in older patients were identified, including potential structural barriers related to the current policy on the reimbursements of genomic tests.

CONCLUSION

Internal guidelines may facilitate standardized utilization of the RS in early-BC. Our data suggest that clinicians preferred broader utilization of RS across the age spectrum, with therapeutically important consequences. Modifying the current policy for reimbursement of RS testing and in internal reflexive testing criteria for those older than 65 years is warranted.

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.

Impact of Prior Authorization on Patient Access to Cancer Care

Prior authorization (PA) is a type of utilization review that health insurers apply to control service delivery, payments, and reimbursements of health interventions. The original stated intent of PA was to ensure high-quality standards in treatment delivery while encouraging evidence-based and cost-effective therapeutic choices. However, as currently implemented in clinical practice, PA has been shown to affect the health workforce, adding administrative burden to authorize needed health interventions for patients and often requiring time-consuming peer-to-peer reviews to challenge initial denials. PA is presently required for a wide range of interventions, including supportive care medicines and other essential cancer care interventions. Patients who are denied coverage are commonly forced to receive second-choice options, including less effective or less tolerable options, or are exposed to financial toxicity because of substantial out-of-pocket expenditures, affecting patient-centric outcomes. The development of tools informed by national clinical guidelines to identify standard-of-care interventions for patients with specific cancer diagnoses and the implementation of evidence-based clinical pathways as part of quality improvement efforts of cancer centers have improved patient outcomes and may serve to establish new payment models for health insurers, thereby also reducing administrative burden and delays. The definition of a set of essential interventions and guidelines- or pathways-driven decisions could facilitate reimbursement decisions and thus reduce the need for PAs. Structural changes in how PA is applied and implemented, including a redefinition of its real need, are needed to optimize patient-centric outcomes and support high-quality care of patients with cancer.

Blood-Based mRNA Tests as Emerging Diagnostic Tools for Personalised Medicine in Breast Cancer

Molecular diagnostic tests help clinicians understand the underlying biological mechanisms of their patients' breast cancer (BC) and facilitate clinical management. Several tissue-based mRNA tests are used routinely in clinical practice, particularly for assessing the BC recurrence risk, which can guide treatment decisions. However, blood-based mRNA assays have only recently started to emerge. This review explores the commercially available blood mRNA diagnostic assays for BC. These tests enable differentiation of BC from non-BC subjects (Syantra DX, BCtect), detection of small tumours <10 mm (early BC detection) (Syantra DX), detection of different cancers (including BC) from a single blood sample (multi-cancer blood test Aristotle), detection of BC in premenopausal and postmenopausal women and those with high breast density (Syantra DX), and improvement of diagnostic outcomes of DNA testing (variant interpretation) (+RNAinsight). The review also evaluates ongoing transcriptomic research on exciting possibilities for future assays, including blood transcriptome analyses aimed at differentiating lymph node positive and negative BC, distinguishing BC and benign breast disease, detecting ductal carcinoma in situ, and improving early detection further (expression changes can be detected in blood up to eight years before diagnosing BC using conventional approaches, while future metastatic and non-metastatic BC can be distinguished two years before BC diagnosis).

Oncotype DX Test Receipt among Latina/Hispanic Women with Early Invasive Breast Cancer in New Jersey: A Registry-Based Study

Oncotype DX® (ODX) is a valid test of breast cancer (BC) recurrence risk and chemotherapy benefit. The purpose of this study was to examine prevalence of and factors associated with receipt of ODX testing among eligible Latinas/Hispanics diagnosed with BC. Sociodemographic and tumor data of BC cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2017 among Latina/Hispanic women (n = 5777) were from the New Jersey State Cancer Registry (NJSCR). Eligibility for ODX testing were based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression models of ODX receipt among eligible women were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) by demographic and clinicopathologic factors. One-third of Latinas/Hispanics diagnosed with BC were eligible for ODX testing. Among the eligible, 60.9% received ODX testing. Older age (AOR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.14), low area-level SES (AOR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.52), and being uninsured (AOR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.86) were associated with lower odds of ODX testing. While there was relatively high ODX testing among eligible Latina/Hispanic women with BC in New Jersey, our findings suggest that age, insurance status, and area-level SES contribute to unequal access to genetic testing in this group, which might impact BC outcomes.

Patient and physician factors associated with Oncotype DX and adjuvant chemotherapy utilization for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire, 2010-2016

BACKGROUND

Oncotype DX® (ODX) is used to assess risk of disease recurrence in hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and to guide decisions regarding adjuvant chemotherapy. Little is known about how physician factors impact treatment decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine patient and physician factors associated with ODX testing and adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients in New Hampshire.

METHODS

We examined New Hampshire State Cancer Registry data on 5630 female breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2016. We performed unadjusted and adjusted hierarchical logistic regression to identify factors associated with a patient's receipt of ODX, being recommended and receiving chemotherapy, and refusing chemotherapy. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to examine the proportion of variance in clinical decisions explained by between-physician and between-hospital variation.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 1512 breast cancer patients received ODX. After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics, we found that patients seen by a male medical oncologist were less likely to be recommended chemotherapy following ODX (OR = 0.50 (95% CI = 0.34-0.74), p < 0.01). Medical oncologists with more clinical experience (reference: less than 10 years) were more likely to recommend chemotherapy (20-29 years: OR = 4.05 (95% CI = 1.57-10.43), p < 0.01; > 29 years: OR = 4.48 (95% CI = 1.68-11.95), p < 0.01). A substantial amount of the variation in receiving chemotherapy was due to variation between physicians, particularly among low risk patients (ICC = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to patient clinicopathologic characteristics, physician gender and clinical experience were associated with chemotherapy treatment following ODX testing. The significant variation between physicians indicates the potential for interventions to reduce variation in care.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To examine the temporal trajectory of insurance coverage for next-generation tumor sequencing (sequencing) by private US payers, describe the characteristics of coverage adopters and nonadopters, and explore adoption trends relative to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' National Coverage Determination (CMS NCD) for sequencing.

METHODS

We identified payers with positive coverage (adopters) or negative coverage (nonadopters) of sequencing on or before April 1, 2019, and abstracted their characteristics including size, membership in the BlueCross BlueShield Association, and whether they used a third-party policy. Using descriptive statistics, payer characteristics were compared between adopters and nonadopters and between pre-NCD and post-NCD adopters. An adoption timeline was constructed.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine payers had a sequencing policy. Positive coverage started November 30, 2015, with 1 payer and increased to 33 (48%) as of April 1, 2019. Adopters were less likely to be BlueCross BlueShield members (P < .05) and more likely to use a third-party policy (P < .001). Fifty-eight percent of adopters were small payers. Among adopters, 52% initiated coverage pre-NCD over a 25-month period and 48% post-NCD over 17 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase, but continued variability, in coverage over 3.5 years. Temporal analyses revealed important trends: the possible contribution of the CMS NCD to a faster pace of coverage adoption, the interdependence in coverage timing among BlueCross BlueShield members, the impact of using a third-party policy on coverage timing, and the importance of small payers in early adoption. Our study is a step toward systematic temporal research of coverage for precision medicine, which will inform policy and affordability assessments.

Trend and survival benefit of Oncotype DX use among female hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients in 17 SEER registries, 2004-2015

PURPOSE

To examine (1) the trend and associated factors of Oncotype DX (ODX) use among hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) patients in 2004-2015; (2) the trend of reported chemotherapy by Recurrence Score (RS); and (3) the survival differences associated with ODX use.

METHODS

ODX data from Genomic Health Inc. were linked with 17 SEER registries data. HR + BC cases with lymph node negative (N0) or 1-3 positive LNs (N1) from 2004-2015 were analyzed. The Cochrane-Armitage trend test, logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and stratified Cox model were performed. Survival analysis was restricted to HR+/HER2- patients from 2010 to 2014, matched on propensity score.

RESULTS

ODX use increased substantially from 2004 to 2015 (N0: 2.0% to 42.7%; N1: 0.3% to 27.9%). Non-Hispanic black and Medicaid insured patients had lower odds of receiving ODX. N0 patients with moderately differentiated or 2.1-5.0 cm tumor and N1 patients with well-differentiated or < 2.0 cm tumor had higher odds of using ODX. The reported chemotherapy use decreased significantly with low and intermediate RS, and increased for high RS among N0 patients. ODX use was associated with better breast cancer-specific survival [hazard ratio (95% CI) N0 1.96 (1.60-2.41), N1 1.90 (1.42-2.54)] and overall survival [N0 2.06 (1.83-2.31), N1 1.72 (1.42-2.09)], especially in the first 36 months.

CONCLUSION

ODX use has increased significantly since 2004, nonetheless disparities remain, especially for racial/ethnic minorities and Medicaid insured patients. Administering chemotherapy based on ODX results has been improved among N0 patients. Patients receiving ODX had better survival than those not.

Current Status and Future Opportunities in Lung Precision Medicine Research with a Focus on Biomarkers. An American Thoracic Society/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Research Statement

BACKGROUND

Thousands of biomarker tests are either available or under development for lung diseases. In many cases, adoption of these tests into clinical practice is outpacing the generation and evaluation of sufficient data to determine clinical utility and ability to improve health outcomes. There is a need for a systematically organized report that provides guidance on how to understand and evaluate use of biomarker tests for lung diseases.

METHODS

We assembled a diverse group of clinicians and researchers from the American Thoracic Society and leaders from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute with expertise in various aspects of precision medicine to review the current status of biomarker tests in lung diseases. Experts summarized existing biomarker tests that are available for lung cancer, pulmonary arterial hypertension, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and other rare lung diseases. The group identified knowledge gaps that future research studies can address to efficiently translate biomarker tests into clinical practice, assess their cost-effectiveness, and ensure they apply to diverse, real-life populations.

RESULTS

We found that the status of biomarker tests in lung diseases is highly variable depending on the disease. Nevertheless, biomarker tests in lung diseases show great promise in improving clinical care. To efficiently translate biomarkers into tests used widely in clinical practice, researchers need to address specific clinical unmet needs, secure support for biomarker discovery efforts, conduct analytical and clinical validation studies, ensure tests have clinical utility, and facilitate appropriate adoption into routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made toward implementation of precision medicine for lung diseases in clinical practice in certain settings, additional studies focused on addressing specific unmet clinical needs are required to evaluate the clinical utility of biomarkers; ensure their generalizability to diverse, real-life populations; and determine their cost-effectiveness.

Payer Policy Behavior Towards Opioid Pharmacotherapy Treatment in Ohio

Objective:

Few studies examine how payers address the need for improved access to pharmacotherapy for opioid use disorders and the influence of environmental variables on access to opioid agonist and antagonist medications.

Method:

The 52 Ohio Addiction Drug Abuse and Mental Health Services (ADAMHS) Boards that disburse funds for treatment services for the uninsured and underinsured were surveyed to assess coverage for opioid agonist and antagonist treatment medications. Analyses examined public health data on regional opioid addiction patterns, characteristics of the local health insurance market, and their associations with coverage for opioid addiction pharmacotherapy.

Results:

Most (70%) of the 44 participating ADAMHS Boards paid for opioid treatment medications. For payment policy, all Boards required behavioral therapy to be provided in conjunction with opioid agonist or opioid antagonist therapy, and 27% of the Boards limited length of a buprenorphine therapy regimen. Higher local opioid treatment admission rates were associated with higher rates of Board funding for opioid treatment pharmacotherapy. Environmental variables (eg, overdose fatality rates or the behaviors of private insurance payers) were not associated with ADAMHS support for opioid agonist or antagonist medication.

Conclusions:

The analysis highlights the policy preferences of these payers. Follow-up studies should examine the payer decision-making processes, preferences, and attitudes that affect support for pharmacotherapy for opioid dependence.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer Profile, from Gene to microRNA, in Relation to Ethnicity

Breast cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. It is classified into four major molecular subtypes. Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs), a subgroup of breast cancer, are defined by the absence of estrogen and progesterone receptors and the lack of HER-2 expression; this subgroup accounts for ~15% of all breast cancers and exhibits the most aggressive metastatic behavior. Currently, very limited targeted therapies exist for the treatment of patients with TNBCs. On the other hand, it is important to highlight that knowledge of the molecular biology of breast cancer has recently changed the decision-making process regarding the course of cancer therapies. Thus, a number of new techniques, such as gene profiling and sequencing, proteomics, and microRNA analysis have been used to explore human breast carcinogenesis and metastasis including TNBC, which consequently could lead to new therapies. Nevertheless, based on evidence thus far, genomics profiles (gene and miRNA) can differ from one geographic location to another as well as in different ethnic groups. This review provides a comprehensive and updated information on the genomics profile alterations associated with TNBC pathogenesis associated with different ethnic backgrounds.

BCL-2 expression aids in the immunohistochemical prediction of the Oncotype DX breast cancer recurrence score

Background

The development of molecular techniques to estimate the risk of breast cancer recurrence has been a significant addition to the suite of tools available to pathologists and breast oncologists. It has previously been shown that immunohistochemistry can provide a surrogate measure of tumor recurrence risk, effectively providing a less expensive and more rapid estimate of risk without the need for send-out. However, concordance between gene expression-based and immunohistochemistry-based approaches has been modest, making it difficult to determine when one approach can serve as an adequate substitute for the other. We investigated whether immunohistochemistry-based methods can be augmented to provide a useful therapeutic indicator of risk.

Methods

We studied whether the Oncotype DX breast cancer recurrence score can be predicted from routinely acquired immunohistochemistry of breast tumor histology. We examined the effects of two modifications to conventional scoring measures based on ER, PR, Ki-67, and Her2 expression. First, we tested a mathematical transformation that produces a more diagnostic-relevant representation of the staining attributes of these markers. Second, we considered the expression of BCL-2, a complex involved in regulating apoptosis, as an additional prognostic marker.

Results

We found that the mathematical transformation improved concordance rates over the conventional scoring model. By establishing a measure of prediction certainty, we discovered that the difference in concordance between methods was even greater among the most certain cases in the sample, demonstrating the utility of an accompanying measure of prediction certainty. Including BCL-2 expression in the scoring model increased the number of breast cancer cases in the cohort that were considered high certainty, effectively expanding the applicability of this technique to a greater proportion of patients.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate an improvement in concordance between immunohistochemistry-based and gene expression-based methods to predict breast cancer recurrence risk following two simple modifications to the conventional scoring model.

From the Past to the Present: Insurer Coverage Frameworks for Next-Generation Tumor Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing promises major advancements in precision medicine but faces considerable challenges with insurance coverage. These challenges are especially important to address in oncology in which next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) holds a particular promise, guiding the use of life-saving or life-prolonging therapies. Payers' coverage decision making on NGTS is challenging because this revolutionary technology pushes the very boundaries of the underlying framework used in coverage decisions. Some experts have called for the adaptation of the coverage framework to make it better equipped for assessing NGTS. Medicare's recent decision to cover NGTS makes this topic particularly urgent to examine. In this article, we discussed the previously proposed approaches for adaptation of the NGTS coverage framework, highlighted their innovations, and outlined remaining gaps in their ability to assess the features of NGTS. We then compared the three approaches with Medicare's national coverage determination for NGTS and discussed its implications for US private payers as well as for other technologies and clinical areas. We focused on US payers because analyses of coverage approaches and policies in the large and complex US health care system may inform similar efforts in other countries. We concluded that further adaptation of the coverage framework will facilitate a better suited assessment of NGTS and future genomics innovations.

Private payer coverage policies for exome sequencing (ES) in pediatric patients: trends over time and analysis of evidence cited

Purpose

Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) is being adopted for neurodevelopmental disorders in pediatric patients. However, little is known about current coverage policies or the evidence cited supporting these policies. Our study is the first in-depth review of private payer WES coverage policies for pediatric patients with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Methods

We reviewed private payer coverage policies and examined evidence cited in the policies of the 15 largest payers in 2017, and trends in coverage policies and evidence cited (2015 – 2017) for the five largest payers.

Results

There were four relevant policies (N=5 payers) in 2015 and 13 policies (N=15 payers) in 2017. In 2015, no payer covered WES, but by 2017, three payers from the original registry payers did. In 2017, eight of the 15 payers covered WES. We found variations in the number and types of evidence cited. Positive coverage policies tended to include a larger number and range of citations.

Conclusion

We conclude that more systematic assessment of evidence cited in coverage policies can provide a greater understanding of coverage policies and how evidence is used. Such assessments could facilitate the ability of researchers to provide the needed evidence, and the ability of clinicians to provide the most appropriate testing for patients.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing: exploring the knowledge and perspectives of US payers

PURPOSE

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing aims to optimize medication use by having genetic information at the point of prescribing. Payers’ decisions influence implementation of this technology. We investigated U.S. payers’ knowledge, awareness, and perspectives on preemptive pharmacogenetic testing.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews. Participants were screened for eligibility through an online survey. A blended inductive and deductive approach was used to analyze the transcripts. Two authors conducted an iterative reading process to code and categorize the data.

RESULTS

Medical or pharmacy directors from 14 payer organizations covering 122 million U.S. lives were interviewed. Three concept domains and ten dimensions were developed. Key findings include: clinical utility concerns and limited exposure to preemptive germline testing, continued preference for outcomes from randomized controlled trials, interest in guideline development, importance of demonstrating an impact on clinical decision making, concerns of downstream costs and benefit predictability, and the impact of public stakeholders such as the FDA and CMS.

CONCLUSION

Both barriers and potential facilitators exist to developing cohesive reimbursement policy for pharmacogenetics, and there are unique challenges for the preemptive testing model. Prospective outcome studies, more precisely defining target populations, and predictive economic models are important considerations for future research.

A review of international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs

BACKGROUND

Personalized medicine and orphan drugs share many characteristics-both target small patient populations, have uncertainties regarding efficacy and safety at payer submission, and frequently have high prices. Given personalized medicine's rising importance, this review summarizes international coverage and pricing strategies for personalized medicine and orphan drugs as well as their impact on therapy development incentives, payer budgets, and therapy access and utilization.

METHODS

PubMed, Health Policy Reference Center, EconLit, Google Scholar, and references were searched through February 2017 for articles presenting primary data.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles summarizing 42 countries' strategies were included. Therapy evaluation criteria varied between countries, as did patient cost-share. Payers primarily valued clinical effectiveness; cost was only considered by some. These differences result in inequities in orphan drug access, particularly in smaller and lower-income countries. The uncertain reimbursement process hinders diagnostic testing. Payer surveys identified lack of comparative effectiveness evidence as a chief complaint, while manufacturers sought more clarity on payer evidence requirements. Despite lack of strong evidence, orphan drugs largely receive positive coverage decisions, while personalized medicine diagnostics do not.

CONCLUSIONS

As more personalized medicine and orphan drugs enter the market, registries can provide better quality evidence on their efficacy and safety. Payers need systematic assessment strategies that are communicated with more transparency. Further studies are necessary to compare the implications of different payer approaches.

Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening

PURPOSE

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.

METHODS

We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.

RESULTS

All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).

CONCLUSION

Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.Genet Med advance online publication 22 September 2016.

Breast cancer-specific survival in patients with lymph node-positive hormone receptor-positive invasive breast cancer and Oncotype DX Recurrence Score results in the SEER database

PURPOSE

The Oncotype DX^® Breast Recurrence Score™ (RS) assay is validated to predict breast cancer (BC) recurrence and adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in select patients with lymph node-positive (LN+), hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative BC. We assessed 5-year BC-specific survival (BCSS) in LN+ patients with RS results in SEER databases.

METHODS

In this population-based study, BC cases in SEER registries (diagnosed 2004-2013) were linked to RS results from assays performed by Genomic Health (2004-2014). The primary analysis included only patients (diagnosed 2004-2012) with LN+ (including micrometastases), HR+ (per SEER), and HER2-negative (per RT-PCR) primary invasive BC (N = 6768). BCSS, assessed by RS category and number of positive lymph nodes, was calculated using the actuarial method.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with RS results and LN+ disease (N = 8782) increased over time between 2004 and 2013, and decreased with increasing lymph node involvement from micrometastases to ≥4 lymph nodes. Five-year BCSS outcomes for those with RS < 18 ranged from 98.9% (95% CI 97.4-99.6) for those with micrometastases to 92.8% (95% CI 73.4-98.2) for those with ≥4 lymph nodes. Similar patterns were found for patients with RS 18-30 and RS ≥ 31. RS group was strongly predictive of BCSS among patients with micrometastases or up to three positive lymph nodes (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, 5-year BCSS is excellent for patients with RS < 18 and micrometastases, one or two positive lymph nodes, and worsens with additionally involved lymph nodes. Further analyses should account for treatment variables, and longitudinal updates will be important to better characterize utilization of Oncotype DX testing and long-term survival outcomes.

Payer Coverage for Hereditary Cancer Panels: Barriers, Opportunities, and Implications for the Precision Medicine Initiative

Background: Hereditary cancer panels (HCPs), testing for multiple genes and syndromes, are rapidly transforming cancer risk assessment but are controversial and lack formal insurance coverage. We aimed to identify payers' perspectives on barriers to HCP coverage and opportunities to address them. Comprehensive cancer risk assessment is highly relevant to the Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI), and payers' considerations could inform PMI's efforts. We describe our findings and discuss them in the context of PMI priorities. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 major US payers, covering >160 million lives. We used the framework approach of qualitative research to design, conduct, and analyze interviews, and used simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: Barriers to HCP coverage included poor fit with coverage frameworks (100%); insufficient evidence (100%); departure from pedigree/family history-based testing toward genetic screening (91%); lacking rigor in the HCP hybrid research/clinical setting (82%); and patient transparency and involvement concerns (82%). Addressing barriers requires refining HCP-indicated populations (82%); developing evidence of actionability (82%) and pathogenicity/penetrance (64%); creating infrastructure and standards for informing and recontacting patients (45%); separating research from clinical use in the hybrid clinical-research setting (44%); and adjusting coverage frameworks (18%). Conclusions: Leveraging opportunities suggested by payers to address HCP coverage barriers is essential to ensure patients' access to evolving HCPs. Our findings inform 3 areas of the PMI: addressing insurance coverage to secure access to future PMI discoveries; incorporating payers' evidentiary requirements into PMI's research agenda; and leveraging payers' recommendations and experience to keep patients informed and involved.

Decision Making on Medical Innovations in a Changing Health Care Environment: Insights from Accountable Care Organizations and Payers on Personalized Medicine and Other Technologies

BACKGROUND

New payment and care organization approaches, such as those of accountable care organizations (ACOs), are reshaping accountability and shifting risk, as well as decision making, from payers to providers, within the Triple Aim context of health reform. The Triple Aim calls for improving experience of care, improving health of populations, and reducing health care costs.

OBJECTIVES

To understand how the transition to the ACO model impacts decision making on adoption and use of innovative technologies in the era of accelerating scientific advancement of personalized medicine and other innovations.

METHODS

We interviewed representatives from 10 private payers and 6 provider institutions involved in implementing the ACO model (i.e., ACOs) to understand changes, challenges, and facilitators of decision making on medical innovations, including personalized medicine. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that representatives from the participating payer companies and ACOs perceive similar challenges to ACOs' decision making in terms of achieving a balance between the components of the Triple Aim-improving care experience, improving population health, and reducing costs. The challenges include the prevalence of cost over care quality considerations in ACOs' decisions and ACOs' insufficient analytical and technology assessment capacity to evaluate complex innovations such as personalized medicine. Decision-making facilitators included increased competition across ACOs and patients' interest in personalized medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

As new payment models evolve, payers, ACOs, and other stakeholders should address challenges and leverage opportunities to arm ACOs with robust, consistent, rigorous, and transparent approaches to decision making on medical innovations.

ONCOLOGISTS' BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS FOR ONCOTYPE DX USE: QUALITATIVE STUDY

BACKGROUND

Oncotype DX (ODX), a tumor gene profiling test, has been incorporated into clinical guidelines to aid in adjuvant chemotherapy decision making for early-stage, hormone receptor positive breast cancer patients. Despite United States (U.S.) guidelines, less than half of eligible women receive testing. Reasons for low usage are unclear: Our objective was to better understand U.S. oncologists' ODX uptake and how they use ODX during adjuvant chemotherapy decision making.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, ~30-minute phone interviews with medical and surgical oncologists in one U.S. State using purposive sampling. Oncologists were included if they saw greater than or equal to five breast cancer patients per week. Recruitment ended upon thematic saturation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and double-coded using template analysis.

RESULTS

During analysis, themes emerged across three domains. First, organizational factors (i.e., departmental structure, ODX marketing, and medical/insurance guidelines) influenced ease of ODX use. Second, oncologists referenced the influence of interpersonal factors (e.g., normative beliefs and peer use of ODX) over their own practices and recommendations. Third, intrapersonal factors (e.g., oncologist attitudes, perceived barriers, and research gaps) were discussed: although oncologists largely held positive attitudes about ODX, they reported challenges with interpreting intermediate scores for treatment decisions and explaining test results to patients. Finally, oncologists identified several research gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

As more tumor gene profiling tests are incorporated into cancer care for treatment decision making, it is important to understand their use in clinical practice. This study identified multi-level factors that influence ODX uptake into clinical practice, providing insights into facilitators and modifiable barriers that can be leveraged for improving ODX uptake to aid treatment decision making.

A Framework for Prioritizing Research Investments in Precision Medicine

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of precision medicine (PM) has been limited in practice to date, and yet its promise has attracted research investments. Developing foundational economic approaches for directing proper use of PM and stimulating growth in this area from multiple perspectives is thus quite timely.

METHODS

Building on our previously developed expected value of individualized care (EVIC) framework, we conceptualize new decision-relevant metrics to better understand and forecast the expected value of PM. Several aspects of behavior at the patient, physician, and payer levels are considered that can inform the rate and manner in which PM innovations diffuse throughout the relevant population. We illustrate this framework and the methods using a retrospective evaluation of the use of OncotypeDx genomic test among breast cancer patients.

RESULTS

The enriched metrics can help inform many facets of PM decision making, such as evaluating alternative reimbursement levels for PM tests, implementation and education programs for physicians and patients, and decisions around research investments by manufacturers and public entities. We replicated prior published results on evaluation of OncotypeDx among breast cancer patients but also illustrated that those results are based on assumptions that are often not met in practice. Instead, we show how incorporating more practical aspects of behavior around PM could lead to drastically different estimates of value.

CONCLUSION

We believe that the framework and the methods presented can provide decision makers with more decision-relevant tools to explore the value of PM. There is a growing recognition that data on adoption is important to decision makers. More research is needed to develop prediction models for potential diffusion of PM technologies.

Pharmacokinetic Pharmacogenetic Prescribing Guidelines for Antidepressants: A Template for Psychiatric Precision Medicine

Antidepressants are commonly prescribed medications in the United States, and there is increasing interest in individualizing treatment selection for more than 20 US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments for major depressive disorder. Providing greater precision to pharmacotherapeutic recommendations for individual patients beyond the large-scale clinical trials evidence base can potentially reduce adverse effect toxicity profiles and increase response rates and overall effectiveness. It is increasingly recognized that genetic variation may contribute to this differential risk to benefit ratio and thus provides a unique opportunity to develop pharmacogenetic guidelines for psychiatry. Key studies and concepts that review the rationale for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) and cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) genetic testing can be delineated by serum levels, adverse events, and clinical outcome measures (eg, antidepressant response). In this article, we report the evidence that contributed to the implementation of pharmacokinetic pharmacogenetic guidelines for antidepressants primarily metabolized by CYP2D6 and CYP2C19.

Medicare and Amyloid PET Imaging: The Battle Over Evidence

We examine a recent dispute regarding the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) refusal to unconditionally pay for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for Medicare beneficiaries being assessed for Alzheimer's disease. CMS will only pay for amyloid PET imaging when patients are enrolled in clinical trials that meet certain criteria. The dispute reflects CMS's willingness in certain circumstances to require effectiveness evidence that differs from the Food and Drug Administration's standard for pre-market approval of a medical intervention and reveals how stakeholders with differing perspectives about evidentiary standards have played a role in attempting to shape the Medicare program's coverage policies.

Association of 21-gene recurrence score assay and adjuvant chemotherapy use in the medicare population, 2008-2011

OBJECTIVES

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay helps guide adjuvant chemotherapy use for patients with breast cancer, and is predicted to reduce overall chemotherapy use. Little is known about recent patterns of testing in the Medicare program and the impact of testing on chemotherapy use as a function of patient age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a national claims-based study of Medicare beneficiaries age ≥ 66 years. We assessed trends in assay use (using multivariable regression), adjuvant chemotherapy use, and associated expenditures, for all patients and for two age strata: age 66-74 years and 75-94 years. Geographic variations in assay adoption and regional-level correlation between assay and chemotherapy use were measured.

RESULTS

We identified 132,222 women who underwent breast surgery from 2008-2011. Assay use increased from 9.0% to 17.2% from 2008-2011 (p<.001), but chemotherapy use remained stable at 12.5% (p=.49). In younger patients, assay use increased from 14.3% to 23.7% (p<.001), while chemotherapy use decreased from 18.2% to 16.2% (p<.001). In older patients, assay use increased from 4.1% to 9.9% (p<.001), while chemotherapy use remained stable at 6.8% (p=.67). Mean per-beneficiary expenditures for testing and chemotherapy increased from $2030 to $2430 (p<.001). Regions with increased assay adoption were not more likely to reduce chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased RS testing for both younger and older Medicare patients, there has only been a modest decrease in chemotherapy use for younger patients and no change for older patients, resulting in an overall increase in costs associated with gene expression profiling.

Racial Variation in the Uptake of Oncotype DX Testing for Early-Stage Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Oncotype DX (ODX) is a tumor gene-profiling test that aids in adjuvant chemotherapy decision-making. ODX has the potential to improve quality of care; however, if not equally accessible across racial groups, disparities in cancer care quality may persist or worsen. We examined racial disparities in ODX testing uptake.

METHODS

We used data from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, phase III, a longitudinal, population-based study of 2,998 North Carolina women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer between 2008 and 2014. Our primary analysis used modified Poisson regression to determine the association between race and whether ODX testing was ordered among two strata: node-negative and node-positive breast cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 1,468 women with estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative, stage I or II breast cancer met inclusion criteria. Black patients had higher-grade and larger tumors, more comorbidities, younger age at diagnosis, and lower socioeconomic status than non-black women. Overall, 42% of women had ODX test results in their pathology reports. Compared with those who did not receive ODX testing, women who received ODX testing tended to be younger and have medium tumor size and grade. Our regression analyses indicated no racial disparities in ODX uptake among node-negative patients. However, racial differences were detected among node-positive patients, with black patients being 46% less likely to receive ODX testing than non-black women (adjusted relative risk, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P = .006).

CONCLUSION

We did not find racial disparities in ODX testing for node-negative patients for whom ODX testing is guideline recommended and widely covered by insurers. However, our findings suggest that a newer, non-guideline-concordant application of ODX testing for node-positive breast cancer was accessed less by black women than by non-black women, reflecting more guideline concordant care among black women.

Use and Costs for Tumor Gene Expression Profiling Panels in the Management of Breast Cancer From 2006 to 2012: Implications for Genomic Test Adoption Among Private Payers

Gene expression profiling has diffused into clinical practice. Reimbursements by insurers have increased, and average out-of-pocket costs to patients have decreased, seemingly driven by improved coverage for testing over time.

Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in

BACKGROUND

Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings.

RESULTS

All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.

Clinicians' expectations for gene-driven cancer therapy

A new era of medicine is rapidly approaching, which will change not only pathological diagnosis but also medical decision-making. This paper raises the question of how well prepared doctors are to address the new issues that will soon confront them. The human genome has been completely sequenced and general understanding about cancer biology has increased enormously with understanding that unregulated gene function and complicated changes in signal pathways are related to uncontrolled cell growth. Thus, gene-driven therapy involving alterations to genes are recognized to present new therapy options. This advance will necessitate major changes to the decision-making aspect of physicians. This article focuses on defining the pertinent changes and addressing what they mean for practicing physicians.

What do providers, payers and patients need from comparative effectiveness research on diagnostics? The case of HER2/Neu testing in breast cancer

AIMS

Comparing effectiveness of diagnostic tests is one of the highest priorities for comparative effectiveness research (CER) set by the Institute of Medicine. Our study aims to identify what information providers, payers and patients need from CER on diagnostics, and what challenges they encounter implementing comparative information on diagnostic alternatives in practice and policy.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Using qualitative research methods and the example of two alternative protocols for HER2 testing in breast cancer, we conducted interviews with 45 stakeholders: providers (n = 25) from four academic and eight nonacademic institutions, executives (n = 13) from five major US private payers and representatives (n = 7) from two breast cancer patient advocacies.

RESULTS

The need for additional scientific evidence to determine the preferred HER2 protocol was more common for advocates than payers (100 vs 54%; p = 0.0515) and significantly more common for advocates than providers (100 vs 40%; p = 0.0077). The availability of information allowing assessment of the implementation impact from alternative diagnostic protocols on provider institutions may mitigate the need for additional scientific evidence for some providers and payers (24 and 46%, respectively). The cost-effectiveness of alternative protocols from the societal perspective is important to payers and advocates (69 and 71%, respectively) but not to providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001). The lack of reporting laboratory practices is a more common implementation challenge for payers and advocates (77 and 86%, respectively) than for providers (32%). The absence of any mechanism for patient involvement was recognized as a challenge by payers and advocates (69 and 100%, respectively) but not by providers (0%; p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Comparative implementation research is needed to inform the stakeholders considering diagnostic alternatives. Transparency of laboratory practices is an important factor in enabling implementation of CER on diagnostics in practice and policy. The incongruent views of providers versus patient advocates and payers on involving patients in diagnostic decisions is a concerning challenge to utilizing the results of CER.

The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know

PURPOSE

There is uncertainty about when personalized medicine tests provide economic value. We assessed evidence on the economic value of personalized medicine tests and gaps in the evidence base.

METHODS

We created a unique evidence base by linking data on published cost-utility analyses from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry with data measuring test characteristics and reflecting where value analyses may be most needed: (i) tests currently available or in advanced development, (ii) tests for drugs with Food and Drug Administration labels with genetic information, (iii) tests with demonstrated or likely clinical utility, (iv) tests for conditions with high mortality, and (v) tests for conditions with high expenditures.

RESULTS

We identified 59 cost-utility analyses studies that examined personalized medicine tests (1998-2011). A majority (72%) of the cost/quality-adjusted life year ratios indicate that testing provides better health although at higher cost, with almost half of the ratios falling below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-fifth of the results indicate that tests may save money.

CONCLUSION

Many personalized medicine tests have been found to be relatively cost-effective, although fewer have been found to be cost saving, and many available or emerging medicine tests have not been evaluated. More evidence on value will be needed to inform decision making and assessment of genomic priorities.

Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges

Public and private payers face complex decisions regarding whether, when, and how to cover and reimburse for next generation sequencing (NGS)-based tests. Yet a predictable reimbursement pathway is critical both for patient access and incentives to provide the market with better clinical evidence. While preliminary data suggests that payers will use similar evidentiary standards as those used to evaluate established molecular diagnostic tests, the volume and complexity of information generated by NGS raises a host of additional considerations for payers that are specific to this technology.

The potential impact of pharmacogenetic testing on medication adherence

Poor medication adherence is a well-known problem, particularly in patients with chronic conditions, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and health-care costs. Multi-faceted and personalized interventions have shown the greatest success. Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing may serve as another tool to boost patients' confidence in the safety and efficacy of prescribed medications. Here, we consider the potential impact (positively or negatively) of PGx testing on medication-taking behavior.

Company Profile: Center for Business Models in Healthcare

The Center for Business Models in Healthcare (CBM-HC; IL, USA) is an independent investigator firm conducting health services research and facilitating collaborative interventions focused on personalized medicine and personalized healthcare. CBM-HC’s objective is to encourage the adoption of personalized medicine in care delivery and reimbursement. CBM-HC’s work focuses primarily on oncology, but also includes autoimmune, cardiovascular and other diseases. CBM-HC conducts studies of barriers to adoption of personalized medicine in care delivery and reimbursement, and facilitates development and implementation of solutions to these barriers in the form of care delivery interventions, and new models of coverage and reimbursement. This work is conducted using the 4R Framework© developed by CBM-HC – Right Information and Right Care to the Right Patient at the Right Time. The framework allows the examination and addressing of complex interdependent barriers to personalized medicine arising from care delivery and reimbursement. CBM-HC conducts its work in collaboration with several noted academic centers and via its network of other stakeholders, including health systems, patient advocates, payers and product developers.

Insurance coverage policies for personalized medicine

Adoption of personalized medicine in practice has been slow, in part due to the lack of evidence of clinical benefit provided by these technologies. Coverage by insurers is a critical step in achieving widespread adoption of personalized medicine. Insurers consider a variety of factors when formulating medical coverage policies for personalized medicine, including the overall strength of evidence for a test, availability of clinical guidelines and health technology assessments by independent organizations. In this study, we reviewed coverage policies of the largest U.S. insurers for genomic (disease-related) and pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests to determine the extent that these tests were covered and the evidence basis for the coverage decisions. We identified 41 coverage policies for 49 unique testing: 22 tests for disease diagnosis, prognosis and risk and 27 PGx tests. Fifty percent (or less) of the tests reviewed were covered by insurers. Lack of evidence of clinical utility appears to be a major factor in decisions of non-coverage. The inclusion of PGx information in drug package inserts appears to be a common theme of PGx tests that are covered. This analysis highlights the variability of coverage determinations and factors considered, suggesting that the adoption of personal medicine will affected by numerous factors, but will continue to be slowed due to lack of demonstrated clinical benefit.

Healthcare payers: a gate or translational bridge to personalized medicine?

Healthcare payers represent stakeholders who can act as either a bridge or a gate to the translation of personalized medicine into routine clinical practice. To date, the slow realization of the promise of personalized medicine has been partly attributable to the lack of clear evidence supporting the clinical utility of genetic and genomic tests and the lag in development of clinical guidelines for the use and interpretation of tests. These factors, along with a paucity of clear guidance from healthcare payers and clinical experience with genomic tests, serve as impediments to timely and consistent reimbursement decisions. The design of alternative strategies for collaborative evidence-generation, clinical decision support and educational initiatives for healthcare providers, patients and the payers themselves are critical needs to achieve the full benefit of personalized medicine in day-to-day healthcare settings.

Health technology assessment and private payers' coverage of personalized medicine

PURPOSE

Health technology assessment (HTA) plays an increasing role in translating emerging technologies into clinical practice and policy. Private payers are important users of HTA whose decisions impact adoption and use of new technologies. We examine the current use of HTA by private payers in coverage decisions for personalized medicine, a field that is increasingly impacting oncology practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review and semistructured interviews.

METHODS

We reviewed seven HTA organizations used by private payers in decision making and explored how HTA is used by major US private payers (n = 11) for coverage of personalized medicine.

RESULTS

All payers used HTA in coverage decisions, but the number of HTA organizations used by an individual payer ranged from one (n = 1) to all seven (n = 1), with the majority of payers (n = 8) using three or more. Payers relied more extensively on HTAs for reviews of personalized medicine (64%) than for other technologies. Most payers (82%) equally valued expertise of reviewers and rigor of evaluation as HTA strengths, whereas genomic-specific methodology was less important. Key reported shortcomings were limited availability of reviews (73%) and limited inclusion of nonclinical factors (91%), such as cost-effectiveness or adoption of technology in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Payers use a range of HTAs in their coverage decisions related to personalized medicine, but the current state of HTA to comprehensively guide those decisions is limited. HTA organizations should address current gaps to improve their relevance to payers and clinicians. Current HTA shortcomings may also inform the national HTA agenda.