Downstream Revenue Generated by a Cancer Genetic Counselor

Downstream Revenue Generated by Patients With Hereditary Cancer in the Multigene Panel Testing Era

PURPOSE

Patients with hereditary cancer syndromes face increased medical management recommendations to address their cancer risks. As multigene panels are the standard of testing today, more patients needing clinical intervention are being identified. This study calculates the downstream revenue (DSR) generated by patients ascertained by a genetic counselor (GC) with a hereditary cancer likely pathogenic/pathogenic variant (LPV/PV).

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed for patients seen in a high-volume cancer genetics clinic between October 1, 2009, and December 31, 2021, with LPV/PVs in hereditary cancer predisposition genes. DSR and work relative value units (wRVUs) were calculated for each patient before and after they met with a GC. Subgroup analyses calculated DSR/wRVUs from patients affected and unaffected with cancer and those whose genetic counseling visit was the first at the institution (naїve).

RESULTS

A total of 978 patients were available for analysis after exclusions were applied. Patients generated $73.06 million (M) in US dollars (USD) in DSR and 54,814 wRVUs after their initial genetic counseling visit. Unaffected patients (n = 370, 37.8%) generated $11.38M (USD) and 13,879 wRVUs; affected patients (n = 608, 62.2%) generated $61.68M (USD) and 40,935 wRVUs. Naïve patients (n = 367, 37.5%) generated $15.39M (USD) and 11,811 wRVUs; established patients (n = 611, 62.5%) generated $57.67M (USD) and 43,003 wRVUs. Unaffected, naïve patients (n = 204, 20.9%) generated $5.48M (USD) and 5,186 wRVUs.

CONCLUSION

By identifying patients with hereditary cancer, GCs can bring in substantial DSR for their institution. Naïve and unaffected patients provide the greatest GC value-add as these patients represent new business and revenue sources to the institution. As multigene panels continue to expand, the number of patients needing downstream services will increase. Recognizing patients at increased cancer risk will improve patient outcomes while simultaneously providing DSR for institutions.

Implementing a Clinical Pathway for Needs Assessment and Supportive Care Interventions

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system-level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability.

Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Syndromes Registry: What, How, and Why?

Caring for patients with colorectal cancer inherited cancer syndromes is complex, and it requires a well-thought integration process between a multidisciplinary team, an accessible database, and a registry coordinator. This requires an aligned vision between the administrative business team and the clinical team. Although we can manage most of the cancers that those patients develop according to oncologic guidance, the future risk of patients and their families might add emotional and psychological burdens on them in the absence of a well-qualified and trained team where balancing quality of life and cancer risk are at the essence of decision making.

Downstream Revenue Realized by Facilities Placing Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in Medicare Beneficiaries to Treat Erectile Dysfunction

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the incremental downstream revenue generated from subsequent treatment of men who received an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) to treat erectile dysfunction (ED), compared to men without ED.

METHODS

The 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files were used to conduct a retrospective claims analysis of the 5-year revenue generated by patients receiving IPP to treat their ED, compared to a propensity-matched cohort of men without ED. Men aged 65 years or older with ED who underwent IPP implantation (Current Procedural Terminology 54405) in a hospital outpatient setting between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021, and who had continuous Medicare Parts A and B enrollment for 12 months pre-index IPP and 5 years post-index IPP discharge date were included in the study. Men without ED but with comparable characteristics were identified and used as a comparator group. Revenue received by hospitals from Medicare was defined as the sum of payments for patient services, other payor-paid amounts, patient deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance. Revenue was inflated to 2022 US dollars. The mean values and their corresponding standard deviations (SD) are reported.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 2905 men with ED who received an IPP and 7462 men without ED. The IPP cohort showed a significantly higher 5-year cumulative revenue (mean=$34,571 [SD=$50,234]) compared to the men without ED (mean=$3189 [SD=$11,527]). When stratified by diagnosis type, the differences in revenue were $10,258 for circulatory disease, $2646 for diabetes, $2013 for urology, and $1043 for prostate cancer. Significantly more IPP patients had at least 1 health encounter for these conditions over the 5-year follow-up period than their matched controls (55.0% vs 7.8% for circulatory, 46.7% vs 16.8% for urology, 19.3% vs 3.6% for diabetes, and 19.0% vs 3.0% for prostate cancer).

CONCLUSION

Men with ED who received IPP generated substantially higher revenue for the healthcare system over a 5-year period, nearly 10 times as much, compared to men without ED, excluding the initial cost of the IPP procedure. The presence of ED, coupled with IPP usage, is associated with significantly increased healthcare revenue across a range of medical conditions compared to men without ED. These findings emphasize the financial implications for advanced ED programs to improve access to necessary care for these patients. Healthcare facilities may leverage these insights to effectively allocate resources to deliver critical healthcare to men with ED.

Evaluating a general pediatric/adult genetic counseling clinic in a Midwest medical center

In 2018, the Munroe-Meyer Institute for Genetics & Rehabilitation (MMI) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) in Omaha, NE created a genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to increase access to genetics services and decrease the time spent between a referral and being seen in a general genetics outpatient clinic. In the GCC, genetic counselors led patient encounters and geneticists served as advisors, rather than primary providers. We conducted a chart review of 109 patients seen in the GCC from November 1, 2018, to March 16, 2020, and obtained information regarding patient demographics, indications, and clinical recommendations as a result of the visit. Most patients seen in this clinic were female (65.1%) and aged 19 years of age or older (54.1%). The primary indications for patients in this clinic included review genetic test results (42.2%), coordination of genetic testing for a known familial variant (30.2%), and concerns for personal or family history suspicious of a genetic condition without dysmorphic features (24.8%). The average patient wait time between referral date and appointment date in the GCC was 49.8 days. The two most common clinical recommendations made by genetic counselors in the GCC were genetic testing (56.1%) and/or follow-up with specialist (26.5%). These specialists primarily included endocrinology (n = 5), neurology (n = 4), cardiology (n = 4), ophthalmology (n = 3), and audiology (n = 3). We found that the GCC model may be appropriate for patients with (1) genetic test results requiring interpretation, (2) a known familial variant or (3) genetic testing recommended by a specialist physician. Descriptions of the indications and recommendations for patients seen in this GCC provide a framework for potential implementation of a GCC in other regions across the nation.