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

Impact of next-generation sequencing vs polymerase chain reaction testing on payer costs and clinical outcomes throughout the treatment journeys of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

For patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), next-generation sequencing (NGS) biomarker testing has been associated with a faster time to appropriate targeted therapy and more comprehensive testing relative to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. However, the impact on payer costs and clinical outcomes during patients' treatment journeys has not been fully characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR biomarker testing among patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC from a US payers' perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model assessed costs and clinical outcomes of NGS vs PCR testing from the start of testing up to 3 years after. Patients entered the model after receiving biomarker test results and then initiated first-line (1L) targeted or nontargeted therapy (immunotherapy and/or chemotherapy) depending on actionable mutation detection. A few patients with an actionable mutation were not detected by PCR and inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy. At each 1-month cycle, patients could remain on treatment with 1L, progress to second line or later (2L+), or die. Literature-based inputs included the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), targeted and nontargeted therapy costs, total costs of testing, and medical costs of 1L, 2L+, and death. Per patient average PFS and OS as well as cumulative costs were reported for NGS and PCR testing.

RESULTS

In a modeled population of 100 patients (75% commercial and 25% Medicare), 45.9% of NGS and 40.0% of PCR patients tested positive for an actionable mutation. Relative to PCR, NGS was associated with $7,386 in savings per patient (NGS = $326,154; PCR = $333,540) at 1 year, driven by lower costs of testing, including estimated costs of delayed care and nontargeted therapy initiation before receiving test results (NGS = $8,866; PCR = $16,373). Treatment costs were similar (NGS = $305,644; PCR = $305,283). In the PCR cohort, the per patient costs of inappropriate 1L nontargeted therapy owing to undetected mutations were $6,455, $6,566, and $6,569 over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Relative to PCR testing, NGS was associated with $4,060 in savings at 2 years and $1,092 at 3 years. Patients who initiated 1L targeted therapy had an additional 5.4, 8.8, and 10.4 months of PFS and an additional 1.4, 3.6, and 5.3 months of OS over the first 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, relative to those who inappropriately initiated 1L nontargeted therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Markov model, as early as year 1, and over 3 years following biomarker testing, patients with newly diagnosed de novo mNSCLC undergoing NGS testing are projected to have cost savings and longer PFS and OS relative to those tested with PCR.

Payer perspectives on genomic testing in the United States: A systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Health care stakeholders' perspectives on the value of genomic testing vary widely and directly affect the access and practice of genomic medicine. To our knowledge, a review of US health care payers' perspectives on genomic testing has not been performed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of US payers' perspectives on genomic testing in the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Of the 161 nonduplicate records screened, we summarized findings from 20 included records, and using the framework method, common domains were recorded.

RESULTS

Domains included clinical utility, coverage decision frameworks, potential harms, costs, paying for research, demand/pressure, the flexibility of outcomes considered, and personal utility. There was consensus on the definition of clinical utility as improved health outcomes, and the nuances of genomic testing were reported as challenging to fit within existing coverage decision frameworks. Perspectives varied on accepting broader outcomes or uses of genomic testing and whether costs influence coverage decisions. Study methodologies were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

A deeper understanding of how payers approach genomic testing may allow comparison with other stakeholders' perspectives and may identify challenges, opportunities, and solutions to align a conceptual and evidentiary framework better to demonstrate the value of genomic testing.

Barriers and facilitators to next-generation sequencing use in United States oncology settings: a systematic review

Aim: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors can inform treatment decisions; however, uptake remains low. This objective of this systematic review was to identify barriers to and facilitators of NGS in US oncology settings.Materials & methods: Embase and MEDLINE were searched in March 2023 for articles published from 2012 to 2023 on barriers and facilitators of NGS adoption for solid tumors. Surveys, interviews and observational studies were eligible. Studies on genetic testing for hereditary cancers and non-US studies were excluded. The Motheral scale, Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist and McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool were used to assess study quality. Data were synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty-one studies were included. Study participants were clinicians, payers and administrators. Key barriers included complex reimbursement processes and uncertainties around clinical utility. Including recommendations for NGS in clinical practice guidelines was a key facilitator, although insurance policies were often more restrictive than guideline recommendations.Conclusion: Uptake of NGS is increasing but barriers remain. Changes to the current reimbursement frameworks are needed to increase access to NGS. The impact of implementing the 2018 National Coverage Determination, which allows access to NGS for all Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer, is not yet evident in the published literature.

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in a clinical trial following comprehensive genomic profiling via liquid biopsy

BACKGROUND

Oncology clinical trial enrollment is strongly recommended for patients with cancer who are not eligible for established and approved therapies. Many trials are specific to biomarker-targeted therapies, which are typically managed as specialty pharmacy services. Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of advanced cancers has been shown to detect biomarkers, guide targeted treatment, improve outcomes, and result in the clinical trial enrollment of patients, which is modeled to offset pharmacy costs experienced by US payers, yet payer policy coverage remains inconsistent. A common concern limiting coverage of CGP by payers is the potential of identifying biomarkers beyond guideline-recommended treatments, which creates a perception that insurance companies are being positioned to "pay for research." However, these biomarkers can increase clinical trial eligibility, and specialty pharmacy management may have an interest in maximizing the clinical trial enrollment of members.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if clinical trial enrollment following liquid biopsy CGP for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is clinically and/or economically impactful from a payer claims perspective.

METHODS

Clinical and economic outcomes were studied using a real-world clinical genomic database (including payer claims data) from patients with NSCLC who enrolled in clinical trials immediately following liquid biopsy CGP (using Guardant360) and matched NSCLC patient controls also tested with liquid biopsy CGP.

RESULTS

Real-world overall survival was significantly (log-rank P < 0.0001) better for patients enrolled in clinical trials with similar costs of care, albeit with more outpatient encounters among those enrolled compared with matched controls.

CONCLUSIONS

The results, together with previous analyses, suggest that, in addition to the clinical benefits associated with targeted therapies directed by CGP and other testing approaches, payers and specialty pharmacy managers may consider clinical trial direction and enrollment as a clinical and economic benefit of liquid biopsy CGP and adopt this into coverage decision frameworks and formularies.

ESMO study on the availability and accessibility of biomolecular technologies in oncology in Europe

BACKGROUND

Access to biomolecular technologies has become an essential requirement to ensure optimal and timely treatment of patients with cancer. This study sought to provide a comprehensive overview of the availability and accessibility of biomolecular technologies to patients, the status of their use and prescription, barriers to access, and potential economic issues related to cost and reimbursement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 201 field reporters from 48 European countries submitted data through an electronic survey tool between July and December 2021. The survey methodology mirrored that from previous ESMO studies addressing the availability and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines, in Europe and worldwide. The preliminary data were posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments were incorporated into the final report.

RESULTS

Overall, basic single-gene techniques are widely available, whereas access to advanced biomolecular technologies, including large next-generation sequencing panels and complete genomic profiles, is highly heterogeneous. In most countries, advanced biomolecular technologies remain largely inaccessible in clinical practice, are limited to clinical trials or basic research, and associated with progressively increasing cost as the technique becomes more advanced. Differences also exist regarding national sequencing initiatives or molecular tumour boards. The most important barriers to multiple versus single-gene sequencing techniques are the reimbursement of the test (59% versus 24%), and the availability of a suitable medicine, either through reimbursement of treatment (48% versus 30%), off-label treatment (52% versus 35%), or clinical trial enrolment (53% versus 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost and availability of both treatment and test are the two main factors limiting patients' access to advanced biomolecular technologies and as a consequence to innovative anticancer strategies. In the era of precision medicine, tackling the accessibility to biomolecular technologies is a key step to reduce inequalities to transformative cancer care.

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.

Current published evidence on barriers and proposed strategies for genetic testing implementation in health care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The slow uptake of genetic testing in routine clinical practice warrants the attention of researchers and practitioners to find effective strategies to facilitate implementation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the barriers to and strategies for pharmacogenetic testing implementation in a health care setting from published literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in August 2021 with an expanded literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in a health care setting, from a health care system's perspective. Articles were screened using DistillerSR and findings were organized using the 5 major domains of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

A total of 3536 unique articles were retrieved from the above sources, with only 253 articles retained after title and abstract screening. Upon screening the full texts, 57 articles (representing 46 unique practice sites) were found matching the inclusion criteria. We found that most reported barriers and their associated strategies to the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing surrounded 2 CFIR domains: intervention characteristics and inner settings. Factors relating to cost and reimbursement were described as major barriers in the intervention characteristics. In the same domain, another major barrier was the lack of utility studies to provide evidence for genetic testing uptake. Technical hurdles, such as integrating genetic information to medical records, were identified as an inner settings barrier. Collaborations and lessons from early implementers could be useful strategies to overcome majority of the barriers across different health care settings. Strategies proposed by the included implementation studies to overcome these barriers are summarized and can be used as guidance in future.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and strategies identified in this scoping review can provide implementation guidance for practice sites that are interested in implementing genetic testing.

Effective and Efficient Delivery of Genome-Based Testing-What Conditions Are Necessary for Health System Readiness?

Health systems internationally must prepare for a future of genetic/genomic testing to inform healthcare decision-making while creating research opportunities. High functioning testing services will require additional considerations and health system conditions beyond traditional diagnostic testing. Based on a literature review of good practices, key informant interviews, and expert discussion, this article attempts to synthesize what conditions are necessary, and what good practice may look like. It is intended to aid policymakers and others designing future systems of genome-based care and care prevention. These conditions include creating communities of practice and healthcare system networks; resource planning; across-region informatics; having a clear entry/exit point for innovation; evaluative function(s); concentrated or coordinated service models; mechanisms for awareness and care navigation; integrating innovation and healthcare delivery functions; and revisiting approaches to financing, education and training, regulation, and data privacy and security. The list of conditions we propose was developed with an emphasis on describing conditions that would be applicable to any healthcare system, regardless of capacity, organizational structure, financing, population characteristics, standardization of care processes, or underlying culture.

Emerging genetic biomarkers in lung adenocarcinoma

Comprehensive genomic profiling is a next-generation sequencing approach used to detect several known and emerging genomic alterations. Many genomic variants detected by comprehensive genomic profiling have become recognized as significant cancer biomarkers, leading to the development of major clinical trials. Lung adenocarcinoma has become one of the most targeted cancers for genomic profiling with a series of actionable mutations such as EGFR, KRAS, HER2, BRAF, FGFR, MET, ALK, and many others. The importance of these mutations lies in establishing targeted therapies that significantly change the outcome in lung adenocarcinoma besides the prognostic value of some mutations. This review sheds light on the development of the comprehensive genomic profiling field, mainly lung adenocarcinoma, and discusses the role of a group of mutations in this disease.

Practical considerations in screening for genetic alterations in cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) encompasses diverse epithelial tumors historically associated with poor outcomes due to an aggressive disease course, late diagnosis, and limited benefit of standard chemotherapy for advanced disease. Comprehensive molecular profiling has revealed a diverse landscape of genomic alterations as oncogenic drivers in CCA. TP53 mutations, CDKN2A/B loss, and KRAS mutations are the most common genetic alterations in CCA. However, intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and extrahepatic CCA (eCCA) differ substantially in the frequency of many alterations. This includes actionable alterations, such as isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutations and a large variety of FGFR2 rearrangements, which are found in up to 29% and ∼10% of patients with iCCA, respectively, but are rare in eCCA. FGFR2 rearrangements are currently the only genetic alteration in CCA for which a targeted therapy, the fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor pemigatinib, has been approved. However, favorable phase III results for IDH1-targeted therapy with ivosidenib in iCCA have been published, and numerous other alterations are actionable by targeted therapies approved in other indications. Recent advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) have led to the development of assays that allow comprehensive genomic profiling of large gene panels within 2-3 weeks, including in vitro diagnostic tests approved in the United States. These assays vary regarding acceptable source material (tumor tissue or peripheral whole blood), genetic source for library construction (DNA or RNA), target selection technology, gene panel size, and type of detectable genomic alterations. While some large commercial laboratories offer rapid and comprehensive genomic profiling services based on proprietary assay platforms, clinical centers may use commercial genomic profiling kits designed for clinical research to develop their own customized laboratory-developed tests. Large-scale genomic profiling based on NGS allows for a detailed and precise molecular diagnosis of CCA and provides an important opportunity for improved targeted treatment plans tailored to the individual patient's genetic signature.

Outcomes of prior authorization requests for genetic testing in outpatient pediatric genetics clinics

PURPOSE

Genetic testing is an important diagnostic tool in pediatric genetics clinics, yet many patients face barriers to testing. We describe the outcomes of prior authorization requests (PARs) for genetic tests, one indicator of patient access to clinically recommended testing, in pediatric genetics clinics.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed PARs for genetic tests (n = 4,535) recommended for patients <18 years of age (n = 2,798) by pediatric medical geneticists at two children's hospitals in Texas, 2017-2018. We described PAR outcomes, accompanying diagnostic codes, and diagnostic yield.

RESULTS

The majority (79.9%) of PARs received a favorable outcome. PARs submitted to public payers were more likely to receive a favorable outcome compared with private payers (85.5% vs. 70.3%, respectively; p < 0.001). No diagnostic codes were associated with higher likelihood of PAR approval for exome sequencing. Among the 2,685 tests approved and completed, 522 (19.4%) resulted in a diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Though there was a high PAR approval rate, our findings suggest that insurance coverage remains one barrier to genetic testing. When completed, genetic testing had a high yield in our sample. Further evidence of clinical utility and development of clinical practice guidelines may inform payer medical policy development and improve access to testing in the future.

Clinical Utilization, Utility, and Reimbursement for Expanded Genomic Panel Testing in Adult Oncology

PURPOSE

The routine use of large next-generation sequencing (NGS) pan-cancer panels is required to identify the increasing number of, but often uncommon, actionable alterations to guide therapy. Inconsistent coverage and variable payment is hindering NGS adoption into clinical practice. A review of test utilization, clinical utility, coverage, and reimbursement was conducted in a cohort of patients diagnosed with high-risk cancer who received pan-cancer panel testing as part of their clinical care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel (CCCP), a 467-gene panel designed to detect DNA variations in solid and liquid tumors, was performed in the Laboratory of Personalized Genomic Medicine at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Utilization was characterized at test order. Results were reviewed by a molecular pathologist, followed by a multidisciplinary molecular tumor board where clinical utility was classified by consensus. Reimbursement was reviewed after payers provided final coverage decisions.

RESULTS

NGS was performed on 359 high-risk tumors from 349 patients. Reimbursement data were available for 246 cases. The most common reason providers ordered CCCP testing was for patients diagnosed with a treatment-resistant or recurrent tumor (n = 214; 61%). Findings were clinically impactful for 229 cases (64%). Molecular alterations that may inform future therapy in the event of progression or relapse were found in 42% of cases, and a targeted therapy was initiated in 23 cases (6.6%). The majority of tests were denied coverage by payers (n = 190; 77%). On average, insurers reimbursed 10.75% of the total NGS service charge.

CONCLUSION

CCCP testing identified clinically impactful alterations in 64% of cases. Limited coverage and low reimbursement remain barriers, and broader reimbursement policies are needed to adopt pan-cancer NGS testing that benefits patients into clinical practice.

The imaginary of precision public health

In recent years, precision medicine has emerged as a charismatic name for a growing movement to revolutionise biomedicine by bringing genomic knowledge and sequencing to clinical care. Increasingly, the precision revolution has also included a new paradigm called precision public health-part genomics, part informatics, part public health and part biomedicine. Advocates of precision public health, such as Sue Desmond-Hellmann, argue that adopting cutting-edge big data approaches will allow public health actors to precisely target populations who experience the highest burden of disease and mortality, creating more equitable health futures. In this article we analyse precision public health as a sociotechnical imaginary, examining how calls for precision shape which public health efforts are seen as necessary and desirable. By comparing the rhetoric of precision public health to precision warfare, we find that precision prescribes technical solutions to complex problems and promises data-driven futures free of uncertainty, unnecessary suffering and inefficient use of resources. We look at how these imagined futures shape the present as they animate public health initiatives in the Global South funded by powerful philanthropic organisations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as local efforts to address cancer disparities in San Francisco. Through our analysis of the imaginary of precision public health, we identify an emerging tension between health equity goals and precision's technical solutions. Using large datasets to target interventions with greater precision, we argue, fails to address the upstream social determinants of health that give rise to health disparities worldwide. Therefore, we urge caution around investing in precision without a complementary commitment to addressing the social and economic conditions that are the root cause of health inequality.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

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.

Clinical utility of next-generation sequencing in precision oncology

The Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) aims to change the way diseases are diagnosed and treated by taking into account a patient's genome, lifestyle, and environment. This type of research also uncovers potential biomarkers that can lead to the development of novel targeted therapies. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a new technology that facilitates collection of this genetic information by processing large amounts of DNA in an efficient and cost-effective way. NGS is particularly useful in oncology and has already begun to transform cancer management.

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.

Identification of Germline Variants in Tumor Genomic Sequencing Analysis

This Correspondence relates to the article by Li et al (Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Cancer: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the College of American Pathologists. J Mol Diagn 2017, 19:4-23).

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.

Precision Oncology Decision Support: Current Approaches and Strategies for the Future

With the increasing availability of genomics, routine analysis of advanced cancers is now feasible. Treatment selection is frequently guided by the molecular characteristics of a patient's tumor, and an increasing number of trials are genomically selected. Furthermore, multiple studies have demonstrated the benefit of therapies that are chosen based upon the molecular profile of a tumor. However, the rapid evolution of genomic testing platforms and emergence of new technologies make interpreting molecular testing reports more challenging. More sophisticated precision oncology decision support services are essential. This review outlines existing tools available for health care providers and precision oncology teams and highlights strategies for optimizing decision support. Specific attention is given to the assays currently available for molecular testing, as well as considerations for interpreting alteration information. This article also discusses strategies for identifying and matching patients to clinical trials, current challenges, and proposals for future development of precision oncology decision support. Clin Cancer Res; 24(12); 2719-31. ©2018 AACR.

Insurance Coverage Policies for Pharmacogenomic and Multi-Gene Testing for Cancer

Insurance coverage policies are a major determinant of patient access to genomic tests. The objective of this study was to examine differences in coverage policies for guideline-recommended pharmacogenomic tests that inform cancer treatment. We analyzed coverage policies from eight Medicare contractors and 10 private payers for 23 biomarkers (e.g., HER2 and EGFR) and multi-gene tests. We extracted policy coverage and criteria, prior authorization requirements, and an evidence basis for coverage. We reviewed professional society guidelines and their recommendations for use of pharmacogenomic tests. Coverage for KRAS, EGFR, and BRAF tests were common across Medicare contractors and private payers, but few policies covered PML/RARA, CD25, or G6PD. Twelve payers cover at least one multi-gene test for nonsmall cell lung cancer, citing emerging clinical recommendations. Coverage policies for single and multi-gene tests for cancer treatments are relatively consistent among Medicare contractors despite the lack of national coverage determinations. In contrast, coverage for these tests varied across private payers. Patient access to tests is governed by prior authorization among eight private payers. Substantial variations in how payers address guideline-recommended pharmacogenomic tests and the common use of prior authorization underscore the need for additional studies of the effects of coverage variation on cancer care and patient outcomes.

Molecular and Immune Biomarker Testing in Squamous-Cell Lung Cancer: Effect of Current and Future Therapies and Technologies

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, including squamous-cell lung cancer (SqCLC), typically present at an advanced stage. The current treatment landscape, which includes chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, immunotherapy, and targeted agents, is rapidly evolving, including for patients with SqCLC. Prompt molecular and immune biomarker testing can serve to guide optimal treatment choices, and immune biomarker testing is becoming more important for this patient population. In this review we provide an overview of current and emerging practices and technologies for molecular and immune biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, with a focus on SqCLC.

Value-based genomics

Advancements in next-generation sequencing have greatly enhanced the development of biomarker-driven cancer therapies. The affordability and availability of next-generation sequencers have allowed for the commercialization of next-generation sequencing platforms that have found widespread use for clinical-decision making and research purposes. Despite the greater availability of tumor molecular profiling by next-generation sequencing at our doorsteps, the achievement of value-based care, or improving patient outcomes while reducing overall costs or risks, in the era of precision oncology remains a looming challenge. In this review, we highlight available data through a pre-established and conceptualized framework for evaluating value-based medicine to assess the cost (efficiency), clinical benefit (effectiveness), and toxicity (safety) of genomic profiling in cancer care. We also provide perspectives on future directions of next-generation sequencing from targeted panels to whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing and describe potential strategies needed to attain value-based genomics.

EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for multi-gene panels and sequencing tests (panels), and to compare these findings with the evidence payers cited in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.

METHODS

We used the University of California at San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Registry to identify coverage policies for panels issued by five of the largest US private payers. We reviewed each policy and categorized the evidence cited within as: clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), budget impact studies, and clinical guidelines. We compared the evidence cited in these coverage policies for panels with the evidence cited in policies for other intervention types (pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tests and imaging, and surgical interventions) as reported in a previous study.

RESULTS

Fifty-five coverage policies for panels were included. On average, payers cited clinical guidelines in 84 percent of their coverage policies (range, 73-100 percent), clinical studies in 69 percent (50-87 percent), technology assessments 47 percent (33-86 percent), systematic reviews or meta-analyses 31 percent (7-71 percent), and CEAs 5 percent (0-7 percent). No payers cited budget impact studies in their policies. Payers less often cited clinical studies, systematic reviews, technology assessments, and CEAs in their coverage policies for panels than in their policies for other intervention types. Payers cited clinical guidelines in a comparable proportion of policies for panels and other technology types.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers in our sample less often cited clinical studies and other evidence types in their coverage policies for panels than they did in their coverage policies for other types of medical interventions.

Making genomic medicine evidence-based and patient-centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) in genomic medicine (GM) measures the clinical utility of using genomic information to guide clinical care in comparison to appropriate alternatives. We summarized findings of high-quality systematic reviews that compared the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of GM tests. We focused on clinical utility findings to summarize CER-derived evidence about GM and identify evidence gaps and future research needs. We abstracted key elements of study design, GM interventions, results, and study quality ratings from 21 systematic reviews published in 2010 through 2015. More than half (N = 13) of the reviews were of cancer-related tests. All reviews identified potentially important clinical applications of the GM interventions, but most had significant methodological weaknesses that largely precluded any conclusions about clinical utility. Twelve reviews discussed the importance of patient-centered outcomes, although few described evidence about the impact of genomic medicine on these outcomes. In summary, we found a very limited body of evidence about the effect of using genomic tests on health outcomes and many evidence gaps for CER to address.Genet Med advance online publication 13 April 2017.

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.

The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions

CONTEXT

Policy makers and insurance companies decide on coverage of care by both calculating (cost-) effectiveness and assessing the necessity of coverage.

AIM

To investigate argumentations pertaining to necessity used in coverage decisions made by policy makers and insurance companies, as well as those argumentations used by patients, authors, the public and the media.

METHODS

This study is designed as a realist review, adhering to the RAMESES quality standards. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched and 98 articles were included that detailed necessity-based argumentations.

RESULTS

We identified twenty necessity-based argumentation types. Seven are only used to argue in favour of coverage, five solely for arguing against coverage, and eight are used to argue both ways. A positive decision appears to be facilitated when patients or the public set the decision on the agenda. Moreover, half the argumentation types are only used by patients, authors, the public and the media, whereas the other half is also used by policy makers and insurance companies. The latter group is more accepted and used in more different countries.

CONCLUSION

The majority of necessity-based argumentation types is used for either favouring or opposing coverage, and not for both. Patients, authors, the public and the media use a broader repertoire of argumentation types than policy makers and insurance companies.

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.

Clinical Genomic Profiling of a Diverse Array of Oncology Specimens at a Large Academic Cancer Center: Identification of Targetable Variants and Experience with Reimbursement

Large cancer panels are being increasingly used in the practice of precision medicine to generate genomic profiles of tumors with the goal of identifying targetable variants and guiding eligibility for clinical trials. To facilitate identification of mutations in a broad range of solid and hematological malignancies, a 467-gene oncology panel (Columbia Combined Cancer Panel) was developed in collaboration with pathologists and oncologists and is currently available and in use for clinical diagnostics. Herein, we share our experience with this testing in an academic medical center. Of 255 submitted specimens, which encompassed a diverse range of tumor types, we were able to successfully sequence 92%. The Columbia Combined Cancer Panel assay led to the detection of a targetable variant in 48.7% of cases. However, although we show good clinical performance and diagnostic yield, third-party reimbursement has been poor. Reimbursement from government and third-party payers using the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code was at 19.4% of billed costs, and 55% of cases were rejected on first submission. Likely contributing factors to this low level of reimbursement are the delays in valuation of the 81455 Current Procedural Terminology code and in establishing national or local coverage determinations. In the absence of additional demonstrations of clinical utility and improved patient outcomes, we expect the reimbursement environment will continue to limit the availability of this testing more broadly.