Search

PurposeCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing has become a promising tool to guide first-line (1L) targeted treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). This study aims to estimate the clinical validity (CV) and clinical utility (CU) of ctDNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) for oncogenic driver mutations to inform 1L treatment decisions in aNSCLC through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase to identify randomized control trials or observational studies reporting CV/CU on ctDNA testing in patients with aNSCLC. Meta-analyses were performed using bivariate random-effects models to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. Progression-free/overall survival (PFS/OS) was summarized for CU studies.ResultsA total of 20 studies were identified: 17 CV only, 2 CU only, and 1 both, and 13 studies were included for the meta-analysis on multi-gene detection. The overall sensitivity and specificity for ctDNA detection of any mutation were 0.69 (95% CI 0.63-0.74) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00), respectively. However, sensitivity varied greatly by driver gene, ranging from 0.29 (95% CI 0.13-0.53) for ROS1 to 0.77 (95% CI 0.63-0.86) for KRAS. Two studies that compared PFS with ctDNA versus tissue-based testing followed by 1L targeted therapy found no significant differences. One study reported OS curves on ctDNA-matched and tissue-matched therapies but no hazard ratios were provided.ConclusionsctDNA testing demonstrated an overall acceptable diagnostic accuracy in patients with aNSCLC, however, sensitivity varied greatly by driver mutation. Further research is needed, especially for uncommon driver mutations, to better understand the CU of ctDNA testing in guiding targeted treatments for aNSCLC.

ObjectiveTo perform a distributional cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid biopsy (LB) followed by, if needed, tissue biopsy (TB) (LB-first strategy) relative to a TB-only strategy to inform first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) from a US-payer perspective by which we quantify the impact of LB-first on population health inequality according to race and ethnicity.MethodsWith a health economic model, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs per patient were estimated for each subgroup. Given the lifetime risk of aNSCLC, and assuming equally-distributed opportunity costs, the incremental net health benefits of LB-first were calculated, which were used to estimate general population quality adjusted life expectancy at birth (QALE) by race and ethnicity with and without LB-first. The degree of QALYs and QALE differences with the strategies was expressed with inequality indices. Their differences were defined as the inequality impact of LB-first.ResultsLB-first resulted in an additional 0.17 (95%uncertainty interval 0.06;0.32) QALYs among treated patients, with the greatest gain observed among Asian patients (0.26 QALYs (0.08;0.52)). LB-first resulted in an increase in relative inequality in QALYs among patients, but a minor decrease in relative inequality in QALE.ConclusionLB-first to inform first-line aNSCLC therapy can improve health outcomes but with current diagnostic performance, the benefit is the greatest among Asian patients thereby potentially widening racial and ethnic differences in survival among aNSCLC patients. Assuming equally-distributed opportunity costs and access, LB-first does not worsen and, in fact, may reduce inequality in general population health according to race and ethnicity.

Health policies and associated research initiatives are constantly evolving and changing. In recent years, there has been a dizzying increase in research on emerging topics such as the implications of changing public and private health payment models, the global impact of pandemics, novel initiatives to tackle the persistence of health inequities, broad efforts to reduce the impact of climate change, the emergence of novel technologies such as whole-genome sequencing and artificial intelligence, and the increase in consumer-directed care. This evolution demands future-thinking research to meet the needs of policymakers in translating science into policy. In this paper, the Health Affairs Scholar editorial team describes ten health policy challenges for the next 10 years. Each of the ten assertions describes the challenges and steps that can be taken to address those challenges. We focus on issues that are traditionally studied by health services researchers such as cost, access, and quality, but then examine emerging and intersectional topics: equity, income, and justice; technology, pharmaceuticals, markets, and innovation; population health; and global health.

Abstract: 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.

BackgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is used to select initial targeted therapy, identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance, and measure minimal residual disease (MRD) after treatment. Our objective was to review private and Medicare coverage policies for ctDNA testing.MethodsPolicy Reporter was used to identify coverage policies (as of February 2022) from private payers and Medicare Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA tests. We abstracted data regarding policy existence, ctDNA test coverage, cancer types covered, and clinical indications. Descriptive analyses were performed by payer, clinical indication, and cancer type.ResultsA total of 71 of 1,066 total policies met study inclusion criteria, of which 57 were private policies and 14 were Medicare LCDs; 70% of private policies and 100% of Medicare LCDs covered at least one indication. Among 57 private policies, 89% specified a policy for at least 1 clinical indication, with coverage for ctDNA for initial treatment selection most common (69%). Of 40 policies addressing progression, coverage was provided 28% of the time, and of 20 policies addressing MRD, coverage was provided 65% of the time. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was the cancer type most frequently covered for initial treatment (47%) and progression (60%). Among policies with ctDNA coverage, coverage was restricted to patients without available tissue or in whom biopsy was contraindicated in 91% of policies. MRD was commonly covered for hematologic malignancies (30%) and NSCLC (25%). Of the 14 Medicare LCD policies, 64% provided coverage for initial treatment selection and progression, and 36% for MRD.ConclusionsSome private payers and Medicare LCDs provide coverage for ctDNA testing. Private payers frequently cover testing for initial treatment, especially for NSCLC, when tissue is insufficient or biopsy is contraindicated. Coverage remains variable across payers, clinical indications, and cancer types despite inclusion in clinical guidelines, which could impact delivery of effective cancer care.

BackgroundHorner syndrome often occurs with cervical myelopathies and might provide insight into the underlying disease and prognosis.ObjectivesTo describe the clinical and imaging features of dogs with cervical myelopathy and concurrent Horner syndrome and to determine association of Horner syndrome with diseases or magnetic resonance images (MRI).AnimalsNinety-three client-owned dogs with cervical myelopathy and concurrent Horner syndrome and 99 randomly selected client-owned dogs with cervical myelopathy without Horner syndrome (control cases).MethodsRetrospective study. Medical records were reviewed to identify Horner and control cases and clinical findings recorded. MRI were reviewed, and lesions characterized and recorded. Descriptive and comparative statistics were performed.ResultsNon-compressive disease occurred more frequently in the Horner group compared with controls (58%; 95% CI: 48-68 vs 9%; 95% CI: 5-16; P

Multi-cancer gene panels for hereditary cancer syndromes (hereditary cancer panels, HCPs) are widely available, and some laboratories have programs that limit patients' out-of-pocket (OOP) cost share. However, little is known about practices by cancer genetic counselors for discussing and ordering an HCP and how insurance reimbursement and patient out-of-pocket share impact these practices. We conducted a survey of cancer genetic counselors based in the United States through the National Society of Genetic Counselors to assess the impact of reimbursement and patient OOP share on ordering of an HCP and hereditary cancer genetic counseling. Data analyses were conducted using chi-square and t tests. We received 135 responses (16% response rate). We found that the vast majority of respondents (94%, 127/135) ordered an HCP for patients rather than single-gene tests to assess hereditary cancer predisposition. Two-thirds of respondents reported that their institution had no protocol related to discussing HCPs with patients. Most respondents (84%, 114/135) indicated clinical indications and patients' requests as important in selecting and ordering HCPs, while 42%, 57/135, considered reimbursement and patient OOP share factors important. We found statistically significant differences in reporting of insurance as a frequently used payment method for HCPs and in-person genetic counseling (84% versus 59%, respectively, p

A formal evaluation of the health equity impact of a new intervention is hardly ever performed as part of a health technology assessment to understand its value. This should change, in our view. An evidence-based quantitative assessment of the health equity impact can help decision makers develop coverage policies, programme designs, and quality initiatives focused on optimizing both total health and health equity given the treatment options available. We outline the conceptual basis of how a new intervention can impact health equity and adopt distributional cost-effectiveness analysis based on decision-analytic models to assess this quantitatively, using a newly US FDA-approved drug for Alzheimer's disease (aducanumab) as an example. We argue that gaps in the evidence base for the new intervention, for example, due to limited clinical research participation among racial and ethnic minority groups, do not preclude such an evaluation. Understanding these uncertainties has implications for fair pricing, decision making, and future research. If we are serious about population-level decision making that not only is focused on improving total health but also aims to improve health equity, we should consider routinely assessing the health equity impact of new interventions.

There is a tremendous public health need to identify potentially lethal cancers at earlier stages, when there is a greater chance for improved survival. Although in the US there are currently screening recommendations for only five cancers (breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, and prostate), new tests can screen for up to fifty cancers simultaneously based on a simple blood draw. However, these multicancer screening tests (also called "liquid biopsy" tests) will also present challenges to payers because of intrinsic features of the tests and the complexity of payer coverage assessments for screening tests. We describe these considerations while also offering potential solutions that can inform payers' decision making if these tests prove to be beneficial.

The landscape of payment for genetic testing has been changing, with an increase in the number of laboratories offering testing, larger panel offerings, and lower prices. To determine the influence of payer coverage and out-of-pocket costs on the ordering of NGS panel tests for hereditary cancer in diverse settings, we conducted semi-structured interviews with providers who conduct genetic counseling and order next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels purposefully recruited from 11 safety-net clinics and academic medical centers (AMCs) in California and North Carolina, states with diverse populations and divergent Medicaid expansion policies. Thematic analysis was done to identify themes related to the impact of reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses on test ordering. Specific focus was put on differences between settings. Respondents from both safety-net clinics and AMCs reported that they are increasingly ordering panels instead of single-gene tests, and tests were ordered primarily from a few commercial laboratories. Surprisingly, safety-net clinics reported few barriers to testing related to cost, largely due to laboratory assistance with prior authorization requests and patient payment assistance programs that result in little to no patient out-of-pocket expenses. AMCs reported greater challenges navigating insurance issues, particularly prior authorization. Both groups cited non-coverage of genetic counseling as a major barrier to testing. Difficulty of access to cascade testing, particularly for family members that do not live in the United States, was also of concern. Long-term sustainability of laboratory payment assistance programs was a major concern; safety-net clinics were particularly concerned about access to testing without such programs. There were few differences between states. In conclusion, the use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to NGS panel testing among diverse populations. Such programs represent a major change to the financing and affordability of genetic testing. However, access to genetic counseling is a barrier and must be addressed to ensure equity in testing.

Hereditary breast and ovarian cancers (HBOCs) are common among the Latinx population, and risk testing is recommended using multi-gene hereditary cancer panels (HCPs). However, little is known about how payer reimbursement and out-of-pocket expenses impact provider ordering of HCP in the Latinx population. Our objective is to describe key challenges and possible solutions for HCP testing in the Latinx population. As part of a larger study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with key provider informants (genetic counselors, oncologist, nurse practitioner) from safety-net institutions in the San Francisco Bay Area. We used a deductive thematic analysis approach to summarize themes around challenges and possible solutions to facilitating HCP testing in Latinx patients. We found few financial barriers for HCP testing for the Latinx population due to laboratory patient assistance programs that cover testing at low or no cost to patients. However, we found potential challenges related to the sustainability of low-cost testing and out-of-pocket expenses for patients, access to cascade testing for family members, and pathogenic variants specific to Latinx. Providers questioned whether current laboratory payment programs that decrease barriers to testing are sustainable and suggested solutions for accessing cascade testing and ensuring variants specific to the Latinx population were included in testing. The use of laboratories with payment assistance programs reduces barriers to HCP testing among the US population; however, other barriers are present that may impact testing use in the Latinx population and must be addressed to ensure equitable access to HCP testing for this population.

BackgroundResearch advancements in Alzheimer's disease (AD) raise opportunities for genetic testing to improve diagnostic and risk assessment. Despite emerging developments, it is unclear how geriatricians perceive the potential clinical and personal utility of genetic testing for their patients. Geriatricians' perspectives are essential to understanding potential ethical, policy, and clinical challenges.ObjectiveIn this paper, we report on geriatricians' perspectives on the utility of genetic testing for AD.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with California geriatricians within different practices settings to collect and characterize their perspectives on genetic testing for AD. We used an adapted grounded theory approach to analyze recorded and transcribed interviews.ResultsWe identified geriatricians' (n = 10) perspectives on the clinical and personal utility of testing, alongside their views on clinical care approaches for older adults. Geriatricians perceived minimal clinical utility of genetic testing for AD, though that may change with the availability of disease-modifying therapies. Yet, they recognized the potential personal utility of testing (e.g., assisting with future financial planning). Finally, geriatricians expressed concerns regarding patients' anxiety from learning about genetic status, particularly through direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing.ConclusionOur data highlight that the decision to order genetic testing requires clinical and ethical considerations, including balancing limited clinical utility with the potential personal utility. Although DTC testing is available, geriatricians perceive that they have an important role in managing the decision to test and interpreting the results. Further research is needed to inform policy and ethical guidelines to support geriatricians' critical role to counsel patients considering clinical and DTC genetic testing.

PurposeThere is limited payer coverage for genome sequencing (GS) relative to exome sequencing (ES) in the U.S. Our objective was to assess payers' considerations for coverage of GS versus coverage of ES and requirements payers have for coverage of GS. The study was conducted by the NIH-funded Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium (CSER).MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with representatives of private payer organizations (payers, N = 12) on considerations and evidentiary and other needs for coverage of GS and ES. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsWe described four categories of findings and solutions: demonstrated merits of GS versus ES, enhanced methods for evidence generation, consistent laboratory processes/sequencing methods, and enhanced implementation/care delivery. Payers see advantages to GS vs. ES and are open to broader GS coverage but need more proof of these advantages to consider them in coverage decision-making. Next steps include establishing evidence of benefits in specific clinical scenarios, developing quality standards, ensuring transparency of laboratory methods, developing clinical centers of excellence, and incorporating the role of genetic professionals.ConclusionBy comparing coverage considerations for GS and ES, we identified a path forward for coverage of GS. Future research should explicitly address payers' conditions for coverage.

ObjectivesTo describe the diagnostic techniques, surgical treatments, and outcomes of two cats with recurrent pleural transudate caused by urinary ultrafiltrate.AnimalsTwo cats without evidence of trauma, urinary tract obstruction, or concurrent perinephric pseudocysts that were evaluated and treated for recurrent pleural transudate caused by urinary ultrafiltrate.Study designShort case series.MethodsMultiphase contrast CT scan revealed leakage of contrast media from the kidneys bilaterally into the retroperitoneal spaces in both cats. Renal scintigraphy performed in one cat revealed progressive accumulation of 99mTc diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (Tc-DTPA) in the pleural space. Exploratory laparotomy localized the leakage of fluid to renal capsular defects bilaterally in both cats. The retroperitoneum was incised bilaterally to promote fluid drainage into the peritoneum, and nephropexies were performed.ResultsOne cat had long-term survival with recurrent, though decreasing volumes of, pleural effusion. The second cat was euthanized 16 days postoperatively for progressive renal disease.ConclusionThe diagnosis of spontaneous urinary ultrafiltrate accumulation in the pleural space of cats without evidence of trauma, urinary tract obstruction, or concurrent perinephric pseudocysts has not previously been reported. The surgical correction described reduced but did not completely eliminate the rate of pleural effusion accumulation.

PurposeGermline testing laboratories have evolved over several decades. We describe laboratory business models and practices and explore their implications on germline testing availability and access.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with key informants using purposive sampling. We interviewed 13 key informants representing 14 laboratories. We used triangulation and iterative data analysis to identify topics concerning laboratory business models and practices.ResultsWe characterized laboratories as full-service (FSL), for-profit germline (PGL), and not-for-profit germline (NGL). Relying on existing payer contracts is a key characteristic of the FSL business models. FSLs focus on high-volume germline tests with evidence of clinical utility that have reimbursable codes. In comparison, a key business model characteristic of PGLs is direct patient billing facilitated by commodity-based pricing made possible by investors and industry partnerships. Client billing is a key business model characteristic of NGLs. Because many NGLs exist within academic settings, they are challenged by their inability to optimize laboratory processes and billing practices.ConclusionContinued availability of, and access to germline testing will depend on the financial success of laboratories; organizational characteristics of laboratories and payers; cultural factors, particularly consumer interest and trust; and societal factors, such as regulation and laws surrounding pricing and reimbursement.

A 6-year-old neutered male German shepherd dog was evaluated for obtundation, blindness, and bilateral exophthalmos. A magnetic resonance imaging scan of the brain was performed and identified an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) with several feeding arterial branches, and venous drainage through the cavernous sinus. Venous vessels rostral to the AVM were severely distended and extended into the retrobulbar spaces. Liquid embolization by injection of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer was performed from access points in the maxillary arteries and internal carotid arteries. No intraprocedural complications were encountered, and the dog was discharged the next day. Bilateral enucleation eventually was performed because of exposure keratopathy. At 31 months post-embolization, owners reported that the dog was doing very well clinically with high activity level and normal appetite, and the dog also appeared to be pain free. Although intracranial AVMs are very rare in companion animals, successful treatment using liquid embolization is possible and should be considered.

PurposeApoE-e4 has a well-established connection to late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD) and is available clinically. Yet, there have been no analyses of payer coverage policies for ApoE. Our objective was to analyze private payer coverage policies for ApoE genetic testing, examine the rationales, and describe supporting evidence referenced by policies.MethodsWe searched for policies from the eight largest private payers (by member numbers) covering ApoE testing for late-onset AD. We implemented content analysis methods to evaluate policies for coverage decisions and rationales.ResultsSeven payers had policies with positions on ApoE testing. Five explicitly state they do not cover ApoE and two apply generic preauthorization criteria. Rationales supporting coverage decisions include: reference to guidelines or national standards, inadequate data supporting testing, characterizing testing as investigational, or that testing would not alter patients' clinical management.ConclusionSeven of the eight largest private payers' coverage policies reflect standards that discourage ApoE testing due to a lack of clinical utility. As the field advances, ApoE testing may have an important clinical role, particularly considering that disease-modifying therapies are under evaluation by the US Food and Drug Administration. These types of field advancements may not be consistent with private payers' policies and may cause payers to reevaluate existing coverage policies.

Millions of people today have access to their personal genomic information. Direct-to-consumer services and integration with other “big data” increasingly commoditize what was rightly celebrated as a singular achievement in February 2001 when the first draft human genomes were published. But such remarkable technical and scientific progress has not been without its share of missteps and growing pains. Science invited the experts below to help explore how we got here and where we should (or ought not) be going.

The emergence of next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS) tests for use in clinical care has generated widespread interest around the globe, but little is known about the availability and funding of these tests worldwide. We examined NGS availability across world regions and countries, with a particular focus on availability of three key NGS tests-Whole-Exome Sequencing or Whole-Genome Sequencing for diagnosis of suspected genetic diseases such as intellectual disability disorders or rare diseases, non-invasive prenatal testing for common genetic abnormalities in fetuses and tumor sequencing for therapy selection and monitoring of cancer treatment. We found that these NGS tests are available or becoming available in every major region of the world. This includes both high-income countries with robust genomic programmes such as the USA and the UK, and growing availability in countries with upper-middle-income economies. We used exploratory case studies across three diverse health care systems (publicly funded/national (UK), publicly funded/provincial (Canada) and mixed private/public system (USA)) to illustrate the funding challenges and approaches used to address those challenges that might be adopted by other countries. We conclude by assessing what type of data and initiatives will be needed to better track and understand the use of NGS around the world as such testing continues to expand.

BackgroundClinical 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsCoverage 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.

ObjectivesThe objective of this article is to describe the unique challenges and present potential solutions and approaches for economic evaluations of precision medicine (PM) interventions using simulation modeling methods.MethodsGiven the large and growing number of PM interventions and applications, methods are needed for economic evaluation of PM that can handle the complexity of cascading decisions and patient-specific heterogeneity reflected in the myriad testing and treatment pathways. Traditional approaches (eg, Markov models) have limitations, and other modeling techniques may be required to overcome these challenges. Dynamic simulation models, such as discrete event simulation and agent-based models, are used to design and develop mathematical representations of complex systems and intervention scenarios to evaluate the consequence of interventions over time from a systems perspective.ResultsSome of the methodological challenges of modeling PM can be addressed using dynamic simulation models. For example, issues regarding companion diagnostics, combining and sequencing of tests, and diagnostic performance of tests can be addressed by capturing patient-specific pathways in the context of care delivery. Issues regarding patient heterogeneity can be addressed by using patient-level simulation models.ConclusionThe economic evaluation of PM interventions poses unique methodological challenges that might require new solutions. Simulation models are well suited for economic evaluation in PM because they enable patient-level analyses and can capture the dynamics of interventions in complex systems specific to the context of healthcare service delivery.

ObjectivesThe challenges of understanding how interventions influence follow-up medical care are magnified during genomic testing because few patients have received it to date and because the scope of information it provides is complex and often unexpected. We tested a novel strategy for quantifying downstream healthcare utilization after genomic testing to more comprehensively and efficiently identify related services. We also evaluated the effectiveness of different methods for collecting these data.MethodsWe developed a risk-based approach for a trial of newborn genomic sequencing in which we defined primary conditions based on existing diagnoses and family histories of disease and defined secondary conditions based on unexpected findings. We then created patient-specific lists of services associated with managing primary and secondary conditions. Services were quantified based on medical record reviews, surveys, and telephone check-ins with parents.ResultsBy focusing on services that genomic testing would most likely influence in the short-term, we reduced the number of services in our analyses by more than 90% compared with analyses of all observed services. We also identified the same services that were ordered in response to unexpected findings as were identified during expert review and by confirming whether recommendations were completed. Data also showed that quantifying healthcare utilization with surveys and telephone check-ins alone would have missed the majority of attributable services.ConclusionsOur risk-based strategy provides an improved approach for assessing the short-term impact of genomic testing and other interventions on healthcare utilization while conforming as much as possible to existing best-practice recommendations.

ObjectivesGiven the potential of real-world evidence (RWE) to inform understanding of the risk-benefit profile of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing, we undertook a study to describe the current landscape of whether and how payers use RWE as part of their coverage decision making and potential solutions for overcoming barriers.MethodsWe performed a scoping literature review of existing RWE evidentiary frameworks for evaluating new technologies and identified barriers to clinical integration and evidence gaps for NGS. We synthesized findings as potential solutions for improving the relevance and utility of RWE for payer decision-making.ResultsPayers require evidence of clinical utility to inform coverage decisions, yet we found a relatively small number of published RWE studies, and these are predominately focused on oncology, pharmacogenomics, and perinatal/pediatric testing. We identified 3 categories of innovation that may help address the current undersupply of RWE studies for NGS: (1) increasing use of RWE to inform outcomes-based contracting for new technologies, (2) precision medicine initiatives that integrate clinical and genomic data and enable data sharing, and (3) Food and Drug Administration reforms to encourage the use of RWE. Potential solutions include development of data and evidence review standards, payer engagement in RWE study design, use of incentives and partnerships to lower the barriers to RWE generation, education of payers and providers concerning the use of RWE and NGS, and frameworks for conducting outcomes-based contracting for NGS.ConclusionsWe provide numerous suggestions to overcome the data, methodologic, infrastructure, and policy challenges constraining greater integration of RWE in assessments of NGS.

ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsSixty-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.ConclusionsWe 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.

PurposeExome sequencing (ES) has the potential to improve management of congenital anomalies and neurodevelopmental disorders in fetuses, infants, and children. US payers are key stakeholders in patient access to ES. We examined how payers view insurance coverage and clinical utility of pediatric and prenatal ES.MethodsWe employed the framework approach of qualitative research to conduct this study. The study cohort represented 14 payers collectively covering 170,000,000 enrollees.ResultsSeventy-one percent of payers covered pediatric ES despite perceived insufficient evidence because they saw merit in available interventions or in ending the diagnostic odyssey. None covered prenatal ES, because they saw no merit. For pediatric ES, 50% agreed with expanded aspects of clinical utility (e.g., information utility), and 21% considered them sufficient for coverage. For prenatal ES, payers saw little utility until in utero interventions become available.ConclusionThe perceived merit of ES is becoming a factor in payers' coverage for serious diseases with available interventions, even when evidence is perceived insufficient. Payers' views on ES's clinical utility are expanding to include informational utility, aligning with the views of patients and other stakeholders. Our findings inform clinical research, patient advocacy, and policy-making, allowing them to be more relevant to payers.

IntroductionGenetic-guided selection of non-oncologic medications is not commonly practiced in general, and at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Health, specifically. Understanding the unique position of clinicians with respect to clinical pharmacogenetics (PG) at a specific institution or practice is fundamental for implementing a successful PG consult service.ObjectivesTo assess clinicians' current practices, needs, and interests with respect to clinical PG at UCSF Health, a large tertiary academic medical center.MethodsA list of 42 target medications with clinical PG recommendations was complied. Clinical specialties that routinely used the target medications were identified. A 12-question survey focused on practice of PG for target medications was developed. Pharmacists and physicians were surveyed anonymously in several clinical specialties. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsOf the 396 clinicians surveyed, 76 physicians and 59 pharmacists participated, resulting in 27% and 50% average response rates, respectively. The current use of PG in clinical practice for physicians and pharmacists was 29% and 32%, respectively, however this number varied across clinical specialties from 0% to 80%. Of clinicians whom reported they do not currently apply PG, 63% of physicians and 54% of pharmacists expressed interest in integrating PG. However, the level of interest varied from 20% to 100% across specialties. Of the respondents, 64% of physicians and 56% of pharmacists elected to provide contact information to investigators to further discuss their interest related to clinical PG.ConclusionsWhile PG is not uniformly practiced at UCSF Health, there is considerable interest in utilizing PG by the respondents. Our approach was successful at identifying clinicians and services interested in PG for specific drug-gene pairs. This work has set a foundation for next steps to advance PG integration at UCSF Health. Clinicians can adopt our approach as preliminary work to build a clinical PG program at their institutions.

PurposeExome sequencing (ES) 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 ES coverage policies for pediatric patients with neurodevelopmental disorders.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThere were four relevant policies (N = 5 payers) in 2015 and 13 policies (N = 15 payers) in 2017. In 2015, no payer covered ES, but by 2017, three payers from the original registry payers did. In 2017, 8 of the 15 payers covered ES. We found variations in the number and types of evidence cited. Positive coverage policies tended to include a larger number and range of citations.ConclusionWe 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.

PurposeGreat uncertainty exists about the costs associated with whole-genome sequencing (WGS).MethodsOne hundred cardiology patients with cardiomyopathy diagnoses and 100 ostensibly healthy primary care patients were randomized to receive a family-history report alone or with a WGS report. Cardiology patients also reviewed prior genetic test results. WGS costs were estimated by tracking resource use and staff time. Downstream costs were estimated by identifying services in administrative data, medical records, and patient surveys for 6 months.ResultsThe incremental cost per patient of WGS testing was $5,098 in cardiology settings and $5,073 in primary care settings compared with family history alone. Mean 6-month downstream costs did not differ statistically between the control and WGS arms in either setting (cardiology: difference = -$1,560, 95% confidence interval -$7,558 to $3,866, p = 0.36; primary care: difference = $681, 95% confidence interval -$884 to $2,171, p = 0.70). Scenario analyses showed the cost reduction of omitting or limiting the types of secondary findings was less than $69 and $182 per patient in cardiology and primary care, respectively.ConclusionShort-term costs of WGS were driven by the costs of sequencing and interpretation rather than downstream health care. Disclosing additional types of secondary findings has a limited cost impact following disclosure.

Previously published myelographic studies do not report findings at the junction between the seventh cervical (C7) and first thoracic vertebrae (T1). Modern digital radiographic equipment allows improved visualization of C7-T1. Based on clinical experience, we hypothesized that 50% reduction of the dorsal myelographic column or 20% reduction of the dural diameter, criteria commonly used as a supportive finding for spinal cord compression in the cervical vertebral column, do not apply at C7-T1. A myelographic study was performed on 12 healthy, neurologically normal horses. Our hypothesis was confirmed; using established criteria eight of 12 horses would have been classified as having evidence of spinal cord compression at C7-T1. The dorsal myelographic column reduction at C7-T1 was 48 ± 12%, while the C6-C7 dorsal myelographic column reduction was 33 ± 17% (mean ± standard deviation) (P = 0.010). The dural diameter reduction at C7-T1 (22.0 ± 6.7%) was significantly greater than the dural diameter reduction at C6-C7 (13.2 ± 9.5%) (P = 0.0007). Further measurements and comparisons suggested that the apparent greater reduction of dorsal myelographic column and dural diameter at C7-T1 was due to larger intravertebral measurements at C7 rather than smaller intervertebral values at C7-T1. Based on these findings, alternative criteria should be used at C7-T1 when assessing clinical cases for cervical stenotic myelopathy. Reduction of the dorsal myelographic column by 60% or of the dural diameter by 30% would avoid high numbers of false positive myelographic cases at C7-T1.

The market for next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) has grown dramatically. Health care decision-makers need empirical evidence on market growth and future trends in order to develop appropriate strategies and policies, but little has been published about the nature and size of these trends. We provide a snapshot of market trends through 2020. We found rapid growth of clinical NGS - the global clinical NGS services market was $2.2 billion in 2015 and is forecast to reach $7.7 billion by 2020. The reproductive health NGS test market is the largest market followed by the oncology NGS test market. The largest market is for tests that sequence >50 genes but not the entire exome or genome. Markets are growing rapidly in countries outside of the US. Despite rapid NGS test growth, there are a number of key issues that will need to be addressed to facilitate appropriate future growth.

The market for next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) has grown dramatically. Health care decision-makers need empirical evidence on market growth and future trends in order to develop appropriate strategies and policies, but little has been published about the nature and size of these trends. We provide a snapshot of market trends through 2020. We found rapid growth of clinical NGS - the global clinical NGS services market was $2.2 billion in 2015 and is forecast to reach $7.7 billion by 2020. The reproductive health NGS test market is the largest market followed by the oncology NGS test market. The largest market is for tests that sequence >50 genes but not the entire exome or genome. Markets are growing rapidly in countries outside of the US. Despite rapid NGS test growth, there are a number of key issues that will need to be addressed to facilitate appropriate future growth.

A 10-yr-old female sulcata tortoise (Centrochelys sulcata) was presented for evaluation of a non-healing wound on her left rostrum. Physical examination revealed a 5-mm × 5-mm defect dorsolateral to the left nares with compacted plant material inside. Intraoral examination revealed a 3-mm × 3-mm keratin defect at the level of the premaxilla with visible compacted plant material. A computed tomographic study was performed and revealed an oronasocutaenous fistula with compression nasomaxillary fractures and left-sided rhinitis and food impaction. A PCR from a nasal flush sample for intranuclear coccidia was negative. The patient underwent general anesthesia for fistula repair. A rhinotomy and a rhinoscopy were performed to aid in the understanding of the extent of the fistula and treatment. The foreign plant material was removed and the cavity cleaned. The fistula was covered over the intraoral keratin defect and along the maxillary tomium with a dental bis-acryl composite resin, and the cutaneous defect was covered with a wound dressing patch. Postoperative plan included a course of tulathromycin for broad-spectrum antimicrobial coverage, in addition to meloxicam and tramadol for multimodal analgesia, which was initiated via esophagostomy tube. Subsequent rechecks were conducted at 3 and 7 wk and 7, 8, and 19 months postoperatively, with recheck CT scans performed at the 8th and 19th months for healing monitoring. At the 19-month recheck, the rostral cutaneous lesion was completely healed, and no keratin defect along the oral rhinothecal ridge was found. Recheck CT demonstrated ongoing bone healing. This case documents the diagnosis and successful treatment of an oronasocutaneous fistula in a chelonian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo summarize lessons learned while analyzing the costs of integrating whole genome sequencing into the care of cardiology and primary care patients in the MedSeq Project by conducting the first randomized controlled trial of whole genome sequencing in general and specialty medicine.MethodsCase study that describes key methodological and data challenges that were encountered or are likely to emerge in future work, describes the pros and cons of approaches considered by the study team, and summarizes the solutions that were implemented.ResultsMajor methodological challenges included defining whole genome sequencing, structuring an appropriate comparator, measuring downstream costs, and examining clinical outcomes. Discussions about solutions addressed conceptual and practical issues that arose because of definitions and analyses around the cost of genomic sequencing in trial-based studies.ConclusionsThe MedSeq Project provides an instructive example of how to conduct a cost analysis of whole genome sequencing that feasibly incorporates best practices while being sensitive to the varied applications and diversity of results it may produce. Findings provide guidance for researchers to consider when conducting or analyzing economic analyses of whole genome sequencing and other next-generation sequencing tests, particularly regarding costs.