Dataset Information

Personalized Medicine's Bottleneck: Diagnostic Test Evidence and Reimbursement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Personalized medicine is gradually emerging as a transformative field. Thus far, seven co-developed drug-diagnostic combinations have been approved and several dozen post-hoc drug-diagnostic combinations (diagnostic approved after the drug). However, barriers remain, particularly with respect to reimbursement. Purpose, methods: This study analyzes barriers facing uptake of drug-diagnostic combinations. We examine Medicare reimbursement in the U.S. of 10 drug-diagnostic combinations on the basis of a formulary review and a survey.

Findings

We found that payers reimburse all 10 drugs, but with variable and relatively high patient co-insurance, as well as imposition of formulary restrictions. Payer reimbursement of companion diagnostics is limited and highly variable. In addition, we found that the body of evidence on the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of therapeutics is thin and even less robust for diagnostics. Conclusions, discussion: The high cost of personalized therapeutics and dearth of evidence concerning the comparative clinical effectiveness of drug-diagnostic combinations appear to contribute to high patient cost sharing, imposition of formulary restrictions, and limited and variable reimbursement of companion diagnostics. Our findings point to the need to increase the evidence base supportive of establishing linkage between diagnostic testing and positive health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Cohen JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4263971 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionIs there concordance between hip pain and radiographic hip osteoarthritis?MethodsIn this diagnostic test study, pelvic radiographs were assessed for hip osteoarthritis in two cohorts: the Framingham Osteoarthritis Study (community of Framingham, Massachusetts) and the Osteoarthritis Initiative (a multicenter longitudinal cohort study of osteoarthritis in the United States). Using visual representation of the hip joint, participants reported whether they had hip pain on most days and the location of the pain: anterior, groin, lateral, buttocks, or low back. In the Framingham study, participants with hip pain were also examined for hip pain with internal rotation. The authors analysed the agreement between radiographic hip osteoarthritis and hip pain, and for those with hip pain suggestive of hip osteoarthritis they calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of radiographs as the diagnostic test.Study answer and limitationsIn the Framingham study (n=946), only 15.6% of hips in patients with frequent hip pain showed radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis, and 20.7% of hips with radiographic hip osteoarthritis were frequently painful. The sensitivity of radiographic hip osteoarthritis for hip pain localised to the groin was 36.7%, specificity 90.5%, positive predictive value 6.0%, and negative predictive value 98.9%. Results did not differ much for hip pain at other locations or for painful internal rotation. In the Osteoarthritis Initiative study (n=4366), only 9.1% of hips in patients with frequent pain showed radiographic hip osteoarthritis, and 23.8% of hips with radiographic hip osteoarthritis were frequently painful. The sensitivity of definite radiographic hip osteoarthritis for hip pain localised to the groin was 16.5%, specificity 94.0%, positive predictive value 7.1%, and negative predictive value 97.6%. Results also did not differ much for hip pain at other locations.What this study addsHip pain was not present in many hips with radiographic osteoarthritis, and many hips with pain did not show radiographic hip osteoarthritis. Most older participants with a high suspicion for clinical hip osteoarthritis (groin or anterior pain and/or painful internal rotation) did not have radiographic hip osteoarthritis, suggesting that in many cases, hip osteoarthritis might be missed if diagnosticians relied solely on hip radiographs.Funding, competing interests, data sharingSee the full paper on thebmj.com for funding. The authors have no competing interests. Additional data are available from bevochan@bu.edu.

Project description:ObjectiveSince 2008, the Oxford Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme has been identifying and summarising evidence on new and emerging diagnostic technologies relevant to primary care. We used these reports to determine the sequence and timing of evidence for new point-of-care diagnostic tests and to identify common evidence gaps in this process.DesignSystematic overview of diagnostic horizon scan reports.Primary outcome measuresWe obtained the primary studies referenced in each horizon scan report (n=40) and extracted details of the study size, clinical setting and design characteristics. In particular, we assessed whether each study evaluated test accuracy, test impact or cost-effectiveness. The evidence for each point-of-care test was mapped against the Horvath framework for diagnostic test evaluation.ResultsWe extracted data from 500 primary studies. Most diagnostic technologies underwent clinical performance (ie, ability to detect a clinical condition) assessment (71.2%), with very few progressing to comparative clinical effectiveness (10.0%) and a cost-effectiveness evaluation (8.6%), even in the more established and frequently reported clinical domains, such as cardiovascular disease. The median time to complete an evaluation cycle was 9 years (IQR 5.5-12.5 years). The sequence of evidence generation was typically haphazard and some diagnostic tests appear to be implemented in routine care without completing essential evaluation stages such as clinical effectiveness.ConclusionsEvidence generation for new point-of-care diagnostic tests is slow and tends to focus on accuracy, and overlooks other test attributes such as impact, implementation and cost-effectiveness. Evaluation of this dynamic cycle and feeding back data from clinical effectiveness to refine analytical and clinical performance are key to improve the efficiency of point-of-care diagnostic test development and impact on clinically relevant outcomes. While the 'road map' for the steps needed to generate evidence are reasonably well delineated, we provide evidence on the complexity, length and variability of the actual process that many diagnostic technologies undergo.

Project description:Background: The incorporation of genomic testing into clinical practice constitutes an opportunity to improve patients' lives, as it makes possible the implementation of innovative, individualized clinical interventions that maximize efficacy and/or minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. In order to ensure equal access to genomic testing for all patients, the costs associated with these tests should be reimbursed by their respective national healthcare systems. Given that funding for the public health sector is decreasing in real terms, it is of paramount importance that the emerging interventions are thoroughly evaluated both in terms of their clinical effectiveness and their full economic cost. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify those genome-guided interventions that could be adopted and reimbursed by national healthcare systems. Further, we recorded the underlying factors determining the broad adoption of genome-guided interventions in clinical practice, in order to identify potential reimbursement criteria. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published (PubMed-listed) scientific articles on the economic evaluation of those individualized clinical interventions that include genomic tests. Information on genomic tests reimbursed by the US Medicare program was also included. Subsequently, we correlated the regulatory guidance given for the interventions collated in our systematic review with the corresponding economic evaluation results and policies of the Medicare program. Regulatory guidance information was collected from the PharmGKB online knowledgebase and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC). Results: Most of the included studies constitute cost-utility analyses, in which the outcome of the interventions has been measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) whereas an estimate of the total cost has been based upon direct medical cost data. Favorable economic evaluation results, as well as concrete evidence demonstrating the clinical utility of pre-emptive genotyping, are considered as prerequisites for the broad adoption and reimbursement of the costs incurred during genomic testing. Indicatively, pre-emptive HLA-B*5701 and TPMT testing before administration of abacavir and azathioprine, respectively, is reimbursed by Medicare based on both economic and efficacy evidence. Likewise, the medical necessary screening for MMR and BRCA1/2 genes are reimbursed for high-risk populations. Conclusions: Our findings further underline the need for further cost-utility analyses within different national healthcare systems, in order to promote the reimbursement of the cost of innovative genome-guided therapeutic interventions.

Dataset Information

Personalized Medicine's Bottleneck: Diagnostic Test Evidence and Reimbursement.

Background

Findings

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets