Availability and payer coverage of BRCA1/2 tests and gene panels.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Clain E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4625918 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Availability and payer coverage of BRCA1/2 tests and gene panels.
Clain Elizabeth E Trosman Julia R JR Douglas Michael P MP Weldon Christine B CB Phillips Kathryn A KA
Nature biotechnology 20150901 9
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5732073 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5508568 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8222707 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC8035237 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7219085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal ankle arthroplasty (TAA), first developed as an alternative to ankle arthrodesis, has become an increasingly popular management option for end-stage ankle arthritis. Prior studies have shown commercial insurance payers base their coverage criteria on limited and low level of evidence research. This study aims to quantify and describe the evidence insurance companies use to support TAA coverage policies.MethodsThe top 11 national commercial health insurance payers for TAA were identified. A google search was performed to identify payer coverage policies. Policy documents were examined and cited references were classified by type of reference as well as reviewed for level of evidence (LOE). Specific coverage criteria for each individual payer were then extracted. Criteria were compared to assess for similarities among commercial payers. Finally, all references cited by each payer were examined to determine whether they mentioned the specific payer criteria.ResultsSix of the 11 payers had accessible coverage policies. The majority of cited references were primary journal articles (145, 60.9%) and the majority of references cited (179, 75.2%) were level III or level IV evidence. We found significant homogeneity in coverage criteria among payers. In addition, cited sources inconsistently mentioned specific payer coverage criteria.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that commercial insurance payers rely on the relatively low level of currently available scientific evidence when formulating coverage policies for TAA use and adopt criteria that have not been thoroughly analyzed in the literature. More high level of evidence research is needed to help clinicians and insurance companies further refine indications for TAA so that patients who might benefit from the procedure are adequately covered.Level of evidenceLevel IV, review.
| S-EPMC10962051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Inherited bone marrow failure syndromes (IBMFSs) are genetically heterogeneous disorders with cytopenia. Many IBMFSs also feature physical malformations and an increased risk of cancer. Point mutations can be identified in about half of patients. Copy number variation (CNVs) have been reported; however, the frequency and spectrum of CNVs are unknown. Unfortunately, current genome-wide methods have major limitations since they may miss small CNVs or may have low sensitivity due to low read depths. Herein, we aimed to determine whether reanalysis of NGS panel data by normalized coverage value could identify CNVs and characterize them. To address this aim, DNA from IBMFS patients was analyzed by a NGS panel assay of known IBMFS genes. After analysis for point mutations, heterozygous and homozygous CNVs were searched by normalized read coverage ratios and specific thresholds. Of the 258 tested patients, 91 were found to have pathogenic point variants. NGS sample data from 165 patients without pathogenic point mutations were re-analyzed for CNVs; 10 patients were found to have deletions. Diamond Blackfan anemia genes most commonly exhibited heterozygous deletions, and included RPS19, RPL11, and RPL5. A diagnosis of GATA2-related disorder was made in a patient with myelodysplastic syndrome who was found to have a heterozygous GATA2 deletion. Importantly, homozygous FANCA deletion were detected in a patient who could not be previously assigned a specific syndromic diagnosis. Lastly, we identified compound heterozygousity for deletions and pathogenic point variants in RBM8A and PARN genes. All deletions were validated by orthogonal methods. We conclude that careful analysis of normalized coverage values can detect CNVs in NGS panels and should be considered as a standard practice prior to do further investigations.
| S-EPMC6901453 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeNext-generation sequencing (NGS) allows simultaneous sequencing of multiple cancer susceptibility genes and may represent a more efficient and less expensive approach than sequential testing. We assessed the frequency of germline mutations in individuals with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), using multi-gene panels and NGS.Materials and methodsPatients with EOC (n=117) with/without a family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited consecutively, from March 2016 toDecember 2016.GermlineDNAwas sequenced using 35-gene NGS panel, in order to identify mutations. Upon the detection of a genetic alteration using the panel, results were cross-validated using direct sequencing.ResultsThirty-eight patients (32.5%) had 39 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations in eight genes, including BRCA1 (n=21), BRCA2 (n=10), BRIP1 (n=1), CHEK2 (n=2), MSH2 (n=1), POLE (n=1), RAD51C (n=2), and RAD51D (n=2). Among 64 patients with a family history of cancer, 27 (42.2%) had 27 pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations, and six (9.3%) had mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2, such as CHECK2, MSH2, POLE, and RAD51C. Fifty-five patients (47.0%) were identified to carry only variants of uncertain significance.ConclusionUsing the multi-gene panel test, we found that, of all patients included in our study, 32.5% had germline cancer-predisposing mutations. NGS was confirmed to substantially improve the detection rates of a wide spectrum of mutations in EOC patients compared with those obtained with the BRCA1/2 testing alone.
| S-EPMC6056949 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite significant progress in cancer therapy, cancer is still the second cause of mortality in the world. The necessity to make quick therapeutic decisions forces the development of procedures allowing to obtain a reliable result in a quick and unambiguous manner. Currently, detecting predictive mutations, including BRCA1, is the basis for effectively treating advanced breast cancer. Here, we present new insight on gene mutation detection. We propose a cheap BRCA1 mutation detection tests based on the surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or quartz crystal microbalance with energy dissipation (QCM-D) response changes recorded during a hybridization process of an oligonucleotide molecular probe with DNA fragments, with and without the BRCA1 mutation. The changes in the morphology of the formed DNA layer caused by the presence of the mutation were confirmed by atomic force microscopy. The unique property of the developed SPR and QCM tests is really short time of analysis: ca. 6 min for SPR and ca. 25 min for QCM. The proposed tests have been verified on 22 different DNA extracted from blood leukocytes collected from cancer patients: 17 samples from patients with various BRCA1 gene mutation variants including deletion, insertion and missense single-nucleotide and 5 samples from patients without any BRCA1 mutation. Our test is a response to the need of medical diagnostics for a quick, unambiguous test to identify mutations of the BRCA1 gene, including missense single-nucleotide (SNPs).
| S-EPMC10163215 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7347155 | biostudies-literature