Expanding evidence leads to new pharmacogenomics payer coverage.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Empey PE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8222707 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Expanding evidence leads to new pharmacogenomics payer coverage.
Empey Philip E PE Pratt Victoria M VM Hoffman James M JM Caudle Kelly E KE Klein Teri E TE
Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 20210224 5
Similar Datasets
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: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:Fibrates are a medication class prescribed for decades as 'broad-spectrum' lipid-modifying agents used to lower blood triglyceride levels and raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Such lipid changes are associated with a decrease in cardiovascular disease, and fibrates are commonly used to reduce risk of dangerous cardiovascular outcomes. As with most drugs, it is well established that response to fibrate treatment is variable, and this variation is heritable. This has motivated the investigation of pharmacogenomic determinants of response, and multiple studies have discovered a number of genes associated with fibrate response. Similar to other complex traits, the interrogation of single nucleotide polymorphisms using candidate gene or genome-wide approaches has not revealed a substantial portion of response variation. However, recent innovations in technological platforms and advances in statistical methodologies are revolutionizing the use and integration of other 'omes' in pharmacogenomics studies. Here, we detail successes, challenges, and recent advances in fibrate pharmacogenomics.
| S-EPMC7202259 | 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:PURPOSE:Exome 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. 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 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. 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.
| S-EPMC6329652 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4625918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProposals to expand Medicare coverage tend to be expensive, but the value of services purchased is not known. This study evaluates the efficiency of the average private supplemental insurance plan for Medicare recipients.MethodsData from the National Health Interview Survey, the National Death Index, and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were analyzed to estimate the costs, changes in life expectancy, and health-related quality of life gains associated with providing private supplemental insurance coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Model inputs included socio-demographic, health, and health behavior characteristics. Parameter estimates from regression models were used to predict quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs associated with private supplemental insurance relative to Medicare only. Markov decision analysis modeling was then employed to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.ResultsMedicare supplemental insurance is associated with increased health care utilization, but the additional costs associated with this utilization are offset by gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy. The incremental cost-effectiveness of private supplemental insurance is approximately $24,000 per QALY gained relative to Medicare alone.ConclusionSupplemental insurance for Medicare beneficiaries is a good value, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparable to medical interventions commonly deemed worthwhile.
| S-EPMC1079833 | 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:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are preferred by payers for health technology assessments and coverage decisions. However, the inclusion of a highly selective patient population and the rigorously controlled conditions in RCTs may not be reflective of real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) obtained from an analysis of real-world data (RWD) from observational studies can bridge gaps in evidence not addressed by RCTs and is thus valuable to public and private payers for decision-making. Through a broad literature search to obtain insights into payers' experience, we found that payers have concerns about real-world studies with respect to data quality, poor internal validity, potential bias, and lack of meaningful endpoints. However, they valued RWE to fill evidence gaps not addressed by RCTs, such as high-quality, real-world, long-term effectiveness and safety data; head-to-head drug comparisons; cost analyses for tiering formulary placement; medication use and adherence patterns; identification of relevant responder and non-responder patient subpopulations; and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RWE can be used to assess clinically meaningful endpoints and gauge the impact of interventions on the quality of healthcare. Here, we review how payers use or can use RWD on the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments, PROs, medication adherence and persistence, prescribing patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and patient characteristics and/or biomarkers associated with treatment response when making health technology assessments and payer coverage decisions across therapeutic areas.
| S-EPMC7895868 | 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