Literature DB >> 14692079

Genetic testing coverage and reimbursement: a provider's dilemma.

L Joan Logue.   

Abstract

The rapid growth of new molecular genetic tests stimulated by the diagnostic potential of DNA/RNA analyses has resulted in the capability of molecular genetic assay technology outpacing the American Medical Association Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and Medicare reimbursement. The AMA CPT Editorial Panel is poised to change the way we report genetic testing, and this change may have the potential to stimulate a governmental review of how Medicare is paying for diagnostic genetic testing. Genetic assays are costly, and those in laboratory management need to be aware of potential changes that may influence the ability of their laboratory to provide access to genetic testing services for their physician clientele. The commercialization of genetic testing has resulted in a proliferation of commercial laboratories and university medical center laboratories, CLIA-certified to perform high complexity testing, offering some level of genetic testing. The genetic tests are offered as home brew (in-house developed) assays, most of which are using analyte-specific reagents. Because these are home brew assays, there is no standardization in how the industry tests for specific mutations. As these genetic assays are billed using the generic molecular diagnostic codes, 83890 through 83912, from the Pathology and Laboratory Chemistry subsection of the CPT, payers are not able to identify the specific mutations being tested and make payment determinations based on the mutations as they relate to the diagnosis code. This article discusses the history of molecular diagnostic coding and related reimbursement, current coverage issues, and the genetic coding proposal under consideration by the AMA CPT Editorial Panel.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14692079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Leadersh Manag Rev        ISSN: 1527-3954


  4 in total

1.  Clinician perspectives about molecular genetic testing for heritable conditions and development of a clinician-friendly laboratory report.

Authors:  Ira M Lubin; Margaret M McGovern; Zoe Gibson; Susan J Gross; Elaine Lyon; Roberta A Pagon; Victoria M Pratt; Jamila Rashid; Colleen Shaw; Lander Stoddard; Tracy L Trotter; Marc S Williams; Jean Amos Wilson; Kenneth Pass
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2009-02-05       Impact factor: 5.568

2.  Eligibility criteria in private and public coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling.

Authors:  Grace Wang; Mary S Beattie; Ninez A Ponce; Kathryn A Phillips
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect.

Authors:  Alexander Liede; Mona Cai; Tamara Fidler Crouter; Daniela Niepel; Fiona Callaghan; D Gareth Evans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Miniaturized detection technology in molecular diagnostics.

Authors:  Larry J Kricka; Jason Y Park; Sam F Y Li; Paolo Fortina
Journal:  Expert Rev Mol Diagn       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.225

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.