Julia R Trosman1, Christine B Weldon1, R Kate Kelley2, Kathryn A Phillips2. 1. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. 2. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings. RESULTS: All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies. CONCLUSIONS: Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.
BACKGROUND: Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings. RESULTS: All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies. CONCLUSIONS: Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.
Authors: Don Husereau; Deborah A Marshall; Adrian R Levy; Stuart Peacock; Jeffrey S Hoch Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2014-05-07 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Phillip G Febbo; Marc Ladanyi; Kenneth D Aldape; Angelo M De Marzo; M Elizabeth Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; A John Iafrate; R Kate Kelley; Guido Marcucci; Shuji Ogino; William Pao; Dennis C Sgroi; Marian L Birkeland Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Stephanie L Van Bebber; Julia R Trosman; Su-Ying Liang; Grace Wang; Deborah A Marshall; Sara Knight; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Per Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: John S Welch; Peter Westervelt; Li Ding; David E Larson; Jeffery M Klco; Shashikant Kulkarni; John Wallis; Ken Chen; Jacqueline E Payton; Robert S Fulton; Joelle Veizer; Heather Schmidt; Tammi L Vickery; Sharon Heath; Mark A Watson; Michael H Tomasson; Daniel C Link; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Elaine R Mardis; Timothy J Ley; Richard K Wilson Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Allison W Kurian; R Kate Kelley; Patricia A Deverka; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Katherine C Kurnit; Ecaterina E Ileana Dumbrava; Beate Litzenburger; Yekaterina B Khotskaya; Amber M Johnson; Timothy A Yap; Jordi Rodon; Jia Zeng; Md Abu Shufean; Ann M Bailey; Nora S Sánchez; Vijaykumar Holla; John Mendelsohn; Kenna Mills Shaw; Elmer V Bernstam; Gordon B Mills; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Patricia A Deverka; John B Watkins; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Value Health Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; James D Chambers; Christine B Weldon; Andrew P Dervan Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2017-07-12 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Su-Ying Liang; Christine B Weldon; Allison W Kurian; Robin K Kelley; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Value Health Date: 2020-03-19 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: James D Chambers; Cayla J Saret; Jordan E Anderson; Patricia A Deverka; Michael P Douglas; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Elizabeth Clain; Julia R Trosman; Michael P Douglas; Christine B Weldon; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kathryn A Phillips; Patricia A Deverka; Harold C Sox; Muin J Khoury; Lewis G Sandy; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Sean R Tunis; Lori A Orlando; Michael P Douglas Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 8.822