Andrew P Dervan1, Patricia A Deverka2,3, Julia R Trosman4,5,6, Christine B Weldon4,5,6, Michael P Douglas4, Kathryn A Phillips4,7,8. 1. Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 2. American Institutes for Health Research and Innovation, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Eshelman School of Pharmacy, Center for Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 6. Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 8. Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests. METHODS: We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry. RESULTS: All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV). CONCLUSION: Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.Genet Med advance online publication 22 September 2016.
PURPOSE: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests. METHODS: We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry. RESULTS: All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV). CONCLUSION: Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.Genet Med advance online publication 22 September 2016.
Authors: Jacob O Kitzman; Matthew W Snyder; Mario Ventura; Alexandra P Lewis; Ruolan Qiu; Lavone E Simmons; Hilary S Gammill; Craig E Rubens; Donna A Santillan; Jeffrey C Murray; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Evan E Eichler; Jay Shendure Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Mary E Norton; Herb Brar; Jonathan Weiss; Ardeshir Karimi; Louise C Laurent; Aaron B Caughey; M Hellen Rodriguez; John Williams; Michael E Mitchell; Charles D Adair; Hanmin Lee; Bo Jacobsson; Mark W Tomlinson; Dick Oepkes; Desiree Hollemon; Andrew B Sparks; Arnold Oliphant; Ken Song Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Diana W Bianchi; Lawrence D Platt; James D Goldberg; Alfred Z Abuhamad; Amy J Sehnert; Richard P Rava Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Edward M Kloza; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian; James E Haddow; Louis M Neveux; Mathias Ehrich; Dirk van den Boom; Allan T Bombard; Cosmin Deciu; Wayne W Grody; Stanley F Nelson; Jacob A Canick Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Glenn E Palomaki; Cosmin Deciu; Edward M Kloza; Geralyn M Lambert-Messerlian; James E Haddow; Louis M Neveux; Mathias Ehrich; Dirk van den Boom; Allan T Bombard; Wayne W Grody; Stanley F Nelson; Jacob A Canick Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 8.822
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: Darrell L Ellsworth; Heather L Blackburn; Craig D Shriver; Shahrooz Rabizadeh; Patrick Soon-Shiong; Rachel E Ellsworth Journal: Clin Transl Med Date: 2017-04-12