Julie A Lynch1,2, Brygida Berse1,3,4, W David Dotson5, Muin J Khoury5, Nicole Coomer6, John Kautter1. 1. RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Veterans Health Administration, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 6. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the utilization of precision medicine tests among Medicare beneficiaries through analysis of gene-specific tier 1 and 2 billing codes developed by the American Medical Association in 2012. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. The primary source of data was 2013 Medicare 100% fee-for-service claims. We identified claims billed for each laboratory test, the number of patients tested, expenditures, and the diagnostic codes indicated for testing. We analyzed variations in testing by patient demographics and region of the country. RESULTS: Pharmacogenetic tests were billed most frequently, accounting for 48% of the expenditures for new codes. The most common indications for testing were breast cancer, long-term use of medications, and disorders of lipid metabolism. There was underutilization of guideline-recommended tumor mutation tests (e.g., epidermal growth factor receptor) and substantial overutilization of a test discouraged by guidelines (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase). Methodology-based tier 2 codes represented 15% of all claims billed with the new codes. The highest rate of testing per beneficiary was in Mississippi and the lowest rate was in Alaska. CONCLUSIONS: Gene-specific billing codes significantly improved our ability to conduct population-level research of precision medicine. Analysis of these data in conjunction with clinical records should be conducted to validate findings.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.
PURPOSE: We examined the utilization of precision medicine tests among Medicare beneficiaries through analysis of gene-specific tier 1 and 2 billing codes developed by the American Medical Association in 2012. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. The primary source of data was 2013 Medicare 100% fee-for-service claims. We identified claims billed for each laboratory test, the number of patients tested, expenditures, and the diagnostic codes indicated for testing. We analyzed variations in testing by patient demographics and region of the country. RESULTS: Pharmacogenetic tests were billed most frequently, accounting for 48% of the expenditures for new codes. The most common indications for testing were breast cancer, long-term use of medications, and disorders of lipid metabolism. There was underutilization of guideline-recommended tumor mutation tests (e.g., epidermal growth factor receptor) and substantial overutilization of a test discouraged by guidelines (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase). Methodology-based tier 2 codes represented 15% of all claims billed with the new codes. The highest rate of testing per beneficiary was in Mississippi and the lowest rate was in Alaska. CONCLUSIONS: Gene-specific billing codes significantly improved our ability to conduct population-level research of precision medicine. Analysis of these data in conjunction with clinical records should be conducted to validate findings.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.
Authors: Mariska Klerk; Petra Verhoef; Robert Clarke; Henk J Blom; Frans J Kok; Evert G Schouten Journal: JAMA Date: 2002 Oct 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lars Berglund; John D Brunzell; Anne C Goldberg; Ira J Goldberg; Frank Sacks; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Anton F H Stalenhoef Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: S A Scott; K Sangkuhl; C M Stein; J-S Hulot; J L Mega; D M Roden; T E Klein; M S Sabatine; J A Johnson; A R Shuldiner Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2013-05-22 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Kelly E Caudle; Nicholas J Keeling; Teri E Klein; Michelle Whirl-Carrillo; Victoria M Pratt; James M Hoffman Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Natalia Udaltsova; Lawrence H Kushi; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Pamala A Pawloski; Douglas A Corley; Sarah Knerr; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; David C Tabano; Mara M Epstein; Stacey A Honda; Monica Ter-Minassian; Julie A Lynch; Christine Y Lu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-09
Authors: Nicholas J Keeling; Meagen M Rosenthal; Donna West-Strum; Amit S Patel; Cyrine E Haidar; James M Hoffman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Sarah Knerr; Erin J A Bowles; Kathleen A Leppig; Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kara L Larson; Bin Huang; Heidi L Weiss; Pam Hull; Philip M Westgate; Rachel W Miller; Susanne M Arnold; Jill M Kolesar Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-07-09
Authors: Muin J Khoury; M Scott Bowen; Mindy Clyne; W David Dotson; Marta L Gwinn; Ridgely Fisk Green; Katherine Kolor; Juan L Rodriguez; Anja Wulf; Wei Yu Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 8.822