Literature DB >> 30173949

How should costs and cost-effectiveness be considered in prenatal genetic testing?

Teresa N Sparks1, Aaron B Caughey2.   

Abstract

In January 2017, a group of experts in prenatal genetics attended a workshop at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine meeting to review the evidence behind the costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal genetic testing. Over the past decade, prenatal genetic testing options have dramatically expanded to include additional options with cell-free DNA (cfDNA) screening, as well as increased diagnostic abilities through chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), gene panels, whole exome sequencing, and other tests. With these expanding technologies, it is important to consider the options available as well as the cost effectiveness of their use. Other important considerations are the effects of movements toward value-based health care; the role of professional societies, commercial laboratories, and insurers; disparities that exist in prenatal genetic testing; and outcomes for both patients and health care systems. Workshop participants identified key areas of research to advance our understanding of the costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal genetic testing, which include (1) understanding the short- and long-term costs to patients and to health care systems with prenatal genetic tests; (2) elucidating the short- and long-term health outcomes for parents and children that are important to consider when comparing one testing strategy to another; (3) understanding the value underlying prenatal genetic testing to individuals and health care systems; and (4) identifying disparities in prenatal genetic testing, reasons for these disparities, and how to minimize them.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost; Cost-effectiveness; Disparities; Prenatal genetic testing; Value-based care

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30173949      PMCID: PMC6204084          DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2018.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Perinatol        ISSN: 0146-0005            Impact factor:   3.300


  40 in total

1.  Socioeconomic barriers to informed decisionmaking regarding maternal serum screening for down syndrome: results of the French National Perinatal Survey of 1998.

Authors:  Babak Khoshnood; Béatrice Blondel; Catherine de Vigan; Gérard Bréart
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  What is value in health care?

Authors:  Michael E Porter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Beyond race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status: predictors of prenatal testing for Down syndrome.

Authors:  Miriam Kuppermann; Lee A Learman; Elena Gates; Steven E Gregorich; Robert F Nease; James Lewis; A Eugene Washington
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 4.  Factors affecting the clinical use of non-invasive prenatal testing: a mixed methods systematic review.

Authors:  Heather Skirton; Christine Patch
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.050

5.  The cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening for spinal muscular atrophy.

Authors:  Sarah E Little; Vanitha Janakiraman; Anjali Kaimal; Thomas Musci; Jeffrey Ecker; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  ACOG Committee Opinion No. 586: Health disparities in rural women.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  The role of noninvasive prenatal testing as a diagnostic versus a screening tool--a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Mika Ohno; Aaron Caughey
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Preferences regarding contemporary prenatal genetic tests among women desiring testing: implications for optimal testing strategies.

Authors:  Miriam Kuppermann; Mary E Norton; Kao Thao; Allison O'Leary; Onouwem Nseyo; Abigail Cortez; Anjali J Kaimal
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.050

9.  Models of intrapartum care and women's trade-offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  E Pitchforth; V Watson; J Tucker; M Ryan; E van Teijlingen; J Farmer; J Ireland; E Thomson; A Kiger; H Bryers
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  Outcome measures for clinical genetics services: a comparison of genetics healthcare professionals and patients' views.

Authors:  Katherine Payne; Stuart G Nicholls; Marion McAllister; Rhona MacLeod; Ian Ellis; Dian Donnai; Linda M Davies
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 2.980

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.