Chloe M Reuter1,2, Jennefer N Kohler1,2, Devon Bonner1,2, Diane Zastrow1,2, Liliana Fernandez1,2, Annika Dries1,2, Shruti Marwaha1,2, Jean Davidson1,2, Elly Brokamp3, Matthew Herzog4, Joyce Hong5, Ellen Macnamara6, Jill A Rosenfeld7, Kelly Schoch8, Rebecca Spillmann8, Joseph Loscalzo5, Joel Krier5, Joan Stoler9, David Sweetser10, Christina G S Palmer4,11,12, John A Phillips3, Vandana Shashi8, David A Adams6, Yaping Yang7, Euan A Ashley1,2,13, Paul G Fisher1,14,15, John J Mulvihill16, Jonathan A Bernstein1,15, Matthew T Wheeler1,2. 1. Center for Undiagnosed Diseases, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 4. Department of Human Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Undiagnosed Diseases Program, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 7. Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX. 8. Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 9. Division of Genetics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 10. Division of Medical Genetics and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 11. Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 12. Institute for Society & Genetics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 13. Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 14. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 15. Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 16. Division of Genomic Medicine, National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence of diagnostic yield and clinical utility of whole exome sequencing (WES) in patients with undiagnosed diseases, there remain significant cost and reimbursement barriers limiting access to such testing. The diagnostic yield and resulting clinical actions of WES for patients who previously faced insurance coverage barriers have not yet been explored. METHODS: We performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of clinical WES outcomes for patients facing insurance coverage barriers prior to clinical WES and who subsequently enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). Clinical WES was completed as a result of participation in the UDN. Payer type, molecular diagnostic yield, and resulting clinical actions were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients in the UDN faced insurance coverage barriers to WES at the time of enrollment (67% public payer, 26% private payer). Forty-two of 66 (64%) received insurance denial for clinician-ordered WES, 19/66 (29%) had health insurance through a payer known not to cover WES, and 5/66 (8%) had previous payer denial of other genetic tests. Clinical WES results yielded a molecular diagnosis in 23 of 66 patients (35% [78% pediatric, 65% neurologic indication]). Molecular diagnosis resulted in clinical actions in 14 of 23 patients (61%). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that a substantial proportion of patients who encountered insurance coverage barriers to WES had a clinically actionable molecular diagnosis, supporting the notion that WES has value as a covered benefit for patients who remain undiagnosed despite objective clinical findings.
BACKGROUND: Despite growing evidence of diagnostic yield and clinical utility of whole exome sequencing (WES) in patients with undiagnosed diseases, there remain significant cost and reimbursement barriers limiting access to such testing. The diagnostic yield and resulting clinical actions of WES for patients who previously faced insurance coverage barriers have not yet been explored. METHODS: We performed a retrospective descriptive analysis of clinical WES outcomes for patients facing insurance coverage barriers prior to clinical WES and who subsequently enrolled in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN). Clinical WES was completed as a result of participation in the UDN. Payer type, molecular diagnostic yield, and resulting clinical actions were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients in the UDN faced insurance coverage barriers to WES at the time of enrollment (67% public payer, 26% private payer). Forty-two of 66 (64%) received insurance denial for clinician-ordered WES, 19/66 (29%) had health insurance through a payer known not to cover WES, and 5/66 (8%) had previous payer denial of other genetic tests. Clinical WES results yielded a molecular diagnosis in 23 of 66 patients (35% [78% pediatric, 65% neurologic indication]). Molecular diagnosis resulted in clinical actions in 14 of 23 patients (61%). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that a substantial proportion of patients who encountered insurance coverage barriers to WES had a clinically actionable molecular diagnosis, supporting the notion that WES has value as a covered benefit for patients who remain undiagnosed despite objective clinical findings.
Authors: J Thevenon; Y Duffourd; A Masurel-Paulet; M Lefebvre; F Feillet; S El Chehadeh-Djebbar; J St-Onge; A Steinmetz; F Huet; M Chouchane; V Darmency-Stamboul; P Callier; C Thauvin-Robinet; L Faivre; J B Rivière Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Jochen K Lennerz; Heather M McLaughlin; Jason M Baron; David Rasmussen; Meini Sumbada Shin; Nancy Berners-Lee; Julie Miller Batten; Kathryn J Swoboda; Manish K Gala; Harland S Winter; Jeremy D Schmahmann; David A Sweetser; Marianne Boswell; Maciej Pacula; Albrecht Stenzinger; Long P Le; William Hynes; Heidi L Rehm; Anne Klibanski; Stephen W Black-Schaffer; Jeffrey A Golden; David N Louis; Scott T Weiss; A John Iafrate Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: E R Riggs; K E Wain; D Riethmaier; B Smith-Packard; W A Faucett; N Hoppman; E C Thorland; V C Patel; D T Miller Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Xiaolin Zhu; Slavé Petrovski; Pingxing Xie; Elizabeth K Ruzzo; Yi-Fan Lu; K Melodi McSweeney; Bruria Ben-Zeev; Andreea Nissenkorn; Yair Anikster; Danit Oz-Levi; Ryan S Dhindsa; Yuki Hitomi; Kelly Schoch; Rebecca C Spillmann; Gali Heimer; Dina Marek-Yagel; Michal Tzadok; Yujun Han; Gordon Worley; Jennifer Goldstein; Yong-Hui Jiang; Doron Lancet; Elon Pras; Vandana Shashi; Duncan McHale; Anna C Need; David B Goldstein Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Maie Walsh; Katrina M Bell; Belinda Chong; Emma Creed; Gemma R Brett; Kate Pope; Natalie P Thorne; Simon Sadedin; Peter Georgeson; Dean G Phelan; Timothy Day; Jessica A Taylor; Adrienne Sexton; Paul J Lockhart; Lynette Kiers; Michael Fahey; Ivan Macciocca; Clara L Gaff; Alicia Oshlack; Eppie M Yiu; Paul A James; Zornitza Stark; Monique M Ryan Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Andrew L Lundquist; Renee C Pelletier; Courtney E Leonard; Winfred W Williams; Katrina A Armstrong; Heidi L Rehm; Eugene P Rhee Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2020-08-12
Authors: Erica L Macke; Joel A Morales-Rosado; Aditi Gupta; Christopher T Schmitz; Teresa Kruisselbrink; Brendan Lanpher; Eric W Klee Journal: Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud Date: 2020-08-25