BACKGROUND: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions. METHODS: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancer patients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
BACKGROUND: Use of genomic testing is increasing in the United States. Testing can be expensive, and not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance. Little is known about how often oncologists discuss costs of testing and treatment or about the factors associated with those discussions. METHODS: We identified 1220 oncologists who reported discussing genomic testing with their cancerpatients from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Multivariable polytomous logistic regression analyses were used to assess associations between oncologist and practice characteristics and the frequency of cost discussions. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among oncologists who discussed genomic testing with patients, 50.0% reported often discussing the likely costs of testing and related treatments, 26.3% reported sometimes discussing costs, and 23.7% reported never or rarely discussing costs. In adjusted analyses, oncologists with training in genomic testing or working in practices with electronic medical record alerts for genomic tests were more likely to have cost discussions sometimes (odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19 to 3.69) or often (OR = 2.22, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.79), respectively, compared to rarely or never. Other factors statistically significantly associated with more frequent cost discussions included treating solid tumors (rather than only hematological cancers), using next-generation sequencing gene panel tests, having higher patient volume, and working in practices with higher percentages of patients insured by Medicaid, or self-paid or uninsured. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting modifiable oncologist and practice factors, such as training in genomic testing and use of electronic medical record alerts, may help improve cost discussions about genomic testing and related treatments. Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; K Robin Yabroff; Joan L Warren; Christopher Zeruto; Neetu Chawla; Elizabeth B Lamont Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Maria Pisu; Kelly M Kenzik; Robert A Oster; Patricia Drentea; Kimlin T Ashing; Mona Fouad; Michelle Y Martin Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stacy W Gray; Benjamin Kim; Lynette Sholl; Angel Cronin; Aparna R Parikh; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; David A Haggstrom; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Tracy A Lieu; G Thomas Ray; Stephanie R Prausnitz; Laurel A Habel; Stacey Alexeeff; Yan Li; Scott D Ramsey; Charles E Phelps; Neetu Chawla; Suzanne C O'Neill; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; Kelsey L Brown; Michelle Haan; Russell E Glasgow; Lee S Newman; Borsika Rabin; Debra P Ritzwoller; Liliana Tenney Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; John A E Pottow; Kent A Griffith; Cathy Bradley; Ann S Hamilton; John Graff; Steven J Katz; Sarah T Hawley Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V Paul Doria-Rose; Nancy Breen; Martin L Brown; Eric J Feuer; Ann M Geiger; Larry Kessler; Joseph Lipscomb; Joan L Warren; K Robin Yabroff Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2022-07-05
Authors: Nicole Weise; Justin Shaya; Juan Javier-Desloges; Heather H Cheng; Lisa Madlensky; Rana R McKay Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Macy M Goldbach; Laura Burkbauer; Tina Bharani; Austin D Williams; Luke Keele; Jami Rothman; Rachel Jankowitz; Julia C Tchou Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Deirdre Weymann; Samantha Pollard; Brandon Chan; Emma Titmuss; Alexandra Bohm; Janessa Laskin; Steven J M Jones; Erin Pleasance; Jessica Nelson; Alexandra Fok; Howard Lim; Aly Karsan; Daniel J Renouf; Kasmintan A Schrader; Sophie Sun; Stephen Yip; David F Schaeffer; Marco A Marra; Dean A Regier Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 4.452