Michael P Douglas1, Stacy W Gray2,3, Kathryn A Phillips1,4,5. 1. 1Department of Clinical Pharmacy, UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), San Francisco. 2. 2Department of Population Science, and. 3. 3Department of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope, Duarte; and. 4. 4UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy, and. 5. 5UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical adoption of the sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for cancer has rapidly increased in recent years. This sequencing is used to select targeted therapy and monitor nonresponding or progressive tumors to identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Our study objective was to review available coverage policies for cancer ctDNA-based testing panels to examine trends from 2015 to 2019. METHODS: We analyzed publicly available private payer policies and Medicare national coverage determinations and local coverage determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA-based panel tests for cancer. We coded variables for each year representing policy existence, covered clinical scenario, and specific ctDNA test covered. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We found that 38% of private payer coverage policies provided coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing as of July 2019. Most private payer policy coverage was highly specific: 87% for non-small cell lung cancer, 47% for EGFR gene testing, and 79% for specific brand-name tests. There were 8 final, 2 draft, and 2 future effective final LCDs (February 3 and March 15, 2020) that covered non-FDA-approved ctDNA-based tests. The draft and future effective LCDs were the first policies to cover pan-cancer use. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing for cancer indications increased from 2015 to 2019. The trend in private payer and Medicare coverage is an increasing number of coverage policies, number of positive policies, and scope of coverage. We found that Medicare coverage policies are evolving to pan-cancer uses, signifying a significant shift in coverage frameworks. Given that genomic medicine is rapidly changing, payers and policymakers (eg, guideline developers) will need to continue to evolve policies to keep pace with emerging science and standards in clinical care.
BACKGROUND: Clinical adoption of the sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for cancer has rapidly increased in recent years. This sequencing is used to select targeted therapy and monitor nonresponding or progressive tumors to identify mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. Our study objective was to review available coverage policies for cancer ctDNA-based testing panels to examine trends from 2015 to 2019. METHODS: We analyzed publicly available private payer policies and Medicare national coverage determinations and local coverage determinations (LCDs) for ctDNA-based panel tests for cancer. We coded variables for each year representing policy existence, covered clinical scenario, and specific ctDNA test covered. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: We found that 38% of private payer coverage policies provided coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing as of July 2019. Most private payer policy coverage was highly specific: 87% for non-small cell lung cancer, 47% for EGFR gene testing, and 79% for specific brand-name tests. There were 8 final, 2 draft, and 2 future effective final LCDs (February 3 and March 15, 2020) that covered non-FDA-approved ctDNA-based tests. The draft and future effective LCDs were the first policies to cover pan-cancer use. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of ctDNA-based panel testing for cancer indications increased from 2015 to 2019. The trend in private payer and Medicare coverage is an increasing number of coverage policies, number of positive policies, and scope of coverage. We found that Medicare coverage policies are evolving to pan-cancer uses, signifying a significant shift in coverage frameworks. Given that genomic medicine is rapidly changing, payers and policymakers (eg, guideline developers) will need to continue to evolve policies to keep pace with emerging science and standards in clinical care.
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Christine B Weldon; Michael P Douglas; Allison W Kurian; R Kate Kelley; Patricia A Deverka; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 11.908
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: Maarten J IJzerman; A M Sofie Berghuis; Johann S de Bono; Leon W M M Terstappen Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Jason D Merker; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Carolyn Compton; Maximilian Diehn; Patricia Hurley; Alexander J Lazar; Neal Lindeman; Christina M Lockwood; Alex J Rai; Richard L Schilsky; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Patricia Vasalos; Brooke L Billman; Thomas K Oliver; Suanna S Bruinooge; Daniel F Hayes; Nicholas C Turner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas P Slavin; Kimberly C Banks; Darya Chudova; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Justin I Odegaard; Rebecca J Nagy; Kar Wing Kevin Tsang; Susan L Neuhausen; Stacy W Gray; Massimo Cristofanilli; Angel A Rodriguez; Aditya Bardia; Brian Leyland-Jones; Mike F Janicek; Michael Lilly; Guru Sonpavde; Christine E Lee; Richard B Lanman; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Razelle Kurzrock; Jeffrey N Weitzel Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sacha P Broccard; Ali Abbaszadeh Kasbi; Sanjay P Bagaria; Jeremy Jones; Mira Shoudry; Emmanuel M Gabriel Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2022-02