Literature DB >> 33404996

The impact of insurance on equitable access to non-invasive prenatal screening (NIPT): private insurance may not pay.

Megan E Benoy1, J Igor Iruretagoyena2,3, Laura E Birkeland3,4, Elizabeth M Petty5.   

Abstract

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), is a prenatal screening test for chromosomal aneuploidies (trisomy 21, trisomy 18, and trisomy 13). While women under 35 years of age with no other risk factors are considered low risk for pregnancies with aneuploidy, most babies with aneuploidy are born to low-risk women. Across the USA, including Wisconsin, many private insurances do not cover initial NIPT for low-risk women, creating a potential financial burden that may limit patient selection of NIPT. Low-risk women with public insurance in Wisconsin are covered for NIPT. This pilot study determined if a difference exists in NIPT uptake based on insurance type in low-risk pregnant women in their first trimester. It also explored genetic counselor perspectives on how insurance coverage for NIPT is addressed with patients. Women with public insurance were 3.43 times more likely to have NIPT as an initial screen for aneuploidy than women with private insurance, indicating that insurance coverage may present a barrier to care. Additionally, analysis showed no evidence of different demographic variables interacting with another to impact outcome after allowing for insurance coverage (X214 = 14.301, p = 0.428). Our data also suggests that more genetic counselors would recommend NIPT to patients if insurance coverage was not a barrier and were more likely to discuss financial risks associated with NIPT when a patient had private insurance. We conclude that some women cannot choose one of the safest and most sensitive prenatal aneuploidy screening tests due to financial barriers put into place by the lack of insurance coverage.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FTS; Genetic counseling; Health disparities; Insurance coverage; NIPT; Prenatal

Year:  2021        PMID: 33404996     DOI: 10.1007/s12687-020-00498-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  13 in total

Review 1.  Unfair discrimination in prenatal aneuploidy screening using cell-free DNA?

Authors:  Vasilija Rolfes; Dagmar Schmitz
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 2.  The personal costs of caring for a child with a disability: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Donna Anderson; Serge Dumont; Philip Jacobs; Leila Azzaria
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

3.  Medical Bankruptcy: Still Common Despite the Affordable Care Act.

Authors:  David U Himmelstein; Robert M Lawless; Deborah Thorne; Pamela Foohey; Steffie Woolhandler
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Maternal age trends support uptake of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in the low-risk population.

Authors:  Kelly M Chen; Karen White; Junaid Shabbeer; Maximilian Schmid
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2018-06-20

5.  Genesurance Counseling: Genetic Counselors' Roles and Responsibilities in Regards to Genetic Insurance and Financial Topics.

Authors:  Shelby Brown; Susan Puumala; Jennifer Leonhard; Megan Bell; Jason Flanagan; Lori Williamson Dean; Quinn Stein
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  A burden from birth? Non-invasive prenatal testing and the stigmatization of people with disabilities.

Authors:  Giovanni Rubeis; Florian Steger
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 1.898

7.  The role of financial factors in acceptance of clinical BRCA genetic testing.

Authors:  Shannon Kieran; Lois J Loescher; Kyung Hee Lim
Journal:  Genet Test       Date:  2007

8.  What women want: lead considerations for current and future applications of noninvasive prenatal testing in prenatal care.

Authors:  Ruth M Farrell; Patricia K Agatisa; Benjamin Nutter
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 3.689

9.  A single center's experience with noninvasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Carmen J Beamon; Emily E Hardisty; Sarah C Harris; Neeta L Vora
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Attitudes towards non-invasive prenatal testing for aneuploidy among US adults of reproductive age.

Authors:  M Allyse; L C Sayres; T A Goodspeed; M K Cho
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.521

View more
  5 in total

1.  Non-invasive prenatal testing in mitigating concerns from invasive prenatal diagnostic testing: retrospective assessment of utility in an academic healthcare system in the US.

Authors:  Kibum Kim; Linda Kaitlyn Craft
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.006

2.  Insurance and geographic variations in non-invasive prenatal testing.

Authors:  Jacqueline Ellison; Catharine Wang; Christina Yarrington; Philip Connors; Amresh Hanchate
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2022-05-01       Impact factor: 3.242

3.  A dPCR-NIPT assay for detections of trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in a single-tube reaction-could it replace serum biochemical tests as a primary maternal plasma screening tool?

Authors:  Peng Dai; Yanfeng Yang; Ganye Zhao; Zhiqiang Gu; Huanan Ren; Shuang Hu; Ning Liu; Weimeng Jiao; Jinfang Li; Xiangdong Kong
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 8.440

4.  Introducing the non-invasive prenatal testing for detection of Down syndrome in China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Wenru Shang; Yang Wan; Jianan Chen; Yanqiu Du; Jiayan Huang
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Non-invasive prenatal test uptake in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Authors:  Karuna R M van der Meij; Caroline Kooij; Mireille N Bekker; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Lidewij Henneman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 3.242

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.