PURPOSE: In 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) providing reimbursement for next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for beneficiaries with advanced or metastatic cancer and no previous NGS testing. We examined the association between NCD implementation and NGS utilization trends in Medicare beneficiaries versus commercially insured patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma with a de novo or recurrent advanced diagnosis from January 1, 2011, through December 30, 2019, using a nationwide US electronic health record-derived deidentified database. Patients were classified by insurance and by advanced diagnosis date. NGS testing was assessed by receipt of first NGS test result ≤ 60 days of advanced diagnosis. Interrupted time series analysis assessed NGS utilization pre- and post-NCD effective date by insurance type. RESULTS: The utilization and repeat NGS testing analysis included 70,290 and 4,295 patients, respectively. Use of NGS rose from < 1% in 2011 to > 45% in Q4 2019 in aNSCLC while remaining < 20% in mBC and advanced melanoma. Among patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, or mBC, NGS testing increased post-NCD versus pre-NCD (P < .05). There was no significant difference in trends pre- and post-NCD between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured patients in any tumor. Repeat NGS testing was similar before the NCD (Medicare v commercial: 24.8% v 28.5%). Post-NCD, fewer Medicare beneficiaries had repeat NGS testing (27.7% v 36.0%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Trends in NGS utilization significantly changed post-NCD, although the magnitude of change was not significantly different by insurance type, indicating private insurers may also be incorporating NCD guidance. Implementation of the NCD may have limited use of repeat NGS testing in Medicare beneficiaries.
PURPOSE: In 2018, Medicare issued a national coverage determination (NCD) providing reimbursement for next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for beneficiaries with advanced or metastatic cancer and no previous NGS testing. We examined the association between NCD implementation and NGS utilization trends in Medicare beneficiaries versus commercially insured patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), metastatic breast cancer (mBC), or advanced melanoma with a de novo or recurrent advanced diagnosis from January 1, 2011, through December 30, 2019, using a nationwide US electronic health record-derived deidentified database. Patients were classified by insurance and by advanced diagnosis date. NGS testing was assessed by receipt of first NGS test result ≤ 60 days of advanced diagnosis. Interrupted time series analysis assessed NGS utilization pre- and post-NCD effective date by insurance type. RESULTS: The utilization and repeat NGS testing analysis included 70,290 and 4,295 patients, respectively. Use of NGS rose from < 1% in 2011 to > 45% in Q4 2019 in aNSCLC while remaining < 20% in mBC and advanced melanoma. Among patients with aNSCLC, mCRC, or mBC, NGS testing increased post-NCD versus pre-NCD (P < .05). There was no significant difference in trends pre- and post-NCD between Medicare beneficiaries and commercially insured patients in any tumor. Repeat NGS testing was similar before the NCD (Medicare v commercial: 24.8% v 28.5%). Post-NCD, fewer Medicare beneficiaries had repeat NGS testing (27.7% v 36.0%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Trends in NGS utilization significantly changed post-NCD, although the magnitude of change was not significantly different by insurance type, indicating private insurers may also be incorporating NCD guidance. Implementation of the NCD may have limited use of repeat NGS testing in Medicare beneficiaries.
Authors: Ian S Hagemann; Siddhartha Devarakonda; Christina M Lockwood; David H Spencer; Kalin Guebert; Andrew J Bredemeyer; Hussam Al-Kateb; TuDung T Nguyen; Eric J Duncavage; Catherine E Cottrell; Shashikant Kulkarni; Rakesh Nagarajan; Karen Seibert; Maria Baggstrom; Saiama N Waqar; John D Pfeifer; Daniel Morgensztern; Ramaswamy Govindan Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David R Flum; Steve Kwon; Kara MacLeod; Bruce Wang; Rafael Alfonso-Cristancho; Louis P Garrison; Sean D Sullivan Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Brian P O'Neill; William W O'Neill; Donald Williams; Mauricio G Cohen; Alan W Heldman; Conrad Macon; Claudia A Martinez; Carlos E Alfonso; Pedro Martinez Clark; Omaida Velasquez; David Seo; Pascal Goldschmidt Clermont; Mauro Moscucci Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Carolyn J Presley; Daiwei Tang; Pamela R Soulos; Anne C Chiang; Janina A Longtine; Kerin B Adelson; Roy S Herbst; Weiwei Zhu; Nathan C Nussbaum; Rachael A Sorg; Vineeta Agarwala; Amy P Abernethy; Cary P Gross Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Scott M Morris; Janakiraman Subramanian; Esma S Gel; George C Runger; Eric J Thompson; David W Mallery; Glen J Weiss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eric Nadler; Bhakti Arondekar; Kathleen Marie Aguilar; Jie Zhou; Jane Chang; Xinke Zhang; Vivek Pawar Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2020-12-02 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Christine Y Lu; Stephanie Loomer; Rachel Ceccarelli; Kathleen M Mazor; James Sabin; Ellen Wright Clayton; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Ann Chen Wu Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2018-05-16
Authors: Daniel M Sheinson; William B Wong; Craig S Meyer; Stella Stergiopoulos; Katherine T Lofgren; Carlos Flores; Devon V Adams; Mark E Fleury Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-12-01
Authors: Ami N Shah; Ashwin Sunderraj; Brian Finkelman; Sharlene H See; Andrew A Davis; Lorenzo Gerratana; Firas Wehbe; Neelima Katam; Deva Mahalingam; William J Gradishar; Amir Behdad; Luis Blanco; Massimo Cristofanilli Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2022-02-02