Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening

Andrew P. Dervan, Patricia A. Deverka, Julia R. Trosman, Christine B. Weldon, Michael P. Douglas, Kathryn A. Phillips

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose:Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.Methods:We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.Results:All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).Conclusion:Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)559-567
Number of pages9
JournalGenetics in Medicine
Volume19
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prenatal Diagnosis
Decision Making
DNA
Guidelines
High-Risk Pregnancy
Insurance Coverage
San Francisco
Down Syndrome
Chromosome Aberrations
Registries
Pregnancy
Health
Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • cell-free DNA
  • clinical utility
  • insurance coverage
  • next-generation sequencing
  • noninvasive prenatal testing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics(clinical)

Cite this

Dervan, A. P., Deverka, P. A., Trosman, J. R., Weldon, C. B., Douglas, M. P., & Phillips, K. A. (2017). Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening. Genetics in Medicine, 19(5), 559-567. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.145

Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests : Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening. / Dervan, Andrew P.; Deverka, Patricia A.; Trosman, Julia R.; Weldon, Christine B.; Douglas, Michael P.; Phillips, Kathryn A.

In: Genetics in Medicine, Vol. 19, No. 5, 01.05.2017, p. 559-567.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dervan, AP, Deverka, PA, Trosman, JR, Weldon, CB, Douglas, MP & Phillips, KA 2017, 'Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening', Genetics in Medicine, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 559-567. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.145
Dervan, Andrew P. ; Deverka, Patricia A. ; Trosman, Julia R. ; Weldon, Christine B. ; Douglas, Michael P. ; Phillips, Kathryn A. / Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests : Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening. In: Genetics in Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 19, No. 5. pp. 559-567.
@article{7f9a9d4a31c9416f97974432b2facff1,
title = "Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening",
abstract = "Purpose:Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.Methods:We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.Results:All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).Conclusion:Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.",
keywords = "cell-free DNA, clinical utility, insurance coverage, next-generation sequencing, noninvasive prenatal testing",
author = "Dervan, {Andrew P.} and Deverka, {Patricia A.} and Trosman, {Julia R.} and Weldon, {Christine B.} and Douglas, {Michael P.} and Phillips, {Kathryn A.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1038/gim.2016.145",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "559--567",
journal = "Genetics in Medicine",
issn = "1098-3600",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests

T2 - Insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening

AU - Dervan, Andrew P.

AU - Deverka, Patricia A.

AU - Trosman, Julia R.

AU - Weldon, Christine B.

AU - Douglas, Michael P.

AU - Phillips, Kathryn A.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Purpose:Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.Methods:We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.Results:All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).Conclusion:Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.

AB - Purpose:Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.Methods:We analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.Results:All payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).Conclusion:Payers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.

KW - cell-free DNA

KW - clinical utility

KW - insurance coverage

KW - next-generation sequencing

KW - noninvasive prenatal testing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021775316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021775316&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/gim.2016.145

DO - 10.1038/gim.2016.145

M3 - Article

C2 - 27657682

AN - SCOPUS:85021775316

VL - 19

SP - 559

EP - 567

JO - Genetics in Medicine

JF - Genetics in Medicine

SN - 1098-3600

IS - 5

ER -