Trosman Julia R, Weldon Christine B, Kelley R Kate, Phillips Kathryn A
From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California.
From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California. From UCSF Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California; Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Chicago Illinois; Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, UCSF, San Francisco, California; and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCSF, San Francisco, California.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015 Mar;13(3):311-8. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0043.
Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings.
All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies.
Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.
新一代肿瘤测序(NGTS)检测板涵盖了多种已确定的和新出现的癌症靶点,正在肿瘤学实践中兴起,但在美国尚未获得医保机构的正式覆盖批准。缺乏覆盖批准可能会影响其应用和推广。本研究确定了商业医保机构对NGTS进行覆盖批准面临的挑战。
我们对14名NGTS专家进行了半结构化访谈,了解NGTS的潜在益处,并对10家主要医保机构进行了访谈,这些医保机构覆盖超过1.25亿参保人,了解其对NGTS覆盖批准的考量。我们采用定性研究的框架方法进行研究设计和主题分析,并使用简单频数进一步描述研究结果。
所有接受访谈的医保机构都看到了NGTS的潜在益处,但都指出了正式覆盖批准面临的挑战:80%表示NGTS的固有特征不符合覆盖所需的医学必要性定义,70%将NGTS视为一系列靶点而非全面的肿瘤特征描述,并可能对每个靶点单独评估,70%对为NGTS提出的新证据方法表示怀疑。50%的医保机构对NGTS的采用和实施表达了足够的担忧,这将使其无法发布批准覆盖的政策。
医保机构认为NGTS前景广阔,但就其目前形式而言,对覆盖政策框架构成了颠覆性挑战。需要开展积极主动的多学科努力,以确定NGTS的发展方向、证据生成以及纳入覆盖政策,从而实现其前景并让患者能够使用。本研究为现有文献做出了贡献,可能是第一项直接就NGTS的覆盖和报销问题采访美国医保机构的研究。