Tag Archives: genetic testing

by Katie Stoll | September 26, 2022 · 5:02 PM

Unprofitable Genetic Testing Labs – The Size of the Loss, The Reasons for the Loss, and What It Means for Genetic Counseling and Genetic Counselors

By Katie Stoll, MS, Jessie Conta, MS, and Michael Astion, MD, PHD

Genetic counseling is a critical part of the genetic services process, beyond just coordination and ordering of a genetic test. However, as the genetic counseling profession has grown alongside the expansion of genetic testing, it has become increasingly intertwined with and dependent upon the financial success of commercial genetic testing laboratories. The relationship risks undervaluing genetic counseling and the breadth of the services genetic counselors provide.

The genetic testing industry has seen rapid growth over the past two decades, with many new companies and billions of dollars invested into start-up genetic testing labs. Despite the enthusiasm of venture capitalists and other investors, commercial genetic testing labs are largely unprofitable, and the losses are significant and sustained. This is shown in Tables 1 and 2 below which are derived from analyzing publicly available, quarterly and annual financial reports (10-Q and10-K Filings) of publicly traded companies whose primary business is clinical genetic/genomic testing.

As shown in the tables, it is common for publicly traded, genetic testing labs to report annual losses of >$100 million. In 2021, only one lab, Fulgent, made a profit (Table 1). However, Fulgent’s 2021 – 2022 quarterly reports (Table 2) indicate that profits aren’t attributable to genetic testing, but rather to COVID test sales, which accounted for ~88% of their 2021 revenue. Myriad has seen a consistent decline in revenue since the US Supreme Court’s ruling in 2013, which forbid human gene patenting and therefore caused Myriad to lose their lucrative BRCA testing monopoly. Although the losses have not been as severe as their competitors, Myriad has not been profitable since 2019, and they have reported greater losses in the first two quarters of 2022 than their annual loss in 2021.

Profit and loss data is difficult to obtain from private genetic testing companies such as Color Genomics, as well as from genetic testing labs owned by much larger, diversified companies, as is the case with Ambry being owned by Konica Minolta. Similarly, profit and loss data on genetic testing is unavailable from integrated health systems, academic medical centers, or publicly traded labs –like Quest, LabCorp, and BioReference— who only have a small portion of their overall testing business in genetics. In regards to academic labs and labs in integrated health systems, our experience, as well as discussions we have had with colleagues strongly suggest that genetic testing is performed at a financial loss, and that it is the overall profit of these full-service labs that allow them to support genetic testing.

Why aren’t genetic testing companies profitable?

Publicly traded genetic testing labs are unprofitable for a variety of reasons. The top reasons are poor reimbursement from insurance plans and patients; intense competition; and excessive expenses for sales, marketing, and executive compensation. In addition, the inclusion of genetic counseling, which companies have highly valued as part of their testing service, adds an expense that is not seen in the other analytic sections of a full-service clinical lab.

Insurance reimbursement

The service of genetic testing is a costly one to deliver and is much more expensive than a lab’s cost to perform other tests. For example, the fully loaded cost of performing a typical test in a highly automated, hospital-based core laboratory is in the range of $10-$20 per test. This includes common tests like complete blood counts, electrolytes, basic coagulation tests, thyroid screening tests, and liver function tests. For an insurance plan this type of common testing is >65% of their expenses. The cost to labs of genetic testing is much higher, often 10-100-fold higher. Genetic testing usually represents < 20% of an insurance plan’s spending on lab tests.

Why is genetic testing so costly to labs? The main reason is that it is difficult scale genetic testing in a manner analogous to common, high-volume laboratory tests. Compared to common tests, genetic testing is more labor-intensive, more time consuming, involves higher-wage staff, and involves technology that has a higher cost per test. Genetic testing is time consuming because it requires complex tasks not seen with common tests, such as variant analysis, curation, review, and updating. And for many companies, it also includes providing the genetic counseling service, which is often bundled into the service of providing the test. Overall, genetic testing is a personalized, complex technical service which has resisted, for now, the type of full automation that has benefited other parts of the clinical lab.

The high cost for performing genetic testing necessitates high costs to patients and their insurance companies. Historically, insurance companies are mediocre at regulating high-volume, low-cost lab tests because it is too cumbersome and expensive to manage. However, insurance companies have many effective tools for regulating high-cost procedures, including genetic tests. The result is that high-volume, low-cost laboratory tests have a relatively open door to reasonable insurance payments, and insurers invest only a little energy toward closing that door. In the case of genetic testing, the door is closed or only partially open.

Besides negotiating fees with certain labs, the main method that insurance plans use to control genetic test reimbursement is detailed medical necessity policies tied to preauthorization systems. Insurance companies either develop the policies and pre-auth systems or purchase them from third-party benefits managers. Overall, the method involves using software that aids decision making in combination with genetic counselors, nurses, and physicians who adjudicate cases at various decision levels. This approach is then married to an insurance plan’s usual and customary procedures for handling grievances from patients and labs that have been denied payment. For insurance plans, this type of complex system, which is both software and labor intensive, would have a poor return on investment if applied to low-cost, high volume lab tests. But for genetic testing, this type of system has an excellent return on investment, and so insurers are highly motivated to regulate genetic testing. In addition, these insurance systems tend to be overly tuned to block fraud, waste and abuse, and often delayed in keeping up with scientific evidence. Therefore, insurance systems may block some medically necessary genetic testing.

Patients bear high out-of-pocket costs for genetic testing. This is because they are financially liable when their insurers do not cover the test, and, even when insurers provide coverage, there still can be high deductibles or co-pays. In the laboratory industry, it is very expensive to recover the money that the patient owes, and poor financial recoveries from patients is common. This failure to recover the patient portion of the bill adversely affects the bottom line of genetic testing labs.

Response to poor reimbursement from insurers and patients

Many labs performing genetic testing have responded to preauthorization requirements by investing in resources – which sometimes can create an entire division or department – that provide support with prior-authorizations, as well as appeals and support when test coverage is denied. This can help grow the testing business because it removes a barrier that blocks some providers from ordering testing. However, the removal of the barrier comes at a high cost to the genetic testing lab.

To help patients directly, some labs have promised patients low out-of-pocket costs either through reducing the patient’s responsibility under their insurance plan, or by promoting self-pay options that avoids involving the insurance plan. Thus, some labs promise patient out-of-pocket maximums, typically advertised as about $100 when insurance does not cover testing.

For self-pay options that do not involve insurance, the price for genetic testing for patients is often much lower than the list price available to care providers, and it is highly likely that price does not cover the costs of the tests. The current going rate at most labs for self-pay testing for multigene panels is around $250, which is usually much less than what labs try to collect from payers, including Medicare and Medicaid for the same test.

Sales and Marketing

A review of publicly available, 10-K submissions, show that it is not unusual for genetic testing companies to have marketing and sales budgets around 40-50% or more of revenue, which is much higher than typically seen in established, full service clinical laboratories. This most likely relates to the goal of growing revenue and capturing market share, despite the high cost of achieving this in a competitive, and poorly reimbursed business. Those NSGC parties, sponsored luncheon and dinner events, “free” CEU opportunities, and even the complementary genetic counseling, all come at a cost for the marketing and sales budgets of these companies.

Executive compensation

Another contributor to financial losses in publicly traded genetic testing labs is the high pay of executive leadership, including chief executives. Review of executive compensation data shows that executive pay is often inversely correlated with net profits – the longer that a company lasts, regardless of how deep the losses grow, executives tend to be well rewarded. For example, Natera reported compensation for the company’s chief executives totaling $8 million while company losses totaled $128 million in 2018. Contrast this to 2021, when Natera’s C-Suite compensation was > $53 million despite company losses that were > $471 million.

Although these companies are not generating operating profits, their investors aren’t necessarily hurting as a result. Stock prices for boutique, genetic testing labs don’t often sync with the lab’s financial health, and based on reported trading of company insiders, some investors are gaining significant wealth despite the losses of these labs. For example, Invitae hit all time stock highs in December 2020 despite enormous losses reported in every quarter that year. The net loss for Invitae in 2020 was >$600 million, while that same year Invitae insiders cashed out more > $46 million in stock. Another example is that the current CEO of Natera cashed in nearly $76 million in stock over the past four years, while cumulative losses for Natera totaled >$ 1 billion over that same period.

What is at stake for genetic counseling?

A 2018 publication in the Journal of Genetic Counseling analyzed the financial challenges of commercial genetic testing labs and what that could mean for genetic counselors. The authors speculated that genetic testing companies may not find a path to profitability, and their ability to support genetic counseling services may subsequently decrease.

Since this initial analysis, the losses of these companies have continued to grow, and investors have become less enthusiastic. This has put pressure on many companies to change and adjust their business strategy in order to survive. For some, this means cost cutting measures to decrease their cash burn with hopes to increase the odds of profitability. And as predicted, difficult decisions are taking place with many genetic testing companies resulting in layoffs of staff, including genetic counselors. Last month, Invitae announced layoffs of over 1,000 staff, including most of their clinical genetic counselors. SEMA4 and Ambry Genetics have also had layoffs in recent months. Given the overall picture of the financial health of all these labs, and increasing challenges in raising funds, it is likely there will be more layoffs to come for genetic counselors and others who work at these companies.

What does the current financial state of genetic testing laboratories mean for the delivery of genetic services and for the genetic counseling profession? A substantial portion of genetic counseling is now delivered through genetic testing laboratories who have packaged genetic testing with the offer of genetic counseling to draw in clients. If we see fewer companies maintaining genetic counselors on their staff, where will genetic counseling support come from for these patients? In addition to the labs themselves, many of the growing genetic counseling telehealth companies are closely tied to the testing laboratories, with much of their funding and contracts coming through commercial laboratories rather than direct patient referrals or contracts with clinics. It seems possible that these arrangements could also be negatively affected with current financial pressures and cuts to “extra” costs. Genetic counseling is not an “extra” bonus service, but rather a critical part of the genetic services process. Relying on genetic testing companies’ funding to ensure access to this service does not appear to be a sustainable model.

For genetic counseling services to be sustained, independent of the financial health of corporate testing laboratories, it is essential that genetic counseling be recognized and reimbursed as an independent service, with inherent value that is separate from genetic testing. Recognition by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a necessary step towards sustainable and independent genetic counseling services, regardless of service delivery modality. I hope you all will join in continued advocacy to see the Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act H.R. 2144 / S. 1450 enacted into law.

Michael L. Astion is a clinical pathologist who is Medical Director, Department of Laboratories at Seattle Children’s Hospital and Clinical Professor of Laboratory Medicine at the University of Washington. For almost two decades he worked at the University of Washington, Department of Laboratory Medicine where he was a Professor and Director of Reference Laboratory Services. His career is divided between clinical service, teaching, clinical service, and research and development. He is the editor-in-chief of Patient Safety Focus, which appears quarterly within AACCs Clinical Laboratory News. He is one of the founders of PLUGS (Patient-centered Laboratory Utilization Guidance Services), a national collaboration whose mission is to improve test ordering, retrieval, interpretation and reimbursement. Dr. Astion is a frequent speaker at professional meetings, where he lectures on issues related to laboratory test utilization; test interpretation; laboratory economics and outreach; and medical errors.

Jessie Conta is a licensed genetic counselor in the Department of Laboratories at Seattle Children’s Hospital. She received her Master of Science degree in genetic counseling from Brandeis University. As the Manager of the Laboratory Stewardship Program at Seattle Children’s, she leads genetic test stewardship interventions, including insurance alignment related to genetic testing. Jessie is also a co-founder and Director of Genetic Counseling Services for PLUGS (Patient-centered Laboratory Utilization Guidance Services), a national collaboration whose mission is to improve test ordering, retrieval, interpretation and reimbursement.

5 Comments

Filed under Guest Blogger, Katie Stoll

Tagged as Genetic counseling, genetic testing, professional issues

by Katie Stoll | March 30, 2022 · 8:38 AM

ACMG Carrier Screening Guideline: The Hypothetical “Tier 3” Panel

This post was modified on 3/30/2022 with input presented by some DNA Exchange readers. First – the original post did not account for the fact that ELP1 is reported out as IKBKAP by Natera, SEMA4 and Quest. Table and graph were updated to reflect this.

While the list of labs surveyed for this post was not intended to include all labs that offer carrier screening, it has been noted since this was initially posted that Fulgent does offer a carrier screening panel based on the ACMG Tier 3 recommendation. A paragraph has been added to reflect Fulgent’s test offering.

In July 2021, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics published a new carrier screening guideline, Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). The gist of this recommendation is that all individuals who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant should be offered a carrier screening panel inclusive of 113 specific genes. In a prior post, Bob Resta and I shared our concerns regarding ethical issues and the ways in which this panel was designed.

With this post I have a practical question regarding implementation: How does one order a carrier screening panel of these ACMG-recommended genes when such a panel does not exist?

A quick recap of the ACMG carrier recommendation. The guideline defines 4 tiers of carrier screening:

Carrier Screening Tiers defined in the ACMG Practice resource, *Screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception: a practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)*.

The carrier frequencies utilized are based on the public database gnomAD and represent carrier frequencies for any subpopulation that makes up at least 1% of the United States total population.

The goal of this ACMG recommendation was to define a standard panel that could be offered to all patients. The guideline recommends that all patients who are pregnant or are considering pregnancy be offered the “Tier 3” panel, and that reproductive partners may also be offered the Tier 3 panel simultaneously. This panel is inclusive of 113 genes, 86 of which were derived from the gnomAD data as having a carrier frequency of 1 in 200 or higher; 11 additional genes were “highly represented in one or more patient populations and have potential to be underrepresented in gnomAD”; and 16 genes associated with X-linked conditions with a prevalence of 1 in 40,000 or higher.

ACMG recommends against using the Tier 1 or Tier 2 panel for any patient. Further, it states that the Tier 4 panel be reserved “for consanguineous pregnancies (second cousins or closer) and in couples where family or medical history suggests Tier 4 screening might be beneficial.”

A huge problem with this recommendation is that the Tier 3 panel, as it is described by ACMG, does not exist as an orderable test through most labs. I have surveyed several labs, and those with the biggest commercially available panels do not provide coverage for somewhere between 25 and 49 genes of the 113 that are outlined by ACMG for the Tier 3 panel.

Analysis of carrier screening labs performed on March 24, 2022. For a full list of genes by lab, see Table below.

Some of the labs I have highlighted in this analysis have published press releases and sent emails to their client base in enthusiastic support of these guidelines that call for expanded carrier screening, even though NONE of them actually offer what ACMG currently recommends. The Industry lobbying group for Myriad, Natera, SEMA4 and ThermoFisher, the Access to Equitable Carrier Screening Coalition “applauds American College Of Genetics And Genomics” on this new recommendation that none of these labs can currently fulfill.

One lab, Fulgent Genetics, offers a panel that is based on the Tier 3 recommendation, along with several caveats and limitations for some of the recommended genes that have common variants that may be missed or are expected to escape detection by their platform. While the Fulgent panel includes all 113 ACMG-recommended genes, these caveats and limitations demonstrate that sensitivity across the genes included can vary dramatically and may be low in cases where the common mutation is a trinucleotide repeat, inversion or other alteration not reliably identified through next generation sequencing. For example, Fulgent reports including FXN analysis on their panel with the caveat that their analysis will only detect sequence variants which account for <5% of pathogenic variants in this gene (the vast majority of FXN pathogenic variants are due to GAA repeat expansion.)

Perhaps Fulgent along with other labs that are working to develop a panel that meets the ACMG requirements and will be able to identify most pathogenic variants in the 113 gene set. It may be difficult to do this and keep the cost of testing down as there are technical challenges to assessing some of the genes that ACMG recommends. For example, the most common mutation in the F8 gene is a gene inversion. With PLP1 the most common mutation is a gene duplication. Rearrangements are common with the OCA2 gene. These technical variations present a challenge to labs as they expand their carrier screening panels. From the marketing perspective, adding 50 genes to their currently existing platform may seem more impressive than adding a small handful of more technically difficult ACMG-recommended genes.

Do obstetrical care providers recognize that when they are ordering an expanded panel that it may include hundreds of genes that are not recommended while missing several genes that are part of this ACMG-produced panel? What does this mean for our liability as providers when we cannot order a test that is recommended by our professional society?

In a future post I plan to focus on carrier screening for cystic fibrosis and some of the harm seen from reporting practices on expanded carrier screening. But for now I would like to reflect back to the time when we first considered screening for cystic fibrosis, the rollout of which was not without challenges. Before guidelines were issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Medical Genetics, there was significant preparation for implementation. Care was taken to determine whether we knew that the variants included on the CFTR panel cause disease. We thought we were clear about this but even with great scrutiny, the original 25 mutation panel included a variant that we eventually learned did not cause disease. There were standards written for laboratories regarding how to do the testing and what should be included in the report. There were educational resources developed for patients and providers. There appears to be much less care and preparation with these current guidelines in spite of the recommendations for testing for many more as well as increasingly complex conditions.

In today’s world of carrier screening, we see both the 113 gene Tier 3 panel recommended by the ACMG as well as commercial laboratories in constant competition to expand the size of their carrier panels. Yes, labs are expanding their genetic carrier screening offerings, but it does not appear (regardless of their marketing materials) that the recommendations from ACMG are the reason why. Even some of the biggest panels available don’t include 22-43% of the genes recommended by the ACMG while providing coverage for numerous genes that are not included in the recommendation. Data regarding performance characteristics of screening for many of these genes both within and beyond the panel are lacking. As a result, pre and post test counseling our patients regarding carrier screening and the downstream challenges are just going to become increasingly more complex.

ACMG Tier 3 Panel	Labcorp / Integrated Inheritest® 500 PLUS Panel	SEMA4 Expanded Carrier Screen (502 Genes)	Natera Horizon™ 421	Myriad Foresight®	Invitae Comprehensive Carrier Screen	Quest QHerit(R) Extended
ABCA3	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘
ABCC8	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ABCD1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ACADM	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ACADVL	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ACAT1	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
AFF2	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
AGA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
AGXT	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
AHI1	✔	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
AIRE	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ALDOB	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ALPL	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ANO10	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
ARSA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ARX	✘	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
ASL	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ASPA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ATP7b	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
BBS1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
BBS2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
BCKDHB	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
BLM	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
BTD	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CBS	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CC2D2A	✘	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
CCDC88C	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
CEP290	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
CFTR	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CHRNE	✘	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
CLCN1	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
CLRN1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CNGB3	✘	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
COL7A1	✘	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
CPT2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CYP11A1	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘
CYP21A2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
CYP27A1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
CYP27B1	✘	✔	✔	✘	✘	✘
DHCR7	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
DHDDS	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
DLD	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
DMD	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
DYNC2H1	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
ELP1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
ERCC2	✔	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
EVC2	✘	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
F8	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
F9	✘	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
FAH	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
FANCC	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
FKRP	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
FKTN	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
FMO3	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
FMR1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
FXN	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
G6PC	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GAA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GALT	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GBA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GBE1	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
GJB2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GLA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
GNPTAB	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
GRIP1	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
HBA1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
HBA2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
HBB	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
HEXA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
HPS1	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
HPS3	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
IDUA	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
L1CAM	✔	✔	✔	✘	✘	✘
LRP2	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
MCCC2	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✔
MCOLN1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
MCPH1	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
MID1	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
MLC1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
MMACHC	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
MMUT	✔	✘	✘	✔	✘	✘
MVK	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
NAGA	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
NEB	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
NPHS1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
NR0B1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
OCA2	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
OTC	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
PAH	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
PCDH15	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
PKHD1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
PLP1	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
PMM2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
POLG	✘	✔	✔	✘	✘	✘
PRF1	✔	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
RARS2	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
RNASEH2B	✔	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘
RPGR	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
RS1	✘	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘
SCO2	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
SLC19A3	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
SLC26A2	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
SLC26A4	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
SLC37A4	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
SLC6A8	✔	✔	✔	✘	✔	✘
SMN1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
SMPD1	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
TF	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
TMEM216	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
TNXB	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘	✘
TYR	✘	✔	✘	✘	✘	✘
USH2A	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
XPC	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✘

As of March 23, 2022

Quest Diagnostics QHerit™ Extended

Myriad Foresight® Carrier ScreenUniversal Panel

Invitae Comprehensive Carrier Screen

Labcorp / IntegratedInheritest® 500 PLUS Panel

SEMA4 Expanded Carrier Screen (502 Genes)

Natera Horizon 421 (from printed materials provided by Natera)

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as AMCG, carrier screening, carrier screening panels, expanded carrier screening, genetic testing

by Katie Stoll | October 12, 2021 · 2:44 PM

An offer too good to be true? Might be a kickback.

Consider this imaginary scenario from three perspectives:

#1 You are an administrator for a large healthcare system in your community that is facing a greater demand for mental health services than ever before. Qualified mental healthcare providers are in high demand leading to psychiatrists and counselors demanding higher wages; yet reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid haven’t kept up.

A well-known pharmaceutical company approaches you with a new program which includes a computer program that will interface directly with the healthcare system’s electronic medical record. This program has a suite of tools that will provide patient education, screen patients for depression and other mental health concerns and can make recommendations for treatment based on chatbots and pre-programmed algorithms. The program also allows for ease of ordering and delivery of medications, directly to the patients that are identified as possibly benefiting them. The system will check insurance benefits, handle billing, and provide education to the patient making the whole process seamless and burden-free for your clinical staff and providers. And the pharmaceutical company will provide direct access to mental health counselors and psychiatrists to take care of your patients when there are needs beyond what the chatbot and videos can provide. This is all offered to your healthcare system free of charge. This is a departure from how mental health services have been offered previously within in your healthcare system, however you are convinced that this program it would increase access to care that is desperately needed and greatly benefit your budget as well.

#2 You are a psychiatrist that has worked in a community health practice for many years. The work is taxing and not well supported. When you were recruited by a pharmaceutical company it felt like an easy choice. The pay that was offered was nearly double what you were paid when working for community health and the perks, benefits and hours allow for a much-improved work-life balance. And with so many tools for efficiency and support, you believed that more patients would be reached in the system through access to medications than you could have ever reached through traditional clinical care.

#3 You work in business development for a pharmaceutical company. Integrating into healthcare systems with tools to boost clinic efficiency and support health care providers like free electronic mental health screening questionnaires and algorithms for treatment recommendations means that more patients will be reached, and more prescriptions will be sold. Direct access to patient information input into company tools, such as the questionnaires, as well as control over the tools and their internal algorithms mean that the company can engineer the tools to make recommendations for prescribers that will garner the highest payment from insurance payers. This direct access is solid gold in the pharmaceutical business. The salaries of psychiatrists and mental health professionals are easily paid for by a fraction of the increased revenues in prescription sales. And the opportunity to have psychiatrists and mental health counselors on the pharmaceutical company staff, to interact directly with healthcare system providers and staff as well as patients has shown to be a powerful sales tool that gives healthcare systems the confidence to utilize the company’s platform.

Could this scenario happen? If so, is there a problem with it?

Let’s first consider the positives:

Improved patient access for a needed service.
Earning potential for expert healthcare providers.
Pharmaceutical company is making a healthy profit (as a successful business should)

And the negatives?

The pharmaceutical company is essentially monopolizing prescribing for the healthcare system.
In the interest of profits, the pharmaceutical company is incentivized to influence prescribing to maximize reimbursement.
Excessive prescribing practices may result, that are not necessarily in the best interest of the patient and may incur great costs for the payers and broader health system.
The healthcare system is allowing sensitive patient information to be shared with the pharmaceutical company which may also raise patient privacy and data sharing concerns.

Such a scenario is ethically murky and likely would be problematic given state and federal anti-kickback statutes. While patient access to services may be increased, there is a risk that the profit interests of the pharmaceutical company would be prioritized over the best interests of the patients and the healthcare system.

The anti-kickback laws are intent-based, criminal statutes that prohibit intentional remuneration, whether monetary or in-kind, in exchange for referrals or other Federally funded health care program business.

From the Office of the Inspector General (OIG): The types of remuneration covered specifically include, without limitation, kickbacks, bribes, and rebates, whether made directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind. In addition, prohibited conduct includes not only the payment of remuneration intended to induce or reward referrals of patients but also the payment of remuneration intended to induce or reward the purchasing, leasing, or ordering of, or arranging for or recommending the purchasing, leasing, or ordering of, any good, facility, service, or item reimbursable by any Federal health care program.

Further the OIG states that remuneration to encourage referrals in health care can lead to:

Overutilization
Increased program costs
Corruption of medical decision making
Patient steering
Unfair competition

The above imaginary scenario could be especially problematic given the involvement of healthcare providers, psychiatrists and mental health counselors. The practice of using physicians or other health care professionals involved in direct marketing activities has been termed, “white coat” marketing. See OIG Advisory Opinion No. 11-08: “White coat marketing is closely scrutinized under the anti-kickback statute because physicians and other healthcare professionals are in an exceptional position of public trust and thus may exert undue influence when recommending health care-related items or services…Given the nature of these relationships, when physicians or other health care professionals market items and services to their patients, patients may have difficulty distinguishing between professional medical advice and a commercial sales pitch.”

How does this connect to genetic counseling?

Currently, throughout the United States, genetic testing laboratories are approaching physician clinics, hospitals, and healthcare systems with proposals to help streamline genetic services. These laboratories promise a bi-directional interface with the local EMR to ease test ordering and reporting. They provide screening tools to identify patients who meet clinical guidelines for genetic testing and videos to provide information to support pretest consent. They provide insurance authorization and billing follow-up. And they provide genetic counseling support to patients who use their tests. Furthermore, the labs are often making big claims about the potential for downstream revenue that could be generated from more genetic testing in the system in terms of imaging, risk reducing surgeries, procedures, etc. that may be recommended once high-risk patients are identified.

Could any of these complementary services, in exchange for genetic test orders, be considered an illegal kickback or remuneration? Could the complementary genetic counseling services provided to patients be considered “white-coat” marketing?

The answer to that question may depend on if there can be a monetary value assigned to provision of genetic counseling services. And, since genetic counselors aren’t recognized under federal CMS as reimbursable, it is possible that there is no clear assignable value for genetic counseling services that would be considered a remuneration by CMS.

Genetic counselors are often leaving clinical positions for higher paying positions with industry, and healthcare organizations are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their own locally hired staff. This taken with the fact that healthcare systems have difficulty getting reimbursed for independent genetic counselors who are on staff with their organization, offers of complementary lab-provided genetic counseling bundled up with ease in test ordering are appealing. Labs see marketing by genetic counselors as a powerful sales tool to increase genetic test orders and offer genetic counselors attractive positions in terms of pay and other benefits. And then labs make deals with hospitals, clinics, and healthcare organizations to offer full service genetic healthcare solutions by labs that want to be the one stop shop. With companies that have an interest in selling more and more tests, and healthcare systems having a hard time retaining genetic counselors or getting reimbursed for their services, we will likely see automated processes constructed by the labs to make recommendations about test orders.

I believe genetic counselors can offer excellent services regardless of who employs them. I know that many lab-employed genetic counselors are working hard and taking great care of their patients. And I believe that the tools that the companies provide do have the potential to expand access to genetic testing. What worries me though is that this expansion of testing may not ultimately be what is best for patients and will cost the healthcare system (and thus all of us) greatly. As this landscape continue to shift, with genetic counseling being offered as an incentive to promote test orders of specific test brands, the practice of independent genetic counseling services as we have known them may soon vanish. Our ability to provide unbiased counseling that allows patients to make informed choices about what is best for them (which may not always be a genetic test) and our ability to select that best test, regardless of testing laboratory, will be a thing of the past.

Legislation has been introduced that would allow for genetic counselors to be reimbursed by Medicare, Access to Genetic Counselor Services Act of 2021 H.R. 2144 and S.1450. Medicare recognition of the genetic counseling profession is crucial to ensuring access to independent services. Please consider contacting your representatives and senators to voice your support of these important bills. Learn more here.

How Much Is That DNA Test In The Window, The One With The Waggely Price?

The recent stories about Medicare fraud and genetic testing have been pretty awful. Taking advantage of older people in order to scam the government…. well, what can you say? There’s a cheater born every minute and they are doing their best, or, really, their worst, to turn honest people into feeling like suckers.

Moral outrage aside, the stories got me to thinking about how unsure I am about the costs of genetic testing and how it gets billed to patients and insurers. Important point – I am not suggesting that reputable labs are flimflammers or hucksters. I am forever grateful to labs for their efforts in working with patients’ health insurers to determine coverage. I understand that pricing structure and billing are complicated even for professionals who spend their whole life doing it. Labs should make as much legitimate profit as they can. Sometimes the eligibility and testing guidelines are not so clear. I was born – but not yesterday.* I just don’t know how it gets done and how the rules and regulations are navigated, at least in my narrow world of cancer genetics, though I suspect it is a problem in other specialties too. I’ve tried to become an informed user but it is a dense subject. I feel as clueless as Buzz Lightyear (or, as Woody sometimes calls him, Buzz Light Beer). Genetics is easy in comparison. So I have questions.

I understand that each lab negotiates prices with each private health insurer and that the specifics are sort of Top Secret. But why are the negotiated prices for essentially the same test so different for each lab and insurer? Surely insurers are not so incompetent that they don’t realize this. They too are looking to be as profitable as they can be. All else being equal, shouldn’t insurers negotiate about the same price with Labs A, B, and C? And if Lab D doesn’t like the price, well tough on them and they can be relegated to the dreaded status of “nonpreferred lab.”

Then there’s Medicare. Medicare rules vary a bit by region and are potentially negotiable in particular instances. But Medicare guidelines make it clear that usually patients must have a diagnosis such as breast or ovarian cancers (and in some situations also need to meet family history criteria) for testing to be covered. Some labs will not bill Medicare for patients who do not meet criteria and charge patients an out of pocket amount consistent with what they would have charged Medicare if it was a covered service. Other labs will bill Medicare and appear to eat whatever Medicare does not cover. Is it all a matter of different interpretations of ambiguous bureaucratic wording? And is it an illegal inducement if a lab offers free genetic counseling along with testing?

When insurance is bypassed and a patient pays out of pocket how is it that the charge to the patient for more or less the same gene panel across labs can range from $250 to ~$2,000? Depending on which lab you use, patients can even get a panel for fifty bucks if they are “fortunate” enough to have a pathogenic variant segregating in their family. Or the patient at risk for a specific familial pathogenic variant could get the gene in question sequenced, but not a panel, for free, if testing is ordered within 90 days of the relative’s test. Or that same patient could just be tested for the specific variant and pay around $400-$500 out of pocket. If you have prostate cancer, or certain other genetic conditions, you can get a panel test at no charge because the testing is “sponsored” by a separate lab, usually from Pharma, with whom de-identified data may be shared (is it still possible to deidentify DNA anymore?).

I am all for removing financial and other barriers to genetic testing and counseling. I work hard at making sure my patients pay the lowest possible price for a quality test. I understand the need for research and cooperation between labs to develop new treatments. And it can be cut-throat competition out there where everyone’s trying to hack off a big chunk of market share. For sure, many of these issues are symptoms of the crazy health care system and spending in the US. At the same time, I wonder whether my pursuit of making sure that my patients get coverage for their genetic testing is blinding me to problems with billing and charging. I do not want to cross any ethical or legal lines and I don’t want put my patients in financial jeopardy.

Perhaps the Good Readers of this blog are willing to share their insights and stories. Please don’t name names or try to vilify a particular lab; keep it de-identified. We can air it out collegially and constructively.

– I admit that I stole this great line from Season 2 of the Showtime series The Chi.

17 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as cost fo gene panels, cost of genetic testing, Genetic counseling, genetic testing

by Robert Resta | April 23, 2018 · 12:12 AM

Is Test Uptake A Good Measure of Genetic Counseling Effectiveness? I Don’t Think So

The last few years have seen a growing trend for patients to undergo genetic testing without first seeing a genetic counselor or other genetic specialist. As I have commented before, genetic counselors are no longer the gatekeepers of genetic testing. Anyone can obtain DNA analysis through non-genetics specialists or any health care provider, on Amazon.com and other internet sites, and at their workplaces (which, honestly, makes me very uneasy; it is going to be awfully difficult for some employers to keep their noses out of their employees’ genetic information and it may provide an opportunity to chisel away at the protections afforded by GINA). Many genetic counselors have accepted this as a fact of life, even if we are not altogether comfortable with it.

Historically, the genetic counseling profession has done a poor job of demonstrating its value to the health care system. Our importance seemed pretty obvious to us and because we didn’t have much in the way of competition we were never strongly motivated to undertake large scale studies to prove our worth.

Comparative studies are starting to address the value of pre-test counseling by a genetic counselor, particularly in the field of hereditary cancer genetic testing. This as a good thing. Still, it bothers me if studies claim that genetic counseling is failing patients because fewer people undergo genetic testing if they need to see a genetic counselor first. Sure, genetic testing should be readily available to those who need it, and barriers need to be removed. If seeing a genetic counselor turns out to be one of those barriers, then we need to do something about that. But test uptake may not always be in the best interests of patients.

For example, the most common reason an unaffected patient declines genetic testing after seeing me for hereditary cancer counseling is that, for the moment, they are the “wrong” person to test to most accurately determine their hereditary cancer risks. Even though the patient may technically meet standard criteria for genetic testing, they may still not be the best person to test within the context of their specific family history. Not undergoing genetic testing is not due to a lack of timely access to me, the cost of my services, or me somehow talking them out of testing. Instead, after reviewing their family history, it turns out that testing their mother with breast cancer or their brother with colon cancer is the most appropriate person to test before deciding if the patient and other unaffected relatives should undergo testing. If that affected relative has a normal genetic test result, then testing my patient and other relatives is usually a waste of money.

It is also difficult to interpret a negative test result in a family where a mutation has not already been identified. Now, I am a grizzled veteran of the Family Dynamics Wars, and I realize that sometimes that affected relative is deceased or just not willing to undergo testing, and you have to make do with the realities of the situation at hand. And, of course, this argument does not apply to testing patients who have been diagnosed with cancer (although it may apply in situations where patients meet NCCN guidelines but not their insurer’s criteria for coverage, but an affected relative does meet their insurer’s criteria). Still, testing an affected relative should be utilized whenever feasible because it is clinically and economically the most effective strategy. Therefore, if a study finds that test uptake is increased when patients do not first see a genetic counselor, the researchers are obliged to demonstrate that this is not simply due to more cases of the “wrong” person being tested or the providers not willing to take the time to work with the extended family.

Along these same lines, in many situations, even genetic test results of an affected relative are often uninformative for risk assessment. Such families may still need to be followed as high risk, with screening and risk reducing protocols based on family history and clinician judgment. Effectiveness studies therefore need to investigate whether there are differences in clinical recommendations provided to patients who see a genetic counselor compared to those who do not.

Studies of genetic counseling vs. no genetic counseling also need to provide data on patient adherence to screening and other risk reduction guidelines. Increased test uptake is not particularly helpful if patients do not have the motivation or wherewithal to undergo breast MRI, salpingo-oophorectomy, join the Annual Colonoscopy For Life Club, or whatever else is recommended. Other outcomes that effectiveness studies should address include communication of test results to family members, interpretation of variants of uncertain significance, and patients’ psychological adaptation to their risk status. I imagine many of you reading this posting can suggest additional outcomes that need to be addressed.

My other concern about reduced genetic counselor involvement with pre-test counseling is that “counseling” will eventually be reduced to a pamphlet or a brief video, perhaps provided by the testing lab itself. This is already a major concern with how NIPT is presented to pregnant women, and I can see it becoming a problem in other areas of genetic testing. No matter how earnestly labs may claim that their educational material is not a subtle sales pitch, they are only human and can easily be blinded by their business needs. This is an area where GCs can develop better and less biased educational materials.

If research demonstrates that other genetic testing delivery models are more effective than, or at least non-inferior to (non-inferior sounds like a back-handed compliment,doesn’t it?), the traditional approach of First See A GC Before Your Test, then the genetic counseling profession should re-focus itself and use our many other skills to work towards improving patients’ lives and the medical care system. Besides, I have never liked conflating genetic counseling with genetic testing.

I do worry, though, that either the research will not be conducted, or that, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, market forces will dictate testing strategies. I am not concerned that it would portend the end of the genetic counseling profession. Genetic counselors are forever expanding their professional roles, and in fact have continually reinvented themselves since, well, we first invented ourselves in the 1970s. Like David Bowie, we never stood still and as soon as you had us pinned down as Ziggy Stardust, all of a sudden we were Aladdin Sane, and already sprouting within him are the seeds of The Thin White Duke (well, okay, it’s a stretch comparing genetic counselors to David Bowie, but you get my point). What matters is that all patients affected with or at risk for hereditary disorders receive the most competent and compassionate care delivered effectively, equitably, and timely.

Bobbin Sane
(Graphic by Emily Singh)

Genetic Counseling ≠ Genetic Testing

I know that I am old and curmudgeonly. I acknowledge that my musical tastes and my concept of genetic counseling are hopelessly stuck in the 20th century. I sense in a frighteningly helpless way that my generation of genetic counselors is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the profession. It is like watching the air slowly leak out of my inflatable raft in the middle of a swift flowing river and realizing I don’t have a lifejacket. If you press me on it and buy me a few drinks, I will let slip out an admission that DNA analysis technologies like ion semiconductor sequencing and pyrosequencing are incomprehensible magic to me. I feel like I have become a visitor in my home country and I can barely speak the native tongue anymore.

So this paradox might sound like a useless warning flare fired from a sinking vessel before it goes under, a futile attempt to alert my younger upstream genetic counseling colleagues who are new to navigating these tricky waters: I love genetic testing; I hate genetic testing.

Genetic counselors and genetic testing have grown hand in hand since the early 1970s. At least in the US, one would not have flourished without the other. Amniocentesis, CVS, carrier screening, maternal serum screening, ultrasound, DNA sequencing, microarrays, and other genetic testing advances have all been ushered into medical practice by the genetic counseling profession. The tests generated a need for our unique skill sets along with the security of employment and the financial wherewithal to support our positions. Without genetic testing, we wouldn’t be where we are today. So what’s to complain about, even for a complainer like me?

Well, I have two related complaints. My first complaint is the ever-expanding list of genetic tests that we feel obliged to offer our patients in prenatal, oncology, and other settings. Don’t get me wrong – I think genetic testing can be incredibly valuable from both a medical and a psychological perspective. But I wind up spending way too much valuable counseling time highlighting the differences between Panel A and Panel B and the relative merits of this lab versus that lab. And, oh, by the way, many of the genes included on these panels are largely irrelevant to your particular clinical concerns. I hear similar plaints from some of my colleagues in prenatal – this carrier test for 75 conditions or that one for 200 conditions, or this prenatal screen versus that prenatal screen.

It is often not clear to me why some of these tests are part of clinical practice to begin with. Probably a variety of forces are behind it – the push from labs to offer more tests and to compete with other labs; the common trait of genetic counselors to be early adopters of new technologies; trying to show that we are at the cutting edge of genetics; our obsession with offering ALL options to ALL comers; demands from patients and referring physicians; worry that if we don’t offer the shiniest, newest products our patient population will go shopping at the next medical center down the road, or Heaven forbid, shop online; and a nagging fear of being sued or at the very least of providing sub-standard care. As I have written about previously, sometimes genetic tests became standard of care before they were thoroughly vetted, evaluated, and debated.

Which leads me to my second complaint. There is a tendency, sometimes overtly and sometimes silently, to conflate genetic testing and genetic counseling. Yeah, sure, genetic testing is an important part of what many of us do, but my job title says counselor, not tester. For some genetic counselors, testing is not even part of their job. We educate, provide clinical expertise to other care providers, and participate in research. There are other services we provide to our patients, not the least of which should be an intense psychological, personal, and occasionally angst-filled exploration of why patients might even want testing to begin with, never mind which test they want. We are there to support and work with them when no testing was done, when testing is irrelevant, or when testing was done in the past and we are helping them adapt to their new medical and emotional status. Let’s look at what your worries and fears are, and why you are in my office to begin with. What has it meant for your life that you or your child or your sister have this condition? What resources do you need? How have your loved ones been supportive or not of you? What are your health care and life goals? Or bigger picture questions such as what are the medical, economic, and social impacts of genetic disease?

At times I think that genetic counseling for psychiatric conditions is the last pure form of genetic counseling – reliable genetic testing is not available for most psychiatric conditions, so you are “forced” to rely on your counseling and clinical skills. Okay, so perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but you catch my drift. I remember my long time colleague Vickie Venne once saying to me that cancer genetic counseling became a lot less interesting to her once BRCA testing became available. While not denying the many benefits of BRCA testing and how it has helped save lives, there is a measure of wisdom in Vickie’s statement.

As a profession, we should extol and support our role in ordering and interpreting genetic testing. But we, or at least I, don’t want testing to be our defining activity. Yes, as one of our skill sets, we are pretty damn good at it. But let’s not forget that it is a counseling session, not an Informed Consent session or a sales pitch. We should boast more about our abilities to help patients make sense of genetic disease for their lives in a psychologically meaningful way, and testing is only one means of achieving this goal. Genetic counselors are not Genetic Testers; Genetic Counseling is not Genetic Testing.

7 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as counseling skills, genetic counseling goals, genetic counseling practice, genetic counselling, genetic testing

by laurahercher | November 21, 2016 · 8:23 AM

Summing Up the Consequences of Election 2016: 3 Things That Could Change the Practice of Genetic Counseling

It’s been two weeks, and everyone is sick of hot takes on Life in Trump’s America and What Is the Worst Thing That Could Happen? (um, I’m going with nuclear war, but take your pick). I know, I’m sick of it too. But elections have consequences, and, like climate scientists and immigration lawyers, we need to put some thought into what this could mean for our field.

The potential repeal of the Affordable Care Act is a concern for everyone working in health care, as is the threatened dismantling of Medicare. Possibly, critics of the ACA will discover that it is easier to campaign than to govern, and that voting to take away health care from tens of millions of people isn’t as much fun as it was in the good old days when they had the safety net of a presidential veto. But hey I’ve always been a Pollyanna. Too cheerful, that’s me.

Point one: prepare to practice in a climate where there is more inequality of access.

Chances are, prenatal genetics will be affected by an empowered and emboldened anti-abortion movement. A president has some limited ability to make access to abortion more difficult through executive orders – President Bush signed regulations that gave everyone in the hospital, including orderlies and cleaning staff, the right to decline to do their job in cases involving abortion – but the main issue is the Supreme Court, where as president Trump will get an opportunity to redefine the balance of right and left if and when any of the reliable supporters of reproductive rights leaves the bench. Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 84 on March 15^th and I know millions of people join me in wishing her a happy birthday and many, many happy returns. The Court’s other octagenarian, Anthony Kennedy, has been behind decisions that chipped away at abortion rights, but has also declined several opportunities to overturn Roe v Wade, and anyone replacing him would almost certainly be more explicitly anti-abortion.

When asked last week on Sixty Minutes what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned, Trump said that control of abortion law would then revert to the states, and that women who wanted an abortion might have to “go to another state.” This is correct (shocking but true) and you can make your own determination about the relative impact that would have on affluent and educated women versus poor women, and teenagers, and other vulnerable parties.

The more complicated truth is that Roe v Wade is not going to disappear overnight, although there is a real and important long term threat. Should further changes create a Supreme Court majority ideologically opposed to abortion, they will have to wait until an appropriate case arises to make any changes. State lawmakers would no doubt be happy to present them with a test case, but making laws takes time, and then there are challenges and lower court decisions and demonstrations and pundits talking on the news before SCOTUS makes an actual decision. Even then, there is the hope that one or another of the anti-abortion faction hesitates to overturn 40+ years of precedent (See? You thought I was joking when I said I was an optimist).

A recent Supreme Court decision disallowing TRAP laws (targeted restriction of abortion providers) will stand, and so does the coalition that voided them, at least for now. For the moment, this should limit the chronic deterioration of access to abortion in Southern and Midwestern states that we have seen over the past decade. I believe it remains important to monitor changes that adversely affect our patients’ ability to obtain an abortion related to genetic findings, including decreased coverage, increased cost, logistical obstacles and changes that necessitate travel.

Point two: be vigilant about the threat to reproductive rights, but don’t expect dramatic changes in the near term.

Here’s something we don’t talk about enough: there is evidence to suggest that prenatal testing itself is likely to be a target of the anti-abortion movement. In fact, it already is. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a directive in 2009 that forbids prenatal diagnosis “if undertaken with the intention of aborting an unborn child with a serious defect.” This decree limits the use of prenatal testing in some Catholic hospitals, a growing segment that includes one in six hospital beds in the country today. Many Catholic institutions including schools and hospitals refuse to pay for insurance plans that cover prenatal testing, restricting availability for all their employees, regardless of their own beliefs. Other employers with an anti-abortion agenda could do the same thing.

More evidence that prenatal testing is on the radar screen of the anti-abortion movement: state laws have been advocated, and in two instances passed, that specifically forbid women from seeking a termination for reasons of genetic defect. These laws don’t get a lot of ink because they are a) unconstitutional (under Roe) and b) virtually impossible to enforce, since they require a prosecutor to prove motivation. This doesn’t mean they are not important. They were written by people whose agenda it is to limit abortion by any means, but they were chosen as a vehicle because they tap into a larger uneasiness about prenatal diagnosis.

The laws may not be enforceable, but they are chilling. Abortion is already medicine’s stepchild. Why would doctors or hospital administrators be eager to offer a procedure where they have to think twice about whether or not they could get in legal trouble? And the laws show an intent that could be more fully realized through other means. You may not be able to prove a woman’s intent in seeking an abortion, but you can certainly document a counselor’s intent if he or she offers the option of termination after a prenatal diagnosis. Will we see attempts to limit what can say to our patients? If this seems impossible to you, consider that 35 states currently have script laws detailing what a woman must be told before she can have an abortion, and a number of those require providers to give inaccurate and misleading information. In 6 states, women must be ‘informed’ that personhood begins at conception. In 5 states, women must be ‘informed’ that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer. If they can require us to lie to patients, don’t rule out the possibility that they can forbid us to speak.

Advances in prenatal testing are revolutionary. NIPS is the fastest growing medical test in the history of medical tests. We will continue to see changes that widen the scope of what we can diagnose prenatally and improve our ability to predict outcomes more accurately, and at an earlier phase in pregnancy. This is going to reduce the incidence of a whole range of genetic conditions — for those who use the test. But improvements in prenatal diagnosis don’t improve access; in fact, improvements in prenatal diagnosis are fueling the debate over what types of prenatal testing are acceptable. If the courts and the politicians and the public don’t accept the idea that pregnant women have a right to prenatal testing as a part of normal prenatal care, then laws and limits to insurance reimbursement may put it out of reach of many Americans.

If prenatal testing is only available people who have enough money, or the right education, or live in certain parts of the country, it is not just unfair to individuals but fundamentally changes the societal impact of offering the tests. The necessary consequence of offering prenatal diagnosis and the option to choose only to some people, is that the birth of a child with a genetic defect or disease will gradually change from being something that can happen to anyone to something that only happens to ‘some people’. Don’t we already see this happening to some extent with Down syndrome? People are right to think hard about the potential consequences of prenatal diagnosis, but restricting prenatal testing so that access is unequal doesn’t limit the harm, it multiplies the harm.

Point three: we need to make the case that genetic testing is a part of good prenatal care and that every pregnant woman has a right to it, if she chooses.

There are other issues to consider but these three jump out at me as points of concern for genetic counseling practice as we move forward with a new administration. What can we do? Hope for the best. Make our own spaces – schools, clinics, workplaces – into welcoming and inclusive environments for those who don’t feel safe in the current climate. Be vigilant, and bring changes that affect patient care to public attention. Talk to other counselors. Talk to me; I would love to hear your take and your stories.

Follow me on twitter!

2 Comments

Filed under Laura Hercher

Tagged as abortion, Genetic counseling, genetic testing, prenatal testing

by Robert Resta | February 1, 2015 · 10:55 PM

Make Me Wanna Holler

Oh, make we wanna holler

And throw up both my hands

Make me wanna holler

They don’t understand

Inner City Blues, written by Marvin Gaye and James Nyx, Jr

Multigene panels have perked up the world of hereditary cancer testing. After 15 years of Myriad-dominated BRCA testing as pretty much the only testing option for at-risk families, cancer genetic predisposition testing has been reinvigorated by a whole slew of labs offering a bewildering array of testing options – panels focused on a specific type of cancer, panels limited to highly penetrant genes only, multi cancer gene panels, panels that include moderately penetrant genes, and even design-your-own panels. This isn’t a perfect world and the pick-up rate of new mutations is a bit disappointing. Still, sunshine and fresh air are starting to flow through some of the dark and musty corners of hereditary cancer risk testing.

But all of a sudden health insurers are starting to rain on the parade of new tests. Over the past year, a number of health insurers – local and national – have backed off from covering multigene panel tests after having previously provided coverage. Regence Blue Shield, First Choice, HMA, CIGNA (with a few rare exceptions), BlueCross BlueShield of Kansas, and now Federal Blue Cross and Aetna (which doesn’t even cover large genomic rearrangement testing!), among others, have put policies in place that specifically exclude coverage of multigene panels. What’s going on here?

I don’t want to stereotype health insurers as amoral profiteers looking to cut a few corners to increase their bottom lines by denying recommended medical care (though admittedly the temptation to do so was strong). That is foolish name calling that gets us nowhere. The policy changes are presumably based on a lack of data on our part rather than a lack of conscience on the part of the insurance industry. Why should insurers cover multigene panels if care providers can’t demonstrate that they improve patient outcomes or make for more economical use of medical resources? Health care costs are expanding at a quicker rate than the visible universe and any new tests should have clear-cut medical or economic benefits.

The problem lies in the very nature of genetic disease. Genetic conditions are rare. Even with the BRCA genes, the most common highly penetrant cancer risk genes, it took nearly ten years to accumulate convincing data on clinical utility and cost effectiveness. All of the other cancer risk associated genes are far less common. It is impossible to conduct clinical and cost-effectiveness studies on each gene, especially for the moderately penetrant genes. Simply put, we will never be able to provide the data that insurers are demanding.

But enough kvetching. Let me offer some ways to address this problem.

Insurers need to understand that this is a whole new world in genetics and therefore they must use different standards for determining coverage for testing for uncommon conditions. An alternative way of thinking is to look at genetic diseases as defects in pathways rather than as isolated genes. Given what we have learned about the BRCA/Fanconi pathway, it is reasonable to assume that many genes in the pathway – NBN, PALB2, ATM, etc. – will have some impact on cancer risk. If research can demonstrate the benefits of testing for one gene in a pathway, this should provide solid ground for assuming that testing other genes in the pathway will likely be beneficial as well. Adding more genes to a testing panel should result in greater medical benefits, though admittedly to varying degrees. Sure a few genes in a pathway may eventually turn out to have little clinical value, but those can be discarded along the way.
Insurers must realize that adding more tests to a panel does not substantially increase the costs. Thanks to massively parallel sequencing, it costs no more to run four genetic tests than it does to run forty genetic tests. While the greater number of positive genetic test results may result in greater indirect costs because more patients will test positive for a mutation and will be undergoing screening and risk reducing procedures, this will be partially offset by eliminating the need for screening and prophylactic measures in family members who test negative for familial mutations. In a high risk family where no mutation has been identified, everyone in the family needs testing. However, if a mutation is found in the family, on average only half as many people will be high risk.
Insurers should make multigene panel testing contingent on genetic counseling with a qualified professional to help assure that patients are provided with the most accurate and up to date information about the clinical implications of the test results.
Clinical guidelines of professional organizations such as the NSGC, ACMG, NCCN, ASCO, should endorse multigene panels. Not necessarily specific gene panels, but rather the concept of multigene panels in general. Insurers will have a harder time denying coverage for a test if is widely recommended by groups that help set standards of care.
We must continue to conduct clinical and economic studies to help determine the utility of multigene panels. The studies will require broad cooperation among labs, research institutions and individual researchers, patient organizations, and international consortia. And genetic counselors should be at the forefront of these studies. We are the boots on the ground for almost every new genetic test and are in a prime position to lead research efforts. We should be driving this mule team, not sitting in the back of the wagon hoping that we don’t fall off at the next bump.
As I have discussed previously, there is reason to believe that some labs may be engaging in deceptive billing practices if they do not let insurers know that a panel is being but the insurer is only billed for BRCA analysis. This, in my view, is frankly unethical and creates an atmosphere of distrust. I would not be surprised if this has partially contributed to insurers’ reluctance to cover multigene panel testing. Such practices, if they are taking place, must be discontinued. Honesty and openness are sine qua non in any relationship.

Patients have the potential to benefit greatly from advances in genetic testing. But new technologies also create new challenges and require new ways of thinking about the care that we provide and how we justify paying for it.

6 Comments

Filed under Robert Resta

Tagged as Genetic counseling, genetic testing, insurance coverage, insurance coverage for genetic testing, multigene cancer panels, multigene panels

by laurahercher | August 11, 2014 · 2:05 PM

NEW PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON TESTING FROM THE FDA ARE LONG ON INTENTION AND SHORT ON DETAIL

On July 31^st, the FDA announced its intention to regulate both laboratory developed tests (LDT”s) and in vitro diagnostic (IVD) companion devices, and it will soon be asking for public comment on the proposed regulations. Should genetic counselors be among the people commenting? Well yes, as the new rules are likely to affect genetics practice, since many of the tests that look at genetic susceptibility are LDT’s and could be subject to a premarket review by the FDA that will delay or deny the clinical availability of new tests, and a mandatory process of adverse result reporting. The impact will be felt most immediately in cancer settings, where genetic tests that look at tumor DNA for purposes of choosing targeted therapies or predicting prognosis are likely first candidates to draw FDA scrutiny, but eventually the new rules should affect a range of clinical specialties. At stake is finding the balance between too much regulation, wherein it becomes prohibitively difficult and expensive to introduce new tests that can help diagnose patients and personalize recommendations for screening and treatment, and too little regulation, wherein we suspect that our information on the accuracy and reliability of new tests is not adequately accurate or reliable (an ongoing issue, by the way, with non-invasive prenatal testing. See Katie Stoll’s post here and a study, new this week, suggesting that the dreaded false positive result may be more common than test makers have led us to believe).

A little background on the two closely related entities that are the focus of new regulations. LDT’s are what used to be called “home-brews”: tests that are used by a single lab and not marketed as a kit or a device. Somewhat by historical accident, LDT’s have come to exist in a regulatory grey area, effectively exempt from FDA oversight. The assumption behind this was that what went on in an individual lab affected only that lab’s patients and that no agency could track every one-off solution engineered by a mom-and-pop lab. As with everything else in 2014, the status quo has been disrupted by new technology – but in this instance the new technology isn’t the magic of Google or whole genome sequencing but overnight shipping. Yes, the world of genetic testing has been turned on its ear by the likes of UPS and Fed Ex.

In brief, now that the Pony Express has picked up its game, laboratories can test samples from all over the world in centralized locations with sophisticated and expensive testing capability that isn’t available back on the farm. At the same time, lab tests, including genetic tests and biomarkers like measures of gene expression, play an increasingly important role in making diagnoses and determining treatment. For this reason, the FDA has moved in its determined yet glacial manner to regulate a subset of tests that are considered high or medium risk – those tests which have the potential to alter medical care, and therefore have significant implications if the information they provide is incorrect. This risk-based approach is a measured step – it allows the FDA to continue to use discretion when tests are low risk or experimental or involve a rare disease for which there is no other test.

IVD companion diagnostics are tests developed to be used in conjunction with a drug or other therapy – tests that can be used to refine dosages or identify good candidates for a given therapy. Obviously pharmacogenetics is a subset of this broader category of companion testing. Again, the proposed regulatory framework would stratify the tests as high risk, moderate risk, low risk – requiring pre-market approval for higher risk tests, and allowing the agency to exercise “discretion” in low risk situations (discretion is FDA-speak for a wink and a nod). With regard to IVD diagnostics, the FDA intends not just that the tests on offer be confirmed as reliable, but is instituting the requirement that companion testing be included in the development of new therapies as a matter of course. In effect the government is mandating that all new therapies be individualized to the greatest extent possible: “When an appropriate scientific rationale supports such an approach, FDA encourages the joint development of therapeutic products and diagnostic devices that are essential for the safe and effective use of those therapeutic products.” The age of personalized medicine is upon us, and the FDA is ON IT.

If all this sounds familiar, it only means that you have been paying attention. Since 2010, the FDA has been asserting publically that it has both the intention and the authority to regulate LDT’s and IVD’s. Going back even further, the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act of 2006, introduced by then Senator Barack Obama, emphasized the development of companion diagnostics, calling on the National Academy of Sciences to recommend incentives and requiring the Institute of Medicine to improve “oversight and regulation of genetic tests.” While the bill was never passed, it is not surprising to see a similar emphasis under the current administration.

So, genetic counselors, are we for or against the proposed regulations? Probably the answer to that question is — yes. Like the FDA, most people seem to be in favor of some middle option – regulating everything is virtually impossible and regulating nothing is an appealing libertarian fantasy, but in fact it would put counselors in the uncomfortable position of having to rely on figures supplied by the companies who manufacture the tests. Careful observers like the Genetics and Public Policy Center have been calling for increased oversight for genetic testing for years. Their 2006 summary of a genetic testing quality initiative sums it up this way:

“assessment of public attitudes shows that the public widely believes that the government regulates genetic tests to ensure their quality and, moreover, that the government should play this role. In fact, however, genetic tests are subject to very little governmental oversight when compared to other health care products. There is no formal approval procedure a laboratory has to go through before offering a new genetic test, and government requirements to ensure that genetic testing laboratories are getting the right answers to patients are minimal. Moreover, there is no government requirement that a test must be clinically valid – i.e., actually relate to a particular disease or risk of disease – in order to be sold.”

However, both the American Clinical Laboratory Association and the American Medical Association have reacted negatively to the proposed FDA regulatory strategy. The ACLA pushback comes as no surprise – few entities welcome idea of FDA regulation – and the organization has submitted a petition claiming that only CLIA and not the FDA had authority over LDT’s (the FDA rejects this). The more measured response of the AMA reflects the concerns of clinical care-givers, and may align with the attitude of many genetic counselors:

The draft FDA Framework for Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) announced today, outlines a risk-based approach that raises a number of questions and concerns.

The FDA proposal adds an additional layer of regulatory requirements which may result in patients losing access to timely life-saving diagnostic services and hinder advancements in the practice of medicine.

The AMA is committed to ensuring that the proposal that is ultimately adopted by the FDA preserves rapid access to care and medical advancements.

What makes it difficult to respond to the FDA is that there is a lot of wiggle room left in the regulations as written. High and moderate risk tests will be required to report adverse results and apply for pre-market review according to separate timetables – but the FDA will not define those terms for up to 2 years after the regulations are finalized (Policy and Medicine has a useful chart if you are looking for specifics on timelines). In other words, the FDA has designed a system that gives them room to maneuver – and is asking for respondents to give feedback on the plan without knowing where the agency plans to draw the line. For example, breast cancer susceptibility panels probably aren’t low risk; they are medically actionable and complicated to interpret. Are they high risk or moderate risk? The somewhat hyperbolic letter from the FDA to 23andMe last fall* suggested that the agency believes the fallout from breast cancer risk prediction done badly might be unnecessary mastectomies. That sounds pretty high risk – but is that the perceived reality of counselors who work with these tests?

The rare disease exemption in the FDA plan means that whole exome or whole genome sequencing would not be affected, in those cases where the patient presents with an apparently genetic condition that has eluded diagnosis. WES for those with no apparent disease, who wish to use the information prophylactically? I have literally no idea what risk the FDA would assign to clinical versions of genome scanning. What about the genetic testing done for children with autism? These supplement rather than point to a diagnosis and would rarely change treatment but may have a big impact on the parents reproductive choices – is that consequence enough to bump a test from low risk to high risk?

I might sound like I am criticizing the FDA, but in fact I am sympathetic to the difficulties inherent in a modulated approach and appreciate that they are attempting to tread that knife’s edge. I do think it makes it difficult to provide feedback, and I would suggest that their policy be reopened for public comment at critical junctures, such as the point at which high, low and moderate risk categories are more carefully defined. Useful commentary now, I would suggest, will need to be far more granular than the FDA regulatory language itself. What tests do you feel work well for you and your patients? Are there tests in use or in the pipeline that concern you? Which ones? Why? Share your concerns here, and I will write up a response incorporating reader response when the draft regulations are posted for public comment.

*Note: don’t bother telling the FDA that you are concerned about direct-to-consumer testing, because the agency has already noted that this applies only to testing in a clinical context. No DTC testing will be exempt from review – a footnote to the FDA’s announcement that had DTC advocates screaming foul – for details see Jennifer Wagner’s irritated response at the Genomics Law Report.

2 Comments

Filed under Laura Hercher

Tagged as companion testing, FDA, genetic testing, IVD's, LDT's

by laurahercher | November 29, 2013 · 7:31 PM

THE FDA CALLS A PENALTY ON 23andMe

IS THIS THE GAME WE WANT TO PLAY?

On Monday, the FDA celebrated the start of the holiday season by sending a letter to 23andMe, informing the direct-to-consumer personal genomics service that they must cease and desist offering their signature test. The proximal cause of this action, as described by the FDA and not disputed by the company, was that 23andMe had ceased to participate in a process of establishing their PGx test as “validated for its intended uses.” They had, the FDA suggested, dropped the ball – well, not just dropped the ball, but kicked it out of bounds, an old soccer trick for delay of game, which Mya Thomae and Dylan Reinhardt suggest might have been exactly what the company had in mind, playing for time while they attempted to accumulate better data than what-all they have right now.

The FDA move prompted a vast twitterlanche of commentary, ranging from indignant outrage to smug satisfaction (Dietrich Stephan, founder of the erstwhile DTC competitor Navigenics, said, “Engaging the FDA as a partner to bring the most robust and safe new type of test to market is diagnostics 101”). Genetic counselors might be suspected of indulging in a bit of schadenfreude, since the relationship between 23andMe and the GC community has inclined in the direction of mutually suspicious, if not downright frosty. The company, which advocates for access to one’s DNA information with almost a religious fervor, sees GC’s as gatekeepers, as a self-anointed coterie of priestesses guarding the oracle at Delphi. Genetic counselors, for their part, tend to perceive the very existence of 23andMe as an affront, as though the possibility that a subset of people might benefit from genetic testing without access to counseling was insult and injury — an existential threat.

To be fair, nobody reacts well to the suggestion that their chosen profession is a cabal that threatens the freedom and well-being of fellow citizens – not even investment bankers, and at least they get to soothe their wounded souls with lots of material goods. But pettiness is unbecoming and unproductive, and we would all do well to remember that a groundbreaking organization like 23andme is a part of the energy and excitement of the field – an expression of an explorer’s mentality that draws people to the potential of genetics in 2013. That’s not only fun and sort of cool but also incredibly powerful because it attracts the kind of intelligence and curiosity that makes big new ideas possible (David Dobbs does a thoughtful and balanced job making the case for 23andMe in this piece for the New Yorker).

So minus any animus toward 23andMe, was this a reasonable move by the FDA? There are two main questions that have been raised: 1. can they regulate? and 2. should they regulate? (a third question, HOW DARE THEY?, has also gotten a lot of play but I am going to ignore that one because, c’mon guys get over yourselves this isn’t ONE STEP FROM TOTALITARIANISM). The first one takes up the issue of whether or not a personal genomics test falls under the FDA jurisdiction. I am going to say yes, but will not rehash those arguments here, since they have been more ably covered elsewhere – I particularly recommend this piece by Hank Greely at the Stanford Law School Center for Law and the Biosciences blog.

So, should they regulate? The rationale for regulatory action in the letter to 23andMe is a risk of harm to customers, including the possibility that a customer might alter his medication without medical advice or misunderstand her risk for breast cancer and have an unnecessary prophylactic mastectomy. While theoretically true, it seems wildly unlikely that very many people would insist on a mastectomy without getting more information than mail-order genetic results – and those cases might be more indicative of out-of-control anxiety issues and irresponsible medical practice than the power of a PGx report. More commonly, misunderstanding the limits of the test in terms of risk reduction might empower a customer to skip out on appropriate preventative measures. Either way, this is nothing new — a rehash of concerns genetic counselors have had about DTC testing since its inception. In practice, perhaps the best summary of the clinical impact to date comes from Anders Nordgren, who called it “Neither as harmful as feared by critics nor as empowering as promised by providers.” Having spent hours poking through the generally well-written and thorough 23andMe reports, and spoken to some of their customers, I would suggest that misunderstanding the results that come from 23andMe could pose some risk — real risk, to be sure, but limited risk.

However, it is possible to envision a scenario where a genetic testing sold DTC did pose a significant danger to consumers, with inaccurate results, irresponsible advice, tests used to market scam treatments or preventatives. None of this is farfetched, and some of it has already been documented. For this reason alone, the possibility of FDA action is an important deterrent. A company like 23andMe, which makes real efforts to be thoughtful and responsible, will ultimately benefit from the restraint on less scrupulous entities. And of course, it is possible that 23andMe would have been less thoughtful and less responsible if they had not been motivated by the threat of FDA action. So arguments against regulation in general based on the fact that 23andMe is well-intentioned are misguided.

But despite a bias in favor of showing some muscle, I have questions about how much time and energy the FDA should spend cracking down on the likes of 23andMe. Is it, I wonder, the best use of resources? For one thing, attempts to stop the free flow of information in 2013 are fingers in the dike. Razib Khan at Slate expands on this argument, suggesting that companies pushed by the FDA could simply move offshore, away from any regulation.

And more importantly from my point of view, the emphasis on negative action diverts us from the possibility of doing something positive. Rather than keeping consumers away from tests we think are insufficiently documented, how about providing a resource to the general public that endorses tests that are ready for prime time? After all, a few bold individuals may be excited at the prospect of downloading Promethease to query their own exome data but most people would rather not, thank you very much. Most people would be happy to have some guidance. They can get that guidance from the company, but even the classy companies have a vested interest in hyping the significance of their results – that’s what they’re selling, right? There is an opportunity here for the government and the genetics community to create a trusted source of information that is neutral, unbiased and supports a best-case scenario use of genetic testing by those eager to take the plunge. Hell, you could imagine tying in such a resource to something like ClinVar or GenVar, so that early adapters could contribute to publically accessible databases rather than giving it to 23andMe to sell.

After years of running up and down the pitch, the FDA has demonstrated that it knows how to blow the whistle – that’s good. I’m pretty sure 23andMe will be back – and that’s good too. But if we really want something great to come out of this discussion, let’s stop doing color commentary on the FDA action, and imagine what it could be like if we changed the game.

Follow me on twitter!

10 Comments

Filed under Laura Hercher

Tagged as 23andMe, David Dobbs, Dylan Reinhardt, FDA, genetic testing, Hank Greely, May Thomae, personal genomics, Razib Khan

Tag Archives: genetic testing

Unprofitable Genetic Testing Labs – The Size of the Loss, The Reasons for the Loss, and What It Means for Genetic Counseling and Genetic Counselors

ACMG Carrier Screening Guideline: The Hypothetical “Tier 3” Panel

An offer too good to be true? Might be a kickback.

How Much Is That DNA Test In The Window, The One With The Waggely Price?

Is Test Uptake A Good Measure of Genetic Counseling Effectiveness? I Don’t Think So

Genetic Counseling ≠ Genetic Testing

Summing Up the Consequences of Election 2016: 3 Things That Could Change the Practice of Genetic Counseling

Make Me Wanna Holler

NEW PROPOSED REGULATIONS ON TESTING FROM THE FDA ARE LONG ON INTENTION AND SHORT ON DETAIL

THE FDA CALLS A PENALTY ON 23andMe

Twitter

Categories

Blogroll

The DNA Exchange

Recent Comments

Tag Archives: genetic testing

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Categories

Blogroll

Recent Comments