ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017
Payer decision making for next-generation sequencing-based genetic tests: insights from cell-free DNA prenatal screening.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer's disease blood-based biomarker testing: A stakeholder-informed assessment of coverage considerations.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2025Review
- Patient experiences with prenatal cell-free DNA screening in a safety net setting.Prenatal diagnosis · 2024Article
- Private Payer and Medicare Coverage Policies for Use of Circulating Tumor DNA Tests in Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2023Article
- Nanostructures in non-invasive prenatal genetic screening.Biomedical engineering letters · 2022Review
- Diagnosing newborns with suspected mitochondrial disorders: an economic evaluation comparing early exome sequencing to current typical care.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021Article
- Insights From a Temporal Assessment of Increases in US Private Payer Coverage of Tumor Sequencing From 2015 to 2019.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020Article
- Use of Real-World Evidence in US Payer Coverage Decision-Making for Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Tests: Challenges, Opportunities, and Potential Solutions.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2020Review
- Payer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Genomic Precision Medicine: A Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- The Global Market for Next-Generation Sequencing Tests Continues Its Torrid Pace.The Journal of precision medicine · 2018Article
- Insurance Coverage Policies for Pharmacogenomic and Multi-Gene Testing for Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2018Article
- Genetic Test Availability And Spending: Where Are We Now? Where Are We Going?Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2018Article
- Single-cell sequencing and tumorigenesis: improved understanding of tumor evolution and metastasis.Clinical and translational medicine · 2017Review
- Payer coverage policies for multigene tests.Nature biotechnology · 2017Article
- Expanding Use of cfDNA Screening in Pregnancy: Current and Emerging Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues.Current genetic medicine reports · 2017Article
- Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context.The Hastings Center report · 2017Article
- EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCell-free DNA (cfDNA) prenatal screening tests have been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, due in part to positive insurance coverage. We evaluated the framework payers used in making coverage decisions to describe a process that should be informative for other sequencing tests.
methodsWe analyzed coverage policies from the 19 largest US private payers with publicly available policies through February 2016, building from the University of California San Francisco TRANSPERS Payer Coverage Policy Registry.
resultsAll payers studied cover cfDNA screening for detection of trisomies 21, 18, and 13 in high-risk, singleton pregnancies, based on robust clinical validity (CV) studies and modeled evidence of clinical utility (CU). Payers typically evaluated the evidence for each chromosomal abnormality separately, although results are offered as part of a panel. Starting in August 2015, 8 of the 19 payers also began covering cfDNA screening in average-risk pregnancies, citing recent CV studies and updated professional guidelines. Most payers attempted, but were unable, to independently assess analytic validity (AV).
conclusionPayers utilized the standard evidentiary framework (AV/CV/CU) when evaluating cfDNA screening but varied in their interpretation of the sufficiency of the evidence. Professional guidelines, large CV studies, and decision analytic models regarding health outcomes appeared highly influential in coverage decisions.Genet Med advance online publication 22 September 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.