» Articles » PMID: 38194620

Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions

Overview
Journal JCO Oncol Pract
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Jan 9
PMID 38194620
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Use of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing.

Methods: We identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics.

Results: Among oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards.

Conclusion: Most oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.

Citing Articles

An Evaluation of Rare Cancer Policies in Europe: A Survey Among Healthcare Providers.

Kostadinov K, Iskrov G, Musurlieva N, Stefanov R Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(2).

PMID: 39857946 PMC: 11764363. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17020164.


Widespread Adoption of Precision Anticancer Therapies After Implementation of Pathologist-Directed Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Across a Large US Health System.

Dowdell A, Meng R, Vita A, Bapat B, Hanes D, Chang S JCO Oncol Pract. 2024; 20(11):1523-1532.

PMID: 39531849 PMC: 11623383. DOI: 10.1200/OP.24.00226.


Budget Impact Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Colon Cancer in Commercial Health and Medicare Advantage Plans.

Li Y, Heer A, Sloane H, Edelstein D, Tie J, Gibbs P JAMA Health Forum. 2024; 5(5):e241270.

PMID: 38819797 PMC: 11143467. DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.1270.

References
1.
Dusetzina S, Basch E, Keating N . For uninsured cancer patients, outpatient charges can be costly, putting treatments out of reach. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34(4):584-91. PMC: 4947373. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0801. View

2.
Shih Y, Chien C . A review of cost communication in oncology: Patient attitude, provider acceptance, and outcome assessment. Cancer. 2016; 123(6):928-939. PMC: 5339042. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30423. View

3.
Kantarjian H, Patel Y . High cancer drug prices 4 years later-Progress and prospects. Cancer. 2017; 123(8):1292-1297. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30545. View

4.
Conti R, Fein A, Bhatta S . National trends in spending on and use of oral oncologics, first quarter 2006 through third quarter 2011. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(10):1721-7. PMC: 4594844. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0001. View

5.
Bender E . Cost of Cancer Drugs: Something Has To Give. Manag Care. 2018; 27(5):18-22. View