Effect of a Collaboration Between a Health Plan, Oncology Practice, and Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Company from the Payer Perspective.

Reitsma M1, Fox J2, Borre PV3, Cavanaugh M3, Chudnovsky Y3, Erlich RL3, Gribbin TE4, Anhorn R3.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) is a next-generation sequencing-based methodology that detects 4 classes of genomic alterations, as well as gene signature biomarkers such as microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden. In the context of precision oncology, CGP can help to direct treatment to genomically matched therapies.

OBJECTIVE:

To describe the results of a 3-year observational analysis of patients undergoing testing with CGP assays (either FoundationOne or FoundationOne Heme) at a community oncology practice after a regional health plan implemented a medical policy that enabled coverage of CGP.

METHODS:

A retrospective analysis of medical records was completed at the oncology practice from November 2013 to January 2017; this date range was chosen to coincide with the regional health plan's medical policy implementation of CGP. The medical policy provided coverage of CGP for patients with advanced solid and hematologic cancers. A medical record review assessed all previous and current molecular test results, matched therapy or clinical trial enrollment, and clinical outcomes (clinical benefit or disease progression). The potential cost diversion, from payer to study sponsor, for patients who enrolled in clinical trials was explored.

RESULTS:

There were 96 patients in the community oncology practice who received CGP over the 3-year period, 86 of whom had clinically relevant genomic alterations. Of the 86, 15 patients were treated with genomically matched therapy, and 6 patients enrolled in clinical trials based on CGP results. In a subset of 32 patients who previously underwent conventional testing, most (84%) had clinically relevant genomic alterations detected by CGP that conventional testing did not identify, and a portion of these patients subsequently received treatment based on the CGP results. In the separate cost diversion analysis of 20 patients who enrolled in phase 1 clinical trials, an estimated $25,000 per-patient cost-benefit may have been accrued to the payer.

CONCLUSIONS:

This observational analysis characterized the use of CGP in a large community oncology practice among a group of patients insured by a regional health plan. Clinical trial enrollment was facilitated by CGP use in the community setting and may have contributed to cost diversion from the payer to study sponsors. DISCLOSURES No separate study-related funding was provided by or to Priority Health, Foundation Medicine, and Cancer and Hematology Centers of West Michigan. Data analysis by Reitsma was conducted as part of an internship funded by Priority Health. Reitsma and Fox are employed by Priority Health. Anhorn, Vanden Borre, Cavanaugh, Chudnovsky, and Erlich are employed by Foundation Medicine.