Scenario analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative reimbursement pathways for whole genome sequencing for blood cancer patients

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2024.100501
{"title":"Scenario analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative reimbursement pathways for whole genome sequencing for blood cancer patients","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2024.100501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has transformative potential for blood cancer management, but reimbursement is hindered by uncertain benefits relative to added costs. This study employed scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate stakeholders’ preferences for alternative reimbursement pathways, informing future health technology assessment (HTA) submission of WGS in blood cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Key factors influencing WGS reimbursement in blood cancers were identified through a literature search. Hypothetical scenarios describing various evidential characteristics of WGS for HTA were developed using the morphological approach. An online survey, incorporating MCDA weights, was designed to gather stakeholder preferences (consumers/patients, clinicians/health professionals, industry representatives, health economists, and HTA committee members) for these scenarios. The survey assessed participants' approval of WGS reimbursement for each scenario, and scenario preferences were determined using the geometric mean method, applying an algorithm to improve reliability and precision by addressing inconsistent responses.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Nineteen participants provided complete survey responses, primarily clinicians or health professionals (n = 6; 32 %), consumers/patients and industry representatives (both at n = 5; 26 %). “Clinical impact of WGS results on patient care\" was the most critical criterion (criteria weight of 0.25), followed by \"diagnostic accuracy of WGS\" (0.21), \"cost-effectiveness of WGS\" (0.19), \"availability of reimbursed treatment after WGS\" (0.16), and \"eligibility criteria for reimbursed treatment based on actionable WGS results\" and \"cost comparison of WGS\" (both at 0.09). Participants preferred a scenario with substantial clinical evidence, high access to reimbursed targeted treatment, cost-effectiveness below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and affordability relative to standard molecular tests. Reimbursement was initially opposed until criteria such as equal cost to standard tests and better treatment accessibility were met.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Payers commonly emphasize acceptable cost-effectiveness, but strong clinical evidence for many variants and comparable costs to standard tests are likely to drive positive reimbursement decisions for WGS.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538324000353/pdfft?md5=36b95bafbf28ed46ab943234879423c0&pid=1-s2.0-S2213538324000353-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538324000353","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has transformative potential for blood cancer management, but reimbursement is hindered by uncertain benefits relative to added costs. This study employed scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate stakeholders’ preferences for alternative reimbursement pathways, informing future health technology assessment (HTA) submission of WGS in blood cancer.

Methods

Key factors influencing WGS reimbursement in blood cancers were identified through a literature search. Hypothetical scenarios describing various evidential characteristics of WGS for HTA were developed using the morphological approach. An online survey, incorporating MCDA weights, was designed to gather stakeholder preferences (consumers/patients, clinicians/health professionals, industry representatives, health economists, and HTA committee members) for these scenarios. The survey assessed participants' approval of WGS reimbursement for each scenario, and scenario preferences were determined using the geometric mean method, applying an algorithm to improve reliability and precision by addressing inconsistent responses.

Results

Nineteen participants provided complete survey responses, primarily clinicians or health professionals (n = 6; 32 %), consumers/patients and industry representatives (both at n = 5; 26 %). “Clinical impact of WGS results on patient care" was the most critical criterion (criteria weight of 0.25), followed by "diagnostic accuracy of WGS" (0.21), "cost-effectiveness of WGS" (0.19), "availability of reimbursed treatment after WGS" (0.16), and "eligibility criteria for reimbursed treatment based on actionable WGS results" and "cost comparison of WGS" (both at 0.09). Participants preferred a scenario with substantial clinical evidence, high access to reimbursed targeted treatment, cost-effectiveness below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and affordability relative to standard molecular tests. Reimbursement was initially opposed until criteria such as equal cost to standard tests and better treatment accessibility were met.

Conclusion

Payers commonly emphasize acceptable cost-effectiveness, but strong clinical evidence for many variants and comparable costs to standard tests are likely to drive positive reimbursement decisions for WGS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过情景分析和多标准决策分析,探索血癌患者全基因组测序的替代报销途径。
背景:全基因组测序(WGS)在血癌管理方面具有变革性的潜力,但相对于增加的成本,其效益并不确定,这阻碍了报销。本研究采用情景规划和多标准决策分析(MCDA)评估利益相关者对替代报销途径的偏好,为今后提交血癌 WGS 健康技术评估(HTA)提供信息:方法:通过文献检索确定了影响血癌 WGS 报销的关键因素。采用形态学方法为 HTA 制定了描述 WGS 各种证据特征的假设情景。结合 MCDA 权重设计了一项在线调查,以收集利益相关者(消费者/患者、临床医生/卫生专业人员、行业代表、卫生经济学家和 HTA 委员会成员)对这些情景的偏好。调查评估了参与者对每种情景下 WGS 补偿的认可度,并使用几何平均法确定了情景偏好,同时采用了一种算法,通过处理不一致的回答来提高可靠性和精确度:19 位参与者提供了完整的调查回复,主要是临床医生或卫生专业人员(n = 6;32%)、消费者/患者和行业代表(均为 n = 5;26%)。"WGS 结果对患者护理的临床影响 "是最关键的标准(标准权重为 0.25),其次是 "WGS 的诊断准确性"(0.21)、"WGS 的成本效益"(0.19)、"WGS 后可获得有偿治疗"(0.16)、"基于可操作 WGS 结果的有偿治疗资格标准 "和 "WGS 的成本比较"(均为 0.09)。参与者倾向于有大量临床证据、可获得大量有偿靶向治疗、每质量调整生命年(QALY)获得的成本效益低于 50,000 美元以及相对于标准分子检测更经济实惠的方案。在满足与标准检测相同的成本和更好的治疗可及性等标准之前,报销最初遭到反对:付款人通常强调可接受的成本效益,但许多变异的有力临床证据和与标准检测相当的成本可能会促使对 WGS 做出积极的报销决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Policy
Journal of Cancer Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
47
审稿时长
65 days
期刊最新文献
Income disparities have a significant impact on thyroid cancer recurrence and survival An assessment of cancer centre level designation and guideline adherent care in those with rectal cancer: A population based retrospective cohort study Spending on anticancer drugs among Medicare beneficiaries: Analyzing predictors of drug expenditures Barriers to identifying and addressing health-related social needs in cancer care: Patient and patient navigator perspectives Analysis of factors associated with use of real-world data in single technology appraisals of cancer drugs by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1