To evaluate the resource implications of different delivery models for the provision of additional findings (AF) in genomics from a health-care purchaser perspective.
Data from the Additional Findings study were used to develop and validate a discrete event simulation model that represented the pathway of delivering AF. Resource implications were estimated by microcosting the consultations, sample verifications, bioinformatics, curation, and multidisciplinary case review meetings. A proof-of-concept model was used to generate costing, and then the simulation model was varied to assess the impact of an automated analysis pipeline, use of telehealth consultation, full automation with electronic decision support, and prioritizing case review for cases with pathogenic variants.
For the proof-of-concept delivery model, the average total cost to report AF was US$430 per patient irrespective of result pathogenicity (95% confidence interval [CI] US$375–US$489). However, the cost of per AF diagnosis was US$4349 (95% CI US$3794–US$4953). Alternative approaches to genetic counseling (telehealth, decision support materials) and to multidisciplinary case review (pathogenic AF cases only) lowered the total per patient cost of AF analysis and reporting by 41–51%.
Resources required to provide AF can be reduced substantially by implementing alternative approaches to counseling and multidisciplinary case review.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $41.58 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All model inputs used in this study are described or included in this article and the electronic supplementary information.
Dorschner, M. O. et al. Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants’ exomes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 93, 631–640 (2013).
Tan, N. et al. Is “incidental finding” the best term?: a study of patients’ preferences. Genet. Med. 19, 176–181 (2017).
Martyn, M. et al. A novel approach to offering additional genomic findings—a protocol to test a two‐step approach in the healthcare system. J. Genet. Couns. 28, 388–397 (2019).
Green, R. C. et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 15, 565–574 (2013).
Mackley, M. P. & Capps, B. Expect the unexpected: screening for secondary findings in clinical genomics research. Br. Med. Bull. 122, 109–122 (2017).
Burke, W. et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet. Med. 15, 854–859 (2013).
Mackley, M. P., Fletcher, B., Parker, M., Watkins, H. & Ormondroyd, E. Stakeholder views on secondary findings in whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Genet. Med. 19, 283–293 (2017).
Allyse, M. & Michie, M. Not-so-incidental findings: the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol. 31, 439–441 (2013).
Wolf, S. M. The continuing evolution of ethical standards for genomic sequencing in clinical care: restoring patient choice. J. Law. Med. Ethics. 45, 333–340 (2017).
Vears, D. F., Sénécal, K. & Borry, P. Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next-generation sequencing technologies: perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum. Mutat. 38, 905–911 (2017).
Thorogood, A., Dalpé, G. & Knoppers, B. M. Return of individual genomic research results: are laws and policies keeping step? Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 535–546 (2019).
Douglas, M. P., Ladabaum, U., Pletcher, M. J., Marshall, D. A. & Phillips, K. A. Economic evidence on identifying clinically actionable findings with whole-genome sequencing: a scoping review. Genet. Med. 2, 111–116 (2016).
Deverka, P. A. & Dreyfus, J. C. Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges. J. Law Med. Ethics. 42, 22–41 (2014).
Christensen, K. D., Dukhovny, D., Siebert, U. & Green, R. C. Assessing the costs and cost-effectiveness of genomic sequencing. J. Pers. Med. 5, 470–486 (2015).
Bennette, C. S., Gallego, C. J., Burke, W., Jarvik, G. P. & Veenstra, D. L. The cost-effectiveness of returning incidental findings from next-generation genomic sequencing. Genet. Med. 17, 587–595 (2015).
Wright, C. F. et al. Policy challenges of clinical genome sequencing. Br. Med. J. 347, f6845 (2013).
Katz, A. E. et al. Management of secondary genomic findings. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 107, 3–14 (2020).
Gourna, E. G., Armstrong, N. & Wallace, S. E. Compare and contrast: a cross-national study across UK, USA and Greek experts regarding return of incidental findings from clinical sequencing. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 24, 344–349 (2016).
Pujol, P. et al. Guidelines for reporting secondary findings of genome sequencing in cancer genes: the SFMPP recommendations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 26, 1732–1742 (2018).
European Society of Human Genetics. Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics. https://www.eshg.org/fileadmin/eshg/consultations/DRAFT_Opportunistic_Genomic_Screeening_20.4.2020_for_ESHG__Membership_and_Expert_Consultation.pdf (2020).
Ackerman, S. L. & Koenig, B. A. Understanding variations in secondary findings reporting practices across U.S. genome sequencing laboratories. AJOB Empir. Bioeth. 9, 48–57 (2018).
Kalia, S. S. et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet. Med. 19, 249–255 (2017).
Tutty, E. et al. Evaluation of telephone genetic counselling to facilitate germline BRCA1/2 testing in women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 1186–96 (2019).
Shickh, S. et al. Evaluation of a decision aid for incidental genomic results, the Genomics ADvISER: protocol for a mixed methods randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 8, e021876 (2018).
AMA Victoria. AMA Victoria - Victorian Public Health Sector - Doctors in Training Enterprise Agreement 2018-2021 (2018). http://vhia.com.au/docs/default-document-library/bul-2258-attachment-a.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 10 Sep 2019.
Fair Work Ombudsman. Medical practitioners award 2020 (2019). http://awardviewer.fwo.gov.au/award/show/MA000031. Accessed 10 Sep 2019.
Ucar, I., Smeets, B. & Azcorra, A. simmer: Discrete-Event Simulation for R. J. Stat. Softw. 90, 1–30 (2019).
Karnon, J. et al. Modeling using discrete event simulation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-4. Value Health 15, 821–827 (2012).
Ishak, K. J., Kreif, N., Benedict, A. & Muszbek, N. Overview of parametric survival analysis for health-economic applications. Pharmacoeconomics 31, 663–675 (2013).
Benaglia, T., Chauveau, D., Hunter, D. & Young, D. Mixtools: an R package for analyzing finite mixture models. J. Stat. Softw. 32, 1–29 (2009).
Delignette-Muller, M. & Dutang, C. Fitdistrplus: an R package for fitting distributions. J. Stat. Softw. 64, 1–34 (2015).
Degeling, K., Ijzerman, M. J., Koopman, M. & Koffijberg, H. Accounting for parameter uncertainty in the definition of parametric distributions used to describe individual patient variation in health economic models. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 17, 170 (2017).
Stark, Z. et al. Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Genet. Med. 21, 173–180 (2019).
Stark, Z. et al. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genet. Med. 19, 867–874 (2017).
Catchpool, M. et al. A cost-effectiveness model of genetic testing and periodical clinical screening for the evaluation of families with dilated cardiomyopathy. Genet. Med. 21, 2815–2822 (2019).
Brothers, K. B., Vassy, J. L. & Green, R. C. Reconciling opportunistic and population screening in clinical genomics. Mayo Clin. Proc. 94, 103–109 (2019).
Dove, E. S. et al. Genomic cloud computing: legal and ethical points to consider. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 23, 1271–1278 (2015).
Botkin Jeffrey, R. et al. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 97, 6–21 (2015).
Roche, M. I. & Berg, J. S. Incidental findings with genomic testing: implications for genetic counseling practice. Curr. Genet. Med. Rep. 3, 166–176 (2015).
Hilgart, J. S., Hayward, J. A., Coles, B. & Iredale, R. Telegenetics: a systematic review of telemedicine in genetics services. Genet. Med. 14, 765–776 (2012).
Ding, L.-E., Burnett, L. & Chesher, D. The impact of reporting incidental findings from exome and whole-genome sequencing: predicted frequencies based on modeling. Genet. Med. 17, 197–204 (2015).
Hart, M. R. et al. Secondary findings from clinical genomic sequencing: prevalence, patient perspectives, family history assessment, and health-care costs from a multisite study. Genet. Med. 21, 1100–1110 (2019).
The authors thank all collaborators on the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance Additional Findings Study. This study was funded by the State Government of Victoria (Department of Health and Human Services) and the ten member organizations of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance.
The authors declare no competing interests.
This study was part of the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance program and received Human Research Ethics Committee approval (13/MH/326). All participants from the Additional Findings Study provided written informed consent prior to the current study. Those that proceeded with reanalysis of the data for AF also provided clinical consent.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Vu, M., Degeling, K., Martyn, M. et al. Evaluating the resource implications of different service delivery models for offering additional genomic findings. Genet Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-01030-8