Cargando…

Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stenehjem, David D., Au, Trang, Sainski, Amy M., Bauer, Hillevi, Brown, Krystal, Lancaster, Johnathan, Stevens, Vanessa, Brixner, Diana I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5
_version_ 1783304919023878144
author Stenehjem, David D.
Au, Trang
Sainski, Amy M.
Bauer, Hillevi
Brown, Krystal
Lancaster, Johnathan
Stevens, Vanessa
Brixner, Diana I.
author_facet Stenehjem, David D.
Au, Trang
Sainski, Amy M.
Bauer, Hillevi
Brown, Krystal
Lancaster, Johnathan
Stevens, Vanessa
Brixner, Diana I.
author_sort Stenehjem, David D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5842549
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58425492018-03-14 Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing Stenehjem, David D. Au, Trang Sainski, Amy M. Bauer, Hillevi Brown, Krystal Lancaster, Johnathan Stevens, Vanessa Brixner, Diana I. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling by a Genetic Counselor (GC) is a requirement prior to genetic testing for cancer susceptibility genes (GC-mandate policy) for some insurers. This study evaluated the impact of this policy from the patient perspective. METHODS: Surveys were sent to individuals for whom their insurer ordered genetic testing for the cancer susceptibility genes BCRA1 and BRCA2 over a 1 year time period that spanned the introduction of a GC-mandate policy. Responses were assessed by time period (before/after policy introduction) and genetic test completion. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by 1247/4950 (25.7%) eligible individuals. After policy introduction, there was no change in the proportion of respondents who completed genetic testing (p = 0.13) or had a mutation (p = 0.55). Overall decisional conflict (uncertainty or feeling uninformed) around genetic testing did not change after policy introduction (p = 0.16), but was significantly higher among respondents who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). Although a larger proportion of respondents saw a GC after policy introduction (p < 0.01), fewer did so to better understand their test results (p < 0.01). The proportion of respondents who did not see a GC due to insurance issues/requirements and time restraints was higher among those tested after policy introduction or who did not complete genetic testing (p < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, respondents with a household income of $25,000 or greater were 3-times more likely to complete testing. CONCLUSIONS: A GC-mandate policy did not improve decisional conflict or increase the number of deleterious mutations identified and low-income respondents were less likely to complete testing. On the contrary, insurance requirements and time constraints may be preventing individuals at risk from receiving appropriate testing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5842549/ /pubmed/29514700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Stenehjem, David D.
Au, Trang
Sainski, Amy M.
Bauer, Hillevi
Brown, Krystal
Lancaster, Johnathan
Stevens, Vanessa
Brixner, Diana I.
Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title_full Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title_fullStr Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title_full_unstemmed Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title_short Impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
title_sort impact of a genetic counseling requirement prior to genetic testing
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5842549/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29514700
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-2957-5
work_keys_str_mv AT stenehjemdavidd impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT autrang impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT sainskiamym impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT bauerhillevi impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT brownkrystal impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT lancasterjohnathan impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT stevensvanessa impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting
AT brixnerdianai impactofageneticcounselingrequirementpriortogenetictesting