Genetic testing costs and compliance with clinical best practices. Issue 6 (1st May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Montanez, Kathleen; Berninger, Taylor; Willis, Mary; Harding, Aaron; Lutgendorf, Monica A.
• Is Part Of: Journal of genetic counseling. Volume 29:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1186
• Page End: 1191
• Publication Date: 2020-05-01
• Subjects: carrier testing -- cost‐effectiveness -- education -- genetic counseling -- genetic counselors -- genetic testing -- population screening -- test utilization; Genetic counseling -- Periodicals; 616.042
• DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1285
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-7700

Abstract

Abstract: We sought to determine the costs of genetic testing and compliance with published guidelines and clinical best practices at our institution. A cost analysis was performed comparing the costs of ordered tests to the cost of the recommended testing. This was an approved quality improvement project at a tertiary teaching hospital in California. We identified charts associated with the genetic testing billing codes for common genetic tests through our contracted laboratory (cystic fibrosis genotyping, Breast cancer susceptibility gene ( BRCA 1&2 ), Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), factor V Leiden ( FVL ), prothrombin gene pathogenic variant, alpha‐thalassemia, hemochromatosis, and cell‐free fetal DNA). Charts were reviewed retrospectively by a licensed, certified genetic counselor to assess the compliance with published clinical practice guidelines identified on GeneReviews and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Tests were classified as: appropriate, misordered/not indicated, misordered/false reassurance, and misordered/inadequate. We performed a cost analysis for the recommended test changes. We reviewed 114 charts over a three‐month period. Forty‐four (38.6%) of the tests were misordered based on published clinical practice guidelines: 24 (21%) were misordered/not indicated, 8 (7%) were misordered/false reassurance, and 12 (10.5%) were misordered/inadequate. Costs of ordered testing ($75, 177) were compared to recommended testing after review ($54, 265), with a total cost savings of $20, 912. In clinical practice, over one‐third of genetic tests reviewed were misordered. As these tests are a small fraction of all genetic tests at our institution, future studies should broaden the scope of testing evaluated to understand the magnitude of this problem and potential cost savings. Genetic counselor review and involvement in genetic test ordering can decrease inappropriate healthcare expenditures and improve patient care.