The Economics of Genomic Medicine Insights From the IOM Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health

Maine-Dartmouth Family Medicine Residency, Augusta, Maine, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 03/2013; 309(12):1235-6. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.113
Source: PubMed
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whole exome and genome sequencing are gradually entering into the clinical arena. Drops in sequencing prices have led some to suggest that these analyses could be extended to the screening of whole populations or subsets thereof. Herein we argue that this optimism is presently still unfounded. While cost estimates take into account the generation of sequence data, they fail to properly evaluate both the price of accurate and efficient interpretation and of the proper return of genomic information to the consulting individuals. Thus, short of inventing new, cost-effective ways of achieving these goals, the latter are likely to ruin our healthcare systems. We posit that due to lack of available resources, generalization of this practice remains, for the time being, unrealistic.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
    Human Mutation 12/2014; 36(3). DOI:10.1002/humu.22748 · 5.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of molecular tools to individualize health care, predict appropriate therapies, and prevent adverse health outcomes has gained significant traction in the field of oncology under the banner of "personalized medicine" (PM). Enthusiasm for PM in oncology has been fueled by success stories of targeted treatments for a variety of cancers based on their molecular profiles. Though these are clear indications of optimism for PM, little is known about the ethical and social implications of personalized approaches in clinical oncology. The objective of this study is to assess how a range of stakeholders engaged in promoting, monitoring, and providing PM understand the challenges of integrating genomic testing and targeted therapies into clinical oncology. The study involved the analysis of in-depth interviews with 117 stakeholders whose experiences and perspectives on PM span a wide variety of institutional and professional settings. Despite their considerable enthusiasm for this shift, promoters, monitors, and providers of PM identified 4 domains that provoke heightened ethical and social concerns: (1) informed consent for cancer genomic testing, (2) privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of genomic test results, (3) access to genomic testing and targeted therapies in oncology, and (4) the costs of scaling up pharmacogenomic testing and targeted cancer therapies. These specific concerns are not unique to oncology, or even genomics. However, those most invested in the success of PM view oncologists' responses to these challenges as precedent setting because oncology is farther along the path of clinical integration of genomic technologies than other fields of medicine. This study illustrates that the rapid emergence of PM approaches in clinical oncology provides a crucial lens for identifying and managing potential frictions and pitfalls that emerge as health care paradigms shift in these directions.
    Urologic Oncology 02/2014; 32(2):187-92. DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.10.009 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An important challenge with the application of next-generation sequencing technology is the possibility of uncovering incidental genomic findings. A paucity of evidence on personal utility for incidental findings has hindered clinical guidelines. Our objective was to estimate personal utility for complex information derived from incidental genomic findings. We used a discrete-choice experiment to evaluate participants' personal utility for the following attributes: disease penetrance, disease treatability, disease severity, carrier status and cost. Study participants were drawn from the Canadian public. We analyzed the data with a mixed logit model. In total, 1200 participants completed our questionnaire (available in English and French). Participants valued receiving information about high-penetrance disorders but expressed disutility for receiving information on low-penetrance disorders. The average willingness to pay was $445 (95% confidence interval [CI] $322-$567) to receive incidental findings in a scenario where clinicians returned information about high-penetrance, medically treatable disorders, but only 66% of participants (95% CI 63%-71%) indicated that they would choose to receive information in that scenario. On average, participants placed an important value ($725, 95% CI $600-$850) on having a choice about what type of findings they would receive, including receipt of information about high-penetrance, treatable disorders or receipt of information about highpenetrance disorders with or without available treatment. The predicted uptake of that scenario was 76% (95% CI 72%-79%). Most participants valued receiving incidental findings, but personal utility depended on the type of finding, and not all participants wanted to receive incidental results, regardless of the potential health implications. These results indicate that to maximize benefit, participant-level preferences should inform the decision about whether to return incidental findings. © 8872147 Canada Inc.
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 03/2015; DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140697 · 5.81 Impact Factor