Kathryn A Phillips

CSU Mentor, Long Beach, California, United States

Are you Kathryn A Phillips?

Claim your profile

Publications (124)793.36 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recommends that mutations in 56 genes for 24 conditions are clinically actionable and should be reported as secondary findings after whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Our aim was to identify published economic evaluations of detecting mutations in these genes among the general population or among targeted/high-risk populations and conditions and identify gaps in knowledge. A targeted PubMed search from 1994 through November 2014 was performed, and we included original, English-language articles reporting cost-effectiveness or a cost-to-utility ratio or net benefits/benefit-cost focused on screening (not treatment) for conditions and genes listed by the ACMG. Articles were screened, classified as targeting a high-risk or general population, and abstracted by two reviewers. General population studies were evaluated for actual cost-effectiveness measures (e.g., incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER)), whereas studies of targeted populations were evaluated for whether at least one scenario proposed was cost-effective (e.g., ICER of ≤$100,000 per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year gained). A total of 607 studies were identified, and 32 relevant studies were included. Identified studies addressed fewer than one-third (7 of 24; 29%) of the ACMG conditions. The cost-effectiveness of screening in the general population was examined for only 2 of 24 conditions (8%). The cost-effectiveness of most genetic findings that the ACMG recommends for return has not been evaluated in economic studies or in the context of screening in the general population. The individual studies do not directly address the cost-effectiveness of WGS.Genet Med advance online publication 21 May 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.69.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 05/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.69 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 05/2015; 18(3):A285-A286. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2015.03.1665 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 04/2015; 17(4):314-5. DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.13 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings. Results: All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies. Conclusions: Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.
    Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 03/2015; 13(3):311-318. · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings. All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies. Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement. Copyright © 2015 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
    Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN 03/2015; 13(3):311-8. · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study estimates how making oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) available without a prescription may affect contraceptive use, unintended pregnancies and associated contraceptive and pregnancy costs among low-income women. Based on published figures, we estimate two scenarios [low over-the-counter (OTC) use and high OTC use] of the proportion of low-income women likely to switch to an OTC pill and predict adoption of OCPs according to the out-of-pocket costs per pill pack. We then estimate cost-savings of each scenario by comparing the total public sector cost of providing OCPs OTC and medical care for unintended pregnancy. Twenty-one percent of low-income women at risk for unintended pregnancy are very likely to use OCPs if they were available without a prescription. Women's use of OTC OCPs varies widely by the out-of-pocket pill pack cost. In a scenario assuming no out-of-pocket costs for the over-the counter pill, an additional 11-21% of low-income women will use the pill, resulting in a 20-36% decrease in the number of women using no method or a method less effective than the pill, and a 7-25% decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies, depending on the level of use and any effect on contraceptive failure rates. If out-of-pocket costs for such pills are low, OTC access could have a significant effect on use of effective contraceptives and unintended pregnancy. Public health plans may reduce expenditures on pregnancy and contraceptive healthcare services by covering oral contraceptives as an OTC product. Interest in OTC access to oral contraceptives is high. Removing the prescription barrier, particularly if pill packs are available at low or zero out-of-pocket cost, could increase the use of effective methods of contraception and reduce unintended pregnancy and healthcare costs for contraceptive and pregnancy care. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Contraception 02/2015; 91(5). DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.010 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Kathryn A Phillips, Mark J Pletcher, Uri Ladabaum
    Technology and health care: official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine 02/2015; DOI:10.3233/THC-150900 · 0.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: . While choices about genetic testing are increasingly common for patients and families, and public opinion surveys suggest public interest in genomics, it is not known how adults from the general population value genetic testing for heritable conditions. We sought to understand in a US sample the relative value of the characteristics of genetic tests to identify risk of hereditary colorectal cancer, among the first genomic applications with evidence to support its translation to clinical settings. . A Web-enabled choice-format conjoint survey was conducted with adults age 50 years and older from a probability-based US panel. Participants were asked to make a series of choices between 2 hypothetical blood tests that differed in risk of false-negative test, privacy, and cost. Random parameters logit models were used to estimate preferences, the dollar value of genetic information, and intent to have genetic testing. . A total of 355 individuals completed choice-format questions. Cost and privacy were more highly valued than reducing the chance of a false-negative result. Most (97% [95% confidence interval (CI)], 95%-99%) would have genetic testing to reduce the risk of dying of colorectal cancer in the best scenario (no false negatives, results disclosed to primary care physician). Only 41% (95% CI, 25%-57%) would have genetic testing in the worst case (20% false negatives, results disclosed to insurance company). . Given the characteristics and levels included in the choice, if false-negative test results are unlikely and results are shared with a primary care physician, the majority would have genetic testing. As genomic services become widely available, primary care professionals will need to be increasingly knowledgeable about genetic testing decisions. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Medical Decision Making 01/2015; DOI:10.1177/0272989X14565820 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Knowledge of consumer perspectives of personalized medicine (PM) is limited. Our study assessed consumer perspectives of PM, with a focus on oncology care, to inform industry, clinician and payer stakeholders' programs and policy. A nationally representative survey of 602 US consumers' ≥30 years old explored familiarity, perspectives and expected value of PM. Most (73%) respondents have not heard of 'personalized medicine,' though after understanding the term most (95%) expect PM to have a positive beneft. Consumer's willingness to pay is associated with products' impact on survival, rather than predicting disease risk. If testing indicates consumers are not candidates for oncology therapies, most (84%) would seek a second opinion or want therapy anyway. Understanding heterogeneity in consumer perspectives of PM can inform program and policy development.
    Personalized Medicine 01/2015; 12(1):13-22. DOI:10.2217/pme.14.74 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New genomic sequencing technologies enable the high-speed analysis of multiple genes simultaneously, including all of those in a person's genome. Sequencing is a prominent example of a "big data" technology because of the massive amount of information it produces and its complexity, diversity, and timeliness. Our objective in this article is to provide a policy primer on sequencing and illustrate how it can affect health care system and policy issues. Toward this end, we developed an easily applied classification of sequencing based on inputs, methods, and outputs. We used it to examine the implications of sequencing for three health care system and policy issues: making care more patient-centered, developing coverage and reimbursement policies, and assessing economic value. We conclude that sequencing has great promise but that policy challenges include how to optimize patient engagement as well as privacy, develop coverage policies that distinguish research from clinical uses and account for bioinformatics costs, and determine the economic value of sequencing through complex economic models that take into account multiple findings and downstream costs.
    Health Affairs 07/2014; 33(7):1246-53. DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0020 · 4.32 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 05/2014; 17(3):A91. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.529 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • Value in Health 05/2014; 17(3):A90. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2014.03.522 · 2.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background-The coronary artery calcium (CAC) score predicts future coronary heart disease (CHD) events and could be used to guide primary prevention interventions, but CAC measurement has costs and exposes patients to low-dose radiation.Methods and Results-We estimated the cost-effectiveness of measuring CAC and prescribing statin therapy based on the resulting score under a range of assumptions using an established model enhanced with CAC distribution and risk estimates from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Ten years of statin treatment for 10 000 55-year-old women with high cholesterol (10-year CHD risk, 7.5%) was projected to prevent 32 myocardial infarctions, cause 70 cases of statin-induced myopathy, and add 1108 years to total life expectancy. Measuring CAC and targeting statin treatment to the 2500 women with CAC>0 would provide 45% of the benefit (+501 life-years), but CAC measurement would cost $2.25 million and cause 9 radiation-induced cancers. Treat all was preferable to CAC screening in this scenario and across a broad range of other scenarios (CHD risk, 2.5%-15%) when statin assumptions were favorable ($0.13 per pill and no quality of life penalty). When statin assumptions were less favorable ($1.00 per pill and disutility=0.00384), CAC screening with statin treatment for persons with CAC>0 was cost-effective (<$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year) in this scenario, in 55-year-old men with CHD risk 7.5%, and in other intermediate risk scenarios (CHD risk, 5%-10%). Our results were critically sensitive to statin cost and disutility and relatively robust to other assumptions. Alternate CAC treatment thresholds (>100 or >300) were generally not cost-effective.Conclusions-CAC testing in intermediate risk patients can be cost-effective but only if statins are costly or significantly affect quality of life.
    Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 03/2014; 7(2). DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000799 · 5.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose:There is uncertainty about when personalized medicine tests provide economic value. We assessed evidence on the economic value of personalized medicine tests and gaps in the evidence base.Methods:We created a unique evidence base by linking data on published cost-utility analyses from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry with data measuring test characteristics and reflecting where value analyses may be most needed: (i) tests currently available or in advanced development, (ii) tests for drugs with Food and Drug Administration labels with genetic information, (iii) tests with demonstrated or likely clinical utility, (iv) tests for conditions with high mortality, and (v) tests for conditions with high expenditures.Results:We identified 59 cost-utility analyses studies that examined personalized medicine tests (1998-2011). A majority (72%) of the cost/quality-adjusted life year ratios indicate that testing provides better health although at higher cost, with almost half of the ratios falling below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-fifth of the results indicate that tests may save money.Conclusion:Many personalized medicine tests have been found to be relatively cost-effective, although fewer have been found to be cost saving, and many available or emerging medicine tests have not been evaluated. More evidence on value will be needed to inform decision making and assessment of genomic priorities.Genet Med advance online publication 14 November 2013Genetics in Medicine (2013); doi:10.1038/gim.2013.122.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 11/2013; DOI:10.1038/gim.2013.122 · 6.44 Impact Factor
  • Personalized Medicine 09/2013; 10(7):703-708. DOI:10.2217/pme.13.68 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • Forum for Health Economics & Policy 01/2013; 16(2). DOI:10.1515/fhep-2013-0010
  • Su-Ying Liang, Daniel Grossman, Kathryn A Phillips
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Little is known about the proportion of oral contraceptive pill (OCP) users that use progestin-only pills (POPs), factors associated with POP use, and whether out-of-pocket expenditures and dispensing patterns are similar to combined oral contraceptives (COCs). STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort using 1996-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys. RESULTS: Among all OCP users, 4% used POPs and changed little between 1996 and 2008. Women were more likely to use POPs if they received postpartum care (p<.001), had a diagnosis of hypertension (p<.001) or resided in the West (p<.01). POP users, compared to COC users, were more likely to pay $15 and more (p<.01) and less likely to obtain more than one pack per purchase (p<.001), controlling for age, race/ethnicity and insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: POP use is very low in the United States. POP users obtained fewer packs per purchase compared with COC users, suggesting that POP may be used as transitional OCPs, particularly during the postpartum period.
    Contraception 07/2012; 86(6). DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.05.018 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients and relatives have varying preferences for genetic testing and interventions related to hereditary cancer syndromes. We examined how the impact of these services on quality of life (QoL) affects the cost-effectiveness of screening for Lynch syndrome among probands newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer and their relatives. We constructed a state-transition model comparing screening strategies (clinical criteria, prediction algorithms, tumor testing, and upfront germline testing) with no screening to identify Lynch syndrome. The model incorporated individuals' health state utilities after screening, germline testing, and risk-reducing surgeries, with utilities persisting for 12 months in the base case. Outcomes consisted of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and cost per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses assessed how the duration and magnitude of changes in QoL influenced results. Multiple screening strategies yielded gains in QALYs at acceptable costs compared with no screening. The preferred strategy-immunohistochemistry of tumors followed by BRAF mutation testing (IHC/BRAF)-cost $59,700 per QALY gained in the base case. The duration and magnitude of decreases in QoL after decisions related to germline testing and surgeries were key determinants of the cost-effectiveness of screening. IHC/BRAF cost > $100,000 per QALY gained when decrements to QoL persisted for 21 months. Screening for Lynch syndrome in the population is likely to yield long-term gains in life expectancy that outweigh any short-term decreases in QoL, at acceptable costs. Counseling for individuals should aim to mitigate potential negative impact of genetic testing and risk-reducing interventions on QoL.
    Journal of Oncology Practice 05/2012; 8(3 Suppl):e24s-30s. DOI:10.1200/JOP.2011.000535
  • Mary S Beattie, Grace Wang, Kathryn A Phillips
    Personalized Medicine 01/2012; 9(1):5-8. DOI:10.2217/pme.11.85 · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Grace Wang, Mary S Beattie, Ninez A Ponce, Kathryn A Phillips
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : Coverage policies for genetic services for hereditary cancers are of interest because the services influence cancer risk reduction for both persons with cancer and their family members. We compared coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling among selected payers in the United States to illuminate eligibility criteria variation that may explain differential access by insurance type. We compared these policies with policies for breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging to consider whether payers apply a unique policy approach to genetic services. : We conducted a case study of large private and public payers selected on number of covered lives. We examined coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing, genetic counseling, and screening with magnetic resonance imaging and the eligibility criteria for each. We compared eligibility criteria against National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. : Eligibility criteria for BRCA testing were related to personal history and family history of cancer. Although private payers covered BRCA testing for persons with and without cancer, the local Medicare carrier in our study only covered testing for persons with cancer. In contrast, Arizona's Medicaid program did not cover BRCA testing. Few payers had detailed eligibility criteria for genetic counseling. Private payers have more detailed coverage policies for both genetic services and screening with magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with public payers. : Despite clinical guidelines establishing standards for BRCA testing, we found differences in coverage policies particularly between private and public payers. Future research and policy discussions can consider how differences in private and public payer policies influence access to genetic technologies and health outcomes.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 08/2011; 13(12):1045-50. DOI:10.1097/GIM.0b013e31822a8113 · 6.44 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

3k Citations
793.36 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2004–2015
    • CSU Mentor
      Long Beach, California, United States
  • 1998–2015
    • University of California, San Francisco
      • • Center for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS)
      • • Department of Clinical Pharmacy
      • • School of Pharmacy
      • • Institute for Health Policy Studies
      San Francisco, California, United States
  • 2011
    • Julphar School of Pharmacy
      San Francisco, California, United States
    • Baylor University
      Waco, Texas, United States
  • 2004–2007
    • Harvard Medical School
      • Department of Medicine
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2003–2007
    • Harvard University
      Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2006
    • Brigham and Women's Hospital
      • Department of Medicine
      Boston, MA, United States
  • 2000
    • Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
      Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands