Showing posts with label genomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genomics. Show all posts

Genetic Testing: Another Reason Why It's Not Likely To Lower Costs


Today’s Managing Health Care Costs Number is $299


A number of genetic testing companies suggest that doing genetic testing on individuals or an employee workforce could lower overall health care costs.  The cost of these tests ranges from $299 to $999.

Here’s how this works in theory.   Some people will be found to have genetic predisposition to react badly to some medications, or to need higher or lower doses of these medications.  Doing genetic tests would help individual employees get the best drug for their personal genetic traits in categories including antidepressants and blood thinners.   Further, genetic test could motivate behavior change when some people discover they are at higher genetic risk for certain diseases, including diabetes or heart disease.

The savings claims seem highly unlikely.

The General Accountability Office sent DNA samples from its own employees to multiple genetic testing companies, using both real and fictitious demographic and medical information. The GAO found that there were wild inconsistencies among the companies, and the genetic counseling advice offered was deeply flawed or worse. 

I’m especially interested in the “scared skinny” argument.  This argument goes that when shown evidence that she is at higher risk of diabetes, a test subject will go out and increase exercise and lose weight.    I’m skeptical, of course, since many people already see their parents suffer the complications of diabetes –and that would seem to me to have far more impact than a genetic test report!

The New England Journal of Medicine  published an article on its website this week reporting on 3600 people who personally paid for the Navigenics genetic testing package.   The article focuses on over 2000 people who had the genetic test and then completed 3 month followup surveys. The researchers looked at lifestyle behavior change subsequent to getting the results of the genetic tests, and compared those at high vs. low risk for various conditions.

The good news is that few people had test related distress or anxiety (9.3%) or clinically significant test related anxiety (2.8%) when they got their results.

The bad news (and you have to read the supplementary appendix to see the actual results) is that people found to be at increased genetic risk for obesity increased their intake of fatty foods after receiving the test results.  The only other significant findings related to risk conditions were those at higher risk of breast cancer had decreased exercise and increased their fat intake.  Those found to be at risk for  aneurisms, heart attacks, strokes, and diabetes did not make any significant changes in their lifestyles based on the result of these tests.

Genetic testing is likely to play an important future role in ascertaining the best medical care for each of us as individuals.  This study undermines one of the arguments to do widespread genetic testing right now.   There is no reason to encourage an unselected low risk population to get genetic testing at this point.

By the way, here's a link to a post from two years ago pointing out that genetic testing was promised to save money for those on blood thinners, but rigorous studies showed increased cost.

New Prostate Cancer Vaccine : Quadrant Four Medicine


Today’s Managing Health Care Cost Indicator is $93,000


The Washington Post has a thoughtful article this morning about a new prostate cancer vaccine, Provenge.  The vaccine must be individualized for each patient, and the price has been set at $93,000 per person (each receives just a single dose). Average life expectancy increase using Provenge is 4 months.

This is great news. Individualized medicine is here!  The promise recounted in Jerry Groopman's Dr Fair's Tumor (1998,  New Yorker) is finally available for the masses.   This drug will be very desirable for people with terminal metastatic prostate cancer, their families, and their providers.   It's also good news for those of us who will get other cancers - where this type of technology could be life-saving or life-prolonging.

The good news, of course, carries a steep price tag.  The increased life expectancy means that Provenge will cost substantially over $300,000 per quality adjusted life year. ($93K *3, and assume that for someone with terminal prostate cancer, each surviving month will be at least slightly discounted because of suffering or disability associated with the cancer).     That's far more than we usually spend -and a price point that could leave us unable to invest in other health care initiatives with as much or more promise.  Even this steep price tag can be good for those with cancer, though.  Such a high price encourages more investment in future biologics to treat cancer.

Most prostate cancer is in those over 65, so Medicare's payment approach for Provenge will determine whether this drug is used commonly, or whether it is available to only the superrich.   Medicare has established  a  national coverage analysis for this product, and will have a public hearing later this month.  If Medicare makes a national coverage determination, it will be binding on all Medicare intermediaries across the country.

This is a good example of a "quadrant four" decision. It's much like Folotyn, another recent cancer therapy priced similarly.

It's easy to decide to push more quadrant one therapies (increase quality while decreasing costs). The problem is that we don't have enough of them!  It's easy to decide to prevent quadrant three therapies (increase cost while lowering quality).   It's tough to decide to push medical decisions in quadrant two (where quality is lowered a tad for a huge price savings).   It's also tough to forgo incremental quality at any price - even a high one. 


There is rumbling that having a national coverage analysis is akin to having Don Berwick, the head of CMS, convene a 'death panel.'    We need to have a sensible national discussion about what price we can afford to pay for incremental health . But it's hard to do that, especially when patients have much more compelling stories than a bunch of dry statistics that only an accountant could love.   

The conversation about limits to the resources we want to dedicate to health care will be a difficult one.  We're likely not ready for it.