Currently Viewing:
Evidence-Based Oncology August 2015
Next-Generation Sequencing: Are We There Yet?
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Precision Oncology: Are Payers on the Right Pathway?
Jerry Conway and Mark Oldroyd, JD
Balancing Innovation With Cost in Diagnostic Testing
Gnanamba Varuni Kondagunta, MD
Equalize Payment Across Site of Service
Barry Brooks, MD
Alternative Payment Models: Paving the Way or Building a Wall for Personalized Medicine?
Amy M. Miller, PhD; and Andrew J. Shin, JD, MPH
Personalized Medicine: On the Brink of Revolutionizing Cancer Care
Sean Khozin, MD, MPH; and Gideon Blumenthal, MD
Currently Reading
Myriad's New CEO Discusses Promise, Challenges of Changing Times in Genetic Testing
Mary K. Caffrey
The Diagnosis for Diagnostics: Changes to Medicare Payment and Coverage of Clinical Laboratory Tests
Adam Borden, MHA; Danielle Showalter, MPH; Geoffrey Storchan, PhD; and Kathleen Hughes, MBA
No Solution in Sight Yet With the Federal 340B Program, Say Stakeholders
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
GAO: Congress Must End Incentives to Prescribe More Expensive Drugs Through 340B Program
Mary K. Caffrey
Sonidegib Approved for Basal Cell Carcinoma
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Gefitinib Approved as Frontline in EGFR-Positive NSCLC
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Need for Palliative Care for Improved Performance at the End of Life
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Massive Consolidation Among Healthcare Payers
Mary K. Caffrey and Laura Joszt
CHAARTED Study: Conceptual Shift in Early Prostate Cancer Treatment
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
Chemoprevention With Oral Contraceptives Could Be a Reality
Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
The Vision of an Effective and Equitable Future for Personalized Medicine
Joseph Alvarnas, MD

Myriad's New CEO Discusses Promise, Challenges of Changing Times in Genetic Testing

Mary K. Caffrey
Evidence-Based Oncology spoke with Mark Capone about the challenges and opportunities in molecular diagnostics, and what's ahead at Myriad Genetics.
When the words “precision medicine” make it into a State of the Union address, one could argue it’s the best of times for anyone in the genetic testing business.1 And in some ways, it is.

But 2 years have passed since the US Supreme Court found that a naturally occurring DNA segment is not patent eligible.2 That ruling changed the landscape for Myriad Genetics, which since its founding in 1991 has cemented its place as the provider of tests for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, alerting women to their risk of breast or ovarian cancer.

Today, Myriad competes in its core business with other test makers; these include both conventional laboratories and companies that sell genetic tests directly to the public. These “direct to consumer” tests are sold without insurance coverage at very low prices—Color Genomics’ test costs $249,3 compared with Myriad’s reported pricing of $2700 to $4000, depending on whether the test screens for BRCA mutations only or for multiple hereditary cancers (prices reported by the company).

It’s not clear whether the FDA will let direct-to-consumer sales continue. While the prospect of regulation looms for molecular diagnostic testing, it’s not there yet. The industry lacks the level of certainty seen in drug development, where a regulator’s seal of approval can be hard won but typically means payment will follow.

In genetic testing, challenges abound with reimbursement, with different payers seeking different levels of evidence. Recently, Myriad has been able to consolidate its reimbursement processes with a single Medicare Administrative Contractor, the Molecular Diagnostics Services (MolDX) Program of Palmetto GBA. But change in the industry is coming, thanks to legislation passed in 2014 that will eventually call for CMS to move to a market-driven reimbursement system.4

Among private payers, disparities in decision making persist. For example, Cigna, which has been a leader in requiring genetic counseling along with genetic testing, will only cover testing that is determined to be “valid and reliable,” and that “meets the requirements for medical necessity,” spokesman Mark Slitt told Evidence-Based Oncology in an e-mail. This may include requirements for genetic counseling, precertification, and other indicators of risk, according to Slitt.

The past year has been both challenging and eventful for Myriad Genetics. It received a local coverage determination from Palmetto GBA for its Prolaris prostate cancer test, although Medicare reimbursement is taking longer than anticipated.5 The company is transitioning its business from the historic reliance on BRCA testing to broader hereditary cancer screening, as well as new areas that include mental health and its 2014 acquisition of Crescendo Bioscience, which makes a test that guides treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.6 Companion diagnostics is another growth area, and in December 2014 the company reached a high water mark when FDA approved BRACAnalysis CDx as the companion diagnostic for Lynparza (olaparib) in patients with ovarian cancer.7 Some press accounts have been rough, and Wall Street reviews have been mixed; other reports say the company’s customer service record and arsenal of data should allow it to weather a period of transition.8,9

And as of June, Myriad Genetics has its first new president and CEO since its founding. Mark C. Capone joined the company in 2002 and had served as president of Myriad Genetic Laboratories since March 2010. As he took the helm as CEO, Evidence-Based Oncology spoke with Mr Capone about the challenges and opportunities in molecular diagnostics, and what’s ahead at Myriad Genetics. Below are edited excerpts from the interview.

What are your thoughts on the Obama administration’s Precision Medicine Initiative?

We were delighted to hear President Obama talk about the promise of personalized medicine. We have shared that perspective for over 2 decades, and we believe that these technologies not only have the opportunity to transform the lives of our patients, but also to fundamentally change the trajectory of healthcare costs in this country. Access to personalized medicine can come down to whether insurers will pay for testing.

Much has been written about the challenges with reimbursement, particularly with CMS. How is the process going these days?

It’s fair to say that reimbursement in personalized medicine is still in its infancy, and there are still some shifting sands around the criteria required for reimbursement. We have seen progress from the CMS perspective with all of the decisions around coverage being consolidated with [Palmetto GBA’s] MolDX program. Having a single contractor with a consistent process by which medical diagnostic products are evaluated is useful for those of us that develop these products. We need some forward visibility as to how they will be evaluated so that we can put together our clinical development programs.

The MolDX program has been open to feedback from industry about different ways to approach reimbursement. We have been quite active in providing feedback, and in working with MolDX to identify appropriate ways to provide clinical data for their technical assessment programs.MolDX has also put in place consultation services for companies that are developing products prior to those clinical development programs being initiated, to provide further insight into what types of programs would be useful.

Is there an emerging set of best practices to obtain approval for reimbursement? Are we getting closer to a defined process, similar to what exists at FDA?

It’s emerging slowly. There are some guidelines that have been published by MolDX on levels of evidence that would be required to obtain reimbursement.

You also have some other technical assessment committees that are beginning to establish evidence-sharing levels as well. I think we’re slowly beginning to see those emerge, but I would say that at this point the process is not nearly as defined as you might have at an agency like the FDA.

There are still some uncertainties, and the best way to deal with that uncertainty is to have very early conversations with payers about what level of evidence they will require for a specific test.

What about commercial payers? Is there consistency from payer to payer?

I would still characterize it as significant inconsistency between payers. In Medicare, with all of that decision making now consolidated within the MolDX program, at least you don’t have an inconsistency between Medicare contractors; so I think that’s a positive step forward. Among the private payers, there is still quite a wide disparity as to levels of evidence that may be required.

Are these disparities between payers getting wider or narrower?

Because the education levels are increasing among payers in general, I do see some progress toward consistency, but I think that pace is relatively slow at this point.

How are providers doing with molecular diagnostic testing? Are tests being used correctly?

It’s imperative for a laboratory to [provide] extensive education to healthcare providers about the appropriate patients to test, how to interpret tests, and how to modify medical management after the patient receives the results. We have seen examples where that type of education by Myriad, which invests very heavily in education, makes a big difference with providers. By way of example, we had a poster published that showed for hereditary cancer testing over 93% of the tests we received were for patients who met [National Comprehensive Cancer Network or NCCN] criteria, and another 6% of the patients had an underlying cancer consistent with the general criteria for that particular hereditary cancer. That leaves only 1% of the patients [receiving the test] that didn’t seem to have any ties to the NCCN guidelines.10 By comparison, another lab that published similar data found that 30% of the tests were being ordered inappropriately. That’s a lab that has little educational efforts with providers. I think it’s a very clear distinction between laboratories that invest in education and those that don’t.

When physicians are properly educated, when you have quality control procedures in your lab like we do at Myriad, you can be sure the tests that are being run are consistent with guidelines.

What about direct-to-consumer tests that are sold without involvement of insurance coverage? How does Myriad respond to these tests?

I think it’s a critical part of the education process that physicians understand the difference between the various tests that are available. There are a number of companies that are characterized as [offering] “recreational genomics,” and there are companies like Myriad that are very focused on the highest quality clinical tests in order to ensure the appropriate decision making by both the patient and the physician. We try to ensure that our education efforts allow the patient and the physician to understand those differences.

For example, we invest very heavily in the quality of sequencing we provide. We employ a number of different technologies to ensure that the sequence is accurate. Second, we also invest an enormous amount to ensure the interpretation of that sequence is accurate as well. There’s evidence that public databases that were designed for research purposes are fraught with errors, and if you were to use those databases to interpret test results, you run the risk of getting a false result to patients.



 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2018 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up
×

Sign In

Not a member? Sign up now!