See MauerC. B.Pirzadeh-MillerS. M.RobinsonL. S., The Integration of Next-Generation Sequencing Panels in the Clinical Cancer Genetics Practice: An Institutional Experience, Genetics in Medicine16, no. 5 (2013): 407–412; DeweyF. E.GroveM. E. and PanC., Clinical Interpretation and Implications of Whole-Genome Sequencing, JAMA311, no. 10 (2014): 1035–1044.
2.
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, Coverage and Reimbursement of Genetic Tests and Services (2006).
3.
DeverkaP.DoksumT. and CarlsonR., Integrating Molecular Medicine into the US Health-Care System: Opportunities, Barriers, and Policy Challenges, Clinical Pharmacology and. Therapeutics82, no. 4 (2007): 427–434.
4.
WilsonC.SchulzS. and WaldmanS., Biomarker Development, Commercialization, and Regulation: Individualization of Medicine Lost in Translation, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics81, no. 2 (2007): 153–155; RogowskiW. H.GrosseS. D. and KhouryM. J., Challenges of Translating Genetic Tests into Clinical and Public Health Practice, Nature Reviews Genetics10, no 7 (2009): 489–495.
5.
UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, Personalized Medicine: Trends and Prospects for the New Science of Genetic Testing and Molecular Diagnostics, Working Paper 7 (Minnetonka, Minnesota, 2012); Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Technology Evaluation Center Criteria, available at <http://bcbs.com/blueresources/tec> (last visited June 18, 2014).
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
8.
RaskinA. and CasdinE., The Dawn of Molecular Medicine: The Transformation of Medicine and Its Consequences for Investors: Executive Summary (New York: AllianceBernstein, 2011)
9.
TucksonR.NewcomerL. and De SaJ., Accessing Genomic Medicine: Affordability, Diffusion, and Disparities, JAMA309, no 14(2013): 1469–1470.
10.
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
11.
DeverkaP., Pharmacogenomics, Evidence, and the Role of Payers, Public Health Genomics12, no. 3 (2009): 149–157.
SchrijverI.AzizN. and FarkasD. H., Opportunities and Challenges Associated with Clinical Diagnostic Genome Sequencing: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology, Journal of Molecular Diagnostics14, no. 6 (2012): 525–540; seeBlue Cross Blue Shield Association, supra note 5.
16.
Id.
17.
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
18.
SunF.BrueningW. and UhlS., Technology Assessment: Quality, Regulation and Clinical Utility of Laboratory-Developed Molecular Tests, Corrected Version (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Technology Assessment Program, 2010).
19.
Id.
20.
Id.
21.
CollinsF. S. and HamburgM. A., First FDA Authorization for Next-Generation Sequencer, New England Journal of Medicine369, no. 25 (2013): 2369–2371.
RehmH. L.BaleS. J. and Bayrak-ToydemirP., ACMG Clinical Laboratory Standards for Next-generation Sequencing, Genetics in Medicine15, no. 9 (2013): 733–747.
24.
GargisA. S.KalmanL. and BerryM. W., Assuring the Quality of Next-Generation Sequencing in Clinical Laboratory Practice, Nature Biotechnology30, no. 11 (2012): 1033–1036.
25.
Id.
26.
KamalakaranS.VaradanV. and JanevskiA., Translating Next Generation Sequencing to Practice: Opportunities and Necessary Steps, Molecular Oncology7, no. 4 (2013): 743–755.
27.
OngF. S.LinJ. C. and DasK., Translational Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing, Genomics102, no. 3 (2013): 137–139.
28.
KatsanisS. H. and KatsanisN., Molecular Genetic Testing and the Future of Clinical Genomics, Nature Reviews Genetics14, no. 6 (2013): 415–426.
29.
See Rehm, supra note 23.
30.
TeutschS.BradleyL. and PalomakiG., The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Initiative: Methods of the EGAPP Working Group, Genetics in Medicine11, no. 1 (2009): 3–14.
31.
MeckleyL. M. and NeumannP. J., Personalized Medicine: Factors Influencing Reimbursement, Health Policy94, no. 2 (2010): 91–100.
32.
GrafM.NeedhamD. and TeedN., Genetic Testing Insurance Coverage Trends: A Review of Publicly Available Policies from the Largest US Payers, Future Medicine10, no. 3 (2013): 235–243.
33.
VeenstraD.PiperM. and HaddowJ., Improving the Efficiency and Relevance of Evidence-Based Recommendations in the Era of Whole-Genome Sequencing: An EGAPP Methods Update, Genetics in Medicine15, no. 1 (2013): 14–24.
34.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Genomic Tests and Family History by Levels of Evidence, available at <http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/tier.htm> (last visited May 9, 2013).
ECRI Institute, Health Technology Assessment Information Service: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research and Evidence-based Reports for Better Health Technology Decisions, available at <https://www.ecri.org/Products/Pages/htais.aspx> (last visited June 18, 2014).
Consensus statement from American Association for Clinical Chemistry, American Clinical Laboratory Association, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, American Society for Clinical Pathology, American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics, Association for Molecular Pathology, California Clinical Laboratory Association, College of American Pathologists, Society for Inherited Metabolic Disorders, available at <http://www.amp.org/about/Press_Releases/ConsensusStatement_ProfSoc(5102013).pdf> (last visited June 18, 2014).
See Wolf, supra note 38; CarlsonB., Seeking a Coding Solution for Molecular Tests: Managing the Estimated 1,700 Molecular Tests Now on the Market Is Impossible without a Unique CPT Code for Each Test. What's at Stake? The Future of Personalized Medicine, Biotechnology Healthcare 7, no. 3 (2010): 16–20.
55.
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
56.
See Meckley and Neumann, supra note 31.
57.
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
58.
WalcoffS. D. and PfeiferJ. D., Modernizing US Regulatory and Reimbursement Policy to Support Continued Innovation in Genomic Pathology, Personalized Medicine 9, no. 3 (2012): 295–308.
Blue Cross Blue Shield, Special Report: Exome Sequencing for Clinical Diagnosis of Patients with Suspected Genetic Disorders, August 2013, available at <http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/tec/vols/28/28_03.pdf> (last visited June 23, 2014).
FoundationOne, Billing and Reimbursement: Answers for Patients and Caregivers, available at <http://www.foundationone.com/learn.php#5> (last visited May 12, 2013).
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Sequencing-Based Tests to Determine Fetal Down Syndrome (Trisomy 21) from Maternal Plasma DNA, Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Program Executive Summary No. 10 (2013).
67.
Id.
68.
See Schrijver, supra note 15.
69.
OrmondK. E.WheelerM. T. and HudginsL., Challenges in the Clinical Application of Whole-Genome Sequencing, The Lancet 375, no. 9727 (2010): 1749–1751.
70.
BieseckerL.BurkeW. and KohaneI., Next-Generation Sequencing in the Clinic: Are We Ready? Nature Reviews Genetics13, no. 11 (2012): 818–824.
RossL. F.RothsteinM. A. and ClaytonE. W., Mandatory Extended Searches in All Genome Sequencing: ‘Incidental Findings,'Patient Autonomy, and Shared Decision Making, JAMA310, no. 4 (2013): 367–368; GreenR. C.LupskiJ. R. and BieseckerL. G., Reporting Genomic Sequencing Results to Ordering Clinicians: Incidental, But Not Exceptional, JAMA310, no. 4 (2013): 365–366.
75.
See Rehm, supra note 23.
76.
See Schrijver, supra note 15; Meric-BernstamF.FarhangfarC. and MendelsohnJ., Building a Personalized Medicine Infrastructure at a Major Cancer Center, Journal of Clinical Oncology 31, no. 15 (2013): 1849–1857; MoorthieS.HallA. and WrightC. F., Informatics and Clinical Genome Sequencing: Opening the Black Box, Genetics in Medicine15, no. 3 (2013): 165–171.
77.
See Biesecker, supra note 70.
78.
See Schrijver, supra note 15.
79.
SaffitzJ. E., Genomic Pathology: A Disruptive Innovation, Personalized Medicine9, no. 3 (2012): 237–239.
80.
See Moorthie, supra note 76.
81.
Id.
82.
BergerA. and OlsonS., The Economics of Genomic Medicine: Workshop Summary (Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., 2013).
83.
OlsonS.BeachyS.GiammariaC. and BergerA., Integrating Large-Scale Genomic Information into Clinical Practice: Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health: Workshop Summary (Institute of Medicine, Washington, D.C., 2012); see Ormond, supra note 69.
84.
See Ormond, supra note 69.
85.
CrawfordJ. M. and AspinallM. G., The Business Value and Cost–Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine, Personalized Medicine9, no. 3 (2012): 265–286.
86.
See Moorthie, supra note 76.
87.
See Biesecker, supra note 70.
88.
See UnitedHealth Center for Health Reform & Modernization, supra note 5.
89.
Id.
90.
EngstromP. F.BloomM. G. and DemetriG. D., NCCN Molecular Testing Paper: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Reimbursement, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network9, no. S6 (2011): S-1–S-16.
91.
Id.
92.
See Katsanis and Katsanis, supra note 28; see Ormond, supra note 69.
93.
GreenR. C.BergJ. S. and GrodyW. W., ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing, Genetics in Medicine15, no. 7 (2013): 565–574.
94.
BurkeW.AntommariaA. H. M. and BennettR., Recommendations for Returning Genomic Incidental Findings? We Need to Talk! Genetics in Medicine15, no. 11 (2013): 854–859.
95.
Id.
96.
See Saffitz, supra note 79.
97.
See Schrijver, supra note 15.
98.
Id.
99.
See Rehm, supra note 23; seeACMG (American College of Medical Genetics Policy Statement), supra note 73
100.
See Schrijver, supra note 15.
101.
Id.
102.
GottesmanO.KuivaniemiH. and TrompG., The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (Emerge) Network: Past, Present, Future, Genetics in Medicine15, no. 10 (2013) 761–771.
103.
GoldenbergA. J. and SharpR. R., The Ethical Hazards and Programmatic Challenges of Genomic Newborn Screening, JAMA307, no. 5 (2012): 461–462.
BellC.DinwiddieD. and MillerN., Carrier Testing for Severe Childhood Recessive Diseases by Next-Generation Sequencing, Science Translational Medicine3, no. 65 (2011): 65ra4.
107.
Id.
108.
JacksonL. and PyeritzR. E., Molecular Technologies Open New Clinical Genetic Vistas, Science Translational Medicine3, no. 65 (2011): 65ps2.
109.
See ACMG (American College of Medical Genetics Policy Statement), supra note 73.
See Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, supra note 66.
115.
DeverkaP.MessnerD. and DuttaT., Effectiveness Guidance Document: Evaluation of Clinical Validity and Clinical Utility of Actionable Molecular Diagnostic Tests in Adult Oncology (Center for Medical Technology Policy, Baltimore, MD, 2013); SimondsN. I.KhouryM. J. and SchullyS. D., Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Genomics and Precision Medicine: Current Landscape and Future Prospects, Journal of the National Cancer Institute105, no. 13 (2013): 929–936.
116.
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Special Report: Multiple Molecular Testing of Cancers to Identify Targeted Therapies, Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Program Exeutive. Summary 28, no. 1 (2013).
117.
FramptonG., Validation of a Comprehensive NGS-Based Cancer Genomic Assay for Clinical Use, Presented at the American Association for Clinical Chemistry Annual Meeting, July 17, 2012; see Veenstra, supra note 33.
118.
See Deverka, supra note 115.
119.
DuanN.KravitzR. L. and SchmidC. H., Single-Patient (N-of-1) Trials: A Pragmatic Clinical Decision Methodology for Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology66, no. S8 (2013): S21–S28; GablerN. B.DuanN. and VohraS., N-of-1 Trials in the Medical Literature: A Systematic Review, Medical Care49, no. 8 (2011): 761–768.
120.
LillieE. O.PatayB. and DiamantJ., The N-of-1 Clinical Trial: The Ultimate Strategy for Individualizing Medicine? Personalized Medicine8, no. 2 (2011): 161–173.
CarlsonB., Payers Try New Approaches to Manage Molecular Diagnostics: Some Payers Require Prior Authorization for Molecular Diagnostic Testing and Some Don't. And Some Payers Are Looking at Other Options, Biotechnology and Healthcare7, no. 3 (2010): 26–30.