Explore the vast range of titles available.

Genetic testing and spending on that testing have grown rapidly since the mapping of the human genome in 2003. However, it is not widely known how many tests there are, how they are used, and how they are paid for. Little evidence from large data sets about their use has emerged. We shed light on the issue of genetic testing by providing an overview of the testing landscape. We examined test availability and spending for the full spectrum of genetic tests, using unique data sources on test availability and commercial payer spending for privately insured populations, focusing particularly on tests measuring multiple genes in the period 2014-17. We found that there were approximately 75,000 genetic tests on the market, with about ten new tests entering the market daily. Prenatal tests accounted for the highest percentage of spending on genetic tests, and spending on hereditary cancer tests accounted for the second-highest. Our results provide insights for those interested in assessing genetic testing markets, test usage, and health policy implications, including current debates over the most appropriate regulatory and payer coverage mechanisms.

Purpose Increasing use of genetic services (counseling/testing) among young breast cancer survivors (YBCS) can help decrease breast cancer incidence and mortality. The study examined use of genetic services between Black and White/Other YBCS, attitudes and knowledge of breast cancer risk factors, and reasons for disparities in using genetic services. Methods We used baseline data from a randomized control trial including a population-based, stratified random sample of 3000 potentially eligible YBCS, with oversampling of Black YBCS. Results Among 883 YBCS (353 Black, 530 White/Other) were significant disparities between the two racial groups. More White/Other YBCS had received genetic counseling and had genetic testing than Blacks. Although White/Other YBCS resided farther away from board-certified genetic counseling centers, they had fewer barriers to access these services. Black race, high out-of-pocket costs, older age, and more years since diagnosis were negatively associated with use of genetic services. Black YBCS had lower knowledge of breast cancer risk factors. Higher education and genetic counseling were associated with higher genetic knowledge. Conclusion Racial inequalities of cost-related access to care and education create disparities in genetic services utilization. System-based interventions that reduce socioeconomic disparities and empower YBCS with genetic knowledge, as well as physician referrals, can increase access to genetic services.

Historically, medical geneticists and genetic counselors have provided the majority of genetic services. Advances in technology, reduction in testing costs, and increased public awareness have led to a growing demand for genetic services in both clinical and direct-to-consumer spaces. Recent and anticipated changes in the workforce of genetic counselors and medical geneticists require a reexamination of the way we educate health-care providers and the means by which we provide access to genetic services. The time is ripe for rapid growth of genetic and genomic services, but to capitalize on these opportunities, we need to consider a variety of educational mechanisms to reach providers both within and beyond the traditional genetic counseling and medical genetics sectors, including nurses, physician assistants, and nongenetics physicians. This article summarizes the educational efforts underway in each of these professions.

Purpose This study of current conditions in medical genetics practice is designed to inform public policy development and present possible solutions for improving access to genetic services. Methods Using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Member Directory, membership directories from regional collaborative partners, listservs from national partners, and social media, a 16-question survey was electronically distributed in 2015. Results The responses of 924 genetics professionals and related providers present a snapshot of current practice and an assessment of workforce needs. More than 92% of the respondents (837/910) are involved in clinical care. Among geneticists, 60% spend more than 51% of their time in clinical care. Geneticists reported an average of 10.2 new patients per week and 7.8 follow-up visits per week. More than 62% of geneticists said that their practices were nearly full; 9.4% said that they were not taking new patients. The survey identified more than 100 geneticists and 200 genetic counselor job vacancies. Fewer than 18% of respondents reported use of telemedicine. Conclusion When compared with previously published workforce studies, these data show that wait times and average new patient caseloads have increased, while the number of geneticists has not.

Background Research on social determinants of genetic testing uptake is limited, particularly among unaffected patients with inherited cancer susceptibility. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of the Broadening the Reach, Impact, and Delivery of Genetic Services (BRIDGE) trial at University of Utah Health and NYU Langone Health, involving 2,760 unaffected patients meeting genetic testing criteria for inherited cancer susceptibility and who were initially randomized to either an automated chatbot or an enhanced standard of care (SOC) genetic services delivery model. We used encounters from the electronic health record (EHR) to measure the uptake of genetic counseling and testing, including dichotomous measures of (1) whether participants initiated pre-test cancer genetic services, (2) completed pre-test cancer genetic services, (3) had genetic testing ordered, and (4) completed genetic testing. We merged zip codes from the EHR to construct census tract-weighted social measures of the Social Vulnerability Index. Multilevel models estimated associations between social vulnerability and genetic services utilization. We tested whether intervention condition (i.e., chatbot vs. SOC) moderated the association of social vulnerability with genetic service utilization. Covariates included study arm, study site, age, sex, race/ethnicity, language preference, rural residence, having a recorded primary care provider, and number of algorithm criteria met. Results Patients living in areas of medium socioeconomic status (SES) vulnerability had lower odds of initiating pre-test genetic services (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.98) compared to patients living in low SES vulnerability areas. Patients in medium household vulnerability areas had a lower likelihood of completing pre-test genetic services (aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66–0.97) and having genetic testing ordered (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63–0.99) relative to patients in low household vulnerability areas. We did not find that social vulnerability associations varied by intervention condition. Conclusions These results underscore the importance of investigating social and structural mechanisms as potential pathways to increasing genetic testing uptake among patients with increased inherited risk of cancer. Census information is publicly available but seldom used to assess social determinants of genetic testing uptake among unaffected populations. Existing and future cohort studies can incorporate census data to derive analytic insights for clinical scientists. Trial registration BRIDGE was registered as NCT03985852 on June 6, 2019 at clinicaltrials.gov.

ABSTRACT In recent years, third-party genetic interpretation services have emerged to help individuals understand their raw genetic data obtained from researchers, clinicians, and direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. The objectives of these services vary but include matching users to genetic relatives, selling customized diet and fitness plans, and providing health risk assessments. As these services proliferate, concerns are being raised about their accuracy, safety, and privacy practices. Thus far, US regulatory agencies have not taken an official position with respect to third-party genetic interpretation services, which has caused uncertainty regarding whether and how they might be regulated. To clarify this area, we analyzed their potential oversight by four US agencies that generally have been active in the regulation of genetic testing services and information: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights, and the Federal Trade Commission. We conclude that the scope of federal jurisdiction over third-party genetic interpretation services—while limited—could be appropriate at this time, subject to agency clarification and appropriate exercise of oversight.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada’s largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

Purpose: We aimed to systematically review the literature to identify primary-care providers’ perceived barriers against provision of genetics services. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and ERIC using key and Boolean term combinations for articles published from 2001 to 2012 that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Specific barriers were identified and aggregated into categories based on topic similarity. These categories were then grouped into themes. Results: Of the 4,174 citations identified by the search, 38 publications met inclusion criteria. There were 311 unique barriers that were classified into 38 categories across 4 themes: knowledge and skills; ethical, legal, and social implications; health-care systems; and scientific evidence. Barriers most frequently mentioned by primary-care providers included a lack of knowledge about genetics and genetic risk assessment, concern for patient anxiety, a lack of access to genetics, and a lack of time. Conclusion: Although studies reported that primary-care providers perceive genetics as being important, barriers to the integration of genetics medicine into routine patient care were identified. The promotion of practical guidelines, point-of-care risk assessment tools, tailored educational tools, and other systems-level strategies will assist primary-care providers in providing genetics services for their patients. Genet Med 17 3, 169–176.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing is currently used in only a small fraction of patients, yet large scale genomic initiatives are becoming more embedded in clinical services. This paper examines the ethical principles that should guide regulatory processes regarding consent and data sharing in this context. We argue that a genomic dataset administered by the health system carries substantial societal benefits, and that the collective nature of this initiative means that at least those patients who benefit from genome sequencing have an ethical obligation to share their health information. This obligation is grounded in considerations of fairness. Furthermore, we argue that the use of genomic data for the advancement of medical knowledge should be permitted without explicit consent and that international and other bodies should be granted access to these data, provided certain conditions are satisfied.