%0 Journal Article
%T Scenario analysis and multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative reimbursement pathways for whole genome sequencing for blood cancer patients.
%A Vu M
%A Degeling K
%A Westerman D
%A IJzerman MJ
%J J Cancer Policy
%V 41
%N 0
%D 2024 Sep 12
%M 39142605
暂无%R 10.1016/j.jcpo.2024.100501
%X <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Whole genome sequencing (WGS) has transformative potential for blood cancer management, but reimbursement is hindered by uncertain benefits relative to added costs. This study employed scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate stakeholders' preferences for alternative reimbursement pathways, informing future health technology assessment (HTA) submission of WGS in blood cancer.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Key factors influencing WGS reimbursement in blood cancers were identified through a literature search. Hypothetical scenarios describing various evidential characteristics of WGS for HTA were developed using the morphological approach. An online survey, incorporating MCDA weights, was designed to gather stakeholder preferences (consumers/patients, clinicians/health professionals, industry representatives, health economists, and HTA committee members) for these scenarios. The survey assessed participants' approval of WGS reimbursement for each scenario, and scenario preferences were determined using the geometric mean method, applying an algorithm to improve reliability and precision by addressing inconsistent responses.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Nineteen participants provided complete survey responses, primarily clinicians or health professionals (n = 6; 32 %), consumers/patients and industry representatives (both at n = 5; 26 %). "Clinical impact of WGS results on patient care" was the most critical criterion (criteria weight of 0.25), followed by "diagnostic accuracy of WGS" (0.21), "cost-effectiveness of WGS" (0.19), "availability of reimbursed treatment after WGS" (0.16), and "eligibility criteria for reimbursed treatment based on actionable WGS results" and "cost comparison of WGS" (both at 0.09). Participants preferred a scenario with substantial clinical evidence, high access to reimbursed targeted treatment, cost-effectiveness below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, and affordability relative to standard molecular tests. Reimbursement was initially opposed until criteria such as equal cost to standard tests and better treatment accessibility were met.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Payers commonly emphasize acceptable cost-effectiveness, but strong clinical evidence for many variants and comparable costs to standard tests are likely to drive positive reimbursement decisions for WGS.