Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2501688013> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2501688013 endingPage "706" @default.
- W2501688013 startingPage "697" @default.
- W2501688013 abstract "Next-generation sequencing has evolved technically and economically into the method of choice for interrogating the genome in cancer and inherited disorders. The introduction of procedural code sets for whole-exome and genome sequencing is a milestone toward financially sustainable clinical implementation; however, achieving reimbursement is currently a major challenge. As part of a prospective quality-improvement initiative to implement the new code sets, we adopted Agile, a development methodology originally devised in software development. We implemented eight functionally distinct modules (request review, cost estimation, preauthorization, accessioning, prebilling, testing, reporting, and reimbursement consultation) and obtained feedback via an anonymous survey. We managed 50 clinical requests (January to June 2015). The fraction of pursued-to-requested cases (n = 15/50; utilization management fraction, 0.3) aimed for a high rate of preauthorizations. In 13 of 15 patients the insurance plan required preauthorization, which we obtained in 70% and ultimately achieved reimbursement in 50%. Interoperability enabled assessment of 12 different combinations of modules that underline the importance of an adaptive workflow and policy tailoring to achieve higher yields of reimbursement. The survey confirmed a positive attitude toward self-organizing teams. We acknowledge the individuals and their interactions and termed the infrastructure: human pipeline. Nontechnical barriers currently are limiting the scope and availability of clinical genomic sequencing. The presented human pipeline is one approach toward long-term financial sustainability of clinical genomics. Next-generation sequencing has evolved technically and economically into the method of choice for interrogating the genome in cancer and inherited disorders. The introduction of procedural code sets for whole-exome and genome sequencing is a milestone toward financially sustainable clinical implementation; however, achieving reimbursement is currently a major challenge. As part of a prospective quality-improvement initiative to implement the new code sets, we adopted Agile, a development methodology originally devised in software development. We implemented eight functionally distinct modules (request review, cost estimation, preauthorization, accessioning, prebilling, testing, reporting, and reimbursement consultation) and obtained feedback via an anonymous survey. We managed 50 clinical requests (January to June 2015). The fraction of pursued-to-requested cases (n = 15/50; utilization management fraction, 0.3) aimed for a high rate of preauthorizations. In 13 of 15 patients the insurance plan required preauthorization, which we obtained in 70% and ultimately achieved reimbursement in 50%. Interoperability enabled assessment of 12 different combinations of modules that underline the importance of an adaptive workflow and policy tailoring to achieve higher yields of reimbursement. The survey confirmed a positive attitude toward self-organizing teams. We acknowledge the individuals and their interactions and termed the infrastructure: human pipeline. Nontechnical barriers currently are limiting the scope and availability of clinical genomic sequencing. The presented human pipeline is one approach toward long-term financial sustainability of clinical genomics. Next-generation sequencing technologies are more powerful than traditional sequencing methods because they can provide an unbiased view of the whole genome.1Rehm H.L. Berg J.S. Brooks L.D. Bustamante C.D. Evans J.P. Landrum M.J. Ledbetter D.H. Maglott D.R. Martin C.L. Nussbaum R.L. Plon S.E. Ramos E.M. Sherry S.T. Watson M.S. ClinGenClinGen–the clinical genome resource.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2235-2242Crossref PubMed Scopus (694) Google Scholar, 2Biesecker L.G. Green R.C. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 2418-2425Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar Numerous studies have emphasized diagnostic advantages and there is an implicit understanding that exome and genome data will revolutionize clinical medicine.1Rehm H.L. Berg J.S. Brooks L.D. Bustamante C.D. Evans J.P. Landrum M.J. Ledbetter D.H. Maglott D.R. Martin C.L. Nussbaum R.L. Plon S.E. Ramos E.M. Sherry S.T. Watson M.S. ClinGenClinGen–the clinical genome resource.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2235-2242Crossref PubMed Scopus (694) Google Scholar, 2Biesecker L.G. Green R.C. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 2418-2425Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar, 3Lee H. Deignan J.L. Dorrani N. Strom S.P. Kantarci S. Quintero-Rivera F. Das K. Toy T. Harry B. Yourshaw M. Fox M. Fogel B.L. Martinez-Agosto J.A. Wong D.A. Chang V.Y. Shieh P.B. Palmer C.G. Dipple K.M. Grody W.W. Vilain E. Nelson S.F. Clinical exome sequencing for genetic identification of rare Mendelian disorders.JAMA. 2014; 312: 1880-1887Crossref PubMed Scopus (682) Google Scholar, 4Green R.C. Berg J.S. Grody W.W. Kalia S.S. Korf B.R. Martin C.L. McGuire A.L. Nussbaum R.L. O'Daniel J.M. Ormond K.E. Rehm H.L. Watson M.S. Williams M.S. Biesecker L.G. American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.Genet Med. 2013; 15: 565-574Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1833) Google Scholar, 5Aronson S.J. Clark E.H. Varugheese M. Baxter S. Babb L.J. Rehm H.L. Communicating new knowledge on previously reported genetic variants.Genet Med. 2012; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.19Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar The American Medical Association recently introduced a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set for exome and genome sequencing. The introduction of these codes acknowledges the clinical utility of these tests and generated the potential for insurance reimbursement. Moreover, applied within an appropriate infrastructure, these CPT codes should expand patient access to genomic sequencing. As US payment models rapidly evolve to incentivize value-based health care,6Blumenthal D. Abrams M. Nuzum R. The Affordable Care Act at 5 years.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2451-2458Crossref PubMed Scopus (170) Google Scholar, 7Blumenthal D. Collins S.R. Health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act–a progress report.N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 275-281Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar health systems need to emphasize optimal utilization of resources to remain financially viable.8Abul-Husn N.S. Owusu Obeng A. Sanderson S.C. Gottesman O. Scott S.A. Implementation and utilization of genetic testing in personalized medicine.Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2014; 7: 227-240PubMed Google Scholar, 9Goldstein D.A. Shaib W.L. Flowers C.R. Costs and effectiveness of genomic testing in the management of colorectal cancer.Oncology (Williston Park). 2015; 29: 175-183PubMed Google Scholar Historic barriers to clinical application of genomics included sequencing cost and technical constraints. Rapidly improving sequencing technologies and analytic pipelines continue to overcome technical hurdles2Biesecker L.G. Green R.C. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 2418-2425Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar and significantly decrease costs (National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts, last accessed March 6, 2016). However, a key barrier to more wide-scale application remains: the lack of an operational infrastructure for logistics and revenue management in the clinical context.10Deverka P.A. Dreyfus J.C. Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges.J Law Med Ethics. 2014; 42: 22-41Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar Current models lack efficient processes for utilization management, regulatory compliance, clinical quality assurance, and results reporting. In addition, current attempts to use genomic sequencing have failed to achieve long-term financial sustainability10Deverka P.A. Dreyfus J.C. Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges.J Law Med Ethics. 2014; 42: 22-41Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar in that they do not include sufficient systems for adequate billing and reimbursement. In particular, clinical genomics requires navigating many nontechnical challenges beyond those required for research applications. Because of the insufficient availability of routine clinical genomic testing, clinicians often have substituted genomic testing performed in a research setting.4Green R.C. Berg J.S. Grody W.W. Kalia S.S. Korf B.R. Martin C.L. McGuire A.L. Nussbaum R.L. O'Daniel J.M. Ormond K.E. Rehm H.L. Watson M.S. Williams M.S. Biesecker L.G. American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.Genet Med. 2013; 15: 565-574Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1833) Google Scholar, 11Bennette C.S. Trinidad S.B. Fullerton S.M. Patrick D. Amendola L. Burke W. Hisama F.M. Jarvik G.P. Regier D.A. Veenstra D.L. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value–development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT).Genet Med. 2013; 15: 873-881Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar However, use of research test results performed outside a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory (CLIA1988)12Chen B. Gagnon M. Shahangian S. Anderson N.L. Howerton D.A. Boone J.D. Centers for Disease Control and PreventionGood laboratory practices for molecular genetic testing for heritable diseases and conditions.MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009; 58 (quiz CE-1–4): 1-37PubMed Google Scholar for use in patient diagnosis and clinical management is not only a violation of federal law [U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 6A, Subchapter II, Part F, Subpart 2, ×263a(a-q), Oct 31, 1988], but it also may endanger patients to the extent that nonclinical research testing is held to more variable quality standards (Figure 1). Even those research-focused laboratories that have obtained a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments certification generally have not overcome the more significant barrier related to effective integration of genomic results into clinical diagnosis and continuous patient management.4Green R.C. Berg J.S. Grody W.W. Kalia S.S. Korf B.R. Martin C.L. McGuire A.L. Nussbaum R.L. O'Daniel J.M. Ormond K.E. Rehm H.L. Watson M.S. Williams M.S. Biesecker L.G. American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.Genet Med. 2013; 15: 565-574Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1833) Google Scholar, 11Bennette C.S. Trinidad S.B. Fullerton S.M. Patrick D. Amendola L. Burke W. Hisama F.M. Jarvik G.P. Regier D.A. Veenstra D.L. Return of incidental findings in genomic medicine: measuring what patients value–development of an instrument to measure preferences for information from next-generation testing (IMPRINT).Genet Med. 2013; 15: 873-881Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (67) Google Scholar To overcome the nontechnical barriers currently limiting the scope and availability of clinical genomic sequencing,10Deverka P.A. Dreyfus J.C. Clinical integration of next generation sequencing: coverage and reimbursement challenges.J Law Med Ethics. 2014; 42: 22-41Crossref PubMed Scopus (45) Google Scholar we sought to define and implement systems and processes that could enable logistically scalable and financially sustainable clinical genomics. To facilitate the alignment of the numerous individuals and teams encompassing diverse skill sets and performing highly varied functions, we used an iterative development approach (Agile). Although Agile is derived from software development, it is not a software tool or a computer program. Agile is a set of development methodologies that have evolved into a standard used in many industries, with the notable exception of health care. By describing the systems and processes for a clinically valid workflow, and by reporting their performance in a prospective pilot, we exemplify one approach for financially sustainable clinical genomics. The project sites were Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Partners Laboratory for Molecular Medicine. The project, ongoing as a prospective quality-improvement initiative, does not require formal review or approval by the respective institutional review board for research activities per their policies (institutional checklist, Partners Human Research Committee, version May, 25th, 2012). After definition of project constraints (Supplemental Figure S1A), we established our management strategy13Brown J.T. The Handbook of Program Management: How to Facilitate Project Success with Optimal Program Management.ed 2. McGraw-Hill, New York2014Google Scholar (Supplemental Table S1) and chose and adopted Agile as our development methodology (Supplemental Figure S1B and Supplemental Tables S2 and S3). Agile is a development methodology that relies on a distinct combination of recursive and iterative delivery components. First, when the complexity requires recursion (a method in which the solution to a problem depends on solutions to smaller instances of the same problem), Agile is recursive and breaks down large projects into smaller components. Second, Agile is iterative and uses incremental delivery (eg, of the aforementioned smaller components) to add value immediately and allows for early discovery and correction of mistakes. Thereby, Agile is incorporating feedback-based improvements while delivering (additional) value earlier than with traditional delivery methodologies. An integral part of this development methodology is a specific terminology (Table 1) and two of the authors (J.K.L. and N.B.-L.) have formal Agile training (certified scrum master) and several authors have multiple years of experience working in Agile teams. The initial backlog (Table 1) was generated via one-on-one interviews with subject-matter experts including clinical geneticists, industry leaders, next-generation sequencing experts, big data analytic and genomics experts, payor-policy managers, preauthorization teams, and medical directors.Table 1Agile GlossaryTermExplanationAgileSimilar to Six Sigma or Lean, Agile is a development methodology originally devised in the software industry. Agile is a group of development methodologies in which requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing teams. Agile emphasizes adaptive planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, and continuous improvement, and encourages rapid and flexible response to change.StoryA statement that summarizes the work that must be performed to deliver a specific function. Stories are the basis for communication, planning, and describing requirements. Typically stories capture the who, what, and why in a simple and concise way. Example: instead of receiving unlabeled samples, as an extraction technician, I want appropriately labeled samples for extraction, shearing, and storage.TaskDescription of the actual work needed to complete a story; typically several tasks per story. Each team member owns at least one task (including test, inspection, and/or verification of the task).BacklogA collection of stories and tasks the team will work on at some point in the future (the to-do list).∗An excerpt of our current backlog is provided in Supplemental Table S4.Epic (module)†The term module is not part of the original Agile terminology; however, as stated above, we applied the term module to emphasize the interchangeability of the eight functionally distinct workflow components (Figure 2).Very large story or sets of stories that can be broken down into smaller stories; typically applied for components in which full elaboration has been deferred until actually needed. We applied the term module instead of epic to emphasize interchangeability in the workflow.ScrumOne of the most widely recognized Agile development frameworks. Scrum consists of a series of short iterations (sprints), each of which ends with the delivery of a valuable increment and review of the iteration (sprint review).SprintDefined here as ultra-short, one-on-one meetings that determine workflow and tasks for each self-organizing team to deliver the next most valuable component (iterative delivery process).∗ An excerpt of our current backlog is provided in Supplemental Table S4.† The term module is not part of the original Agile terminology; however, as stated above, we applied the term module to emphasize the interchangeability of the eight functionally distinct workflow components (Figure 2). Open table in a new tab To develop a series of semiautonomous, yet highly interoperable, modules (defined as workflow components organized in functional units that can be combined in different orders according to the specific needs per case), we applied Agile because it emphasizes self-organizing groups that optimize their respective processes according to functional specifications defined in stories (Table 1). Stories are short phrases and simplified descriptions that capture requirements in a succinct way14Adzic G. Evans D. Fifty Quick Ideas to Improve Your User Stories.ed 1. Neuri Coinsulting LLP, London2014Google Scholar and we followed a certain format: “instead of what not, as who I want what so that why.” An initial story following this format was as follows: “instead of not knowing how much a patient has to pay, as a physician, I want to know how much the test cost is so that I can tell the patient.” Throughout the project, stories develop and the wording is refined (eg, “Although it is not my responsibility to know details of the insurance plan of every patient, as the ordering physician, I want to provide the patient with a reliable maximum out-of-pocket estimate so that we will not be surprised about an unexpected bill”). These stories are high-level definitions of the required individual tasks and can be grouped together into functional modules. The modular approach allowed us to reduce a complex pipeline into subcomponents of manageable complexity. We considered tasks, stories, and modules as implemented when we received evidence of appropriate function from external sources (eg, payors or subsequent teams). We provided the implementation order and details about the timeline of delivering individual modules (Supplemental Figure S2). We prospectively developed several key measures to assess performance of the workflow. One measure represented the proportion of cases initially submitted into the pipeline that were found to be inappropriate in prescreening, defining the utilization management fraction as the fraction of pursued-to-requested cases. We monitored cases passing institutional review by documenting the time necessary to complete each step, and by assessing the rates of successfully obtained insurance preauthorization and payment. We documented professional degrees and years of experience for each team member. When multiple individuals performed one function we noted the lowest educational and experience level. Recognizing variability between institutions, we provide these workforce measures (eg, cumulative years of experience per module) to allow some comparison of module complexity. For review of team satisfaction we used an anonymous survey,15Fanning E. Formatting a paper-based survey questionnaire: best practices.Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005; 10: 1-14Google Scholar and for analysis of dichotomous answers we considered a preference toward one answer by more than 80% of the respondents as noteworthy. For CPT codes corresponding to molecular testing (included within CPT81161 to 89291 and S3833 to S3870) we reviewed the specific coverage policies for the 12 most common private payors used by our patient population. We derived a seven-tiered classification scheme to describe coverage policies and used this to compare insurance policy content by CPT code across the 12 payors. We tracked policy changes over the course of the project and noted the changes on our classification scheme. Establishing the first operating workflow components and applying the new CPT code sets took 68 workdays (Supplemental Figure S2), and delivering and testing all modules in various combinations took another 85 days (Supplemental Figure S2). The established workflow consists of eight interoperable modules (Figure 2) that we deconstructed via sprints into 34 stories and 129 tasks provided in workflow diagrams (Supplemental Figures S3–S8). We detail the functions of each module along with the results from development testing performed using 50 clinical requests. The function of this team is to ascertain the appropriateness of the test request and reject cases early to limit inefficient use of resources (Figure 2). Each request was screened by a series of questions (Supplemental Figure S3) and we rejected 35 of 50 clinical requests (utilization management fraction, 0.3) (Figure 3A). Our stringent review with 70% rejections goes beyond gatekeeping and recognizes that even experts rarely know all available test alternatives, or have the time to take payor rules into account. Thus, in all 35 rejected cases we offered a patient-tailored molecular-genetic consultation for appropriate work-up to the ordering physician (not shown) and listed consolidated rejection reasons (Figure 3A). The team, including the requesting physician, consists of three individuals and has a collective postgraduate experience of 7 years (Supplemental Figure S3). To account for the enormous financial burden imposed by unanticipated patient bills and the expressed need for cost transparency (based on Massachusetts Law for Health Care Cost Reduction. 2012, chapter 224, An Act Improving the Quality of Health Care and Reducing Costs through Increased Transparency, Efficiency and Innovation. 2012 Mass. Acts Chapter 224, Sec. 228, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2012/Chapter224, last accessed March 6, 2016), we installed a cost-estimation service (Figure 2) that integrates patient- and hospital-specific contracts into an out-of-pocket estimate (Supplemental Figure S3). Answering the question about test cost is not trivial and the patient's payment responsibility is contingent on hospital-payor contracts, payor rules, and specific insurance plans (to include deductibles, copays, and/or co-insurances, if applicable). It is inefficient to have the physicians bear responsibility to provide out-of-pocket estimates. The established counseling service entails one financial counselor (with 1 year of experience) who operates a cost estimator tool that integrates patient- and hospital-specific contracts and test-specific cost information (Supplemental Figure S3). Briefly, the tool is self-built (ie, currently not commercially available) and takes into account the patient's insurance plan and the experience from a CPT-code–based search in the revenue cycle management software to derive a hospital-based, out-of-pocket estimate. The value of the upfront estimation service is twofold: it clarifies that the role of the physician is to provide the risks and benefits of pursuing or not pursuing testing, and it empowers patients to make financially informed decisions. The preauthorization team translates the screened and seemingly appropriate requests for clinical reimbursement into payor terms (Figure 2). To obtain preauthorization the clinical need has to be communicated to payors via complying with restrictions specified in payor policies (if applicable). The medium of translation is either a form or a Letter of Medical Necessity. Of the 13 patients who had an insurance plan that called for preauthorization, we obtained preapproval in 70% (N = 7/10) (Figure 3A). In our patient cohort, the time to draft a Letter of Medical Necessity took approximately 22 days (range, 1 to 37 days) and the payor decision added another approximately 10 days (range, 9 to 25 days) (Figure 3A). Even without the implemented appeal or exception process (for denied preauthorization requests) (Figure 3B), the addition of a month is unacceptable. When asking payors how to expedite the preauthorization process, their consistent response was to tell us to adhere strictly to their policies. These policies are carefully crafted CPT-matched documents that specify contractual rules and align the interests of patients, providers, and payors. The preauthorization team translates these policy rules into clinical practice, which required excellent communication skills, and a team of two individuals with 4 years of postgraduate experience (Supplemental Figure S4). For example, to many clinicians, the term Letter of Medical Necessity means a lengthy clinical note. To better capture the scope and core functionality of the letter, we prefer the term claim evidence reasoning and, in practical terms, we ask: “how does our clinical evidence (or lack thereof), support (in payor terms) our claim for exome testing?” In conjunction, modules 1 to 3 embody pretest cost containment in our health care system. Accessioning splits physical samples (that go to the laboratory) from clinical information that once entered into the laboratory information system triggers billing before the test is completed. To accommodate evolving genomic knowledge, we incorporated the ability to re-analyze existing sequencing data (Supplemental Figure S5). Including the systems engineers for the laboratory information systems, the team of two individuals has >4 years of postgraduate experience and work in direct alignment with the sequencing team (module 6). The billing team (1 individual with 5 years of postgraduate experience) interfaces with the hospital finance division to submit claims to the health insurance provider. Specifically, prebilling (Figure 2) is necessary because the technical turnaround time of clinical exome and genome sequencing (in our series, approximately 114 days to final report) (Figure 3A) exceeds the payors' limit for timely filing of a claim (typically 90 days). The next-generation sequencing team handles all technical and analytic elements in the laboratory including bioinformatic work-up and report generation. Although technical specifications of sequencing, variant annotation, and interpretation (Figure 2) have been reported,1Rehm H.L. Berg J.S. Brooks L.D. Bustamante C.D. Evans J.P. Landrum M.J. Ledbetter D.H. Maglott D.R. Martin C.L. Nussbaum R.L. Plon S.E. Ramos E.M. Sherry S.T. Watson M.S. ClinGenClinGen–the clinical genome resource.N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2235-2242Crossref PubMed Scopus (694) Google Scholar, 2Biesecker L.G. Green R.C. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 2418-2425Crossref PubMed Scopus (390) Google Scholar, 4Green R.C. Berg J.S. Grody W.W. Kalia S.S. Korf B.R. Martin C.L. McGuire A.L. Nussbaum R.L. O'Daniel J.M. Ormond K.E. Rehm H.L. Watson M.S. Williams M.S. Biesecker L.G. American College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing.Genet Med. 2013; 15: 565-574Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1833) Google Scholar, 16McLaughlin H.M. Ceyhan-Birsoy O. Christensen K.D. Kohane I.S. Krier J. Lane W.J. Lautenbach D. Lebo M.S. Machini K. MacRae C.A. Azzariti D.R. Murray M.F. Seidman C.E. Vassy J.L. Green R.C. Rehm H.L. MedSeq ProjectA systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing.BMC Med Genet. 2014; 15: 134Crossref PubMed Scopus (71) Google Scholar, 17Gargis A.S. Kalman L. Bick D.P. da Silva C. Dimmock D.P. Funke B.H. et al.Good laboratory practice for clinical next-generation sequencing informatics pipelines.Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33: 689-693Crossref PubMed Scopus (113) Google Scholar here, we specify the tasks and qualifications from nucleic acid extraction to variant annotation (Supplemental Figures S5 and S6). Collectively, our team (11 individuals) has more than 20 years of postgraduate experience. A geneticist (one individual with 6 years of experience) generates and signs the final report (posted to the electronic health record) and consults with the clinical team as needed (Figure 2). The function of the reimbursement consultation team is to help patients understand the composition of their bill, if applicable (one individual with 1 year of experience) (Figure 2 and Supplemental Figure S7). Prebilling implies that the patient may have received a bill at the time of the visit to discuss test results and it is inefficient for the physicians to bear responsibility for the composition of the patient's bill. Moreover, reimbursement monitoring at the interface between departmental and hospital finance divisions is necessary because preauthorization does not imply reimbursement (Supplemental Figure S8). For example, we drew blood from one of our patients at the first visit and exceeded the timely filing limit (Figure 3A). Two other patients switched their insurance before a date-of-service was established (Figure 3A). There are numerous other hospital- and patient-plan–based reasons for denial of reimbursement, which implies a review and appeal process at the time of the reimbursement decision (Figure 3B and Supplemental Figure S8). When subtracting the cases in progress, we received reimbursement in three of six patients (50%; n = 2 partial; n = 1 full) (Figure 3A). When we submitted our first claims in January 2015, we witnessed, as a response by payors to the introduced CPT code sets, the release of pol" @default.
- W2501688013 created "2016-08-23" @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5005532472 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5007967710 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5013557904 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5014144046 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5016470448 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5021122229 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5026607584 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5034090492 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5037734194 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5038545410 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5047355626 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5048774204 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5056275493 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5058082988 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5061787635 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5064767100 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5067299042 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5071356246 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5073763243 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5074269053 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5077175492 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5078810229 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5083672487 @default.
- W2501688013 creator A5085784340 @default.
- W2501688013 date "2016-09-01" @default.
- W2501688013 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
- W2501688013 title "Health Care Infrastructure for Financially Sustainable Clinical Genomics" @default.
- W2501688013 cites W126627091 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W1551770046 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W1644197353 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W1974553037 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W1980452950 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W1985066050 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2012871415 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2015775200 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2023975842 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2049565439 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2053050643 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2092684975 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2107767611 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2119016000 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2121251640 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2130276633 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2136941319 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2145922766 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2160271928 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2162327089 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2171552854 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2280024758 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W768904711 @default.
- W2501688013 cites W2179741931 @default.
- W2501688013 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.04.003" @default.
- W2501688013 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/5397703" @default.
- W2501688013 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27471182" @default.
- W2501688013 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
- W2501688013 type Work @default.
- W2501688013 sameAs 2501688013 @default.
- W2501688013 citedByCount "14" @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132017 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132018 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132019 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132020 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132021 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132022 @default.
- W2501688013 countsByYear W25016880132023 @default.
- W2501688013 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5005532472 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5007967710 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5013557904 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5014144046 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5016470448 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5021122229 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5026607584 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5034090492 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5037734194 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5038545410 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5047355626 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5048774204 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5056275493 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5058082988 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5061787635 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5064767100 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5067299042 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5071356246 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5073763243 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5074269053 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5077175492 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5078810229 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5083672487 @default.
- W2501688013 hasAuthorship W2501688013A5085784340 @default.
- W2501688013 hasBestOaLocation W25016880131 @default.
- W2501688013 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
- W2501688013 hasConcept C141231307 @default.
- W2501688013 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
- W2501688013 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
- W2501688013 hasConcept C162324750 @default.