Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Mar;16(3):251-7.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.122. Epub 2013 Oct 17.

The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know

Kathryn A Phillips  1 , Julie Ann Sakowski  2 , Julia Trosman  3 , Michael P Douglas  4 , Su-Ying Liang  5 , Peter Neumann  6
Affiliations

The economic value of personalized medicine tests: what we know and what we need to know

Kathryn A Phillips et al. Genet Med. 2014 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: There is uncertainty about when personalized medicine tests provide economic value. We assessed evidence on the economic value of personalized medicine tests and gaps in the evidence base.

Methods: We created a unique evidence base by linking data on published cost-utility analyses from the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry with data measuring test characteristics and reflecting where value analyses may be most needed: (i) tests currently available or in advanced development, (ii) tests for drugs with Food and Drug Administration labels with genetic information, (iii) tests with demonstrated or likely clinical utility, (iv) tests for conditions with high mortality, and (v) tests for conditions with high expenditures.

Results: We identified 59 cost-utility analyses studies that examined personalized medicine tests (1998-2011). A majority (72%) of the cost/quality-adjusted life year ratios indicate that testing provides better health although at higher cost, with almost half of the ratios falling below $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. One-fifth of the results indicate that tests may save money.

Conclusion: Many personalized medicine tests have been found to be relatively cost-effective, although fewer have been found to be cost saving, and many available or emerging medicine tests have not been evaluated. More evidence on value will be needed to inform decision making and assessment of genomic priorities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of data sources
AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CEAR, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; GAPP, Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention; NVS, National Vital Statistics.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of ratios of cost per QALY gained for personalized medicine tests. QALY, quality-adjusted life year.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentage of tests with published cost–utility analyses
FDA, Food and Drug Administration.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Armstrong K. Can genomics bend the cost curve? JAMA. 2012;307:1031–1032. - PubMed
    1. [Accessed 10 December, 2012];Clinically Relevant Genetic Variants Resource: A Unified Approach for Identifying Genetic Variants for Clinical Use (U01) http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfafiles/rfa-hg-12-016.html.
    1. Cohen JT, Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC. Does preventive care save money? Health economics and the presidential candidates. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:661– 663. - PubMed
    1. Phillips KA. Closing the evidence gap in the use of emerging testing technologies in clinical practice. JAMA. 2008;300:2542–2544. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phillips KA, Liang SY, Van Bebber S Canpers Research Group. Challenges to the translation of genomic information into clinical practice and health policy: Utilization, preferences and economic value. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2008;10:260– 266. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types