Dylan A Mordaunt, Zornitza Stark, Adam G Elshaug, Chris Schilling
{"title":"基因组测试在澳大利亚:从医疗保健系统的角度使用扩散模型的预算影响分析。","authors":"Dylan A Mordaunt, Zornitza Stark, Adam G Elshaug, Chris Schilling","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.3067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genomic testing can shorten the diagnostic odyssey for people with rare diseases, yet clinical uptake has lagged funding policy in Australia. We evaluated the 10-year budget impact of alternative implementation strategies for publicly funded genomic testing using national claims data and diffusion modelling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Monthly Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims (1993-2025) were analyzed for chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), Fragile X (FMR1) testing, and genomic tests across seven rare-disease groups (syndromic and non-syndromic intellectual disability, neuromuscular, inherited cardiac, renal ciliopathies/tubulopathies, congenital hearing loss, mitochondrial). Logistic, Gompertz, and Bass diffusion functions and SARIMA were fitted to uptake and used to forecast 2025-2034 volumes. Scenarios included: status quo; broadened second-line eligibility; and first-line ES/GS replacing CMA/FMR1 (60:40 ES:GS). Costs used 1 July 2024 MBS schedule fees; results are in AUD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Observed genomic testing volumes were below diffusion-implied trajectories. Ten-year cumulative spending was: status quo AUD 1.1m; broadened second-line AUD 7.5m (incremental +6.4m vs status quo); and first-line ES/GS AUD 6.2m (incremental +5.1m). In 2028, status quo AUD 0.23m, second-line AUD 1.21m, first-line AUD 0.97m. ES/GS achieved lower cumulative spend than broadened second-line despite higher per-test fees, reflecting substitution from CMA/FMR1 and efficient diagnostic pathways.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Indication-by-indication funding has yielded slower-than-expected uptake and likely under-budgeting. A first-line genomic testing pathway, aligned with CMA criteria, could better match clinical need while constraining spend vs expanding second-line eligibility. Harmonized eligibility and streamlined implementation would improve access and planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genomic Testing in Australia: A Budget Impact Analysis Using Diffusion Modelling from a Healthcare System Perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Dylan A Mordaunt, Zornitza Stark, Adam G Elshaug, Chris Schilling\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.3067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genomic testing can shorten the diagnostic odyssey for people with rare diseases, yet clinical uptake has lagged funding policy in Australia. We evaluated the 10-year budget impact of alternative implementation strategies for publicly funded genomic testing using national claims data and diffusion modelling.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Monthly Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims (1993-2025) were analyzed for chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), Fragile X (FMR1) testing, and genomic tests across seven rare-disease groups (syndromic and non-syndromic intellectual disability, neuromuscular, inherited cardiac, renal ciliopathies/tubulopathies, congenital hearing loss, mitochondrial). Logistic, Gompertz, and Bass diffusion functions and SARIMA were fitted to uptake and used to forecast 2025-2034 volumes. Scenarios included: status quo; broadened second-line eligibility; and first-line ES/GS replacing CMA/FMR1 (60:40 ES:GS). Costs used 1 July 2024 MBS schedule fees; results are in AUD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Observed genomic testing volumes were below diffusion-implied trajectories. Ten-year cumulative spending was: status quo AUD 1.1m; broadened second-line AUD 7.5m (incremental +6.4m vs status quo); and first-line ES/GS AUD 6.2m (incremental +5.1m). In 2028, status quo AUD 0.23m, second-line AUD 1.21m, first-line AUD 0.97m. ES/GS achieved lower cumulative spend than broadened second-line despite higher per-test fees, reflecting substitution from CMA/FMR1 and efficient diagnostic pathways.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Indication-by-indication funding has yielded slower-than-expected uptake and likely under-budgeting. A first-line genomic testing pathway, aligned with CMA criteria, could better match clinical need while constraining spend vs expanding second-line eligibility. Harmonized eligibility and streamlined implementation would improve access and planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.3067\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.09.3067","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Genomic Testing in Australia: A Budget Impact Analysis Using Diffusion Modelling from a Healthcare System Perspective.
Background: Genomic testing can shorten the diagnostic odyssey for people with rare diseases, yet clinical uptake has lagged funding policy in Australia. We evaluated the 10-year budget impact of alternative implementation strategies for publicly funded genomic testing using national claims data and diffusion modelling.
Methods: Monthly Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claims (1993-2025) were analyzed for chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), Fragile X (FMR1) testing, and genomic tests across seven rare-disease groups (syndromic and non-syndromic intellectual disability, neuromuscular, inherited cardiac, renal ciliopathies/tubulopathies, congenital hearing loss, mitochondrial). Logistic, Gompertz, and Bass diffusion functions and SARIMA were fitted to uptake and used to forecast 2025-2034 volumes. Scenarios included: status quo; broadened second-line eligibility; and first-line ES/GS replacing CMA/FMR1 (60:40 ES:GS). Costs used 1 July 2024 MBS schedule fees; results are in AUD.
Results: Observed genomic testing volumes were below diffusion-implied trajectories. Ten-year cumulative spending was: status quo AUD 1.1m; broadened second-line AUD 7.5m (incremental +6.4m vs status quo); and first-line ES/GS AUD 6.2m (incremental +5.1m). In 2028, status quo AUD 0.23m, second-line AUD 1.21m, first-line AUD 0.97m. ES/GS achieved lower cumulative spend than broadened second-line despite higher per-test fees, reflecting substitution from CMA/FMR1 and efficient diagnostic pathways.
Conclusions: Indication-by-indication funding has yielded slower-than-expected uptake and likely under-budgeting. A first-line genomic testing pathway, aligned with CMA criteria, could better match clinical need while constraining spend vs expanding second-line eligibility. Harmonized eligibility and streamlined implementation would improve access and planning.
期刊介绍:
Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.