Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Medical Coverage Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates and industry tell Senate S154 would expand biomarker testing access; cost and targeting debated
Summary
Advocates, industry and a patient testified in favor of S154, saying guideline‑directed biomarker testing improves treatment selection and may reduce downstream costs; witnesses provided cost examples and urged the committee to consider targeted eligibility and to obtain additional cost and utilization data.
Supporters of S154 told the Senate Health & Welfare Committee that expanding access to guideline‑based biomarker testing can improve treatment selection, spare patients invasive procedures and may lower system costs when used appropriately.
A speaker identified as Mike (testifying on behalf of an advocacy group in written testimony) said biomarker tests help match patients to targeted therapies, improve outcomes, and—when guided by evidence—can reduce total cost of care. He cited a study presented to the committee comparing broad‑panel testing to narrow testing for certain non‑small cell lung cancer patients that reported a carrier cost of about $1,200 for the test and an estimated $8,500 in per‑member monthly savings in total cost of care for the subgroup studied; he emphasized that testing is not appropriate for all cancer patients and that S154 ties testing to medical evidence.
Ran, a representative of device and diagnostic manufacturers, described a personal experience with early biomarker testing that cost about $2,500 in 2009 and said test prices have fallen substantially; a patient advocate in the room described how testing reduced invasive procedures and allowed for less frequent monitoring. Witnesses said typical retail test costs now vary widely depending on test complexity and that per‑member per‑month program estimates cited ranged from roughly $0.08 to $0.51 depending on implementation.
Committee members requested written cost analyses and asked staff to share cost and implementation materials with the finance committee and the Green Mountain Care Board. Advocates and industry agreed to submit detailed documentation and the committee planned to revisit S154 when additional materials are available.
No vote was taken on S154; the committee deferred further action pending receipt of testimony and cost data.
