genetic counselors
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

453
(FIVE YEARS 118)

H-INDEX

34
(FIVE YEARS 3)

Author(s):  
Aaliya Ahmad ◽  
Sara M. Fitzgerald‐Butt ◽  
Stephanie M. Ware ◽  
Hannah E. Ison ◽  
Lindsey R. Elmore ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anne C. Heuerman ◽  
Danielle Bessett ◽  
Armand H. Matheny Antommaria ◽  
Leandra K. Tolusso ◽  
Nicki Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 106-106
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
Su-Ying Liang ◽  
Kathryn A. Phillips ◽  
Michael P. Douglas ◽  
Maren Theresa Scheuner ◽  
...  

106 Background: The accessibility of cancer hereditary syndrome testing has increased, and the cost has declined significantly in the past few years. We conducted a national, quantitative survey of genetic counselors (GCs) to assess their perspectives on what influences hereditary cancer genetic testing decisions and practices, with a focus on cost. This survey was funded by NIH, conducted by UCSF TRANSPERS, and supported by the National Society of Genetic Counselors(NSGC). Methods: The survey was developed through literature review, expert interviews, and a pilot. Sent to the NSGC Cancer Special Interest Group via email. Chi-square tests were used to examine variability. Results: The survey response rate was 56% (202/363). Multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests are discussed often/always by 86% of genetic counselors (GCs).The existence of an institutional protocol on multiple hereditary cancer syndrome testing was reported by 35.4% of GCs. When asked about GC counseling encounters, GCs report insurance rarely/never pays for: 25.2% pre-test in-person,39.7% for pre-test tele-genetics, 35.4% post-test in-person, and 52.9% post-test tele-genetics. GCs rated clinical factors higher than cost as influencing decision for multiple hereditary syndrome cancer testing (table); the total cost of the test was least important. These patterns were similar across the GCs institution types and years in practice. Conclusions: We found consistent use of multiple hereditary cancer syndrome tests, with less focus on cost, out-of-pocket, and insurance coverage and more of a focus on clinical indicators. GCs reported challenges with reimbursement for GC counseling encounters. The shift toward more genetic counseling encounters via tele-genetics necessitates evaluation of insurance reimbursement.[Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Brooke Richardson ◽  
Sara M. Fitzgerald‐Butt ◽  
Katherine G. Spoonamore ◽  
Leah Wetherill ◽  
Benjamin M. Helm ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Naomi E. Wagner ◽  
Sarah Witherington ◽  
Larissa Waldman ◽  
Lauren Ryan ◽  
Melanie W. Hardy

Author(s):  
Hannah E. Ison ◽  
Emily L. Griffin ◽  
Ashley Parrott ◽  
Amy R. Shikany ◽  
Lindsay Meyers ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Katherine Hunt Brendish ◽  
Devanshi Patel ◽  
Kristen Yu ◽  
Chelsea K. Alexander ◽  
Jennifer Lemons ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document