Genetic testing has the potential to revolutionize primary care, but few health systems have developed the infrastructure to support precision population medicine applications or attempted to evaluate its impact on patient and provider outcomes. In 2018, Sanford Health, the nation’s largest rural nonprofit health care system, began offering genetic testing to its primary care patients. To date, more than 11,000 patients have participated in the Sanford Chip Program, over 90% of whom have been identified with at least one informative pharmacogenomic variant, and about 1.5% of whom have been identified with a medically actionable predisposition for disease. This manuscript describes the rationale for offering the Sanford Chip, the programs and infrastructure implemented to support it, and evolving plans for research to evaluate its real-world impact.

While traditional components of genetic counseling sessions are well recognized, less is known about insurance and financial discussions. This study sought to examine "genesurance counseling" which we defined as: that portion of a genetic counseling session, whether intentional or non-intentional, that is devoted to the topic of costs and insurance/third party coverage (particularly for genetic testing). Our objective was to assess genetic counselors' practices and perspective related to genesurance counseling. A survey link was sent by e-mail to members of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (approximately 3100 NSGC members). A total of 571 genetic counselors participated in the survey of which 550 identified as clinical genetic counselors. Survey data were used to investigate differences between specialties, impact on patient rapport, changes in practice dynamics, and devotion of clinic time. Overwhelmingly, 99% of participants acknowledged conducting genesurance counseling, 87% believed it to be part of their job description, and 85% viewed it as an important aspect of genetic counseling. On average, respondents estimated they devoted 10% of their session, or 6 min, to genesurance counseling. Of the surveyed participants, 95% reported genesurance counseling as having some form of influence in a patient's decision regarding genetic testing, and 74% stated that genesurance counseling concerns change the practice and dynamic of their clinic. "Genesurance counseling" is not a topic which has been studied to date. Our study highlights the changes in genetic counselors' roles and responsibilities regarding insurance and financial counseling.

Reimbursement for genetic counseling services was examined at a single institution. Patient encounters utilizing the 96040 CPT® code from 7/31/2009 through 7/31/2013 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included billing records of patients seen by a physician the same day, self-pay, Medicaid, and Medicare patients. Of the 8,630 encounters with a genetic counselor, 582 encounters were eligible for review. Descriptive statistics (i.e., percentage of encounters receiving some level of reimbursement, average reimbursement rate, number of third party payors providing any level of reimbursement, and number of ICD-9 codes receiving any level of reimbursement) depicted reimbursement of the 96040 CPT® code for the encounters analyzed. Statistical analysis found a significant difference in reimbursement between third party payors that do and do not credential genetic counselors (p < .0001). There was no statistically significant difference between reimbursement rates for primary diagnostic ICD-9 codes when compared to primary diagnostic ICD-9 V codes used. Results will provide a useful baseline for local and national comparisons due to the paucity of data regarding CPT® 96040.

Large-scale genetics education appropriate for general practice providers is a growing priority. We describe the content and impact of a mandatory system-wide program implemented at Sanford Health. Methods: The Imagenetics Initiative at Sanford Health developed a 2-year genetics education program with quarterly web-based modules that were mandatory for all physicians and advanced practice providers. Scores of 0 to 5 were calculated for each module on the basis of the number of objectives that the participants reported as fulfilled. In addition, the participants completed surveys before starting and after finishing the education program, which included a 7-item measure scored 7 to 28 on the perceived preparedness to practice genetics. Results: Between 2252 and 2822 Sanford Health employees completed each of the 8 quarterly education modules. The ratings were highest for the module about using genomics to improve patient management (mean score = 4.3) and lowest for the module about different types of genetic tests and specialists. The mean perceived preparedness scores increased from 15.7 at preeducation to 19.1 at post-education (P < .001). Conclusion: Web-based genetics education was highly effective in increasing health care providers' confidence about using genetics. Both comfort with personal knowledge and confidence regarding access to the system's genomic medicine experts increased significantly. The results demonstrate how scalable approaches can improve provider preparedness.