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.
<div>AbstractPurpose:<p>Cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) surveillance allows for the early detection and treatment of neoplasms; however, the psychosocial impact of tumor surveillance is poorly understood for cancer-affected adolescents with CPS and their parents. To gain further insight, we qualitatively characterized the affective and cognitive experience of adolescents undergoing tumor surveillance.</p>Experimental Design:<p>Adolescents with a history of cancer and their parents independently completed semistructured interviews querying their experience with the adolescent’s tumor surveillance. Interviews were coded using emotion coding and content analysis before developing themes using thematic analysis.</p>Results:<p>Eight adolescents and 11 parents (seven mothers, four fathers) completed interviews. Parent themes included maternal anxiety, relief following surveillance, fathers’ positive expectations and emotions surrounding surveillance results, coping strategies, and perception of going through surveillance together with their child. Adolescent themes included normalization of surveillance, indifference about surveillance but excitement to return to the hospital, focus on physical and logistic aspects, relief focused on being done with scans, and belief that outcomes would be good. Past scans/surveillance experiences influencing surveillance feelings were a theme across both parents and adolescents.</p>Conclusions:<p>Our findings suggest that tumor surveillance is not causing marked emotional distress for cancer-affected adolescents with CPS. In contrast, mothers of cancer-affected adolescents undergoing surveillance may present with anxiety leading up to tumor surveillance and, for a subset, in between surveillance appointments. These observations highlight a need for ongoing psychosocial screening for families of children with CPS and a role for psychosocial providers in the multidisciplinary management of CPS.</p></div>
Cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) surveillance allows for the early detection and treatment of neoplasms; however, the psychosocial impact of tumor surveillance is poorly understood for cancer-affected adolescents with CPS and their parents. To gain further insight, we qualitatively characterized the affective and cognitive experience of adolescents undergoing tumor surveillance.
Abstract Genetic counseling students from the United States are often interested in international summer fieldwork placements, but little is known about the hosts' perspectives when considering such requests. We sent out surveys to 132 international genetics providers (genetics clinics and genetics programs), to identify advantages, barriers and expectations for U.S.‐based genetic counseling students seeking a fieldwork placement. Twenty‐seven (20.4% response rate) participants from 14 different countries shared their experiences and views. Providers placed higher emphasis on teaching and benefits to students (95.2%) rather than intrinsic benefits to their programs (90.4%). Lack of American Board of Genetic Counseling's (ABGC) reciprocal recognition (30%) and cost of training (25%), were rated as the strongest barriers to hosting U.S.‐based students. Surprisingly, ‘Language Barrier’ (20%), although mentioned in open‐ended comments, was not ranked highly as a barrier. When asked about expectations of students, active participation in student‐led counseling sessions under supervision was encouraged by a majority of participants (55.6%). Where most genetic counseling literature is U.S.‐centric, this study reports on insights gathered from international genetics providers. Our study encourages U.S.‐based programs to consider these findings when designing exchange programs and international fieldwork placements.
Abstract Patients receiving clinical genetics services often navigate emotionally difficult situations and may utilize their faith as a source of support, an aid in decision‐making, or a core coping strategy. Although patients have expressed interest in discussing their religious or spiritual (R/S) beliefs with their genetic counselor (GC), GCs may avoid such conversations because they feel they do not have the necessary skills to discuss R/S beliefs (Reis, Baumiller, Scrivener, Yager, & Warren, 2007). This qualitative study explored how GC programs in North America currently prepare their students to discuss R/S matters with their patients. The aims of this study were to identify (1) the R/S topics genetic counseling programs currently cover in the curriculum, (2) how genetic counseling programs evaluate their students within the R/S topics and activities that are included in the curriculum, and (3) the value or importance placed on R/S training by genetic counseling program directors. Leaders of 12 (36%) of the 33 eligible GC programs at the time of the study participated in a semi‐structured phone interview. Their responses were coded using open and axial coding techniques and analyzed using grounded theory. Results revealed that R/S issues are often covered during the psychosocial portions of the curriculum through writing assignments, in class exercises, and role plays. Almost all participating programs include information on pastoral care services, but have little to no training about specific R/S beliefs or the use of spiritual surveys. While participating program directors emphasized that it is critical for students to be prepared to hold conversations about patients' R/S beliefs, the strategies used to prepare students are inconsistent and often not evaluated. We provide suggestions for enriching the R/S training in genetic counseling graduate programs in order to prepare students to facilitate discussions around patients' religion and/or spirituality in genetic counseling sessions.
Abstract 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.
