Premium
A 2‐year review of publicly funded cell‐free DNA screening in Ontario: utilization and adherence to funding criteria
Author(s) -
BellaiDussault Kara,
Meng Lynn,
Huang Tianhua,
Reszel Jessica,
Walker Mark,
Lanes Andrea,
Okun Nan,
Armour Christine,
Dougan Shelley
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
prenatal diagnosis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.956
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1097-0223
pISSN - 0197-3851
DOI - 10.1002/pd.5563
Subject(s) - medicine , cell free fetal dna , audit , aneuploidy , family medicine , cohort , population , prenatal screening , obstetrics , gynecology , pregnancy , prenatal diagnosis , environmental health , fetus , chromosome , biology , genetics , management , gene , economics
Objective Ontario offers a publicly funded modified contingent model of prenatal screening for aneuploidy in which cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) screening is covered for pregnancies at higher risk of fetal aneuploidy. The objective of this study was to review utilization of provincially funded cfDNA screening and adherence to the criteria laid out in Ontario prenatal screening guidelines. Methods This was a descriptive cohort study using data collected by Ontario's prescribed maternal and child registry. The study population included all pregnant individuals who received cfDNA screening from January 2016 to December 2017. Results The most common criteria for provincially funded cfDNA screening were advanced maternal age ≥40 years (37.7%), positive multiple marker screen (34.1%), modifying risk factors such as ultrasound soft markers (7.1%), and previous aneuploidy (5.5%). The audit demonstrated that 2.9% of funded cfDNA screens tests did not meet funding criteria, and that 11.4% of self‐paid cfDNA screens could have been publicly funded. Conclusion Reviewing and auditing the application of criteria for funded cfDNA screening using prescribed registry data allows an opportunity to identify areas where targeted education may improve adherence to standardized screening protocols, and provides a basis for reassessment of the funding model.