Empowering Genetic Counselors: The Case for Independence in U.S. Healthcare

---

Introduction: Unlocking the Next Frontier of Precision Medicine

The promise of genomic medicine is no longer a distant horizon—it is here and reshaping the way we approach care. Hereditary cancer screening, prenatal diagnostics, pharmacogenomics, and population-level risk assessments are now common considerations in clinical practice. At the center of this shift are genetic counselors (GCs), uniquely trained to translate complex genomic data into actionable, compassionate guidance for patients and their families.

Yet in the United States, these professionals remain constrained by a system that requires them to work under physician oversight for test ordering and billing. CMS does not recognize them as independent providers, and licensure varies widely across states. These structural barriers limit access, slow adoption of genomic medicine, and undercut the return on investment in precision health. By contrast, countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and the Nordics have already granted greater autonomy to genetic counselors, embedding them as independent decision-makers within public health systems.

The U.S. must now decide whether it will follow suit—and in doing so, unlock the full potential of its precision medicine ecosystem.

The U.S. Landscape: Bottlenecks in Growth and Access

The U.S. workforce of genetic counselors has grown rapidly, from just over 1,000 in the late 1990s to nearly 7,000 certified professionals in 2024, with projections to exceed 10,000 by 2030. Despite this growth, demand already far outpaces supply. Accredited training programs graduate only about 300 new counselors per year, while job postings routinely exceed this number by two to threefold.

Most counselors are concentrated in metropolitan hubs, leaving rural and underserved communities without access to essential genomic expertise. Even where GCs are present, their impact is diluted by restrictive policies. Twenty-nine states currently license counselors, but only about a third of those grant them authority to order genetic tests independently.

• Workforce supply is short. Roughly 6,985 GCs serve a population of 330 million.

• Licensure is fragmented. Only 10 states explicitly allow independent test ordering.

• Billing is blocked. CMS does not recognize GCs as providers, forcing services to be billed through physicians.

This patchwork creates bottlenecks that delay care—sometimes by weeks or months—for patients whose treatment pathways depend on timely genetic information.

International Models: Proof That Independence Works

Other nations have demonstrated that independence for GCs is both safe and effective.

• In the United Kingdom, genetic counselors are regulated by the Genetic Counsellor Registration Board (GCRB) and integrated into NHS pathways, where they often practice independently.

• In Canada, several provinces allow counselors to order tests directly, particularly within provincial cancer programs.

• In Australia, credentialing through the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) has enabled increasing autonomy in oncology and prenatal settings.

• In the Nordics, counselors are embedded into public health infrastructure as primary decision-makers for test ordering and patient counseling.

The U.S. does not need to reinvent the wheel. It needs to adapt these global lessons, ensuring independence comes with strong credentialing and integration into care teams.

Stakeholder Perspectives: Current State, Future State, Risks + Opportunities

Payers

For payers, the absence of GC independence leads to inefficiencies. Most insurers cover genetic testing but not counseling unless it is billed under a physician, which obscures the value that GCs provide. Without counseling, 20–30 percent of genetic tests are unnecessary or duplicative, creating significant waste.

If GCs were recognized as independent providers, payers could directly reimburse and track outcomes. This would open the door to value-based reimbursement models in which counseling is tied to reduced unnecessary testing and improved adherence to preventive care.

• Risk: Short-term rise in billed counseling sessions as access expands.

• Opportunity: Long-term savings of $10–15 million per one million covered lives annually, based on avoided tests and downstream treatment costs.

Baseline

• Genetic testing spend rising 14% annually (AHIP, 2022).

• Misuse of tests and lack of patient adherence increase unnecessary cost exposure.

• Currently, GCs are not recognized providers under Medicare, obscuring value measurement.

ROI Levers

1. Appropriate Test Utilization

   • Independent GCs ensure ordering aligns with evidence-based guidelines.

   • If inappropriate utilization accounts for 25% of payer spend on genetic testing, and total annual spend is $2B (market estimate), potential savings = $500M/year nationally.

2. Improved Preventive Adherence

   • Counseling improves uptake of preventive interventions (e.g., prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA-positive women).

   • Preventing one case of advanced breast cancer saves ~$150,000–200,000 in lifetime treatment costs (ASCO).

   • Even a 5% increase in adherence among high-risk populations yields tens of millions in avoided costs annually for a large payer.

3. Value-Based Care Alignment

   • GCs embedded in oncology or maternity bundles reduce variability, lowering payer outlays.

   • Supports total cost of care reduction metrics, directly tied to payer ROI.

ROI Summary

• Per 1M covered lives:

  • ~$10–15M in avoided testing and treatment costs annually.

  • 2 3x ROI within 2 years when reimbursing GCs independently ($100-200 per counseling session).

Providers (Hospitals & Health Systems)

Hospitals face similar challenges. Physicians currently spend valuable time ordering and reviewing genetic tests—tasks that GCs are better trained to manage. With physician costs averaging $200 per hour, every 15–20 minutes spent on genomic tasks represents lost value.

Independence allows counselors to manage these workflows, freeing physician capacity and reducing burnout. More importantly, GCs reduce inappropriate test use. A hospital ordering 10,000 tests per year at $1,000 each can save roughly $1.5 million annually by avoiding just 15 percent of unnecessary orders. Combined with physician time savings, the net benefit can exceed $2 million per year, with a modeled ROI close to four-to-one.

• Risk: Turf disputes in specialties like oncology or OB/GYN.

• Opportunity: Better efficiency, improved patient satisfaction, and stronger financial performance.

Baseline

• Hospitals often absorb costs for genetic counseling when bundled under physician billing.

• Physician time spent on test ordering/interpretation averages 15–20 minutes per case, at ~$180–250/hour fully loaded cost.

• GC salaries average $95,770/year, significantly lower than physician costs for the same counseling task (BLS, 2023).

ROI Levers

1. Reduced Physician Burden

   • Shifting 5,000 genetic counseling visits/year from physicians to GCs saves ~1,250 physician hours.

   • At $200/hour, this equals $250,000/year in freed physician capacity.

2. Avoided Unnecessary Testing

   • Studies show up to 20–30% of genetic tests are unnecessary or duplicative without GC guidance (JCO, 2020).

   • If a hospital orders 10,000 tests/year at an average cost of $1,000 each, avoiding just 15% unnecessary tests yields $1.5M in savings annually.

3. Faster Throughput & Access

   • GC independence reduces referral delays, improving oncology and prenatal pathways.

   • Shorter time-to-diagnosis improves patient satisfaction scores and reduces downstream acute care utilization (hard ROI for VBC contracts).

ROI Summary

• Annual Net Savings/Value: $1.7–2.0M per mid-size hospital.

• Investment: Adding 5–10 independent GCs (~$1M salary + benefits).

• ROI: ~2:1 within the first year, with additional intangible benefits (better patient experience, stronger quality metrics, accreditation readiness).

Government & Policy

The federal policy environment is the key lever for change. CMS does not recognize genetic counselors as providers, preventing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. State licensing laws vary widely, leaving scope of practice inconsistent across the country. Past proposals, such as H.R. 3235 (2019), would have recognized GCs at 85 percent of physician fee schedules, but failed to pass.

A future of recognition and harmonization would mean independent reimbursement under Medicare, consistent licensure across states, and integration into NIH and FDA precision medicine initiatives.

• Risk: Political inertia and pushback from some physician groups.

• Opportunity: Expanded access, reduced disparities, and U.S. leadership in global genomics.

The ROI Case for Independence

The financial case is strong. Hospitals can save millions annually by reducing unnecessary tests and reallocating physician time. Payers stand to benefit even more, with savings in the tens of millions per million covered lives. Our OpineSquare ROI Model shows:

• Hospitals achieve nearly $2 million in net annual savings with a ROI of ~3.8x.

• Payers generate $12.5 million in savings per one million covered lives, with ROI exceeding 16x.

These numbers exclude the broader value of improved patient experience, faster care pathways, and strengthened performance in value-based contracts.

Scenario	Total Cost Savings ($)	Investments ($)	Net Value ($)	ROI (x)
Hospital	2,250,000	593,750	1,656,250	3.79
Payer	12,500,000	750,000	11,750,000	16.67

Recommendations

To unlock this value, coordinated action is required:

• Policy: CMS should formally recognize genetic counselors as providers, while states work toward harmonized licensure.

• Payers: Insurers should pilot value-based models that directly reimburse GCs and measure savings through claims data.

• Providers: Hospitals should integrate counselors into co-management frameworks, especially in oncology and maternity care.

• Startups: Digital health innovators should expand virtual-first GC platforms, combining human expertise with AI-driven triage to scale access.

• Global Learning: The U.S. should borrow from the NHS, Canada, and Australia, adapting their frameworks to fit American reimbursement and delivery models.

  
  

Independent genetic counselors are not simply a workforce issue—they are a lever to scale precision medicine equitably and sustainably. For payers, independence offers long-term savings. For providers, it relieves strain and improves efficiency. For government, it advances national equity and innovation goals.

The financial, clinical, and strategic case converges on the same conclusion: empowering genetic counselors to practice independently is one of the highest-return investments in the future of healthcare.

Notes and References

1. National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), Professional Status Survey 2024 Executive Summary – workforce size, growth, and training pipeline.

2. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook for Genetic Counselors – employment growth, salary, and demand projections.

3. GenomeWeb, 2021 – analysis of state licensure laws and scope of practice.

4. Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO), 2020 – estimates that 20–30% of genetic tests are unnecessary or duplicative without counseling.

5. H.R. 3235 (2019) – proposed federal recognition of GCs as providers at 85% of physician fee schedules.

6. OpineSquare ROI Model (Excel, 2025) – internal financial modeling of ROI for hospitals and payers under independence scenarios.