This study conducted a comprehensive review of fee-for-service Medicaid policies across all 50 states and Washington, DC to evaluate how genetic counseling is addressed and whether Certified Genetic Counselors (CGCs) are recognized and reimbursed. The authors identified and coded published Medicaid policy documents relevant to genetic counseling and genetic testing. They also selected four states with policies judged exemplary and surveyed CGC program managers in two of those states to confirm whether the policies translated into real-world reimbursement.
As reported, by 2024 a total of 20 states (39%) had a published Medicaid policy explicitly for genetic counseling. Among those 20 states, 16 (80%) expressly covered genetic counseling when provided in connection with any covered genetic test. For the states without a standalone policy, 12 (24%) mention genetic counseling within scenario-specific policies (for example, tied to particular tests or clinical situations). Nineteen states (37%) had no published policy referencing genetic counseling. The review thus identified substantial heterogeneity in how states document Medicaid coverage for genetic counseling services.
Twenty states explicitly list CGC services as covered providers under their Medicaid fee-for-service policies. Conversely, two states were found to explicitly exclude CGCs as service providers. The policy landscape therefore ranges from explicit coverage and recognition of genetic counselors to omission or explicit exclusion, which has direct implications for billing, reimbursement, and patient access to genetics expertise.
The authors identified four states with exemplary policies and surveyed CGC managers in two of them—Indiana and Michigan—to assess the operational effects. CGC managers in those two states confirmed that the policies identified as exemplary had successfully led to reimbursement of CGC services in practice. The survey component was determined to be exempt by the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board (IRB #202511444). The paper notes that data from the study are not publicly available.
The reported variability in Medicaid coverage and provider recognition suggests uneven access to genetics professionals for Medicaid enrollees across the United States. Where policies explicitly cover genetic counseling and recognize CGCs as reimbursable providers, programs and clinicians may be more able to bill and receive payment for counseling services associated with genetic testing. Where policies are absent, narrow, or exclude CGCs, patients insured by Medicaid may face barriers to receiving standardized genetic counseling alongside testing, which the authors identify as an important issue as genomics becomes integrated across specialties.
This work is a policy document review supplemented by a limited survey of CGC managers; details about document selection, coding instruments, and survey instruments beyond what is summarized in the abstract are not provided in the source excerpt. The authors state that data from the study are not publicly available. The report is a medRxiv preprint posted July 24, 2026 and has not been peer reviewed; readers are cautioned that findings should not be used to guide clinical practice without further validation.
Based on the findings, the authors conclude there is significant variability in Medicaid coverage for genetic counseling and call for more comprehensive state policies to support patient access to genetics professionals, including CGCs. The study highlights that explicit policy recognition and reimbursement mechanisms appear to enable CGC billing in practice, as confirmed in at least two states. The authors imply that expanding explicit coverage and provider recognition across states would improve equitable access to genetic counseling services for Medicaid enrollees.
Funding, disclosures, and context
The work was funded by the National Society of Genetic Counselors. The preprint includes competing interest statements: one author holds a leadership role in the National Society of Genetic Counselors; others disclose consulting, partnership, or industry research funding relationships. These declarations appear in the source. The authors emphasize that the manuscript is an unreviewed preprint and therefore should not yet change clinical practice.
Contact and administrative details
Correspondence for the manuscript is provided for Colleen A Campbell (contact information given in the source). The study was posted as a medRxiv preprint on July 24, 2026 and carries a DOI. The authors confirmed relevant ethical guidelines were followed and that the survey portion received an IRB exemption (University of Iowa IRB #202511444). Data are not publicly available per the source statement.