Retrospective review of insurance coverage for patch testing.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data on the burden of insurance limitations for patients undergoing patch testing. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the burden of insurance limitations and its impact on differences in management and execution of patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with a diagnosis of contact dermatitis (International Classification of Disease [ICD], Ninth Edition, code ICD 692) who received patch testing (Current Procedural Terminology code 95044) at the George Washington Medical Faculty Associates Dermatology Clinic between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2017. Variables including allergen limitations were compared between government-sponsored insurance and private insurance providers (eg, Insurers A, B, C, and D). RESULTS: A total of 371 records were identified. Government-sponsored insurance patients encountered allergen limitations more frequently than private insurance patients (86.8% vs 14.2%, P < .0001). Insurer C and D patients were least likely to encounter allergen limitations (1.2% vs 0%, P < .0001) and were tested to the most allergens (mean = 146 vs 152, P < .0001). Insurer A patients had the least allergens tested among those privately insured. CONCLUSION: Considering modification of insurance policies to allow patch testing with a larger number of allergens without restrictions is needed, with the goal of improving quality of life of these patients while saving costs from chronic use of topical corticosteroids.

Patient Costs Associated with Rosacea.

The recalcitrance of rosacea to many treatment options may prompt patients to spend exorbitant amounts of money on unsubstantiated treatment regimens in an effort to achieve relief. The authors examine the relationship between disease severity and treatment cost across several demographic and socioeconomic strata. Familiarization of evidence-based clinical recommendations and consensus guidelines may equip physicians to educate patients about the most efficacious and cost-effective treatment options to assist patients in making cost-conscious decisions in the management of their rosacea.

Validity and Reliability of a Rosacea Self-Assessment Tool.

The lack of validated rosacea assessment tools is a hurdle in assessing rosacea severity. This article discusses a valid and reliable rosacea severity self-assessment tool (RSAT) to measure rosacea severity. To determine test-retest validity, participants completed the self-assessment twice. A blinded physician graded the participant's disease severity with the Investigator Global Severity (IGS) score. Pearson correlations were used to assess the relationship between the self-assessment measure and the IGS. Test-retest RSAT measurements were correlated. The RSAT represents a valid and reliable tool. This tool may facilitate determination of rosacea severity in survey research studies.

Patient Awareness of Local Drug Price Variation and the Factors That Influence Pharmacy Choice: A Cross-sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket drug expenditures are increasingly common in dermatology. Patients may not be aware that prices vary among pharmacies and consequently may not shop for the lowest cost. OBJECTIVE: To determine what factors influence pharmacy choice and the effect of providing local prescription prices on pharmacy selection. We hypothesized that patients do not "shop around" due to lack of knowledge of price variation and would choose a pharmacy based on costs if educated on price disparity. METHODS: Between July and August 2016, we administered a cross-sectional anonymous survey to adults visiting four outpatient clinics at an academic tertiary care center in Washington, D.C. Participants answered questions before and after viewing a list of prescription drug prices from local pharmacies. RESULTS: 287 surveys were administered to a convenience sample of adults (age ≥ 18 and literate in English). Of the 287 participants, 218 fully completed the survey; 55.1% were women and 40.5% were over age 40. When considering a cost savings of $10-25, 65% would switch pharmacies if the distance were the same, and 21.3% would switch if the distance were 45-minutes further. After price education, fewer participants felt that drug price knowledge would ultimately influence pharmacy choice (P less than 0.0001). However, respondents' intended frequency of researching price online, calling a pharmacy to ask about price, and comparing price between pharmacies before filling a prescription all increased, compared to prior self-reported frequencies (P less than 0.001). Specifically, participants with $75,000-$99,999 income were more likely to compare prices than those with income below $45,000 (odds ratio [OR], 4.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-17.28). CONCLUSION: In this study, pharmacy choice was more influenced by convenience than cost prior to drug price education. However, price education ultimately impacted intent to research prescription drug prices before selecting a pharmacy. Thus, knowledge of drug pricing may be useful in creating cost savings for patients.