Geriatric Dermatologic Surgery Part I: Frailty assessment and palliative treatments in the geriatric dermatology population.

Longer life expectancy and increasing keratinocyte carcinoma incidence contribute to an increase in geriatric patients presenting for dermatologic surgery. Unique considerations accompany geriatric patients including goals of care, physiologic changes in medication metabolism, cognitive decline, and frailty. Limited geriatric training in dermatology residency has created a knowledge gap and dermatologic surgeons should be familiar with challenges facing older patients to provide interventions more congruent with goals and avoid overtreatment. Frailty assessments including the Geriatric 8 and Karnofsky Performance Scale are efficient tools to identify patients who are at risk for poor outcomes and complications. When frail patients are identified, goals of care discussions can be aided using structured palliative care frameworks including the 4Ms, REMAP, and Serious Illness Conversation Guide. Most geriatric patients will tolerate standard of care treatments including invasive modalities like Mohs surgery and excision. However, for frail patients, non-standard treatments including topicals, energy-based devices, and intralesional chemotherapy may be appropriate options to limit patient morbidity while offering reasonable disease control.

Identifying sunscreen deserts in Cuyahoga County.

Low sunscreen use in patients of color (POC) is multifactorial and could be partially attributable to lack of access or the lack of knowledge about its use beyond skin cancer prevention. Dyschromia is among the top diagnoses for POC and sunscreen is first-line management. POC and lower socioeconomic status often face health disparities and are susceptible to having difficulty accessing food, health care, and medication. We look to see if they extend to sunscreen access by evaluating physical retailers. This study investigated sunscreen access by identifying potential sunscreen deserts and characterizing sunscreen availability and affordability in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Sunscreen deserts were defined as census tracts that were both low-income and low-access, adapted from the definition of food deserts. Google Maps search of "sunscreen" and "sunscreen store" in Cuyahoga County identified sunscreen retailers to geocode addresses. Total number and average cost of sunscreens were collected for each retailer and compared by community type. Fisher exact test, analysis of variance, and logistic regression were used for analysis. One hundred forty-six retailers were included in analysis of four hundred twenty-one census tracts in the county. Sixty-seven tracts met the definition of sunscreen desert. Majority White tracts were less likely to be deserts and had more sunscreen formulations, than Majority Black tracts (p < 0.001). The majority of sunscreen deserts were in predominantly black communities, which had fewer stores and sunscreen formulations available. These findings indicate a lack of sunscreen available to a demographic of patients that could benefit from increased access, as it would help manage hyperpigmentation.

Increasing medicare charge-to-payment ratios for dermatologists from 2012 to 2017.

Government-backed medical insurance plans have undergone significant changes in the last decade, but more information is needed to understand reimbursement trends, particularly for specialist medical services. The objective of this study was to identify the ratios of submitted dermatology service charges to allowed Medicare payments over the years. Further variables studied include regional or state variations, gender of provider, hierarchical condition category (HCC) risk scores of patient complexity, and number of services. Data were collected from publicly available Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier 2012-2017 datasets. All data analysis was performed on SAS 9.4 Statistical Software.Total dermatology related medicare charges-to-payment ratios steadily increased over the years (1.77 [in 2012], 1.82 [2013], 1.87 [2014], 1.95 [2015], 2.02 [2016], and 2.06 [2017]). This suggests that for every $2.06 charged in 2017, dermatology providers could expect $1 of actual payment. When further stratified into medical services vs. drug services, this upward trend remained for medical charges but drug service ratios have remained constant. There was also significant geographic variation in total medicare charges-to-payment ratios as states in the Midwest (mean total ratio: 2.48) had higher charges to payment gaps than states in the Northeast (2.26), West (2.16), and South (1.99; p = 0.01).This study identifies trends and variables associated with dermatology medicare payments. Providers may use this information to better understand changing payment structures in their own practices and hopefully these results can be valuable in future policy discussions.

Financial stress among skin cancer patients: a cross-sectional review of the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey.

Financial stress among skin cancer patients may limit treatment efficacy by forcing the postponement of care or decreasing adherence to dermatologist recommendations. Limited information is available quantifying the anxiety experienced by skin cancer patients from both healthcare and non-healthcare factors. Therefore, the present study sought to perform a retrospective cross-sectional review of the 2013-2018 cycles of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to determine the prevalence, at-risk groups, and predictive factors of skin cancer patient financial stress. Survey responses estimated that 11.45% (95% Cl 10.02-12.88%) of skin cancer patients experience problems paying medical bills, 20.34% (95% Cl 18.97-21.71%) of patients worry about the medical costs, 13.73% (95% Cl 12.55-14.91%) of patients worry about housing costs, and 37.48% (95% Cl 35.83-39.14%) of patients worry about money for retirement. Focusing on at-risk groups, black patients, uninsured patients, and patients with low incomes (< 200% poverty level) consistently experienced high rates of financial stress for each of the four measures. Multivariable logistic regression revealed low education, lack of insurance, and low income to be predictive of financial stress. These findings suggest that a considerable proportion of skin cancer patients experience financial stress related to both healthcare and non-healthcare factors. Where possible, the additional intricacy of treating patients at risk of high financial stress may be considered to optimize patient experience and outcomes.

Equity in the usage of biologics for psoriasis in the working poor.

Biologic therapy often produces excellent outcomes for psoriasis; however, their high cost may create a barrier to appropriate usage, especially in the working poor population. This study defines working poor as income below 150% of the federal poverty level and holding or seeking work at least half a year. Our study aims to identify gaps in access to biologic therapy for psoriasis based on working poor status. This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2007 to 2018. Patients were stratified into working poor (57,091), non-working poor (43,421), and non-poor (693,841) groups for analysis. In univariate analysis, WP (4.0%, ph p = 0.003) and NWP (2.8%, ph p = 0.006) were less likely to use biologics than NP (15.8%) (X2 p < 0.001). A binary logistic regression showed that WP vs. NP status (OR 0.27, p = 0.05), female vs. male sex (OR 0.55, p = 0.05), Black vs. White race (OR 0.14, p = 0.02), and Medicare vs. private insurance (OR 0.09, p = 0.03) had lower odds of using biologics. After correcting for age, sex, race, and insurance, WP confers an independent risk factor to lower biologic prescriptions. The high cost of biologics in the setting of financial barriers for some patients should be considered by physicians prescribing biologic therapy for psoriasis.

Pain Intensity Assessment Scales for Dermatologic Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment plays an important role in dermatologic surgery. The numeric rating scale (NRS), visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS), and Faces Pain Scale (FPS) are commonly used scales for pain measurement. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the use of each. Prompt pain recognition and treatment during procedures result in higher patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: Determine the most applicable scale for acute pain measurement in dermatologic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA-Supplemental Digital Content 4, http://links.lww.com/DSS/A976 (PROSPERO; CRD42018091058). PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched between April 24, 2018, and May 06, 2018. The search query consisted of pain, pain measurement (NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS), and assessment/comparison. The inclusion criteria included English language literature with primary/secondary outcome objectives directly comparing ≥2 pain scales in acute pain (age: 13+). Study end points included interscale correlations, patient preferences, provider preferences, study author recommendations, and failure rates. RESULTS: Eight hundred seven studies were retrieved: A total of 42 studies were included. The visual analog scale (n = 42) was most studied, followed by NRS (n = 29), VRS (n = 27), and FPS (n = 11). 93.1% studies showed a high statistical correlation between VAS and NRS. Patients preferred NRS (n = 8/11), followed by FPS (n = 3/11), VRS (n = 2/11), and VAS (n = 1/11). Study authors recommended NRS/VAS (n = 8/19), VRS (n = 6/19), and FPS (n = 1/19). Providers preferred NRS (n = 2/3) and VRS (n = 1/3). The visual analog scale had the highest failure rate (n = 11/12). CONCLUSION: The numeric rating scale is most applicable for dermatologic surgery because of reported patient and provider preferences, lowest failure rates, and most frequent study author recommendations.

Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Auricular Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of an assessment instrument that successfully analyzes validated outcome measures for auricular surgery is important for advancing evidence-based medicine. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review postsurgical scar assessment instruments and outcome measures after auricular surgery to assess if any individual or combination of 2 assessment instruments encompass all relevant, validated auricular outcome measures. METHODS: Two systematic reviews were conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid databases: one for postauricular surgical outcome measures and another for postsurgical scar assessment instruments. Auricular outcome measure articles were selected for inclusion if they included at least one auricular-specific validated outcome measure, and assessment tool articles were included if they referenced one or more specific tool(s) specifically designed to assess postsurgical scars. Assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered. RESULTS: There was no single postsurgical scar assessment instrument or combination of 2 instruments that covered all outcome measures within the 5 different categories (psychosocial well-being, functional, objective appearance, subjective appearance, and clinical-related outcomes) after auricular surgery. None of the instruments measured functional outcomes, such as the ability to wear glasses and hearing outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all outcome measures after auricular surgery.

Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Eyelid Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Determining which postsurgical scar assessment instruments, if any, cover important eyelid outcome measures can either attest to the strength of one or more instruments or reveal the need for a more comprehensive scale. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review validated outcome measures after eyelid surgery and postsurgical scar assessment tools to see whether any individual or combination of 2 assessment tools encompass all relevant, validated eyelid outcome measures. METHODS: Systematic reviews of validated eyelid outcome measures and postsurgical scar assessment tools were conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid. Outcome measure papers that met inclusion criteria were sorted into 8 categories: Patient Subjective, Visual Function, Mechanical Function, Daily Activities, Adverse Effects, Aesthetic Quantitative: Clinical Measurements, Aesthetic Qualitative: Global, and Aesthetic Qualitative: Specific. Outcome measure papers were categorized into tiers of evidence support, and assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered. RESULTS: No one or combination of 2 assessment tools covered all selected eyelid outcome measures. Although measures related to the subjective patient experience were included in several of the assessment scales, none covered measures of visual function or eyelid-specific clinical measurements. CONCLUSION: There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all important eyelid-specific outcome measures.

Acute pain management in dermatology: risk assessment and treatment.

Dermatologists perform many procedures that require acute pain control with local anesthesia and, in some cases, management of postoperative pain. Identifying early risk factors before a procedure can better prepare both the patient and provider anticipate acute postsurgical pain needs. Taking a multimodal, algorithmic approach to managing acute postsurgical pain in dermatology practice can effectively attenuate acute postsurgical paint and reduce patient opioid requirements.