Dermatology workforce projections in the United States, 2021 to 2036.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing imbalance between supply of dermatologists and demand for dermatologic care. To best address physician shortages, it is important to delineate supply and demand patterns in the dermatologic workforce. The goal of this study was to explore dermatology supply and demand over time. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of workforce supply and demand projections for dermatologists from 2021 to 2036 using data from the Health Workforce Simulation Model from the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. Estimates for total workforce supply and demand were summarized in aggregate and stratified by rurality. Scenarios with status quo demand and improved access were considered. RESULTS: Projected total supply showed a 12.45% increase by 2036. Total demand increased 12.70% by 2036 in the status quo scenario. In the improved access scenario, total supply was inadequate for total demand in any year, lagging by 28% in 2036. Metropolitan areas demonstrated a relative supply surplus up to 2036; nonmetropolitan areas had at least a 157% excess in demand throughout the study period. In 2021 adequacy was 108% and 39% adequacy for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, respectively; these differences were projected to continue through 2036. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the dermatology physician workforce is inadequate to meet the demand for dermatologic services in nonmetropolitan areas. Furthermore, improved access to dermatologic care would bolster demand and especially exacerbate workforce inadequacy in nonmetropolitan areas. Continued efforts are needed to address health inequities and ensure access to quality dermatologic care for all.

Barriers and Facilitators Affecting Long-Term Antibiotic Prescriptions for Acne Treatment.

Importance: Dermatologists prescribe more oral antibiotics per clinician than clinicians in any other specialty. Despite clinical guidelines that recommend limitation of long-term oral antibiotic treatments for acne to less than 3 months, there is little evidence to guide the design and implementation of an antibiotic stewardship program in clinical practice. Objective: To identify salient barriers and facilitators to long-term antibiotic prescriptions for acne treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study assessed data collected from stakeholders (including dermatologists, infectious disease physicians, dermatology resident physicians, and nonphysician clinicians) via an online survey and semistructured video interviews between March and August 2021. Data analyses were performed from August 12, 2021, to January 20, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Online survey and qualitative video interviews developed with the Theoretical Domains Framework. Thematic analyses were used to identify salient themes on barriers and facilitators to long-term antibiotic prescriptions for acne treatment. Results: Among 30 participants (14 [47%] males and 16 [53%] females) who completed the study requirements and were included in the analysis, knowledge of antibiotic guideline recommendations was high and antibiotic stewardship was believed to be a professional responsibility. Five salient themes were to be affecting long-term antibiotic prescriptions: perceived lack of evidence to justify change in dermatologic practice, difficulty navigating patient demands and satisfaction, discomfort with discussing contraception, iPLEDGE-related barriers, and the absence of an effective system to measure progress on antibiotic stewardship. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study indicate that multiple salient factors affect long-term antibiotic prescribing practices for acne treatment. These factors should be considered in the design and implementation of any future outpatient antibiotic stewardship program for clinical dermatology.

Characterization of Biopsies by Dermatologists and Nonphysician Providers in the Medicare Population: A Rapidly Changing Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show that nonphysician providers may require a higher number of biopsies to identify skin malignancies than dermatologists. Therefore, understanding the trends behind the types of providers performing biopsies may help analyze their impact on this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study analyzes changes in nationwide, regional, and state-level data on the number and proportion of biopsies performed by dermatologists compared with nonphysician providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biopsy cases were isolated in the Medicare database from 2012 to 2018 using the HCPCS codes 11,100 and 11,101. Cases were limited to biopsies performed by a dermatologist, nurse practitioner (NP), or physician assistant (PA). RESULTS: From 2012 to 2018, national biopsy rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries for dermatologists decreased by 6%, whereas those for NPs and PAs increased by 97% and 82%, respectively. Each state showed variation in both the proportion of biopsies by provider type and the net change in biopsies rates over time. All states saw increases in the number of biopsies per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries by nonphysician providers. CONCLUSION: As the number of Medicare beneficiaries continues to grow, nonphysician providers are performing an increasing proportion of biopsies, with specific states and regions being affected more than others.

Expert Consensus on Nail Procedures and Selection of CPT Codes.

BACKGROUND: Dermatologists specialize in treating conditions of the skin, hair, and nails; however, it is our experience that the field of nail diseases is the least discussed facet of dermatology. Even less acknowledged is the complexity of nail procedures and how best to accurately code for these procedures. OBJECTIVE: To convene a panel of experts in nail disease to reach consensus on the most accurate and appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes associated with the most commonly performed nail procedures. METHODS: A questionnaire including 9 of the most commonly performed nail procedures and potential CPT codes was sent to experts in the treatment of nail disease, defined as those clinicians running a nail subspecialty clinic and performing nail procedures with regularity. A conference call was convened to discuss survey results. RESULTS: Unanimous consensus was reached on the appropriate CPT codes associated with all discussed procedures. LIMITATIONS: Although this article details the most commonly performed nail procedures, many were excluded and billing for these procedures continues to be largely subjective. This article is meant to serve as a guide for clinicians but should not be impervious to interpretation in specific clinical situations. CONCLUSION: Billing of nail procedures remains a practice gap within our field. The authors hope that the expert consensus on the most appropriate CPT codes associated with commonly performed nail procedures will aid clinicians as they diagnose and treat disorders of the nail unit and encourage accurate and complete billing practices.

Increasing a Dermatologist's Footprint on Instagram: An Analysis of Top Influencers Performing Nonsurgical Cosmetic Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Patients use social media to find information about cosmetic procedures, yet dermatologists historically lack a social media presence. Misleading information from nonexperts is potentially harmful. OBJECTIVE: To identify the top influencers posting about nonsurgical cosmetic procedures on Instagram, verify their credentials, and analyze their content to empower dermatologists to effectively join the online conversation, combat harmful misinformation, and preserve the expertise and influence of board-certified dermatologists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Klear marketing platform, Instagram influencers with more than 50,000 followers were identified. Influence rating, top posts, and other metrics were extracted using proprietary algorithms. RESULTS: Ninety nine influencers were identified. Of the top 10, 70% were board-certified plastic surgeons. Physicians not board-certified in a core cosmetic specialty had the highest influencer rating and number of followers. The most popular posts were of before and after photographs and personal posts. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists may be able to increase their Instagram footprint by posting frequently, especially of before and after and personal photographs, using hashtags, Instagram live and Instagram television, and Instagram stories. It is important for the dermatology community to find a way to ethically navigate social media to have a seat at the table and meet patients where they are.

Assessing comfort level with pediatric skin specimens among dermatopathologists and pediatric pathologists: A national cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous histopathologic diagnoses in children often differ from those in adults. Depending on practice setting, these specimens may be evaluated by dermatopathologists or pediatric pathologists. We sought to determine whether comfort level with pediatric dermatopathology is associated with prior training, pediatric dermatopathology exposure during fellowship, career duration, or specimen subtype. METHODS: We surveyed dermatopathologists and pediatric pathologists practicing in the United States. Training and practice variables were evaluated by multivariable regression for association with comfort level. RESULTS: Of the 156 respondents, 72% were dermatopathologists (response rate 11.6%) and 28% were pediatric pathologists (response rate 9.3%). Dermatopathologists reported higher comfort overall (P < .001); this was also true for inflammatory dermatoses and melanocytic neoplasms (P < .001). Thirty-four percent and 75% of dermatopathologists and pediatric pathologists, respectively, reported lower comfort with pediatric skin specimens than their usual cases. Pediatric pathologists were 28% more likely to refer these cases to colleagues. Among dermatopathologists, dermatology-trained were more comfortable than pathology-trained colleagues interpreting inflammatory dermatoses (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists' comfort with pediatric dermatopathology varied significantly based upon prior training, career duration, and specimen subtype. These results suggest opportunities for improving education in this domain.

Dermatologists' Perspectives on Defining Moderate Psoriasis: The Canadian Moderate Psoriasis Survey.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is commonly classified as either mild or moderate to severe, without specific parameters to differentiate moderate versus severe disease. This may lead to patients with moderate psoriasis being underrecognized and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: An online survey was conducted to assess Canadian dermatologists’ perspectives on the definition and treatment of psoriasis. METHOD: Dermatologists included in the survey were regional and national leaders with expertise in psoriasis. Questions were developed based on feedback from a steering committee of Canadian dermatologists. RESULTS: Of 88 dermatologists contacted, 69 responded; 42.0% were in practice for >20 years. Most dermatologists reported using the percentage of psoriasis-affected body surface area (BSA) to describe disease severity (90.8% for moderate and 87.5% for severe psoriasis). The lower and upper median cutoffs for moderate psoriasis were reported as 5.0% and 10.0% for BSA and 7.0 and 11.5 for the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Most dermatologists also consider psoriasis location (eg, palms, scalp, genital area, face) as an important indicator of disease severity. The majority of Canadian dermatologists (87.5%) identified access to treatment as one of the biggest challenges for patients with moderate psoriasis. Most dermatologists estimated that ≤40% of their patients with moderate plaque psoriasis were being treated with traditional oral systemics, targeted oral systemics, or biologics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey of Canadian dermatologists on moderate psoriasis. Efforts are needed to implement a clinically useful definition of moderate plaque psoriasis to improve patient care and to raise awareness of the definition among regulatory agencies and reimbursement authorities. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):126-132. doi:10.36849/JDD.5531.

Insurance Acceptance, Appointment Wait Time, and Dermatologist Access Across Practice Types in the US.

Importance: In the 15 years since dermatology access was last investigated on a national scale, the practice landscape has changed with the rise of private equity (PE) investment and increased use of nonphysician clinicians (NPCs). Objective: To determine appointment success and wait times for patients with various insurance types at clinics with and without PE ownership. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this study, PE-owned US clinics were randomly selected and matched with 2 geographically proximate clinics without PE ownership. Researchers called each clinic 3 times over a 5-day period to assess appointment/clinician availability for a fictitious patient with a new and changing mole. The 3 calls differed by insurance type specified, which were Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) preferred provider organization, Medicare, or Medicaid. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appointment success and wait times among insurance types and between PE-owned clinics and control clinics. Secondary outcomes were the provision of accurate referrals to other clinics when appointments were denied and clinician and next-day appointment availability. Results: A total of 1833 calls were made to 204 PE-owned and 407 control clinics without PE ownership across 28 states. Overall appointment success rates for BCBS, Medicare, and Medicaid were 96%, 94%, and 17%, respectively. Acceptance of BCBS (98.5%; 95% CI, 96%-99%; P = .03) and Medicare (97.5%; 95% CI, 94%-99%; P = .02) were slightly higher at PE-owned clinics (compared with 94.6% [95% CI, 92%-96%] and 92.8% [95% CI, 90%-95%], respectively, at control clinics). Wait times (median days, interquartile range [IQR]) were similar for patients with BCBS (7 days; IQR, 2-22 days) and Medicare (7 days; IQR, 2-25 days; P > .99), whereas Medicaid patients waited significantly longer (13 days; IQR, 4-33 days; P = .002). Clinic ownership did not significantly affect wait times. Private equity-owned clinics were more likely than controls to offer a new patient appointment with an NPC (80% vs 63%; P = .001) and to not have an opening with a dermatologist (16% vs 6%; P < .001). Next-day appointment availability was greater at PE-owned clinics than controls (30% vs 21%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with Medicaid had significantly lower success in obtaining appointments and significantly longer wait times regardless of clinic ownership. Although the use of dermatologists and NPCs was similar regardless of clinic ownership, PE-owned clinics were more likely than controls to offer new patient appointments with NPCs.

Dermatologists' Perceptions and Confidence in Cosmetic Care for Male Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest in nonsurgical cosmetic procedures in men, the utilization of aesthetic treatments remains comparatively low, suggesting the presence of barriers to care. OBJECTIVE: To describe barriers to cosmetic intervention for male patients from the perspective of dermatologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous, online survey was distributed through a listserv made available by the American Academy of Dermatology. RESULTS: Dermatologist respondents perceived a low utilization of cosmetic services in male patients (5%) and a lack of opportunity (72.3%) to provide such services. Respondents also perceived a lack of sufficient education/training (40.9%), experience (20.5%), and a lack of evidence in the field (20.5%) for dermatologists as potential barriers to cosmetic care for male patients. Presence of targeted messaging and in-office educational materials for male patients was found to be associated with increased utilization of cosmetic treatments by male patients (p = .012, p = .012, respectively). Dermatologists reported strong confidence in delivering various noninvasive cosmetic treatments to male patients. CONCLUSION: Despite dermatologists' reported confidence in performing cosmetic procedures in men, many perceive insufficient education/training and experience with this population which may create barriers to cosmetic care for male patients. Increasing educational materials and targeted messaging to male patients may decrease barriers for patients to receive desired cosmetic care.

Innovation interest within dermatology: a needs assessment for novel thought processes.

Medical innovation is crucial to advancing our field, and physicians have the potential to play a leading role due to their daily patient care experiences. The objective of this study was to evaluate the interest in, and barriers to participating in innovation. Two surveys were conducted; the first cross-sectional survey was conducted among attendees of the Advancing Innovation in Dermatology Forum in Feburary 2019. The second survey was conducted among trainees (resident/fellows) and faculty dermatologists at Brown, Emory, Iowa, Stanford, and Vanderbilt Universities between June and November 2019. Demographic data were collected, as well as factors involved with identifying problems, developing solutions, training in innovation, and perceived barriers to innovation. In the first survey, the greatest perceived benefits include bringing joy to one's work and increasing professional fulfillment with work. Innovation was also perceived to decrease burnout. In the second survey of academic centers, faculty more commonly expressed interest in identifying problems (p = 0.04), and was also more confident in their ability to generate solutions to these problems as compared to trainees (p < 0.01). Major barriers to participating in innovation processes included lack of time and lack of training or education in innovation. Both trainees and faculty groups noted a lack of knowledge in creating prototypes, understanding regulatory approval for medical products, and inexperience with pitching to investors or obtaining funding. These cross-sectional needs assessment surveys found a strong interest in innovation coupled with a lack of education in innovation processes. These findings suggest an urgent need and opportunity for providing formal training to empower dermatologists with the tools to lead innovation within our field.

Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH-Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic terms used in histopathology reports of cutaneous melanocytic lesions are not standardized. We describe dermatopathologists' views regarding diverse diagnostic terminology and the utility of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) for categorizing melanocytic lesions. METHODS: July 2018-2019 survey of board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists with experience interpreting melanocytic lesions. RESULTS: Among 160 participants, 99% reported witnessing different terminology being used for the same melanocytic lesion. Most viewed diverse terminology as confusing to primary care physicians (98%), frustrating to pathologists (83%), requiring more of their time as a consultant (64%), and providing necessary clinical information (52%). Most perceived that adoption of the MPATH-Dx would: improve communication with other pathologists and treating physicians (87%), generally be a change for the better (80%), improve patient care (79%), be acceptable to clinical colleagues (68%), save time in pathology report documentation (53%), and protect from malpractice (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists view diverse terminology as contributing to miscommunication with clinicians and patients, adversely impacting patient care. They view the MPATH-Dx as a promising tool to standardize terminology and improve communication. The MPATH-Dx may be a useful supplement to conventional pathology reports. Further revision and refinement are necessary for widespread clinical use.

Changes in Use of Radiotherapy Among Dermatologists From 2013 to 2017.

Importance: Concerns have been raised about the use of radiotherapy (RT) by dermatologists. Little is known about temporal trends in payment for RT among dermatologists. Objective: To characterize changes in RT use and payment among dermatologists treating patients enrolled in Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional, population-based retrospective analysis of dermatologists submitting Medicare claims was conducted. Dermatologists identified in the 2013-2017 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File, which includes information on fee-for-service payments and service use among physicians caring for Medicare beneficiaries, were included in the analysis. The study was conducted from March 18 to October 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Numbers and types of RT, current terminology codes billed by dermatologists, number of dermatologists providing RT services, total payments and median payments per dermatologist for RT services, total services and median services per dermatologist, and number of dermatologists billing for both RT and Mohs micrographic surgery services. Results: From 2013 to 2017, dermatologists billed RT codes, which included RT planning, preparation, delivery, and management services with varying levels of complexity. The number of dermatologists using RT increased from 115 to 198 between 2013 to 2017. Total payments and total services for RT have fluctuated over time. Median payments per dermatologist and median services provided per dermatologist for RT reached their highest level in 2017 ($80 810 and 629 services). In 2013, RT delivery was the highest reimbursed RT service type (total paid, $9 121 505). By 2017, clinical treatment planning and simulation was the highest reimbursed service type (total paid, $20 288 796). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study indicate that dermatologist use of RT continues to increase. A wide variety of RT services are billed by dermatologists. Further research is needed to ensure expanded use is safe, efficacious, and cost-effective.

Role of national dermatology societies: A perspective from Tunis.

Dermatology in French-speaking African countries is facing many challenges. Dermatology societies, if they exist, are relatively young and have limited financial resources to provide regular training opportunities for their members and those in training. In several sub-Saharan nations, the small number of dermatologists is truly alarming with the prevalence of such major skin diseases as cutaneous leishmaniasis, AIDS, mycetoma, leprosy, and the consequences of skin bleaching procedures, reaching catastrophic figures.

Assessment of deep neural networks for the diagnosis of benign and malignant skin neoplasms in comparison with dermatologists: A retrospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for diagnosing several types of skin neoplasms has been demonstrated as comparable with that of dermatologists using clinical photography. However, the generalizability should be demonstrated using a large-scale external dataset that includes most types of skin neoplasms. In this study, the performance of a neural network algorithm was compared with that of dermatologists in both real-world practice and experimental settings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To demonstrate generalizability, the skin cancer detection algorithm (https://rcnn.modelderm.com) developed in our previous study was used without modification. We conducted a retrospective study with all single lesion biopsied cases (43 disorders; 40,331 clinical images from 10,426 cases: 1,222 malignant cases and 9,204 benign cases); mean age (standard deviation [SD], 52.1 [18.3]; 4,701 men [45.1%]) were obtained from the Department of Dermatology, Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2019. Using the external validation dataset, the predictions of the algorithm were compared with the clinical diagnoses of 65 attending physicians who had recorded the clinical diagnoses with thorough examinations in real-world practice. In addition, the results obtained by the algorithm for the data of randomly selected batches of 30 patients were compared with those obtained by 44 dermatologists in experimental settings; the dermatologists were only provided with multiple images of each lesion, without clinical information. With regard to the determination of malignancy, the area under the curve (AUC) achieved by the algorithm was 0.863 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.852-0.875), when unprocessed clinical photographs were used. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm at the predefined high-specificity threshold were 62.7% (95% CI 59.9-65.1) and 90.0% (95% CI 89.4-90.6), respectively. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity of the first clinical impression of 65 attending physicians were 70.2% and 95.6%, respectively, which were superior to those of the algorithm (McNemar test; p < 0.0001). The positive and negative predictive values of the algorithm were 45.4% (CI 43.7-47.3) and 94.8% (CI 94.4-95.2), respectively, whereas those of the first clinical impression were 68.1% and 96.0%, respectively. In the reader test conducted using images corresponding to batches of 30 patients, the sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm at the predefined threshold were 66.9% (95% CI 57.7-76.0) and 87.4% (95% CI 82.5-92.2), respectively. Furthermore, the sensitivity and specificity derived from the first impression of 44 of the participants were 65.8% (95% CI 55.7-75.9) and 85.7% (95% CI 82.4-88.9), respectively, which are values comparable with those of the algorithm (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; p = 0.607 and 0.097). Limitations of this study include the exclusive use of high-quality clinical photographs taken in hospitals and the lack of ethnic diversity in the study population. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm could diagnose skin tumors with nearly the same accuracy as a dermatologist when the diagnosis was performed solely with photographs. However, as a result of limited data relevancy, the performance was inferior to that of actual medical examination. To achieve more accurate predictive diagnoses, clinical information should be integrated with imaging information.