A risk adjustment approach to estimating the burden of skin disease in the United States.

Direct insurance claims tabulation and risk adjustment statistical methods can be used to estimate health care costs associated with various diseases. In this third manuscript derived from the new national Burden of Skin Disease Report from the American Academy of Dermatology, a risk adjustment method that was based on modeling the average annual costs of individuals with or without specific diseases, and specifically tailored for 24 skin disease categories, was used to estimate the economic burden of skin disease. The results were compared with the claims tabulation method used in the first 2 parts of this project. The risk adjustment method estimated the direct health care costs of skin diseases to be $46 billion in 2013, approximately $15 billion less than estimates using claims tabulation. For individual skin diseases, the risk adjustment cost estimates ranged from 11% to 297% of those obtained using claims tabulation for the 10 most costly skin disease categories. Although either method may be used for purposes of estimating the costs of skin disease, the choice of method will affect the end result. These findings serve as an important reference for future discussions about the method chosen in health care payment models to estimate both the cost of skin disease and the potential cost impact of care changes.

Medicare Physician Payment in Need of Major Repair.

This Viewpoint examines Medicare physician payment flaws and needed reforms, including changes implemented by Congress, CMS, commercial payers, and physician employers.

The burden of skin disease in the United States.

Since the publication of the last US national burden of skin disease report in 2006, there have been substantial changes in the practice of dermatology and the US health care system. These include the development of new treatment modalities, marked increases in the cost of medications, increasingly complex payer rules and regulations, and an aging of the US population. Recognizing the need for up-to-date data to inform researchers, policy makers, public stakeholders, and health care providers about the impact of skin disease on patients and US society, the American Academy of Dermatology produced a new national burden of skin disease report. Using 2013 claims data from private and governmental insurance providers, this report analyzed the prevalence, cost, and mortality attributable to 24 skin disease categories in the US population. In this first of 3 articles, the presented data demonstrate that nearly 85 million Americans were seen by a physician for at least 1 skin disease in 2013. This led to an estimated direct health care cost of $75 billion and an indirect lost opportunity cost of $11 billion. Further, mortality was noted in half of the 24 skin disease categories.

Contribution of health care factors to the burden of skin disease in the United States.

The American Academy of Dermatology has developed an up-to-date national Burden of Skin Disease Report on the impact of skin disease on patients and on the US population. In this second of 3 manuscripts, data are presented on specific health care dimensions that contribute to the overall burden of skin disease. Through the use of data derived from medical claims in 2013 for 24 skin disease categories, these results indicate that skin disease health care is delivered most frequently to the aging US population, who are afflicted with more skin diseases than other age groups. Furthermore, the overall cost of skin disease is highest within the commercially insured population, and skin disease treatment primarily occurs in the outpatient setting. Dermatologists provided approximately 30% of office visit care and performed nearly 50% of cutaneous surgeries. These findings serve as a critical foundation for future discussions on the clinical importance of skin disease and the value of dermatologic care across the population.

Compliance by California tanning facilities with the nation's first statewide ban on use before the age of 18 years.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to indoor tanning, especially at younger ages, is associated with increased risk of skin cancer. Even in states with parental consent requirements, teenagers used tanning facilities at high rates. In 2011, California became the first state to pass a complete ban on indoor tanning by those younger than 18 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether tanning facilities in California were in compliance with the new law. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, telephone calls were placed in May 2013 to a statewide random sample of tanning facilities by a study investigator indicating that she was 17 years old. RESULTS: Of 600 advertised indoor tanning facilities, 338 met inclusion criteria. A majority of respondents (77%, 95% confidence interval 72%-81%) told the underage caller that she could not use their ultraviolet tanning facility. Most facilities, however, denied any dangers from ultraviolet tanning (61%) and made unlawful claims of specific health benefits, including vitamin-D production (44%), skin disease treatment (22%), prevention of future sunburns (17%), and prevention or treatment of depression (8%). LIMITATIONS: Tanning facilities may respond differently to a 17-year-old's request to tan in person versus by telephone. CONCLUSION: Given strong evidence linking indoor tanning to skin cancer, and the tanning industry's documented history of marketing specifically to teenagers, this study suggests that laws banning indoor tanning younger than 18 years can meaningfully impact access. Additional enforcement, however, may be required to bring about accurate disclosure of risk and prevent claims of unproven health benefits.

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.

An analysis of health system reform for dermatologists: elements and implications of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will have substantial effects on the US health care system. Physicians hold varied opinions regarding the overall merits or drawbacks of the health system reform law, but it is critical that we understand its components and the implications for our practices and our patients. This article describes the provisions most relevant to dermatology, analyzes the political and economic landscapes that shaped the legislation, and examines both opportunities and challenges that lie ahead. Physician leadership will be critical in future years as the regulations are written, the law is implemented, and legislative changes are considered.

Individual drug sampling does not supplant the need for head-to-head trials in dermatology.

A growing body of evidence has highlighted several risks and benefits associated with in-office sampling of prescription medications. While use-testing dermatologic medications from a sample closet may benefit some patients, it seems that the stunning lack of head-to-head trials comparing therapeutic options is a much larger and more important impediment to our determination of when the increased cost of newer agents is justified by superior efficacy, safety, or tolerability. If physicians are to retain the critical autonomy to make independent prescribing decisions in concert with our individual patients, we must take responsibility to call for and generate the comparative data we need to evaluate therapeutic options.

Changes in Drug List Prices and Amounts Paid by Patients and Insurers.

Importance: High out-of-pocket drug costs can cause patients to skip treatment and worsen outcomes, and high insurer drug payments could increase premiums. Drug wholesale list prices have doubled in recent years. However, because of manufacturer discounts and rebates, the extent to which increases in wholesale list prices are associated with amounts paid by patients and insurers is poorly characterized. Objective: To determine whether increases in wholesale list prices are associated with increases in amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional retrospective study analyzing pharmacy claims for patients younger than 65 years in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database and pricing data from SSR Health, LLC, between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Pharmacy claims analyzed represent claims of employees and dependents participating in employer health benefit programs belonging to large employers. Rebate data were estimated from sales data from publicly traded companies. Analysis focused on the top 5 patent-protected specialty and 9 traditional brand-name medications with the highest total drug expenditures by commercial insurers nationwide in 2014. Data were analyzed from July 2017 to July 2020. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in inflation-adjusted amounts paid by patients and insurers for branded medications. Results: In this analysis of 14.4 million pharmacy claims made by 1.8 million patients from 2010-2016, median drug wholesale list price increased by 129% (interquartile range [IQR], 78%-133%), while median insurance payments increased by 64% (IQR, 28%-120%) and out-of-pocket costs increased by 53% (IQR, 42%-82%). The mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by discounts increased from 17% in 2010 to 21% in 2016, and the mean percentage of wholesale list price accounted for by rebates increased from 22% in 2010 to 24% in 2016. For specialty medications, median patient out-of-pocket costs increased by 85% (IQR, 73%-88%) from 2010 to 2016 after adjustment for inflation and 42% (IQR, 25%-53%) for nonspecialty medications. During that same period, insurer payments increased by 116% for specialty medications (IQR, 100%-127%) and 28% for nonspecialty medications (IQR, 5%-34%). Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that drug list prices more than doubled over a 7-year study period. Despite rising manufacturer discounts and rebates, these price increases were associated with large increases in patient out-of-pocket costs and insurer payments.

A gender gap in the dermatology literature? Cross-sectional analysis of manuscript authorship trends in dermatology journals during 3 decades.

BACKGROUND: Despite a dramatic influx of female dermatologists during the last 30 years, women in academic dermatology departments remain relatively clustered in junior faculty positions. Research in other specialties showing a disparity in the academic productivity of women has led to many hypotheses regarding factors that may place them at a competitive disadvantage. It is unknown, however, whether similar differences in academic productivity might also serve as barriers to advancement in dermatology, or whether any productivity gap actually exists in this specialty that experienced a more substantial entry of women. OBJECTIVE: Because publication in peer-reviewed journals is one of the core measures of academic productivity used in the promotion process, we evaluated trends in the prevalence of female authorship in top dermatology journals during the last 3 decades. METHODS: We conducted an observational study of trends in the sex distribution of US authors in 3 prestigious general dermatology journals (in 1976, 1986, 1996, and 2006) and 3 subspecialty dermatology journals (in 2006 only). Journals were chosen based on published impact factors and citation half-lives. RESULTS: During the last 3 decades, the proportion of women authoring manuscripts in the 3 major general dermatology journals increased from 12% to 48% of US-affiliated first authors (P < .001) and from 6.2% to 31% of US-affiliated senior authors (P < .001). Separate analyses by journal and by article type showed similar increases. The prevalence of female authors in subspecialty journals in 2006 was slightly more variable. LIMITATIONS: Although the publications selected for this study capture many of the most respected US journals in dermatology, they may not be representative of all journals in which dermatologists publish. CONCLUSIONS: Female dermatologists are authoring publications in growing numbers that match or exceed their prevalence in the academic and overall workforce. This suggests that other factors (differences in productivity outside of the publishing arena, differences in job descriptions or opportunities, differences in career aspirations, a lack of institutional support or flexibility, or gender bias) may be associated with the ongoing reduced advancement of women to senior academic dermatology ranks relative to their male colleagues, and further research is warranted to explore these possibilities.

Patient safety: Part I. Patient safety and the dermatologist.

UNLABELLED: Congress is grappling with ways to fund health care in the future. Much of the focus rests on paying physicians for their patients' outcomes, rather than the current system of payment for services provided during each visit. The years ahead will be years of change for American health care, with an increasing emphasis on the comparison of patient outcomes and measures of quality. Patient safety initiatives will be an integral part of the overall strategy to improve American health care. Part one of this two-part series on patient safety examines what we know about patient safety in dermatology, including data from medicolegal claims and published data on patient safety in the setting of office-based surgery. The article also focuses on how medical societies, payers, the US government, and the Board of Medical Specialties are responding to calls for accountability and improvements in patient safety. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After completing this learning activity, participants should be able to identify risks to patient safety based on an understanding of the major causes of legal claims against dermatologists, use published patient safety data to improve the practice of office surgery, and be able to improve patient safety through an understanding of requirements for maintenance of certification.

Who else is providing care in dermatology practices? Trends in the use of nonphysician clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The US dermatology workforce, which is affected by a physician shortage, has reportedly seen a rapid and substantial influx of physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs). Little is known about which dermatology practices use these practitioners, how they are supervised, and the services they are providing. METHODS: We analyzed results of the American Academy of Dermatology's 2007 practice profile survey to learn more about patterns of nonphysician clinician (NPC) use. Of 3965 surveys mailed, responses were obtained from 1243 dermatologists (31% response rate). Comparison data were drawn from previous surveys conducted with a similar methodology in 2002 (35% response rate) and 2005 (30% response rate). RESULTS: Overall, 325 responding dermatologists (29.6%) reported using PAs, NPs, or both in their practices in 2007, a 43% increase from the proportion in 2002 (20.7%). PAs were more prevalent than NPs (23% vs 10%). By the year 2010, 36.2% of respondents plan to hire these NPCs. Younger cohorts of dermatologists were significantly more likely to use NPCs (P = .006), as were those in group and academic practices (P < .0001). Respondents seeking to hire additional dermatologists (P < .0001) and those with surgical or cosmetically focused practices (P < .001) were much more likely to use NPCs. Respondents reported supervising their NPCs on-site 92.8% of the time, but 31% were off-site 10% of the time or more. Most dermatologists allowed their NPCs to see new patients and established patients with new problems, and a minority of these patients were formally presented to a physician during extender visits. NPCs spent the majority of their time seeing medical dermatology patients, even if their supervising dermatologist was primarily engaged in surgical or cosmetic dermatology. LIMITATIONS: Survey respondents might have inaccurately reported practice characteristics or might not be representative of all US dermatologists. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of persistently long patient wait times and difficulty recruiting new physician staff, dermatologists have rapidly turned to PAs and NPs to help meet patient demand for care. These NPCs are primarily caring for new and established medical dermatology patients under indirect supervision. In the absence of explicit consensus or policy as to how the field should ensure future access to care for patients with skin disease, growth in the use of NPCs has continued, with significant variation in use and supervision patterns.

The US dermatology workforce: a specialty remains in shortage.

INTRODUCTION: Since 1999, multiple surveys have documented a stable undersupply of dermatologic services in the United States. Factors contributing to the imbalance include changes in the demographics of the physician workforce, increased demand for services, and a limited number of training positions for new physicians. In response to the demand, there has also been a substantial influx of nonphysician clinicians into dermatology offices. METHODS: We sought to follow up the large data set collected by the American Academy of Dermatology in 2002; the survey was repeated in 2005 and 2007. Response rates ranged from 30% to 35% and included more than 1200 respondents each year. RESULTS: Few changes were noted in the metrics used to assess the balance of supply and demand in the US dermatology workforce between 2002 and 2007. Mean wait times for new patient appointments decreased slightly from 36 to 33 days. One third of practices continue to seek additional dermatologists. In 2007, 23% of practices reported employing a physician assistant and 10% a nurse practitioner (up from 15% and 8% in 2002). In 2007, typical dermatologists continued to spend the bulk of their direct patient care time in medical dermatology (23.9 hours, 63%), followed by surgery (10.2 hours, 27%), and then cosmetic dermatology (3.8 hours, 10%). A substantial subset of dermatologists (29%) spent half or more of their time in surgical and cosmetic dermatology combined. Although female dermatologists worked fewer total hours, they spent equal time caring for patients with medical dermatologic conditions, less time in surgical dermatology, and more time in cosmetic dermatology. LIMITATIONS: The survey is potentially subject to inaccurate self-report and response bias. Although the results shed light on patient access and the dermatology workforce, they do not establish or quantify any impact on patients' health. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2002 and 2007, despite continued increases in the number of nonphysician clinicians in US dermatology offices, there were only small changes in the overall metrics commonly used to assess workforce balance. These findings suggest persistent unmet demand, but, given divergent trends of ongoing increases in surgical and cosmetic dermatology, growth in the use of physician assistants and nurse practitioners, and an aging and expanding US population, the future balance of supply and demand remains difficult to predict. Nevertheless, careful workforce planning and deliberative consideration of the risks and benefits of rapidly emerging changes in the delivery of dermatologic care are essential to ensure access to high-quality care for patients with skin disease.

Pediatric dermatology workforce shortage: perspectives from academia.

BACKGROUND: The pediatric dermatology workforce has not been systematically evaluated since recent changes in board certification requirements. OBJECTIVE: To quantify and characterize the workforce of academic pediatric dermatologists and examine issues related to training, hiring, and retention. METHODS: Dermatology chairpersons and residency directors in the United States and Canada completed a 30-question survey. RESULTS: Eighty of 132 programs (61%) responded to the survey. More than two thirds of programs (56/80) employed a pediatric dermatologist, and 34 programs were recruiting a pediatric dermatologist. The number of residents that pursue careers in pediatric dermatology is significantly associated with the number of pediatric dermatologists on faculty at their institution. LIMITATIONS: Self-reported data, which may have been reflected by recall bias, and 61% response rate. CONCLUSIONS: At a majority of academic centers, the current pool of pediatric dermatology faculty is neither adequate to meet academic nor clinical demands. Methods to increase exposure to pediatric dermatology among medical students and residents must be sought.

Short wait times for patients seeking cosmetic botulinum toxin appointments with dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Wait times for both routine and urgent dermatology appointments typically exceed 3 to 4 weeks. Many factors affecting physician workforce adequacy and patient access have been explored, but little is known about the impact of increasing numbers of doctors offering cosmetic services. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate access to dermatologists for patients requesting cosmetic services. METHODS: Scripted patient telephone calls were made to 898 dermatologists in 12 metropolitan areas to assess wait times for an appointment to receive cosmetic botulinum toxin injections. The areas chosen were surveyed completely, and respondents represented about one tenth of practicing dermatologists in the United States. The methodology was identical to that used in a previous study of wait times for evaluation of a changing mole (a possible indicator of malignancy). RESULTS: Half of dermatologist respondents (455, 50.7%) offered appointments for botulinum toxin injections, and the median wait time was 8 days. Acceptance rates and wait times varied greatly by geographic area (range of median wait times 6.0-32.5 days), with dermatologists in Miami, Fla, and Orange County, California, most likely to provide a botulinum toxin appointment with a short wait time. Many dermatologists (241, 27%) employed physician extenders, and 39% of these extenders also offered appointments for botulinum toxin injections (median wait time 6 days). In comparison with a previous study showing median wait times of 26 days for evaluation of a changing mole in these communities, wait times for cosmetic injections were significantly shorter (P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The metropolitan areas surveyed contain no highly rural areas and do not represent a random sample of all US dermatology practice sites. The cosmetic and medical studies were not conducted concurrently, but were carried out in the same metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: Patients seeking a cosmetic botulinum toxin injection have more rapid access to dermatologists than has been previously reported for patients seeking urgent consultation for a changing mole. This study cannot differentiate between many possible explanations for the observed differences in wait times. Because physicians in many other specialties with physician shortages are also offering cosmetic services, further studies are needed to assess the broader policy implications of these findings.