Anticipated Versus Unanticipated Incomplete Mohs Micrographic Surgery for Keratinocyte Carcinomas: Impact on Treatment Delays and Final Margin Status.

BACKGROUND: Mohs micrographic surgery may be discontinued with positive margins as an anticipated strategy for multidisciplinary care or as an unanticipated occurrence. Management of primary tumors has not been compared after anticipated versus unanticipated incomplete Mohs micrographic surgery (iMMS). OBJECTIVE: To compare rates and timing of adjuvant surgery after iMMS and final margin status when iMMS is anticipated versus unanticipated. Secondary outcomes were preoperative and intraoperative clinicopathologic factors associated with iMMS. METHODS: Cases of iMMS of keratinocyte carcinomas at a tertiary academic center between 2005 and 2022 were classified as anticipated (preoperative assembly of multidisciplinary teams) or unanticipated (ad hoc management of positive margins). Rate, timing, and final margin status of adjuvant surgery was compared between anticipated and unanticipated iMMS cohorts using χ2/Fisher exact test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. RESULTS: Of 127 iMMS cases, 51.2% (65/127) were anticipated. Anticipated iMMS cases were more likely to undergo additional resection (98.5% vs 72.6%, p < .001), with fewer delays (3.9 vs 13.2 days, p < .001) and higher rates of final margin clearance (84.6% vs 59.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: When iMMS is anticipated as part of multidisciplinary care, patients are more likely to undergo additional resection, with fewer delays to next surgery and higher final margin clearance rates.

Evolving teledermatology policy and reimbursement landscape in the United States.

Background: Policymakers and payers are reevaluating the temporary telehealth flexibilities granted during the COVID-19 public health emergency, which will shape future teledermatology utilization. Objective: To summarize the recently expanded telehealth flexibilities in the United States, projected changes, and corresponding implications for dermatologists. Methods: Narrative review of the literature, United States policies and regulations, and white paper reports. Results: Key telehealth flexibilities included expansion of payment parity, relaxation of originating site requirements, loosening of state licensure requirements, and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) enforcement discretion. These changes enabled widespread accessibility and adoption of teledermatology, which enhanced high-quality and cost-effective dermatologic care. Most waivers will end 151 days following the end of the public health emergency declaration. Notably, asynchronous telehealth was not included in the reimbursement expansion. Limitations: Only policies and regulations through December 2022 are included. Conclusion: It will be important for the field of dermatology to stay abreast of the upcoming changes in telemedicine policies and reimbursement, to demonstrate teledermatology's value through evidence-based studies and to advocate for enduring policies that will promote the accessibility of teledermatology for patients.