Understanding downstream service profitability generated by dermatology faculty in an academic medical center: a key driver to promotion of access-to-care.

Hiring new dermatology faculty at academic medical centers (AMCs) can be a difficult process. Academic dermatology departments, however, must have the financial freedom to nimbly respond to the needs of their community. To determine the downstream revenue and profitability produced by dermatology faculty, a retrospective review of charges and expenses downstream of professional services was performed to assess dermatology faculty and nurse practitioners from January 2019 to December 2020 at a single AMC in the southern United States. The downstream revenue per dermatology faculty was calculated using institutional data based on the number of services performed and the exact compensation per service. When this was not possible, the Medicare Allowable Charge was used to estimate the compensation for the service provided. Revenue was included from internal referrals to dermatopathology, Mohs surgery and repairs, chemistry and microbiology labs, radiology, and phototherapy. Profitability was calculated using institutional cost data to estimate the expense of each additional unit of services performed. The most valuable source of downstream income was dermatopathology services, which generated $85,395/provider in 2019 and $102,746/provider in 2020. Mohs surgery was also a significant source of downstream revenue contributing $92,715 in 2019 and $96,599 in 2020. Repairs after Mohs surgery internal referrals generated $30,036 in 2019 and $36,507 in 2020. The total contributions of chemistry and microbiology labs, radiology, and phototherapy were considerable but less impactful overall. The total downstream revenue calculated from these services for 2019 was $228,304/provider and $255,549 in 2020. The total downstream profitability for these services was calculated to be $112,597/provider in 2019 and $92,344/provider in 2020. In conclusion, faculty of academic dermatology departments produces a great deal more revenue and profitability for AMCs than the sum of their professional charges.

Initial skin cancer screening for solid organ transplant recipients in the United States: Delphi method development of expert consensus guidelines.

Skin cancer is the most common malignancy affecting solid organ transplant recipients (SOTR), and SOTR experience increased skin cancer-associated morbidity and mortality. There are no formal multidisciplinary guidelines for skin cancer screening after transplant, and current practices are widely variable. We conducted three rounds of Delphi method surveys with a panel of 84 U.S. dermatologists and transplant physicians to establish skin cancer screening recommendations for SOTR. The transplant team should risk stratify SOTR for screening, and dermatologists should perform skin cancer screening by full-body skin examination. SOTR with a history of skin cancer should continue regular follow-up with dermatology for skin cancer surveillance. High-risk transplant patients include thoracic organ recipients, SOTR age 50 and above, and male SOTR. High-risk Caucasian patients should be screened within 2 years after transplant, all Caucasian, Asian, Hispanic, and high-risk African American patients should be screened within 5 years after transplant. No consensus was reached regarding screening for low-risk African American SOTR. We propose a standardized approach to skin cancer screening in SOTR based on multidisciplinary expert consensus. These guidelines prioritize and emphasize the need for screening for SOTR at greatest risk for skin cancer.

Sun Protection Behaviors of State Park Workers in the Southeastern USA.

BACKGROUND: Due to the nature of their work, state park workers receive substantial exposure to sunlight, putting them at an increased risk of developing skin cancer. Increased use of sun protection behaviors can reduce this risk. OBJECTIVES: Using the health belief model (HBM) as a theoretical framework, the purpose of this study was to assess factors associated with sun protection behaviors among state-park workers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a convenience sample of participants were recruited from 23 state parks in the Southeastern USA to complete a self-administered questionnaire based on the constructs of the HBM. RESULTS: The sample comprised 310 state park workers. The majority of participants were non-Hispanic White (61.6%), male (63.5%), and were aged 39.56 (±13.97) years on average. The average duration of sun exposure during the workday was reported as 3.51 h (±1.88). Nearly 12% of the participants reported that their workplace had a sun-safety policy and ~10% reported receiving sun-safety training at their workplace. The majority of participants reported that they did not sufficiently use sun protection methods. Factors associated with sun protection behaviors included the HBM constructs of perceived benefits outweighing perceived barriers (standardized coefficient = 0.210, P = 0.001), self-efficacy (standardized coefficient = 0.333, P < 0.001), and cues to action (standardized coefficient = 0.179, P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Future research should explore the barriers to adopting and enforcing sun-safety policies in the workplace. HBM appears to be efficacious in explaining sun protection behaviors among state park workers. HBM constructs should be considered in future interventions aimed at increasing sun protection behaviors in this population.