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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Choice, Transparency, Coordination, and Quality Among Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Websites and Apps Treating Skin Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence supports use of teleconsultation for improving patient access to dermatology. However, little is known about the quality of rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine websites and smartphone apps diagnosing and treating skin disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of DTC teledermatology services. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Simulated patients submitted a series of structured dermatologic cases with photographs, including neoplastic, inflammatory, and infectious conditions, using regional and national DTC telemedicine websites and smartphone apps offering services to California residents. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Choice of clinician, transparency of credentials, clinician location, demographic and medical data requested, diagnoses given, treatments recommended or prescribed, adverse effects discussed, care coordination. RESULTS: We received responses for 62 clinical encounters from 16 DTC telemedicine websites from February 4 to March 11, 2016. None asked for identification or raised concerns about pseudonym use or falsified photographs. During most encounters (42 [68%]), patients were assigned a clinician without any choice. Only 16 (26%) disclosed information about clinician licensure, and some used internationally based physicians without California licenses. Few collected the name of an existing primary care physician (14 [23%]) or offered to send records (6 [10%]). A diagnosis or likely diagnosis was proffered in 48 encounters (77%). Prescription medications were ordered in 31 of 48 diagnosed cases (65%), and relevant adverse effects or pregnancy risks were disclosed in a minority (10 of 31 [32%] and 6 of 14 [43%], respectively). Websites made several correct diagnoses in clinical scenarios where photographs alone were adequate, but when basic additional history elements (eg, fever, hypertrichosis, oligomenorrhea) were important, they regularly failed to ask simple relevant questions and diagnostic performance was poor. Major diagnoses were repeatedly missed, including secondary syphilis, eczema herpeticum, gram-negative folliculitis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Regardless of the diagnoses given, treatments prescribed were sometimes at odds with existing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Telemedicine has potential to expand access to high-value health care. Our findings, however, raise concerns about the quality of skin disease diagnosis and treatment provided by many DTC telemedicine websites. Ongoing expansion of health plan coverage of these services may be premature. Until improvements are made, patients risk using health care services that lack transparency, choice, thoroughness, diagnostic and therapeutic quality, and care coordination. We offer several suggestions to improve the quality of DTC telemedicine websites and apps and avoid further growth of fragmented, low-quality care.

The accuracy of dermatology network physician directories posted by Medicare Advantage health plans in an era of narrow networks.

IMPORTANCE Insurers are increasingly deploying "narrow networks" with fewer contracted physicians both in health plans offered in new state exchanges under the Affordable Care Act and in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, which are commercial alternatives offered to Medicare beneficiaries. Patients choosing health plans rely on the accuracy of network directories posted by insurers. The MA plans must meet network adequacy requirements,and inaccurate directories of participating physicians might prejudice those determinations.OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy of MA plan directories of participating dermatologists,and the appointment availability of listed physicians.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Scripted telephone calls were placed to every dermatologist listed in directories for the largest MA plans in 12 US metropolitan areas. The caller sought an appointment on behalf of his fictitious father who had severe itch for several months, asked whether the dermatologist accepted the relevant plan, and asked for the next available appointment date.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Appointment availability and wait time.RESULTS Among 4754 total physician listings, 45.5%represented duplicates in the same plan directory. Among the remaining unique listings, 48.9% of physicians were reachable,accepted the listed plan, and offered an appointment for our fictitious patient. Many of the dermatologists listed had incorrect contact information, were deceased, retired, or had moved, were not accepting new patients, did not accept the insurance plan, or were subspecialized. The mean (range) wait time for appointments among the remaining listings was 45.5 (1-414) days. Both the accuracy of network directories and the appointment wait times varied substantially by health plan and metropolitan area. For 1 plan, our caller was unable to obtain an appointment with any listed dermatologist. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Medicare Advantage physician directories for dermatology in many areas substantially overestimate the number of in-network physicians available to treat patients with medical skin conditions. These inaccuracies occurred in areas with long appointment wait times and where plans are terminating selected physician contracts. This suggests a lack of capacity that would be exacerbated by further network narrowing.Accurate physician directories are essential for proper oversight of network adequacy, and for patients who rely on these listings to evaluate health plan options during open enrollment.

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.