Consolidation is happening all throughout the healthcare industry in the United States, but the shift to consolidation in dermatology began to pick up speed in just the last 3 to 5 years and it has been driven by private investors, according to a new Viewpoint in JAMA Dermatology.
Consolidation is happening all throughout the healthcare industry in the United States, but the shift to consolidation in dermatology began to pick up speed in just the last 3 to 5 years and it has been driven by private investors, according to a new Viewpoint in JAMA Dermatology.
Author Jack S. Resneck Jr, MD, of the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, explained that as of 2014, approximately three-fourths of dermatologists remained in solo practices or single-specialty groups, but that dermatologists accounted for 15% of recent practice acquisitions by private equity (PE) firms.
“Several factors draw external investors to dermatology, including high patient demand, an ongoing skin cancer epidemic, an aging population, the shortage of dermatologists, expanded insurance coverage, and perceived opportunities to expand cosmetic services, add nonphysician clinicians, and profit from internal redirection of ancillary laboratory services or procedural referrals,” Resneck wrote.
He is concerned about irreversible risks that may occur as independent practices are replaced by “investor-owned conglomerates.” For instance, a lack of diversity of practice venues for dermatologists and patients to choose from in the future, or a loss of autonomy for dermatologists working in these purchased practices.
Other concerns include the PE firms seeking to increase profitability by relying more heavily on physician assistants in unsupervised satellite sites, and redirecting surgery referrals to employees in the consolidated group instead of allowing the dermatologists to choose the best option for the patient.
The dermatologists at these practices may run afoul of legal and regulatory compliance issues. Some of these methods that are used to improve profitability may carry risks of Stark law noncompliance, False Claims Act exposure, and malpractice litigation, Resneck noted.
He then called upon individual, independent practices that still remain to really weigh the costs and benefits for themselves and their patients before choosing to sell.
“I hope that the specialty will proactively consider this rapidly evolving landscape while there is still time to have some influence, or we may soon wake up to a radically different specialty that we had not paused to contemplate,” Resneck concluded.
POSITIVE Trial Update on Patients With Breast Cancer Attempting Pregnancy
December 8th 2023At last year’s San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, POSITIVE trial primary outcome data were presented on breast cancer–free interval, with women who paused endocrine therapy to attempt pregnancy having a similarly small rate of recurrence vs external controls from the SOFT and TEXT trials: 8.9% vs 9.2%.
Read More
Dr Kathryn Lindley on Pregnancy-Related Cardiovascular Care Gaps and Training Initiatives
December 8th 2023Cardiologists need skills in risk assessment, contraception counseling, and hypertension management for pregnant patients, according to Kathryn Lindley, MD, FACC, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
Read More
Real-World Data Show Poor Outcomes Among Patients With ACS and Blood Cancers
December 8th 2023A real-world analysis found that patients with acute coronary syndrome who were also diagnosed with a hematologic malignancy had worse survival outcomes, and patients with multiple myeloma were overrepresented in the population.
Read More