Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH

To the Editor:

In response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, iPLEDGE announced that they would accept results from home pregnancy tests and explicitly permit telemedicine.¹ Given the financial and logistical burdens associated with iPLEDGE, these changes have the potential to increase access.² However, it is unclear whether these modifications will be allowed to continue. We sought to evaluate clinician perspectives on the role of telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for iPLEDGE.

After piloting among several clinicians, a 13-question survey was distributed using the Qualtrics platform to members of the American Acne & Rosacea Society between April 14, 2021, and June 14, 2021. This survey consisted of items addressing provider practices and perspectives on telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for patients taking isotretinoin (eTable). Respondents were asked whether they think telemedicine and home pregnancy testing have improved access to care and whether they would like to continue these practices going forward. In addition, participants were asked about their concerns with home pregnancy testing and how comfortable they feel with home pregnancy testing for various contraceptive strategies (abstinence, condoms, combined oral contraceptives, and long-acting reversible contraception). This study was deemed exempt (category 2) by the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) institutional review board (Protocol #844549).

Among 70 clinicians who completed the survey (response rate, 6.4%), 33 (47.1%) practiced in an academic setting. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians reported using telemedicine for a median of 90% (IQR=50%–100%) of their patients on isotretinoin, and 57 respondents (81.4%) reported having patients use a home pregnancy test for iPLEDGE (Table 1). More than 75% (55/70) agreed that they would like to continue to use telemedicine for patients on isotretinoin, and more than 75% (54/70) agreed that they would like to continue using home pregnancy testing for patients outside the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 75% (54/70) agreed that telemedicine has increased access for their patients, and more than 70% (52/70) agreed that home pregnancy testing has increased access (Table 2). Clinicians agreed that they would be comfortable using home pregnancy testing for patients choosing long-acting reversible contraception (63/70 [90.0%]), combined oral contraceptives (61/69 [88.4%]), condoms (47/70 [67.1%]), or abstinence (48/70 [68.6%])(Table 3).

The most common concerns about home pregnancy testing were patient deception (39/70 [55.7%]), logistical challenges with reviewing results (19/70 [27.1%]), accuracy of the tests (19/70 [27.1%]), and patient ability to interpret tests appropriately (18/70 [25.7%]). To document testing results, 50 respondents (73.5%) would require a picture of results, 4 (5.9%) would accept a written report from the patient, and 14 (20.6%) would accept a verbal report from the patient (Table 2).

In this survey, clinicians expressed interest in continuing to use telemedicine and home pregnancy testing to care for patients with acne treated with isotretinoin. More than 75% agreed that these changes have increased access, which is notable, as several studies have identified that female and minority patients may face iPLEDGE-associated access barriers.^3,4 Continuing to allow home pregnancy testing and explicitly permitting telemedicine can enable clinicians to provide patient-centered care.²

Although clinicians felt comfortable with a variety of contraceptive strategies, particularly those with high reported effectiveness,⁵ there were concerns about deception and interpretation of test results. Future studies are needed to identify optimal workflows for home pregnancy testing and whether patients should be required to provide a photograph of the results.

This survey study is limited by the possibility of sampling and response bias due to the low response rate. Although the use of national listservs was employed to maximize the generalizability of the results, given the response rate, future studies are needed to evaluate whether these findings generalize to other settings. In addition, given iPLEDGE-associated access barriers, further research is needed to examine how changes such as telemedicine and home pregnancy testing influence both access to isotretinoin and pregnancy prevention.

Acknowledgments—We would like to thank Stacey Moore (Montclair, New Jersey) and the American Acne & Rosacea Society for their help distributing the survey.

To the Editor:

In response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, iPLEDGE announced that they would accept results from home pregnancy tests and explicitly permit telemedicine.¹ Given the financial and logistical burdens associated with iPLEDGE, these changes have the potential to increase access.² However, it is unclear whether these modifications will be allowed to continue. We sought to evaluate clinician perspectives on the role of telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for iPLEDGE.

After piloting among several clinicians, a 13-question survey was distributed using the Qualtrics platform to members of the American Acne & Rosacea Society between April 14, 2021, and June 14, 2021. This survey consisted of items addressing provider practices and perspectives on telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for patients taking isotretinoin (eTable). Respondents were asked whether they think telemedicine and home pregnancy testing have improved access to care and whether they would like to continue these practices going forward. In addition, participants were asked about their concerns with home pregnancy testing and how comfortable they feel with home pregnancy testing for various contraceptive strategies (abstinence, condoms, combined oral contraceptives, and long-acting reversible contraception). This study was deemed exempt (category 2) by the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) institutional review board (Protocol #844549).

Among 70 clinicians who completed the survey (response rate, 6.4%), 33 (47.1%) practiced in an academic setting. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians reported using telemedicine for a median of 90% (IQR=50%–100%) of their patients on isotretinoin, and 57 respondents (81.4%) reported having patients use a home pregnancy test for iPLEDGE (Table 1). More than 75% (55/70) agreed that they would like to continue to use telemedicine for patients on isotretinoin, and more than 75% (54/70) agreed that they would like to continue using home pregnancy testing for patients outside the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 75% (54/70) agreed that telemedicine has increased access for their patients, and more than 70% (52/70) agreed that home pregnancy testing has increased access (Table 2). Clinicians agreed that they would be comfortable using home pregnancy testing for patients choosing long-acting reversible contraception (63/70 [90.0%]), combined oral contraceptives (61/69 [88.4%]), condoms (47/70 [67.1%]), or abstinence (48/70 [68.6%])(Table 3).

The most common concerns about home pregnancy testing were patient deception (39/70 [55.7%]), logistical challenges with reviewing results (19/70 [27.1%]), accuracy of the tests (19/70 [27.1%]), and patient ability to interpret tests appropriately (18/70 [25.7%]). To document testing results, 50 respondents (73.5%) would require a picture of results, 4 (5.9%) would accept a written report from the patient, and 14 (20.6%) would accept a verbal report from the patient (Table 2).

In this survey, clinicians expressed interest in continuing to use telemedicine and home pregnancy testing to care for patients with acne treated with isotretinoin. More than 75% agreed that these changes have increased access, which is notable, as several studies have identified that female and minority patients may face iPLEDGE-associated access barriers.^3,4 Continuing to allow home pregnancy testing and explicitly permitting telemedicine can enable clinicians to provide patient-centered care.²

Although clinicians felt comfortable with a variety of contraceptive strategies, particularly those with high reported effectiveness,⁵ there were concerns about deception and interpretation of test results. Future studies are needed to identify optimal workflows for home pregnancy testing and whether patients should be required to provide a photograph of the results.

This survey study is limited by the possibility of sampling and response bias due to the low response rate. Although the use of national listservs was employed to maximize the generalizability of the results, given the response rate, future studies are needed to evaluate whether these findings generalize to other settings. In addition, given iPLEDGE-associated access barriers, further research is needed to examine how changes such as telemedicine and home pregnancy testing influence both access to isotretinoin and pregnancy prevention.

Acknowledgments—We would like to thank Stacey Moore (Montclair, New Jersey) and the American Acne & Rosacea Society for their help distributing the survey.

To the Editor:

In response to the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, iPLEDGE announced that they would accept results from home pregnancy tests and explicitly permit telemedicine.¹ Given the financial and logistical burdens associated with iPLEDGE, these changes have the potential to increase access.² However, it is unclear whether these modifications will be allowed to continue. We sought to evaluate clinician perspectives on the role of telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for iPLEDGE.

After piloting among several clinicians, a 13-question survey was distributed using the Qualtrics platform to members of the American Acne & Rosacea Society between April 14, 2021, and June 14, 2021. This survey consisted of items addressing provider practices and perspectives on telemedicine and home pregnancy testing for patients taking isotretinoin (eTable). Respondents were asked whether they think telemedicine and home pregnancy testing have improved access to care and whether they would like to continue these practices going forward. In addition, participants were asked about their concerns with home pregnancy testing and how comfortable they feel with home pregnancy testing for various contraceptive strategies (abstinence, condoms, combined oral contraceptives, and long-acting reversible contraception). This study was deemed exempt (category 2) by the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) institutional review board (Protocol #844549).

Among 70 clinicians who completed the survey (response rate, 6.4%), 33 (47.1%) practiced in an academic setting. At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians reported using telemedicine for a median of 90% (IQR=50%–100%) of their patients on isotretinoin, and 57 respondents (81.4%) reported having patients use a home pregnancy test for iPLEDGE (Table 1). More than 75% (55/70) agreed that they would like to continue to use telemedicine for patients on isotretinoin, and more than 75% (54/70) agreed that they would like to continue using home pregnancy testing for patients outside the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 75% (54/70) agreed that telemedicine has increased access for their patients, and more than 70% (52/70) agreed that home pregnancy testing has increased access (Table 2). Clinicians agreed that they would be comfortable using home pregnancy testing for patients choosing long-acting reversible contraception (63/70 [90.0%]), combined oral contraceptives (61/69 [88.4%]), condoms (47/70 [67.1%]), or abstinence (48/70 [68.6%])(Table 3).

The most common concerns about home pregnancy testing were patient deception (39/70 [55.7%]), logistical challenges with reviewing results (19/70 [27.1%]), accuracy of the tests (19/70 [27.1%]), and patient ability to interpret tests appropriately (18/70 [25.7%]). To document testing results, 50 respondents (73.5%) would require a picture of results, 4 (5.9%) would accept a written report from the patient, and 14 (20.6%) would accept a verbal report from the patient (Table 2).

In this survey, clinicians expressed interest in continuing to use telemedicine and home pregnancy testing to care for patients with acne treated with isotretinoin. More than 75% agreed that these changes have increased access, which is notable, as several studies have identified that female and minority patients may face iPLEDGE-associated access barriers.^3,4 Continuing to allow home pregnancy testing and explicitly permitting telemedicine can enable clinicians to provide patient-centered care.²

Although clinicians felt comfortable with a variety of contraceptive strategies, particularly those with high reported effectiveness,⁵ there were concerns about deception and interpretation of test results. Future studies are needed to identify optimal workflows for home pregnancy testing and whether patients should be required to provide a photograph of the results.

This survey study is limited by the possibility of sampling and response bias due to the low response rate. Although the use of national listservs was employed to maximize the generalizability of the results, given the response rate, future studies are needed to evaluate whether these findings generalize to other settings. In addition, given iPLEDGE-associated access barriers, further research is needed to examine how changes such as telemedicine and home pregnancy testing influence both access to isotretinoin and pregnancy prevention.

Acknowledgments—We would like to thank Stacey Moore (Montclair, New Jersey) and the American Acne & Rosacea Society for their help distributing the survey.

In 2019, the   2 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for skin biopsies (11100 and 11101) were replaced with 6 new CPT codes that   specify biopsy technique   and associated procedural complexity. ^1,2 Prior to the coding changes, all biopsies were reimbursed at the same payment level, but a punch biopsy (11104; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $133.29) is now reimbursed more than a shave biopsy (11102; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $106.42). ³ We sought to evaluate whether the decrease in reimbursement for shave biopsies and concurrent increase in reimbursement for punch biopsies led to a shift from shave to punch biopsy utilization.

Methods

We examined shave and punch biopsies submitted for pathologic examination at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Massachusetts General Physician’s Organization (all in Boston, Massachusetts), and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), in May 2018 vs May 2019 (four months after new codes were implemented). This study was approved by Partners HealthCare (Boston, Massachusetts) and the University of Pennsylvania institutional review boards.

We included shave and punch biopsies of skin performed by physician dermatologists and mid-level providers (ie, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) at dermatology practices. All biopsies performed by a technique other than shave or punch, unspecified biopsy type, consultation cases, nonskin biopsies (eg, mucosa), and biopsies performed at nondermatology practices were excluded. We also excluded biopsies by providers who were not present during both study periods to account for provider mix.

Statistical Analysis
To evaluate for changes in the ratio of shave to punch biopsy utilization over time, we performed χ² tests. Because care practices may differ between private and academic settings as well as between physicians and mid-level providers, we performed subgroup analyses by practice setting and provider type.⁴

Results

We identified 11,785 biopsies (12.11% of which were punch) submitted for pathologic examination in May 2018 compared to 11,291 biopsies (12.08% of which were punch) in May 2019 (Table). The overall use of punch biopsies relative to shave biopsies did not change between the years. There was a relative decrease in punch biopsy use among academic practices (−1.88%; P=.032) and a relative increase in punch biopsy use among private practices (+0.90%; P=.043). Provider type was not associated with differing utilization of biopsy type.

Comment

Overall, there was not a considerable shift in utilization behavior from shave to punch biopsies after the introduction of new coding changes. However, our study does demonstrate a small yet significant increase in punch biopsy utilization among private practices, and a decrease among academic practices. Although the change in biopsy utilization behavior is small in magnitude, it may have a substantial impact when extrapolated to behavior across the entire United States.

We were unable to assess additional factors, such as clinical diagnosis, body site, and cosmetic concerns, that may impact biopsy type selection in this study. Although we included multiple study sites to improve generalizability, our findings may not be representative of all biopsies performed in the dermatology setting. The baseline difference in relative punch biopsy use in academic vs private practices may reflect differences in patient populations and chief concerns, but assuming these features are stable over a 1-year time period, our findings should remain valid. Future studies should focus on qualitative evaluations of physician decision-making and evaluate whether similar trends persist over time.

Conclusion

Skin biopsy utilization trends among differing practice and provider types should continue to be monitored to assess for longitudinal trends in utilization within the context of updated billing codes and associated reimbursements.

In 2019, the   2 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for skin biopsies (11100 and 11101) were replaced with 6 new CPT codes that   specify biopsy technique   and associated procedural complexity. ^1,2 Prior to the coding changes, all biopsies were reimbursed at the same payment level, but a punch biopsy (11104; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $133.29) is now reimbursed more than a shave biopsy (11102; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $106.42). ³ We sought to evaluate whether the decrease in reimbursement for shave biopsies and concurrent increase in reimbursement for punch biopsies led to a shift from shave to punch biopsy utilization.

Methods

We examined shave and punch biopsies submitted for pathologic examination at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Massachusetts General Physician’s Organization (all in Boston, Massachusetts), and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), in May 2018 vs May 2019 (four months after new codes were implemented). This study was approved by Partners HealthCare (Boston, Massachusetts) and the University of Pennsylvania institutional review boards.

We included shave and punch biopsies of skin performed by physician dermatologists and mid-level providers (ie, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) at dermatology practices. All biopsies performed by a technique other than shave or punch, unspecified biopsy type, consultation cases, nonskin biopsies (eg, mucosa), and biopsies performed at nondermatology practices were excluded. We also excluded biopsies by providers who were not present during both study periods to account for provider mix.

Statistical Analysis
To evaluate for changes in the ratio of shave to punch biopsy utilization over time, we performed χ² tests. Because care practices may differ between private and academic settings as well as between physicians and mid-level providers, we performed subgroup analyses by practice setting and provider type.⁴

Results

We identified 11,785 biopsies (12.11% of which were punch) submitted for pathologic examination in May 2018 compared to 11,291 biopsies (12.08% of which were punch) in May 2019 (Table). The overall use of punch biopsies relative to shave biopsies did not change between the years. There was a relative decrease in punch biopsy use among academic practices (−1.88%; P=.032) and a relative increase in punch biopsy use among private practices (+0.90%; P=.043). Provider type was not associated with differing utilization of biopsy type.

Comment

Overall, there was not a considerable shift in utilization behavior from shave to punch biopsies after the introduction of new coding changes. However, our study does demonstrate a small yet significant increase in punch biopsy utilization among private practices, and a decrease among academic practices. Although the change in biopsy utilization behavior is small in magnitude, it may have a substantial impact when extrapolated to behavior across the entire United States.

We were unable to assess additional factors, such as clinical diagnosis, body site, and cosmetic concerns, that may impact biopsy type selection in this study. Although we included multiple study sites to improve generalizability, our findings may not be representative of all biopsies performed in the dermatology setting. The baseline difference in relative punch biopsy use in academic vs private practices may reflect differences in patient populations and chief concerns, but assuming these features are stable over a 1-year time period, our findings should remain valid. Future studies should focus on qualitative evaluations of physician decision-making and evaluate whether similar trends persist over time.

Conclusion

Skin biopsy utilization trends among differing practice and provider types should continue to be monitored to assess for longitudinal trends in utilization within the context of updated billing codes and associated reimbursements.

In 2019, the   2 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for skin biopsies (11100 and 11101) were replaced with 6 new CPT codes that   specify biopsy technique   and associated procedural complexity. ^1,2 Prior to the coding changes, all biopsies were reimbursed at the same payment level, but a punch biopsy (11104; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $133.29) is now reimbursed more than a shave biopsy (11102; national nonfacility Medicare payment, $106.42). ³ We sought to evaluate whether the decrease in reimbursement for shave biopsies and concurrent increase in reimbursement for punch biopsies led to a shift from shave to punch biopsy utilization.

Methods

We examined shave and punch biopsies submitted for pathologic examination at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Massachusetts General Physician’s Organization (all in Boston, Massachusetts), and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), in May 2018 vs May 2019 (four months after new codes were implemented). This study was approved by Partners HealthCare (Boston, Massachusetts) and the University of Pennsylvania institutional review boards.

We included shave and punch biopsies of skin performed by physician dermatologists and mid-level providers (ie, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) at dermatology practices. All biopsies performed by a technique other than shave or punch, unspecified biopsy type, consultation cases, nonskin biopsies (eg, mucosa), and biopsies performed at nondermatology practices were excluded. We also excluded biopsies by providers who were not present during both study periods to account for provider mix.

Statistical Analysis
To evaluate for changes in the ratio of shave to punch biopsy utilization over time, we performed χ² tests. Because care practices may differ between private and academic settings as well as between physicians and mid-level providers, we performed subgroup analyses by practice setting and provider type.⁴

Results

We identified 11,785 biopsies (12.11% of which were punch) submitted for pathologic examination in May 2018 compared to 11,291 biopsies (12.08% of which were punch) in May 2019 (Table). The overall use of punch biopsies relative to shave biopsies did not change between the years. There was a relative decrease in punch biopsy use among academic practices (−1.88%; P=.032) and a relative increase in punch biopsy use among private practices (+0.90%; P=.043). Provider type was not associated with differing utilization of biopsy type.

Comment

Overall, there was not a considerable shift in utilization behavior from shave to punch biopsies after the introduction of new coding changes. However, our study does demonstrate a small yet significant increase in punch biopsy utilization among private practices, and a decrease among academic practices. Although the change in biopsy utilization behavior is small in magnitude, it may have a substantial impact when extrapolated to behavior across the entire United States.

We were unable to assess additional factors, such as clinical diagnosis, body site, and cosmetic concerns, that may impact biopsy type selection in this study. Although we included multiple study sites to improve generalizability, our findings may not be representative of all biopsies performed in the dermatology setting. The baseline difference in relative punch biopsy use in academic vs private practices may reflect differences in patient populations and chief concerns, but assuming these features are stable over a 1-year time period, our findings should remain valid. Future studies should focus on qualitative evaluations of physician decision-making and evaluate whether similar trends persist over time.

Conclusion

Skin biopsy utilization trends among differing practice and provider types should continue to be monitored to assess for longitudinal trends in utilization within the context of updated billing codes and associated reimbursements.