Soraya Azzawi, MD

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

As of 2018, the mean dermatologist to population ratio in the United States was 1.10 per 100,000 people, highlighting a shortage of dermatologists that is only predicted to increase in coming years.^1-4 This undersupply is fueled by both an increasing burden of dermatologic disease and population growth.⁴ Without readily available access to dermatologic care, many patients are left waiting for weeks to see a dermatologist, depending on geographic region.^5-7 It is not simply patients who perceive wait times to be prolonged; approximately half of dermatologists surveyed by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) reported an undersupply of dermatologists in their communities, a finding that strongly correlated with patient wait times.² Ensuring the dermatologic workforce is sufficient to fulfill patient needs requires innovation of current practice models. To address this unmet demand, many practices have begun incorporating physician extenders, a term that encompasses physicians not board certified in dermatology, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners.⁷ The evolving landscape of the dermatologic workforce raises questions about future practice models and patient outcomes.

Scope of Practice for Physician Extenders

In practice, the role of physician extenders is highly variable. Legislation involving the scope of practice for physician extenders constantly is changing and varies by state. As of November 2021, 24 states and the District of Columbia permit nurse practitioners “full practice” authority to triage patients, interpret diagnostic tests, and prescribe treatments without physician oversight, including controlled substances.^8,9 Even in states with “reduced practice” and “restricted practice” paradigms, which necessitate physician oversight, there remains ambiguity. Across the country, state regulatory bodies differ in statues governing licensing requirements, accessibility of the supervising physician, and ultimately culpability in the case of patient harm. Lack of consensus guidelines that clearly define roles and responsibilities has kindled controversy regarding extent of autonomy and liability for adverse outcomes.^10,11

With respect to procedures, the AAD has explicitly recommended that “only active and properly licensed doctors of medicine and osteopathy shall engage in the practice of medicine” but that “under appropriate circumstances, a physician may delegate certain procedures and services to appropriately trained nonphysician office personnel.”¹² This statement does not refer to or explicitly list the procedures that are appropriate for delegation to nonphysician personnel, and there is wide variability in how this recommendation is applied in daily practice. As it was originally intended, the AAD’s “Ethics in Medical Practice” position statement indicated that dermatologists must directly oversee physician extenders, a responsibility that is defined as being “present on-site, immediately available and able to respond promptly” to issues arising during the provision of health care services.¹²

Adverse Events From Cosmetic Procedures

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery has documented a steady growth in the demand for cosmetic, medical, and surgical services,¹³ a trend that has heralded an increase in the number of procedures performed by physician extenders.^14,15 One study contrasted the risk for adverse events following minimally invasive cosmetic procedures performed by physicians or nonphysicians. Of 2116 patients surveyed, 50 adverse events were documented.¹⁴ The cohort treated by nonphysicians experienced a higher incidence of laser burns and dyspigmentation, and the use of improper technique was the most frequently implicated cause of developing an adverse event. Approximately 24.6% of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery members reported treating 10 or more complications of cosmetic procedures performed by nonphysicians.¹⁴ Beyond laser burns and dyspigmentation, this wide range of complications included inappropriately placed filler product, facial drooping, and scarring. These studies highlight the need for further investigation into the outcomes of procedures performed by physician extenders.

Training of Physician Extenders

Even with medical management, emphasis on proper training of personnel is key and remains a legitimate concern. The training of physician extenders in dermatology differs greatly by location; while some physician extenders operate under meticulous guidance and thus can expand their skill set, other physician extenders shadow dermatologists for an arbitrary amount of time before being thrust into practice.¹⁰ It would be a disservice to both patients and nonphysician providers alike to conflate the latter regimen with the 4 years of medical school, 1 year of internship, and 3 years of rigorous specialized dermatologic training that physicians undergo.

This stark discrepancy between the training of physicians and physician extenders raises difficult questions about the patient’s right to make an informed decision regarding how they receive health care. Indeed, the casually regulated autonomous practice of some nonphysician providers has ignited public shock and ire.¹¹

Reducing Health Care Expenditures

As legislatures deliberate over expanding scope of practice, policies should be based on evidence that prioritizes patient safety. In the appropriate setting, physician extenders can be instrumental to mitigating health care disparities; the use of physician extenders can diminish wait times for patients with routine visits for stable dermatologic disease.¹⁶ Moreover, reducing health care expenditures often is cited as a major benefit of increased utilization of physician extenders.¹⁴ It stands to reason that compensation of nonphysician providers is less expensive for a practice compared with physicians. Physician extenders participating in the management of stable chronic conditions or mild acute conditions may be cost-efficient in these circumstances; however, evidence suggests that physician extenders may incur greater costs than physicians with respect to the utilization of diagnostic tests or prescribing medications. For example, several studies have documented a substantial difference in the number of biopsies needed per malignant neoplasm by physicians compared to physician extenders.^17-19 Particularly in patients younger than 65 years and in patients without history of skin cancer, physician extenders had to perform a greater number of biopsies to diagnose malignant neoplasms vs physicians.¹⁸ In addition to increased utilization of diagnostic tests, nonphysician providers more frequently prescribe medications of varying classes.^20-22 Whether in outpatient offices, emergency departments, or hospital clinics, physician extenders more frequently prescribe antibiotics, which has concerning implications for antibiotic stewardship.^20,21 In states with independent prescription authority, physician extenders are more than 20 times more likely to overprescribeopioids compared to physician extenders in states requiring physician supervision.²³ These findings warrant additional investigation into how prescription patterns vary by provider type and how these differences impact patient outcomes.

Final Thoughts

Improving patient care is inherently a team endeavor, and the contributions of all members of the health care team are critical to success. Engaging physician extenders may help mitigate disparities in dermatologic care, with respect to surveillance of stable chronic conditions or the diagnosis of mild acute diseases. However, the exact scope of practice of physician extenders remains ambiguous, and their training regimens can vary drastically. Therefore, in the interest of patient safety, new patients or medically complex patients (ie, cutaneous lymphomas, nonstable autoimmune connective tissue disease) should be examined and managed by physicians. In either scenario, the patient should be informed of which providers are available and should be integrated into the decision-making process for their care. Through mutual respect, close collaboration, and candid assessments of patient complexity, different parties within the medical team can unite behind the mission to improve patient outcomes and champion equitable access to health care.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.