Benchmarks are coming

We have actively avoided benchmarks in medicine since time immemorial. There is a strong argument that rote, one-size-fits-all parameters for care medicine are bad for our patients, and obviously they interfere with our flexibility in dealing with complex obscure diseases. This flexibility is critical in dermatology, where we deal with over 3,000 diseases, and there truly is more art than science involved in treating some of them.

Nonetheless, here come the benchmarks. Since we have not provided them, they have been provided for us. Look no further than United Health Care’s Optum program, or Cigna’s star ratings, both of which rank on average costs, without regard to subspecialty or intensity of disease.

Benchmarks have proven useful in industry and have improved quality there. I expect they will be most annoying to practicing physicians. There are also great variations in practice patterns we must make sure are accounted for. A pediatric dermatologist, for example, does radically fewer skin biopsies than a Mohs surgeon, and diagnoses many fewer malignancies. However, some things are inexplicable, even after opening two standard deviations, and you need to be aware they may be coming.

The Medicare data release was an eye opener for many. This information is readily available on multiple web sites in numeric and graphic display. You should look yourself and your “peers” up on the Wall Street Journal or ProPublicaweb sites. For example, it is hard to fathom how every closure can be a flap, or how every Mohs case is four stages. Or even more bizarre, how you can do Mohs and never have a second stage. It is hard to understand how most dermatologists have a certain number of skin biopsies or shave excisions per patient encounter and others ten times as many. With this in mind, I encourage all of you to look at your own ratios of procedures compared to your peers. Recall that Medicare data lag two years before publication. Areas that could be under scrutiny include:

• Number of skin biopsies per encounter.

• Number of repeat patient encounters per year.

• Number of lesion destructions per patient.

• Ratio of first to additional layers of Mohs.

• Number of Mohs procedures on trunk and extremities, compared with head and neck.

• Percentage of closures done with adjacent tissue transfers.

• Number of shave excisions per patient.

• Number of complex closures, compared with layered closures, particularly on the trunk and extremities.

• Number of diagnostic frozen sections.

• Frequency of use of special stains on pathology specimens.

We need to be actively involved in the development of these so that we are not forced into a one size fits all mold. I expect this will start with the private insurers, including Medicare advantage plans, since they have real time data analysis, and a keen desire to save money. These “benchmarks” will be a work in progress and will infuriate some of you. They are, however, more credible, and better, than the current state of affairs, where insurance companies rank you by simply averaging your costs under your tax identification number.

So heads up, benchmarks are coming your way. Review your own public data, compared with your peers and see if you are an outlier, and if so, ponder the reason why. It is not too late to take corrective action.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. Reach him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

We have actively avoided benchmarks in medicine since time immemorial. There is a strong argument that rote, one-size-fits-all parameters for care medicine are bad for our patients, and obviously they interfere with our flexibility in dealing with complex obscure diseases. This flexibility is critical in dermatology, where we deal with over 3,000 diseases, and there truly is more art than science involved in treating some of them.

Nonetheless, here come the benchmarks. Since we have not provided them, they have been provided for us. Look no further than United Health Care’s Optum program, or Cigna’s star ratings, both of which rank on average costs, without regard to subspecialty or intensity of disease.

Benchmarks have proven useful in industry and have improved quality there. I expect they will be most annoying to practicing physicians. There are also great variations in practice patterns we must make sure are accounted for. A pediatric dermatologist, for example, does radically fewer skin biopsies than a Mohs surgeon, and diagnoses many fewer malignancies. However, some things are inexplicable, even after opening two standard deviations, and you need to be aware they may be coming.

The Medicare data release was an eye opener for many. This information is readily available on multiple web sites in numeric and graphic display. You should look yourself and your “peers” up on the Wall Street Journal or ProPublicaweb sites. For example, it is hard to fathom how every closure can be a flap, or how every Mohs case is four stages. Or even more bizarre, how you can do Mohs and never have a second stage. It is hard to understand how most dermatologists have a certain number of skin biopsies or shave excisions per patient encounter and others ten times as many. With this in mind, I encourage all of you to look at your own ratios of procedures compared to your peers. Recall that Medicare data lag two years before publication. Areas that could be under scrutiny include:

• Number of skin biopsies per encounter.

• Number of repeat patient encounters per year.

• Number of lesion destructions per patient.

• Ratio of first to additional layers of Mohs.

• Number of Mohs procedures on trunk and extremities, compared with head and neck.

• Percentage of closures done with adjacent tissue transfers.

• Number of shave excisions per patient.

• Number of complex closures, compared with layered closures, particularly on the trunk and extremities.

• Number of diagnostic frozen sections.

• Frequency of use of special stains on pathology specimens.

We need to be actively involved in the development of these so that we are not forced into a one size fits all mold. I expect this will start with the private insurers, including Medicare advantage plans, since they have real time data analysis, and a keen desire to save money. These “benchmarks” will be a work in progress and will infuriate some of you. They are, however, more credible, and better, than the current state of affairs, where insurance companies rank you by simply averaging your costs under your tax identification number.

So heads up, benchmarks are coming your way. Review your own public data, compared with your peers and see if you are an outlier, and if so, ponder the reason why. It is not too late to take corrective action.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. Reach him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

We have actively avoided benchmarks in medicine since time immemorial. There is a strong argument that rote, one-size-fits-all parameters for care medicine are bad for our patients, and obviously they interfere with our flexibility in dealing with complex obscure diseases. This flexibility is critical in dermatology, where we deal with over 3,000 diseases, and there truly is more art than science involved in treating some of them.

Nonetheless, here come the benchmarks. Since we have not provided them, they have been provided for us. Look no further than United Health Care’s Optum program, or Cigna’s star ratings, both of which rank on average costs, without regard to subspecialty or intensity of disease.

Benchmarks have proven useful in industry and have improved quality there. I expect they will be most annoying to practicing physicians. There are also great variations in practice patterns we must make sure are accounted for. A pediatric dermatologist, for example, does radically fewer skin biopsies than a Mohs surgeon, and diagnoses many fewer malignancies. However, some things are inexplicable, even after opening two standard deviations, and you need to be aware they may be coming.

The Medicare data release was an eye opener for many. This information is readily available on multiple web sites in numeric and graphic display. You should look yourself and your “peers” up on the Wall Street Journal or ProPublicaweb sites. For example, it is hard to fathom how every closure can be a flap, or how every Mohs case is four stages. Or even more bizarre, how you can do Mohs and never have a second stage. It is hard to understand how most dermatologists have a certain number of skin biopsies or shave excisions per patient encounter and others ten times as many. With this in mind, I encourage all of you to look at your own ratios of procedures compared to your peers. Recall that Medicare data lag two years before publication. Areas that could be under scrutiny include:

• Number of skin biopsies per encounter.

• Number of repeat patient encounters per year.

• Number of lesion destructions per patient.

• Ratio of first to additional layers of Mohs.

• Number of Mohs procedures on trunk and extremities, compared with head and neck.

• Percentage of closures done with adjacent tissue transfers.

• Number of shave excisions per patient.

• Number of complex closures, compared with layered closures, particularly on the trunk and extremities.

• Number of diagnostic frozen sections.

• Frequency of use of special stains on pathology specimens.

We need to be actively involved in the development of these so that we are not forced into a one size fits all mold. I expect this will start with the private insurers, including Medicare advantage plans, since they have real time data analysis, and a keen desire to save money. These “benchmarks” will be a work in progress and will infuriate some of you. They are, however, more credible, and better, than the current state of affairs, where insurance companies rank you by simply averaging your costs under your tax identification number.

So heads up, benchmarks are coming your way. Review your own public data, compared with your peers and see if you are an outlier, and if so, ponder the reason why. It is not too late to take corrective action.

Dr. Coldiron is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. He is currently in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. Reach him at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.