Opinions clash over private equity’s effect on dermatology

March 27, 2018|Dermatology

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAD 18

She suggested that private equity ownership of practices results in loss of physician autonomy in making clinical decisions such as where patients are referred for Mohs surgery, where specimens go for pathology assessment, and how the office is staffed and what equipment is purchased. Financial interest can also push for increased patient volume, more procedures, and greater focus on the cosmetic side. Private equity “commodifies dermatology and lowers the quality of care,” said Dr. Grant-Kels, professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut in Farmington.

“Have we learned nothing from dermatopathology, which has been ruined” by private equity, she asked. “The only ones who benefit are those making the private equity investments.” She cited similar, recently published views from other dermatologists, such as a recently published viewpoint article written by Jack S. Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Francisco (JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;154[1]:13-4).

Dr. Perlis and Dr. Grant-Kels had no disclosures. They spoke during a session on dermatoethics at the AAD annual meeting. In an interview, Dr. Perlis said that his own personal views on this topic are far more nuanced.*

*This article was updated on April 4, 2018.

mzoler@mdedge.com