Why go to international conferences?

I recently returned from the DASS (Dermatology and Allied Specialties Summit) in New Delhi. It was interesting and thought provoking. New Delhi, and India in general, are modern and ancient, growing like Topsy, crushed into one another, in a hyperkinetic mix, something like Mexico on amphetamines.

I generally find conferences far afield introduce novel ideas. It helps greatly that these conferences almost always use English as the official language.

The underlying concept for DASS is multidisciplinary, which is unusual in dermatology. It was rewarding to discuss skin cancer treatment with surgical oncologists, plastic and general surgeons, and medical oncologists. There were also discussions on polycystic ovary disease, rosacea and the “red face,” current treatment of Hansen disease, man-eating psoriasis and urticaria, and of course, botulinum toxin, fillers, lasers, and chemical peels. Of great interest were new “old” treatments for skin disease, since biologics are generally not affordable.

I also got into lively discussions at the World Congress of Dermatology in Vancouver a few weeks earlier. The problem in many countries is funding of dermatologic treatments (particularly Mohs) within a fixed dermatology budget. We in the United States can vote with our feet, and generally seek out treatment we decide is best. Over the past 30 years, 70% of skin cancer has migrated from hospital-based surgical specialties to office-based dermatology, at great cost savings to the health care system.

In most of the world, the government allocates money, and tells hospitals and doctors to make do. This results in a static, change-resistant budget process, where patients have even fewer choices than in the U.S. Hospitals always win in these budget battles, to the detriment of office-based medicine and patient choice, and innovation.

Internationally, correcting this may require dermatologists going to politicians and not saying, “we need more money,” but rather saying, “we can save you money.” For example, if 99% of skin cancer treatment moves out of the hospital to the office setting, where it should be, the budgeteers should be delighted to pay your office costs, which are a fraction of those for an operating room. The budget should reflect that X number of new operating rooms do not need to be built, X number of scrub nurses do not need to trained or can be reassigned, X number of support staff are not needed, or that wait times, a chronic complaint around the world, can shrink.

There will be resistance to this approach from hospital-dependent specialists, and the hospitals. They will argue it isn’t safe, and that the costs aren’t defined. However, these issues have been worked out in detail and the data published.

The same argument can be made for the use of biologics. How many erythrodermic hospitalizations will be avoided? How many missed days of work will not be missed?

It is far easier to budge a bureaucracy by emphasizing cost savings rather than quality, though these are opportunities for dermatologists to improve both.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati. Email him at [email protected].

I recently returned from the DASS (Dermatology and Allied Specialties Summit) in New Delhi. It was interesting and thought provoking. New Delhi, and India in general, are modern and ancient, growing like Topsy, crushed into one another, in a hyperkinetic mix, something like Mexico on amphetamines.

I generally find conferences far afield introduce novel ideas. It helps greatly that these conferences almost always use English as the official language.

The underlying concept for DASS is multidisciplinary, which is unusual in dermatology. It was rewarding to discuss skin cancer treatment with surgical oncologists, plastic and general surgeons, and medical oncologists. There were also discussions on polycystic ovary disease, rosacea and the “red face,” current treatment of Hansen disease, man-eating psoriasis and urticaria, and of course, botulinum toxin, fillers, lasers, and chemical peels. Of great interest were new “old” treatments for skin disease, since biologics are generally not affordable.

I also got into lively discussions at the World Congress of Dermatology in Vancouver a few weeks earlier. The problem in many countries is funding of dermatologic treatments (particularly Mohs) within a fixed dermatology budget. We in the United States can vote with our feet, and generally seek out treatment we decide is best. Over the past 30 years, 70% of skin cancer has migrated from hospital-based surgical specialties to office-based dermatology, at great cost savings to the health care system.

In most of the world, the government allocates money, and tells hospitals and doctors to make do. This results in a static, change-resistant budget process, where patients have even fewer choices than in the U.S. Hospitals always win in these budget battles, to the detriment of office-based medicine and patient choice, and innovation.

Internationally, correcting this may require dermatologists going to politicians and not saying, “we need more money,” but rather saying, “we can save you money.” For example, if 99% of skin cancer treatment moves out of the hospital to the office setting, where it should be, the budgeteers should be delighted to pay your office costs, which are a fraction of those for an operating room. The budget should reflect that X number of new operating rooms do not need to be built, X number of scrub nurses do not need to trained or can be reassigned, X number of support staff are not needed, or that wait times, a chronic complaint around the world, can shrink.

There will be resistance to this approach from hospital-dependent specialists, and the hospitals. They will argue it isn’t safe, and that the costs aren’t defined. However, these issues have been worked out in detail and the data published.

The same argument can be made for the use of biologics. How many erythrodermic hospitalizations will be avoided? How many missed days of work will not be missed?

It is far easier to budge a bureaucracy by emphasizing cost savings rather than quality, though these are opportunities for dermatologists to improve both.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati. Email him at [email protected].

I recently returned from the DASS (Dermatology and Allied Specialties Summit) in New Delhi. It was interesting and thought provoking. New Delhi, and India in general, are modern and ancient, growing like Topsy, crushed into one another, in a hyperkinetic mix, something like Mexico on amphetamines.

I generally find conferences far afield introduce novel ideas. It helps greatly that these conferences almost always use English as the official language.

The underlying concept for DASS is multidisciplinary, which is unusual in dermatology. It was rewarding to discuss skin cancer treatment with surgical oncologists, plastic and general surgeons, and medical oncologists. There were also discussions on polycystic ovary disease, rosacea and the “red face,” current treatment of Hansen disease, man-eating psoriasis and urticaria, and of course, botulinum toxin, fillers, lasers, and chemical peels. Of great interest were new “old” treatments for skin disease, since biologics are generally not affordable.

I also got into lively discussions at the World Congress of Dermatology in Vancouver a few weeks earlier. The problem in many countries is funding of dermatologic treatments (particularly Mohs) within a fixed dermatology budget. We in the United States can vote with our feet, and generally seek out treatment we decide is best. Over the past 30 years, 70% of skin cancer has migrated from hospital-based surgical specialties to office-based dermatology, at great cost savings to the health care system.

In most of the world, the government allocates money, and tells hospitals and doctors to make do. This results in a static, change-resistant budget process, where patients have even fewer choices than in the U.S. Hospitals always win in these budget battles, to the detriment of office-based medicine and patient choice, and innovation.

Internationally, correcting this may require dermatologists going to politicians and not saying, “we need more money,” but rather saying, “we can save you money.” For example, if 99% of skin cancer treatment moves out of the hospital to the office setting, where it should be, the budgeteers should be delighted to pay your office costs, which are a fraction of those for an operating room. The budget should reflect that X number of new operating rooms do not need to be built, X number of scrub nurses do not need to trained or can be reassigned, X number of support staff are not needed, or that wait times, a chronic complaint around the world, can shrink.

There will be resistance to this approach from hospital-dependent specialists, and the hospitals. They will argue it isn’t safe, and that the costs aren’t defined. However, these issues have been worked out in detail and the data published.

The same argument can be made for the use of biologics. How many erythrodermic hospitalizations will be avoided? How many missed days of work will not be missed?

It is far easier to budge a bureaucracy by emphasizing cost savings rather than quality, though these are opportunities for dermatologists to improve both.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice, but maintains a clinical assistant professorship of dermatology at the University of Cincinnati. Email him at [email protected].