Commentary

Mostly it is loss that teaches us about the worth of things.
Arthur Schopenhauer¹

One of the leaders I most respected in my US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) career was a man who had worked his way up through the ranks to become a medical center director. Usually calm, cool, and collected, he would wax poetic when discussing the hero of the VA Health Care System revolution, Ken Kizer, MD, MPH.

In this issue of Federal Practitioner, journalist Randy Dotinga interviews Kizer about the current challenges facing the VA. Though many readers will have participated in or at least know about Kizer’s unprecedented overhaul of the agency, many others, especially those new to VA, may not. It seemed a fitting time to offer an outline of the immense and positive accomplishments that occurred in the agency during his tenure, especially as, under the current administration, many of his most forward-thinking initiatives seem to be moving backward.²

When President Clinton nominated Kizer to serve as the Under Secretary for Health for the Veterans Health Administration in 1994, the poor quality care the agency delivered was castigated in popular movies like Born on the Fourth of July. Veterans who were seen in that era, and who eventually returned to a far better, kinder VA thanks to Kizer, would often tell me, “Doc, the VA was really bad then, and I was afraid to come back.” The critique of VA health care in the mid-1990s sounds like a bureaucratic déjà vu of many of the concerns Kizer raised in his interview, including fragmentation of care, access barriers, and poor coordination of treatment.³

If anyone was prepared and qualified to take on this seeming mission impossible, it was Kizer. A US Navy veteran with 6 board certifications, he came to the VA following a brave and innovative stint as the top health official in California, where he successfully took on the tobacco lobby and dramatically reduced the state’s rates of smoking and related diseases.⁴

Long before it was the subject of reality TV shows, Kizer dubbed his major renovation of the VA’s antiquated structure an “extreme makeover.”³ Though this description is an oversimplification of Kizer’s monumental efforts, the makeover can be considered in 4 to 6 buckets, depending on how various health policy experts parse the re-engineering efforts.^5-7

Decentralization. Kizer instituted the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) system to coordinate the management and operations of all the hospitals, clinics, and other VA health care entities in what is roughly a region. The locus of decision-making shifted from the VA Central Office to the VISNs, intended to promote more efficient, economical, and streamlined health care delivery.

Capitation. Accompanying this restructuring was a shift to a capitated system focused on preventive care. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system was designed to logically link workload and funding. This was a major shift away from VA’s previous emphasis on inpatient and specialty care and resulted in the closing of multiple hospitals.⁴

Information Systems. I can still remember the first time I sat down at a prehistoric computer to use the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Though now much maligned, then it was like something out of Star Trek, at a time when almost every other health care institution was buried in paper charts. With CPRS, VA suddenly had a pioneering and much-envied electronic medical record that facilitated continuity of care, communication between professionals, and accuracy and completeness of documentation.

Data Driven Performance Improvement. The VISNs and information systems inaugurated a new era of data-driven quality improvement. The assembly and analysis of data enabled VISNs to have real-time input about comparative facility performance.

Performance Measures. The data enabled evidence-based performance measures to be developed and monitored. Though these have now become the bane of many Federal Practitioner readers’ existence, they were originally intended for VISN directors and members of the senior executive service at VA central office. These were tied to incentives that, though recently the subject of watchdog investigation, were intended to motivate and reward high-quality care.⁶

Even this cursory look at Kizer’s accomplishments is more than enough to demonstrate the magnitude of the makeover, and when the time frame of the achievements is factored in, the transformation is the equivalent of a planet changing its orbit at light speed. Rhetoric aside, there are now hundreds of research articles published in top medical and health policy journals, many of them authored by Kizer,^7,8 that have amply demonstrated that when he departed the VA in 1999, it had become “the best care anywhere.” ⁹ For example, a 2000 New England Journal of Medicine article found that from 1994 to 2000, the percentage of veterans whose care met ≥ 90% of 9 of 17 quality standards was > 70% for 13 of the measures, outperforming fee-for-service Medicare.¹⁰

There had been uncertainty about whether Kizer would seek a second term as Under Secretary when he announced that he was leaving. With concise modesty, Kizer said he had met his charge to, “re-engineer the veterans’ health care system so that it could effectively function in the 21^st century.”¹¹

Despite openly and critically discussing the many difficulties the VA currently confronts, Kizer ends his interview on a note of hope. Since he likely knows more about VA than any person alive, we need to trust his judgment that his legacy, which currently seems more in jeopardy than ever before, will somehow prevail. Perhaps I am too melancholic, but I believe it will take a professional of the stature of Dr. Kizer to take us back to that future, and I fear we will not see his likes again.

Mostly it is loss that teaches us about the worth of things.
Arthur Schopenhauer¹

One of the leaders I most respected in my US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) career was a man who had worked his way up through the ranks to become a medical center director. Usually calm, cool, and collected, he would wax poetic when discussing the hero of the VA Health Care System revolution, Ken Kizer, MD, MPH.

In this issue of Federal Practitioner, journalist Randy Dotinga interviews Kizer about the current challenges facing the VA. Though many readers will have participated in or at least know about Kizer’s unprecedented overhaul of the agency, many others, especially those new to VA, may not. It seemed a fitting time to offer an outline of the immense and positive accomplishments that occurred in the agency during his tenure, especially as, under the current administration, many of his most forward-thinking initiatives seem to be moving backward.²

When President Clinton nominated Kizer to serve as the Under Secretary for Health for the Veterans Health Administration in 1994, the poor quality care the agency delivered was castigated in popular movies like Born on the Fourth of July. Veterans who were seen in that era, and who eventually returned to a far better, kinder VA thanks to Kizer, would often tell me, “Doc, the VA was really bad then, and I was afraid to come back.” The critique of VA health care in the mid-1990s sounds like a bureaucratic déjà vu of many of the concerns Kizer raised in his interview, including fragmentation of care, access barriers, and poor coordination of treatment.³

If anyone was prepared and qualified to take on this seeming mission impossible, it was Kizer. A US Navy veteran with 6 board certifications, he came to the VA following a brave and innovative stint as the top health official in California, where he successfully took on the tobacco lobby and dramatically reduced the state’s rates of smoking and related diseases.⁴

Long before it was the subject of reality TV shows, Kizer dubbed his major renovation of the VA’s antiquated structure an “extreme makeover.”³ Though this description is an oversimplification of Kizer’s monumental efforts, the makeover can be considered in 4 to 6 buckets, depending on how various health policy experts parse the re-engineering efforts.^5-7

Decentralization. Kizer instituted the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) system to coordinate the management and operations of all the hospitals, clinics, and other VA health care entities in what is roughly a region. The locus of decision-making shifted from the VA Central Office to the VISNs, intended to promote more efficient, economical, and streamlined health care delivery.

Capitation. Accompanying this restructuring was a shift to a capitated system focused on preventive care. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system was designed to logically link workload and funding. This was a major shift away from VA’s previous emphasis on inpatient and specialty care and resulted in the closing of multiple hospitals.⁴

Information Systems. I can still remember the first time I sat down at a prehistoric computer to use the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Though now much maligned, then it was like something out of Star Trek, at a time when almost every other health care institution was buried in paper charts. With CPRS, VA suddenly had a pioneering and much-envied electronic medical record that facilitated continuity of care, communication between professionals, and accuracy and completeness of documentation.

Data Driven Performance Improvement. The VISNs and information systems inaugurated a new era of data-driven quality improvement. The assembly and analysis of data enabled VISNs to have real-time input about comparative facility performance.

Performance Measures. The data enabled evidence-based performance measures to be developed and monitored. Though these have now become the bane of many Federal Practitioner readers’ existence, they were originally intended for VISN directors and members of the senior executive service at VA central office. These were tied to incentives that, though recently the subject of watchdog investigation, were intended to motivate and reward high-quality care.⁶

Even this cursory look at Kizer’s accomplishments is more than enough to demonstrate the magnitude of the makeover, and when the time frame of the achievements is factored in, the transformation is the equivalent of a planet changing its orbit at light speed. Rhetoric aside, there are now hundreds of research articles published in top medical and health policy journals, many of them authored by Kizer,^7,8 that have amply demonstrated that when he departed the VA in 1999, it had become “the best care anywhere.” ⁹ For example, a 2000 New England Journal of Medicine article found that from 1994 to 2000, the percentage of veterans whose care met ≥ 90% of 9 of 17 quality standards was > 70% for 13 of the measures, outperforming fee-for-service Medicare.¹⁰

There had been uncertainty about whether Kizer would seek a second term as Under Secretary when he announced that he was leaving. With concise modesty, Kizer said he had met his charge to, “re-engineer the veterans’ health care system so that it could effectively function in the 21^st century.”¹¹

Despite openly and critically discussing the many difficulties the VA currently confronts, Kizer ends his interview on a note of hope. Since he likely knows more about VA than any person alive, we need to trust his judgment that his legacy, which currently seems more in jeopardy than ever before, will somehow prevail. Perhaps I am too melancholic, but I believe it will take a professional of the stature of Dr. Kizer to take us back to that future, and I fear we will not see his likes again.

Mostly it is loss that teaches us about the worth of things.
Arthur Schopenhauer¹

One of the leaders I most respected in my US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) career was a man who had worked his way up through the ranks to become a medical center director. Usually calm, cool, and collected, he would wax poetic when discussing the hero of the VA Health Care System revolution, Ken Kizer, MD, MPH.

In this issue of Federal Practitioner, journalist Randy Dotinga interviews Kizer about the current challenges facing the VA. Though many readers will have participated in or at least know about Kizer’s unprecedented overhaul of the agency, many others, especially those new to VA, may not. It seemed a fitting time to offer an outline of the immense and positive accomplishments that occurred in the agency during his tenure, especially as, under the current administration, many of his most forward-thinking initiatives seem to be moving backward.²

When President Clinton nominated Kizer to serve as the Under Secretary for Health for the Veterans Health Administration in 1994, the poor quality care the agency delivered was castigated in popular movies like Born on the Fourth of July. Veterans who were seen in that era, and who eventually returned to a far better, kinder VA thanks to Kizer, would often tell me, “Doc, the VA was really bad then, and I was afraid to come back.” The critique of VA health care in the mid-1990s sounds like a bureaucratic déjà vu of many of the concerns Kizer raised in his interview, including fragmentation of care, access barriers, and poor coordination of treatment.³

If anyone was prepared and qualified to take on this seeming mission impossible, it was Kizer. A US Navy veteran with 6 board certifications, he came to the VA following a brave and innovative stint as the top health official in California, where he successfully took on the tobacco lobby and dramatically reduced the state’s rates of smoking and related diseases.⁴

Long before it was the subject of reality TV shows, Kizer dubbed his major renovation of the VA’s antiquated structure an “extreme makeover.”³ Though this description is an oversimplification of Kizer’s monumental efforts, the makeover can be considered in 4 to 6 buckets, depending on how various health policy experts parse the re-engineering efforts.^5-7

Decentralization. Kizer instituted the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) system to coordinate the management and operations of all the hospitals, clinics, and other VA health care entities in what is roughly a region. The locus of decision-making shifted from the VA Central Office to the VISNs, intended to promote more efficient, economical, and streamlined health care delivery.

Capitation. Accompanying this restructuring was a shift to a capitated system focused on preventive care. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation system was designed to logically link workload and funding. This was a major shift away from VA’s previous emphasis on inpatient and specialty care and resulted in the closing of multiple hospitals.⁴

Information Systems. I can still remember the first time I sat down at a prehistoric computer to use the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS). Though now much maligned, then it was like something out of Star Trek, at a time when almost every other health care institution was buried in paper charts. With CPRS, VA suddenly had a pioneering and much-envied electronic medical record that facilitated continuity of care, communication between professionals, and accuracy and completeness of documentation.

Data Driven Performance Improvement. The VISNs and information systems inaugurated a new era of data-driven quality improvement. The assembly and analysis of data enabled VISNs to have real-time input about comparative facility performance.

Performance Measures. The data enabled evidence-based performance measures to be developed and monitored. Though these have now become the bane of many Federal Practitioner readers’ existence, they were originally intended for VISN directors and members of the senior executive service at VA central office. These were tied to incentives that, though recently the subject of watchdog investigation, were intended to motivate and reward high-quality care.⁶

Even this cursory look at Kizer’s accomplishments is more than enough to demonstrate the magnitude of the makeover, and when the time frame of the achievements is factored in, the transformation is the equivalent of a planet changing its orbit at light speed. Rhetoric aside, there are now hundreds of research articles published in top medical and health policy journals, many of them authored by Kizer,^7,8 that have amply demonstrated that when he departed the VA in 1999, it had become “the best care anywhere.” ⁹ For example, a 2000 New England Journal of Medicine article found that from 1994 to 2000, the percentage of veterans whose care met ≥ 90% of 9 of 17 quality standards was > 70% for 13 of the measures, outperforming fee-for-service Medicare.¹⁰

There had been uncertainty about whether Kizer would seek a second term as Under Secretary when he announced that he was leaving. With concise modesty, Kizer said he had met his charge to, “re-engineer the veterans’ health care system so that it could effectively function in the 21^st century.”¹¹

Despite openly and critically discussing the many difficulties the VA currently confronts, Kizer ends his interview on a note of hope. Since he likely knows more about VA than any person alive, we need to trust his judgment that his legacy, which currently seems more in jeopardy than ever before, will somehow prevail. Perhaps I am too melancholic, but I believe it will take a professional of the stature of Dr. Kizer to take us back to that future, and I fear we will not see his likes again.

For there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

Almost anyone who has worked for a long time in a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic or hospital has had patients in dire need of dental services who could neither access nor pay for them. I have seen dental problems ranging from older veterans who were nearly edentulous and needed expensive dentures or implants to younger veterans who never had regular dental care and needed a periodontist to save their teeth, to individuals with terrible toothaches that antibiotics could not cure. As Shakespeare quips in Much Ado About Nothing, almost nothing is worse than a toothache.

Many VA primary care practitioners and social workers kept lists of local sliding-scale dentists or arranged for veterans to visit dental and hygiene school clinics for reduced fees. Even when VA dentists were not permitted to see a veteran, many would assist in finding them affordable care in the community. However, that was never enough to meet the oral health needs of veterans. One of the most common complaints of patients who otherwise were pleased with their VA health care was that it did not cover dental services.¹

Most veterans qualify for health care and other VA benefits. Dental care is an exception, with only about a quarter (26%) of the > 9 million veterans active in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) eligible for care. Even under this restricted eligibility, about 888,000 veterans have received dental services either through the VHA or in the community. In 2025, the VA paid community-based dentists for > 3.5 million procedures for veterans, which underscores the magnitude of the demand.²

Given the gap in dental care, many veterans and their caregivers both personal and professional will likely be encouraged that in February the VA announced plans to improve access to dental care through expanding community care dental services. “Dental health is a critical component of overall well-being,” VA Secretary Doug Collins noted. VA issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new dental administrator who would oversee the operations of a new network of dental practitioners. The new vendor contract would operationalize general dental services, like tooth extractions, as well as specialized services such as periodontics, dentures, and pharmacy support for dental medications. Most importantly, the new program would cover preventive care to help avoid many of the dental problems veterans now experience. Proposals are due March 16.²

Yet, there is a catch. The community care program will only be available to eligible veterans just like previous dental services both in the VA and the community. I was always somewhat ashamed that despite my working decades at the VHA, I never had a satisfactory answer for veterans who asked me why they were not eligible for dental care. The regulatory response is that eligibility for dental services is a complex determination depending on service-connected military service, and specialized clinical indices. Dental coverage is provided for veterans who have 100% service-connected or total disability, prisoners of war, and veterans whose dental disease exacerbates a comorbid medical condition. Those not eligible for VA dental coverage may still get treatment if they, for example, have a cancer diagnosis and without dental work the chemotherapy treatment would place them at a higher risk of an oral infection. Veterans participating in a rehabilitation program who have poor dentition that prevents them from reaching their rehabilitative goals also may receive VA dental care. In addition, some veterans who are experiencing homelessness and others who did not receive a dental examination prior to discharge from active duty may be eligible for dental benefits.³ VA also offers lower-priced dental insurance for ineligible veterans.⁴

The new RFP does little to expand eligibility of veterans to receive VA dental care, and it is hard to not see the announcement as another step in the privatization of VHA. Medically and ethically, it seems to perpetuate a double standard between physical and oral health that makes no scientific sense.^5-7 I sometimes joke that in medical school we had maybe 2 days of teaching about teeth and even that limited exposure to dental pathology was sufficient for us to learn that chronic conditions like respiratory disease and lifestyle choices like poor diet cause and contribute to dental problems.

Like so many areas of veteran care, dental health in veterans is worse compared with those who never served, making it harder to justify the exclusion of dental services from veteran health benefits. A study in Military Medicine looked at 11,539 former service members and found a higher prevalence of individuals with tooth decay, missing teeth, tooth fillings, caries, and periodontitis. While military service per se was not associated with the findings, higher rates of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, and diabetes in veterans compared with nonveterans, which are related to serving in uniform, were covariates.⁸

That depression is an indirect factor in dental disease may seem surprising. However, this is more evidence that human health is truly holistic, with mutual interactions between the body (including the teeth) and mind. Oral care needs to be incorporated into the VA whole health approach for all veterans. In a series of articles in Psychiatric News, VA psychiatrist Antoinette Shappell and VA dentist Pierre Cartier identify several links between dental and mental health.^9,10 Veterans with anxiety disorders may fear going to the dentist even when care is needed. Serious mental illness may result in poor diet, and difficulty performing preventive care. Many psychotropic medications may cause xerostomia that worsens tooth decay and veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder may suffer from bruxism. I regularly saw these conditions when I worked in a primary care psychiatry clinic. Being able to coordinate with VA dentists and staff to provide integrated care would have benefited these already burdened veterans.

An estimated $5.4 billion has been spent on 3.6 million veterans who were seen in emergency departments for dental problems. That cost alone should convince policy makers that the deficit in VA dental care needs to be filled with efficacious high-quality comprehensive dental services for as many veterans as possible. And there are signs that is exactly what is happening in Congress. A bill in the House of Representatives proposes to expand dental care benefits to all veterans eligible for other VA health benefits.¹¹ There are also other legislative initiatives in the works.⁴ Together with the VA’s plans for a new community care dental network, that does give veterans and federal practitioners something to smile about.

For there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

Almost anyone who has worked for a long time in a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic or hospital has had patients in dire need of dental services who could neither access nor pay for them. I have seen dental problems ranging from older veterans who were nearly edentulous and needed expensive dentures or implants to younger veterans who never had regular dental care and needed a periodontist to save their teeth, to individuals with terrible toothaches that antibiotics could not cure. As Shakespeare quips in Much Ado About Nothing, almost nothing is worse than a toothache.

Many VA primary care practitioners and social workers kept lists of local sliding-scale dentists or arranged for veterans to visit dental and hygiene school clinics for reduced fees. Even when VA dentists were not permitted to see a veteran, many would assist in finding them affordable care in the community. However, that was never enough to meet the oral health needs of veterans. One of the most common complaints of patients who otherwise were pleased with their VA health care was that it did not cover dental services.¹

Most veterans qualify for health care and other VA benefits. Dental care is an exception, with only about a quarter (26%) of the > 9 million veterans active in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) eligible for care. Even under this restricted eligibility, about 888,000 veterans have received dental services either through the VHA or in the community. In 2025, the VA paid community-based dentists for > 3.5 million procedures for veterans, which underscores the magnitude of the demand.²

Given the gap in dental care, many veterans and their caregivers both personal and professional will likely be encouraged that in February the VA announced plans to improve access to dental care through expanding community care dental services. “Dental health is a critical component of overall well-being,” VA Secretary Doug Collins noted. VA issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new dental administrator who would oversee the operations of a new network of dental practitioners. The new vendor contract would operationalize general dental services, like tooth extractions, as well as specialized services such as periodontics, dentures, and pharmacy support for dental medications. Most importantly, the new program would cover preventive care to help avoid many of the dental problems veterans now experience. Proposals are due March 16.²

Yet, there is a catch. The community care program will only be available to eligible veterans just like previous dental services both in the VA and the community. I was always somewhat ashamed that despite my working decades at the VHA, I never had a satisfactory answer for veterans who asked me why they were not eligible for dental care. The regulatory response is that eligibility for dental services is a complex determination depending on service-connected military service, and specialized clinical indices. Dental coverage is provided for veterans who have 100% service-connected or total disability, prisoners of war, and veterans whose dental disease exacerbates a comorbid medical condition. Those not eligible for VA dental coverage may still get treatment if they, for example, have a cancer diagnosis and without dental work the chemotherapy treatment would place them at a higher risk of an oral infection. Veterans participating in a rehabilitation program who have poor dentition that prevents them from reaching their rehabilitative goals also may receive VA dental care. In addition, some veterans who are experiencing homelessness and others who did not receive a dental examination prior to discharge from active duty may be eligible for dental benefits.³ VA also offers lower-priced dental insurance for ineligible veterans.⁴

The new RFP does little to expand eligibility of veterans to receive VA dental care, and it is hard to not see the announcement as another step in the privatization of VHA. Medically and ethically, it seems to perpetuate a double standard between physical and oral health that makes no scientific sense.^5-7 I sometimes joke that in medical school we had maybe 2 days of teaching about teeth and even that limited exposure to dental pathology was sufficient for us to learn that chronic conditions like respiratory disease and lifestyle choices like poor diet cause and contribute to dental problems.

Like so many areas of veteran care, dental health in veterans is worse compared with those who never served, making it harder to justify the exclusion of dental services from veteran health benefits. A study in Military Medicine looked at 11,539 former service members and found a higher prevalence of individuals with tooth decay, missing teeth, tooth fillings, caries, and periodontitis. While military service per se was not associated with the findings, higher rates of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, and diabetes in veterans compared with nonveterans, which are related to serving in uniform, were covariates.⁸

That depression is an indirect factor in dental disease may seem surprising. However, this is more evidence that human health is truly holistic, with mutual interactions between the body (including the teeth) and mind. Oral care needs to be incorporated into the VA whole health approach for all veterans. In a series of articles in Psychiatric News, VA psychiatrist Antoinette Shappell and VA dentist Pierre Cartier identify several links between dental and mental health.^9,10 Veterans with anxiety disorders may fear going to the dentist even when care is needed. Serious mental illness may result in poor diet, and difficulty performing preventive care. Many psychotropic medications may cause xerostomia that worsens tooth decay and veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder may suffer from bruxism. I regularly saw these conditions when I worked in a primary care psychiatry clinic. Being able to coordinate with VA dentists and staff to provide integrated care would have benefited these already burdened veterans.

An estimated $5.4 billion has been spent on 3.6 million veterans who were seen in emergency departments for dental problems. That cost alone should convince policy makers that the deficit in VA dental care needs to be filled with efficacious high-quality comprehensive dental services for as many veterans as possible. And there are signs that is exactly what is happening in Congress. A bill in the House of Representatives proposes to expand dental care benefits to all veterans eligible for other VA health benefits.¹¹ There are also other legislative initiatives in the works.⁴ Together with the VA’s plans for a new community care dental network, that does give veterans and federal practitioners something to smile about.

For there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare

Almost anyone who has worked for a long time in a US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic or hospital has had patients in dire need of dental services who could neither access nor pay for them. I have seen dental problems ranging from older veterans who were nearly edentulous and needed expensive dentures or implants to younger veterans who never had regular dental care and needed a periodontist to save their teeth, to individuals with terrible toothaches that antibiotics could not cure. As Shakespeare quips in Much Ado About Nothing, almost nothing is worse than a toothache.

Many VA primary care practitioners and social workers kept lists of local sliding-scale dentists or arranged for veterans to visit dental and hygiene school clinics for reduced fees. Even when VA dentists were not permitted to see a veteran, many would assist in finding them affordable care in the community. However, that was never enough to meet the oral health needs of veterans. One of the most common complaints of patients who otherwise were pleased with their VA health care was that it did not cover dental services.¹

Most veterans qualify for health care and other VA benefits. Dental care is an exception, with only about a quarter (26%) of the > 9 million veterans active in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) eligible for care. Even under this restricted eligibility, about 888,000 veterans have received dental services either through the VHA or in the community. In 2025, the VA paid community-based dentists for > 3.5 million procedures for veterans, which underscores the magnitude of the demand.²

Given the gap in dental care, many veterans and their caregivers both personal and professional will likely be encouraged that in February the VA announced plans to improve access to dental care through expanding community care dental services. “Dental health is a critical component of overall well-being,” VA Secretary Doug Collins noted. VA issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a new dental administrator who would oversee the operations of a new network of dental practitioners. The new vendor contract would operationalize general dental services, like tooth extractions, as well as specialized services such as periodontics, dentures, and pharmacy support for dental medications. Most importantly, the new program would cover preventive care to help avoid many of the dental problems veterans now experience. Proposals are due March 16.²

Yet, there is a catch. The community care program will only be available to eligible veterans just like previous dental services both in the VA and the community. I was always somewhat ashamed that despite my working decades at the VHA, I never had a satisfactory answer for veterans who asked me why they were not eligible for dental care. The regulatory response is that eligibility for dental services is a complex determination depending on service-connected military service, and specialized clinical indices. Dental coverage is provided for veterans who have 100% service-connected or total disability, prisoners of war, and veterans whose dental disease exacerbates a comorbid medical condition. Those not eligible for VA dental coverage may still get treatment if they, for example, have a cancer diagnosis and without dental work the chemotherapy treatment would place them at a higher risk of an oral infection. Veterans participating in a rehabilitation program who have poor dentition that prevents them from reaching their rehabilitative goals also may receive VA dental care. In addition, some veterans who are experiencing homelessness and others who did not receive a dental examination prior to discharge from active duty may be eligible for dental benefits.³ VA also offers lower-priced dental insurance for ineligible veterans.⁴

The new RFP does little to expand eligibility of veterans to receive VA dental care, and it is hard to not see the announcement as another step in the privatization of VHA. Medically and ethically, it seems to perpetuate a double standard between physical and oral health that makes no scientific sense.^5-7 I sometimes joke that in medical school we had maybe 2 days of teaching about teeth and even that limited exposure to dental pathology was sufficient for us to learn that chronic conditions like respiratory disease and lifestyle choices like poor diet cause and contribute to dental problems.

Like so many areas of veteran care, dental health in veterans is worse compared with those who never served, making it harder to justify the exclusion of dental services from veteran health benefits. A study in Military Medicine looked at 11,539 former service members and found a higher prevalence of individuals with tooth decay, missing teeth, tooth fillings, caries, and periodontitis. While military service per se was not associated with the findings, higher rates of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, and diabetes in veterans compared with nonveterans, which are related to serving in uniform, were covariates.⁸

That depression is an indirect factor in dental disease may seem surprising. However, this is more evidence that human health is truly holistic, with mutual interactions between the body (including the teeth) and mind. Oral care needs to be incorporated into the VA whole health approach for all veterans. In a series of articles in Psychiatric News, VA psychiatrist Antoinette Shappell and VA dentist Pierre Cartier identify several links between dental and mental health.^9,10 Veterans with anxiety disorders may fear going to the dentist even when care is needed. Serious mental illness may result in poor diet, and difficulty performing preventive care. Many psychotropic medications may cause xerostomia that worsens tooth decay and veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder may suffer from bruxism. I regularly saw these conditions when I worked in a primary care psychiatry clinic. Being able to coordinate with VA dentists and staff to provide integrated care would have benefited these already burdened veterans.

An estimated $5.4 billion has been spent on 3.6 million veterans who were seen in emergency departments for dental problems. That cost alone should convince policy makers that the deficit in VA dental care needs to be filled with efficacious high-quality comprehensive dental services for as many veterans as possible. And there are signs that is exactly what is happening in Congress. A bill in the House of Representatives proposes to expand dental care benefits to all veterans eligible for other VA health benefits.¹¹ There are also other legislative initiatives in the works.⁴ Together with the VA’s plans for a new community care dental network, that does give veterans and federal practitioners something to smile about.

How do you distinguish active cicatricial alopecia from chronic nonprogressive hair loss in patients with skin of color, and which clinical or trichoscopic features suggest ongoing inflammation requiring treatment?

DR. McMICHAEL: Typically, I use trichoscopy to help determine if there are fine or vellus hairs in the affected area. Often, if there are vellus hairs, that means there is the potential to lengthen growth time and have thicker longer hairs in the area, even in a chronic nonprogressive hair loss state. If there is clinical or trichoscopic erythema (suggesting inflammation), that is a sure sign of active scarring. Patient-reported symptoms of itch, stinging, or pain are a sign of active scarring as well. Finally, even if none of the above are true, a biopsy can help determine if there is active inflammation, as can increasing size of the affected area on the scalp upon return visit to the clinic.

What is your initial diagnostic workup for suspected scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, including key history, trichoscopy, and biopsy approach?

DR. McMICHAEL: In terms of historical info, I want to know how long the patient has had hair loss, what symptoms they have/had, and if there is a family history of hair loss. Also, if the patient has been treated in the past, it is helpful to know if any of the previous treatments worked. For me, the clinical exam is going to tell the most. Just the clinical location will give the first cues, followed by trichoscopy. I don’t biopsy every patient, but when there is any doubt about the form of hair loss the patient has, biopsy is important. I use the dermatoscope to guide the biopsy and perform two 4-mm punch biopsies in the appropriate area.

How do you manage active inflammatory scarring alopecias in skin of color, including first-line therapies and criteria for escalation?

DR. McMICHAEL: I like to discuss and give guidance on hair care first. Sometimes this will include increased frequency of hair washing and/or use of an antidandruff shampoo. Next, I usually start patients on a potent or ultrapotent steroid several times per week. If there is very symptomatic or clinically raging inflammation, I will begin either an oral antibiotic for 3 to 6 months or a series of intralesional steroids. Depending on the condition and patient preference, a stronger anti-inflammatory agent such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or dapsone may be used. Monitoring depends on the medication that is started. Many of the anti-inflammatory medications require laboratory monitoring every 4 or 6 months, and the drug dictates this timing. For monitoring of disease progression, questions for the patient on continued symptoms and serial clinical and trichoscopic photographs make the difference.

When and how do you use adjunctive or emerging therapies for scarring alopecias in skin of color, and what evidence and outcomes guide their use?

DR. McMICHAEL: Our research group has shown via small clinical trials and case series that both platelet-rich plasma and low-level laser light can be helpful for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, so I tend to begin these treatments once the inflammation is at a mild or minimal level. I often begin low-dose oral minoxidil right at the start or at any time during the course of treatment. I do not use topical minoxidil when the patient is symptomatic but often use this when patients are asymptomatic and do not wish to take oral minoxidil. There are now good case series to show minoxidil can be helpful for scarring forms of alopecia. Patients can show improvement on these treatments, but I only promise stabilization. It is difficult to predict who will have increased growth prior to treatment, and that is what I tell patients.

When are surgical options appropriate for scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and what precautions or criteria are required?

DR. McMICHAEL: Once everything has been done medically for scarring alopecia, surgical options can be considered. Unfortunately, these options typically are not covered by insurance, so patients have to be willing and able to pay out of pocket. Other criteria include that patients must have quiescent inflammation and enough donor hair for hair restoration via transplant. I do not personally perform hair transplantation, but I do like to refer patients with tightly coiled hair and scarring alopecia to physicians who specialize in this kind of treatment. Not all transplant surgeons have experience with skin of color or follicular unit extraction, which is sometimes needed.

What culturally tailored strategies help prevent scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and where are research or practice gaps?

DR. McMICHAEL: For all patients, it is important to ask about daily hair care practices, hair care at the salon, and night-time hair care before making recommendations. Any hair style that puts tension on the hair shaft needs to be discontinued as do those that are tight around the frontal or posterior hair line. Hair washing should be once per week or every 2 weeks at the least, and conditioning of the hair is important with hair trims every 2 to 3 months.

How do you distinguish active cicatricial alopecia from chronic nonprogressive hair loss in patients with skin of color, and which clinical or trichoscopic features suggest ongoing inflammation requiring treatment?

DR. McMICHAEL: Typically, I use trichoscopy to help determine if there are fine or vellus hairs in the affected area. Often, if there are vellus hairs, that means there is the potential to lengthen growth time and have thicker longer hairs in the area, even in a chronic nonprogressive hair loss state. If there is clinical or trichoscopic erythema (suggesting inflammation), that is a sure sign of active scarring. Patient-reported symptoms of itch, stinging, or pain are a sign of active scarring as well. Finally, even if none of the above are true, a biopsy can help determine if there is active inflammation, as can increasing size of the affected area on the scalp upon return visit to the clinic.

What is your initial diagnostic workup for suspected scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, including key history, trichoscopy, and biopsy approach?

DR. McMICHAEL: In terms of historical info, I want to know how long the patient has had hair loss, what symptoms they have/had, and if there is a family history of hair loss. Also, if the patient has been treated in the past, it is helpful to know if any of the previous treatments worked. For me, the clinical exam is going to tell the most. Just the clinical location will give the first cues, followed by trichoscopy. I don’t biopsy every patient, but when there is any doubt about the form of hair loss the patient has, biopsy is important. I use the dermatoscope to guide the biopsy and perform two 4-mm punch biopsies in the appropriate area.

How do you manage active inflammatory scarring alopecias in skin of color, including first-line therapies and criteria for escalation?

DR. McMICHAEL: I like to discuss and give guidance on hair care first. Sometimes this will include increased frequency of hair washing and/or use of an antidandruff shampoo. Next, I usually start patients on a potent or ultrapotent steroid several times per week. If there is very symptomatic or clinically raging inflammation, I will begin either an oral antibiotic for 3 to 6 months or a series of intralesional steroids. Depending on the condition and patient preference, a stronger anti-inflammatory agent such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or dapsone may be used. Monitoring depends on the medication that is started. Many of the anti-inflammatory medications require laboratory monitoring every 4 or 6 months, and the drug dictates this timing. For monitoring of disease progression, questions for the patient on continued symptoms and serial clinical and trichoscopic photographs make the difference.

When and how do you use adjunctive or emerging therapies for scarring alopecias in skin of color, and what evidence and outcomes guide their use?

DR. McMICHAEL: Our research group has shown via small clinical trials and case series that both platelet-rich plasma and low-level laser light can be helpful for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, so I tend to begin these treatments once the inflammation is at a mild or minimal level. I often begin low-dose oral minoxidil right at the start or at any time during the course of treatment. I do not use topical minoxidil when the patient is symptomatic but often use this when patients are asymptomatic and do not wish to take oral minoxidil. There are now good case series to show minoxidil can be helpful for scarring forms of alopecia. Patients can show improvement on these treatments, but I only promise stabilization. It is difficult to predict who will have increased growth prior to treatment, and that is what I tell patients.

When are surgical options appropriate for scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and what precautions or criteria are required?

DR. McMICHAEL: Once everything has been done medically for scarring alopecia, surgical options can be considered. Unfortunately, these options typically are not covered by insurance, so patients have to be willing and able to pay out of pocket. Other criteria include that patients must have quiescent inflammation and enough donor hair for hair restoration via transplant. I do not personally perform hair transplantation, but I do like to refer patients with tightly coiled hair and scarring alopecia to physicians who specialize in this kind of treatment. Not all transplant surgeons have experience with skin of color or follicular unit extraction, which is sometimes needed.

What culturally tailored strategies help prevent scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and where are research or practice gaps?

DR. McMICHAEL: For all patients, it is important to ask about daily hair care practices, hair care at the salon, and night-time hair care before making recommendations. Any hair style that puts tension on the hair shaft needs to be discontinued as do those that are tight around the frontal or posterior hair line. Hair washing should be once per week or every 2 weeks at the least, and conditioning of the hair is important with hair trims every 2 to 3 months.

How do you distinguish active cicatricial alopecia from chronic nonprogressive hair loss in patients with skin of color, and which clinical or trichoscopic features suggest ongoing inflammation requiring treatment?

DR. McMICHAEL: Typically, I use trichoscopy to help determine if there are fine or vellus hairs in the affected area. Often, if there are vellus hairs, that means there is the potential to lengthen growth time and have thicker longer hairs in the area, even in a chronic nonprogressive hair loss state. If there is clinical or trichoscopic erythema (suggesting inflammation), that is a sure sign of active scarring. Patient-reported symptoms of itch, stinging, or pain are a sign of active scarring as well. Finally, even if none of the above are true, a biopsy can help determine if there is active inflammation, as can increasing size of the affected area on the scalp upon return visit to the clinic.

What is your initial diagnostic workup for suspected scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, including key history, trichoscopy, and biopsy approach?

DR. McMICHAEL: In terms of historical info, I want to know how long the patient has had hair loss, what symptoms they have/had, and if there is a family history of hair loss. Also, if the patient has been treated in the past, it is helpful to know if any of the previous treatments worked. For me, the clinical exam is going to tell the most. Just the clinical location will give the first cues, followed by trichoscopy. I don’t biopsy every patient, but when there is any doubt about the form of hair loss the patient has, biopsy is important. I use the dermatoscope to guide the biopsy and perform two 4-mm punch biopsies in the appropriate area.

How do you manage active inflammatory scarring alopecias in skin of color, including first-line therapies and criteria for escalation?

DR. McMICHAEL: I like to discuss and give guidance on hair care first. Sometimes this will include increased frequency of hair washing and/or use of an antidandruff shampoo. Next, I usually start patients on a potent or ultrapotent steroid several times per week. If there is very symptomatic or clinically raging inflammation, I will begin either an oral antibiotic for 3 to 6 months or a series of intralesional steroids. Depending on the condition and patient preference, a stronger anti-inflammatory agent such as hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate, or dapsone may be used. Monitoring depends on the medication that is started. Many of the anti-inflammatory medications require laboratory monitoring every 4 or 6 months, and the drug dictates this timing. For monitoring of disease progression, questions for the patient on continued symptoms and serial clinical and trichoscopic photographs make the difference.

When and how do you use adjunctive or emerging therapies for scarring alopecias in skin of color, and what evidence and outcomes guide their use?

DR. McMICHAEL: Our research group has shown via small clinical trials and case series that both platelet-rich plasma and low-level laser light can be helpful for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia, so I tend to begin these treatments once the inflammation is at a mild or minimal level. I often begin low-dose oral minoxidil right at the start or at any time during the course of treatment. I do not use topical minoxidil when the patient is symptomatic but often use this when patients are asymptomatic and do not wish to take oral minoxidil. There are now good case series to show minoxidil can be helpful for scarring forms of alopecia. Patients can show improvement on these treatments, but I only promise stabilization. It is difficult to predict who will have increased growth prior to treatment, and that is what I tell patients.

When are surgical options appropriate for scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and what precautions or criteria are required?

DR. McMICHAEL: Once everything has been done medically for scarring alopecia, surgical options can be considered. Unfortunately, these options typically are not covered by insurance, so patients have to be willing and able to pay out of pocket. Other criteria include that patients must have quiescent inflammation and enough donor hair for hair restoration via transplant. I do not personally perform hair transplantation, but I do like to refer patients with tightly coiled hair and scarring alopecia to physicians who specialize in this kind of treatment. Not all transplant surgeons have experience with skin of color or follicular unit extraction, which is sometimes needed.

What culturally tailored strategies help prevent scarring alopecia in patients with skin of color, and where are research or practice gaps?

DR. McMICHAEL: For all patients, it is important to ask about daily hair care practices, hair care at the salon, and night-time hair care before making recommendations. Any hair style that puts tension on the hair shaft needs to be discontinued as do those that are tight around the frontal or posterior hair line. Hair washing should be once per week or every 2 weeks at the least, and conditioning of the hair is important with hair trims every 2 to 3 months.

Psoriasis research and treatment have come a long way in the past 2 to 3 decades. With the advent of biologic therapy, increasingly more targeted therapies, and a better pathophysiological understanding, our treatment paradigms and ability to treat psoriatic disease have shown great improvement; however, despite these advances, there remain several areas in need of further development to continue to improve our care of patients with psoriasis, including comorbidities, access to care, technology, and clinical care.

Treatment Implications of Comorbidities

It has become increasingly clear that psoriasis carries with it numerous medical and psychiatric comorbidities; however, our ability to utilize these factors in treatment ­decision-making is still nascent. Clinically, multiple studies have demonstrated a connection between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and psoriasis, often with a direct relationship between CVD and psoriasis severity.^1-3 The cytokines involved (interleukin [IL]–17) and cell types (primarily neutrophils) are the same in psoriatic disease and evolving atherosclerotic plaques.^4,5 In contrast, other analyses do not support a relationship between CVD and psoriasis, and there has been no direct and definitive demonstration that giving patients a specific psoriasis treatment could help reduce cardiovascular risk. Perhaps this is due to the sample sizes and time needed to demonstrate such a connection, as we are dealing with fairly rare events overall. Strategies to identify patients at risk for cardiovascular events, such as starting from a cohort with existing CVD and investigating treatment effects in that population, may yield worthwhile dividends. Perhaps one day we will be able to offer treatments that not only help clear psoriasis but also modulate cardiovascular health.

Our understanding of the psychiatric effects of psoriasis is even less developed. The strongest links have been demonstrated between psoriasis and depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁶ Some of these connections have been recognized for more than 3 decades: one study from 1993 showed that almost 10% of patients with psoriasis wished to be dead and 5.6% reported active suicidal ideation at the time of the study.⁷ Why is it, then, that we still do not have a good understanding of the interrelationship between psoriasis, mental health, and therapeutics? There likely is a connection between these components, as it is now well accepted that cytokines (eg, interferons) can have a considerable impact on depression and that treatment with biologics for psoriasis tends to improve depressive symptoms.⁸ This is an area in which we need better awareness and understanding as well as some guidance on how to approach this topic with our patients—particularly how mental health may play into therapeutic decisions for psoriasis, such as earlier escalation to rapid-acting systemic therapy in patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

Access to Psoriasis Care

With so many effective treatments for psoriasis, one of the most frustrating challenges we face is that many patients with psoriasis still experience notable barriers to care. While access in urban areas generally is reasonable, in rural areas, 75% of patients have no psoriasis-treating providers in their ZIP code and have to seek psoriasis-related care outside the 3-digit ZIP code prefix.⁹ Unfortunately, in most cases, even after traveling and waiting for an appointment patients will not be offered the full spectrum of available psoriasis treatments. Dermatologists already are much harder to find in rural areas, but the proportion of rural counties without a dermatologist who prescribes biologics approaches 90%.¹⁰ Functionally, this places a huge burden on our patients, who frustratingly see commercials for highly effective psoriasis treatments on television but are not able to access them. What good is having medicines that can help more than two-thirds of patients achieve 100% clearance¹¹ when patients cannot access them?

Technology and Treatment Optimization

As our society becomes ever more technologically advanced, medicine seems to be caught in a bit of a quagmire, with our practices often using outdated technology in the name of HIPAA compliance and communicating via fax on important matters such as medication coverage. Nevertheless, dermatologists are beginning to increase integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies to make patient care more efficient and effective via education/awareness, image analysis, remote management, and telemedicine.¹² Recently, the National Psoriasis Foundation published guidance for the use of telemedicine, suggesting that it could be used for expanded access and expedited care in appropriate settings.¹³ However, some caution should be used when interpreting data in this sphere. While AI technology has been purported to outpace dermatologists’ diagnosis of psoriasis in some cases, the conditions tested (ie, the training set and evaluation image bank) and special tools used (such as dermoscopy, which is not routinely used in clinical practice for psoriasis diagnosis) may make the results inapplicable to general care.¹⁴

Perhaps more promising is the use of digital aids to help with long-term care, treatment reminders, and comorbidity evaluation/screening. Similarly, telemedicine can be utilized to provide skilled psoriasis care to patients in rural areas who otherwise might not have access. One such program demonstrated that asynchronous e-consults were able to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area outcomes similar to in-person dermatologist care.¹⁵ Using AI and technology also could assist with drug development and guide treatment. For example, a psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk model developed in a Danish cohort suggested that early treatment with an IL-17 inhibitor in high-risk patients could reduce PsA incidence by 64%.¹⁶

Personalized Clinical Care

Even as we become accustomed to higher PASI 90, PASI 100, and mean PASI improvement numbers with our newer biologics, drug development in psoriasis has not stopped. Pipeline medications include an oral peptide-based IL-23 inhibitor¹⁷ and targeted tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.^18,19 What is perhaps most interesting is to envision a future in which we could select treatments based on either patient phenotype (eg, involvement of hands and feet could suggest a certain single or class of medicine) or genotype.²⁰ This has clear impacts on patient care, as dedicated trials of psoriasis medications tend to result in lower achievement of outcome measure thresholds than subanalyses of clinical trials; for example, in a dedicated trial of risankizumab for nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, achievement of a palmoplantar Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear was demonstrated in 33.3% of treated patients vs 16.1% of those receiving placebo at week 16 (P=.006).²¹ A subanalysis from the pivotal UltiMMA trials showed that more than 70% of risankizumab-treated patients achieved complete clearance (palmoplantar PASI score of 0) by week 16.²² Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the pathophysiology of plaque psoriasis, nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis are different, with more interferon-γ signaling involved in nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis²³—which may explain why some limited case reports have suggested the use of Janus kinase inhibitors for recalcitrant cases of palmoplantar plaque psoriasis.²⁴

Even with such high rates of skin clearance, the treatment landscape in PsA lags behind. There is a need for higher-efficacy treatments in PsA. On a positive note, it may be reflective of how advanced our treatment conversations about psoriasis have become that rather than analyzing gross PASI improvements between one drug and another, we now are able to address nuanced differences between various presentations of psoriasis to help us select the right tool from our treatment toolbox.

Final Thoughts

We are lucky to practice dermatology in a time when there has been so much development, with many good treatment options for patients with psoriasis. What we had thought of as the ultimate goal in the past—to get the skin relatively clear—is now a realistic outcome for most patients. This allows us to focus on other important considerations, such as assessing and addressing comorbidities, improving access to care, implementing technology to improve psoriasis care, and refining our understanding of how different manifestations of psoriasis should alter our approach to treating patients. And though we have come a long way in recent years, there still is much to be done to lift up the psoriasis community as a whole. It’s reassuring to know that many are still working toward this goal.

Psoriasis research and treatment have come a long way in the past 2 to 3 decades. With the advent of biologic therapy, increasingly more targeted therapies, and a better pathophysiological understanding, our treatment paradigms and ability to treat psoriatic disease have shown great improvement; however, despite these advances, there remain several areas in need of further development to continue to improve our care of patients with psoriasis, including comorbidities, access to care, technology, and clinical care.

Treatment Implications of Comorbidities

It has become increasingly clear that psoriasis carries with it numerous medical and psychiatric comorbidities; however, our ability to utilize these factors in treatment ­decision-making is still nascent. Clinically, multiple studies have demonstrated a connection between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and psoriasis, often with a direct relationship between CVD and psoriasis severity.^1-3 The cytokines involved (interleukin [IL]–17) and cell types (primarily neutrophils) are the same in psoriatic disease and evolving atherosclerotic plaques.^4,5 In contrast, other analyses do not support a relationship between CVD and psoriasis, and there has been no direct and definitive demonstration that giving patients a specific psoriasis treatment could help reduce cardiovascular risk. Perhaps this is due to the sample sizes and time needed to demonstrate such a connection, as we are dealing with fairly rare events overall. Strategies to identify patients at risk for cardiovascular events, such as starting from a cohort with existing CVD and investigating treatment effects in that population, may yield worthwhile dividends. Perhaps one day we will be able to offer treatments that not only help clear psoriasis but also modulate cardiovascular health.

Our understanding of the psychiatric effects of psoriasis is even less developed. The strongest links have been demonstrated between psoriasis and depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁶ Some of these connections have been recognized for more than 3 decades: one study from 1993 showed that almost 10% of patients with psoriasis wished to be dead and 5.6% reported active suicidal ideation at the time of the study.⁷ Why is it, then, that we still do not have a good understanding of the interrelationship between psoriasis, mental health, and therapeutics? There likely is a connection between these components, as it is now well accepted that cytokines (eg, interferons) can have a considerable impact on depression and that treatment with biologics for psoriasis tends to improve depressive symptoms.⁸ This is an area in which we need better awareness and understanding as well as some guidance on how to approach this topic with our patients—particularly how mental health may play into therapeutic decisions for psoriasis, such as earlier escalation to rapid-acting systemic therapy in patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

Access to Psoriasis Care

With so many effective treatments for psoriasis, one of the most frustrating challenges we face is that many patients with psoriasis still experience notable barriers to care. While access in urban areas generally is reasonable, in rural areas, 75% of patients have no psoriasis-treating providers in their ZIP code and have to seek psoriasis-related care outside the 3-digit ZIP code prefix.⁹ Unfortunately, in most cases, even after traveling and waiting for an appointment patients will not be offered the full spectrum of available psoriasis treatments. Dermatologists already are much harder to find in rural areas, but the proportion of rural counties without a dermatologist who prescribes biologics approaches 90%.¹⁰ Functionally, this places a huge burden on our patients, who frustratingly see commercials for highly effective psoriasis treatments on television but are not able to access them. What good is having medicines that can help more than two-thirds of patients achieve 100% clearance¹¹ when patients cannot access them?

Technology and Treatment Optimization

As our society becomes ever more technologically advanced, medicine seems to be caught in a bit of a quagmire, with our practices often using outdated technology in the name of HIPAA compliance and communicating via fax on important matters such as medication coverage. Nevertheless, dermatologists are beginning to increase integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies to make patient care more efficient and effective via education/awareness, image analysis, remote management, and telemedicine.¹² Recently, the National Psoriasis Foundation published guidance for the use of telemedicine, suggesting that it could be used for expanded access and expedited care in appropriate settings.¹³ However, some caution should be used when interpreting data in this sphere. While AI technology has been purported to outpace dermatologists’ diagnosis of psoriasis in some cases, the conditions tested (ie, the training set and evaluation image bank) and special tools used (such as dermoscopy, which is not routinely used in clinical practice for psoriasis diagnosis) may make the results inapplicable to general care.¹⁴

Perhaps more promising is the use of digital aids to help with long-term care, treatment reminders, and comorbidity evaluation/screening. Similarly, telemedicine can be utilized to provide skilled psoriasis care to patients in rural areas who otherwise might not have access. One such program demonstrated that asynchronous e-consults were able to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area outcomes similar to in-person dermatologist care.¹⁵ Using AI and technology also could assist with drug development and guide treatment. For example, a psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk model developed in a Danish cohort suggested that early treatment with an IL-17 inhibitor in high-risk patients could reduce PsA incidence by 64%.¹⁶

Personalized Clinical Care

Even as we become accustomed to higher PASI 90, PASI 100, and mean PASI improvement numbers with our newer biologics, drug development in psoriasis has not stopped. Pipeline medications include an oral peptide-based IL-23 inhibitor¹⁷ and targeted tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.^18,19 What is perhaps most interesting is to envision a future in which we could select treatments based on either patient phenotype (eg, involvement of hands and feet could suggest a certain single or class of medicine) or genotype.²⁰ This has clear impacts on patient care, as dedicated trials of psoriasis medications tend to result in lower achievement of outcome measure thresholds than subanalyses of clinical trials; for example, in a dedicated trial of risankizumab for nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, achievement of a palmoplantar Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear was demonstrated in 33.3% of treated patients vs 16.1% of those receiving placebo at week 16 (P=.006).²¹ A subanalysis from the pivotal UltiMMA trials showed that more than 70% of risankizumab-treated patients achieved complete clearance (palmoplantar PASI score of 0) by week 16.²² Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the pathophysiology of plaque psoriasis, nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis are different, with more interferon-γ signaling involved in nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis²³—which may explain why some limited case reports have suggested the use of Janus kinase inhibitors for recalcitrant cases of palmoplantar plaque psoriasis.²⁴

Even with such high rates of skin clearance, the treatment landscape in PsA lags behind. There is a need for higher-efficacy treatments in PsA. On a positive note, it may be reflective of how advanced our treatment conversations about psoriasis have become that rather than analyzing gross PASI improvements between one drug and another, we now are able to address nuanced differences between various presentations of psoriasis to help us select the right tool from our treatment toolbox.

Final Thoughts

We are lucky to practice dermatology in a time when there has been so much development, with many good treatment options for patients with psoriasis. What we had thought of as the ultimate goal in the past—to get the skin relatively clear—is now a realistic outcome for most patients. This allows us to focus on other important considerations, such as assessing and addressing comorbidities, improving access to care, implementing technology to improve psoriasis care, and refining our understanding of how different manifestations of psoriasis should alter our approach to treating patients. And though we have come a long way in recent years, there still is much to be done to lift up the psoriasis community as a whole. It’s reassuring to know that many are still working toward this goal.

Psoriasis research and treatment have come a long way in the past 2 to 3 decades. With the advent of biologic therapy, increasingly more targeted therapies, and a better pathophysiological understanding, our treatment paradigms and ability to treat psoriatic disease have shown great improvement; however, despite these advances, there remain several areas in need of further development to continue to improve our care of patients with psoriasis, including comorbidities, access to care, technology, and clinical care.

Treatment Implications of Comorbidities

It has become increasingly clear that psoriasis carries with it numerous medical and psychiatric comorbidities; however, our ability to utilize these factors in treatment ­decision-making is still nascent. Clinically, multiple studies have demonstrated a connection between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and psoriasis, often with a direct relationship between CVD and psoriasis severity.^1-3 The cytokines involved (interleukin [IL]–17) and cell types (primarily neutrophils) are the same in psoriatic disease and evolving atherosclerotic plaques.^4,5 In contrast, other analyses do not support a relationship between CVD and psoriasis, and there has been no direct and definitive demonstration that giving patients a specific psoriasis treatment could help reduce cardiovascular risk. Perhaps this is due to the sample sizes and time needed to demonstrate such a connection, as we are dealing with fairly rare events overall. Strategies to identify patients at risk for cardiovascular events, such as starting from a cohort with existing CVD and investigating treatment effects in that population, may yield worthwhile dividends. Perhaps one day we will be able to offer treatments that not only help clear psoriasis but also modulate cardiovascular health.

Our understanding of the psychiatric effects of psoriasis is even less developed. The strongest links have been demonstrated between psoriasis and depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.⁶ Some of these connections have been recognized for more than 3 decades: one study from 1993 showed that almost 10% of patients with psoriasis wished to be dead and 5.6% reported active suicidal ideation at the time of the study.⁷ Why is it, then, that we still do not have a good understanding of the interrelationship between psoriasis, mental health, and therapeutics? There likely is a connection between these components, as it is now well accepted that cytokines (eg, interferons) can have a considerable impact on depression and that treatment with biologics for psoriasis tends to improve depressive symptoms.⁸ This is an area in which we need better awareness and understanding as well as some guidance on how to approach this topic with our patients—particularly how mental health may play into therapeutic decisions for psoriasis, such as earlier escalation to rapid-acting systemic therapy in patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

Access to Psoriasis Care

With so many effective treatments for psoriasis, one of the most frustrating challenges we face is that many patients with psoriasis still experience notable barriers to care. While access in urban areas generally is reasonable, in rural areas, 75% of patients have no psoriasis-treating providers in their ZIP code and have to seek psoriasis-related care outside the 3-digit ZIP code prefix.⁹ Unfortunately, in most cases, even after traveling and waiting for an appointment patients will not be offered the full spectrum of available psoriasis treatments. Dermatologists already are much harder to find in rural areas, but the proportion of rural counties without a dermatologist who prescribes biologics approaches 90%.¹⁰ Functionally, this places a huge burden on our patients, who frustratingly see commercials for highly effective psoriasis treatments on television but are not able to access them. What good is having medicines that can help more than two-thirds of patients achieve 100% clearance¹¹ when patients cannot access them?

Technology and Treatment Optimization

As our society becomes ever more technologically advanced, medicine seems to be caught in a bit of a quagmire, with our practices often using outdated technology in the name of HIPAA compliance and communicating via fax on important matters such as medication coverage. Nevertheless, dermatologists are beginning to increase integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and advanced technologies to make patient care more efficient and effective via education/awareness, image analysis, remote management, and telemedicine.¹² Recently, the National Psoriasis Foundation published guidance for the use of telemedicine, suggesting that it could be used for expanded access and expedited care in appropriate settings.¹³ However, some caution should be used when interpreting data in this sphere. While AI technology has been purported to outpace dermatologists’ diagnosis of psoriasis in some cases, the conditions tested (ie, the training set and evaluation image bank) and special tools used (such as dermoscopy, which is not routinely used in clinical practice for psoriasis diagnosis) may make the results inapplicable to general care.¹⁴

Perhaps more promising is the use of digital aids to help with long-term care, treatment reminders, and comorbidity evaluation/screening. Similarly, telemedicine can be utilized to provide skilled psoriasis care to patients in rural areas who otherwise might not have access. One such program demonstrated that asynchronous e-consults were able to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area outcomes similar to in-person dermatologist care.¹⁵ Using AI and technology also could assist with drug development and guide treatment. For example, a psoriatic arthritis (PsA) risk model developed in a Danish cohort suggested that early treatment with an IL-17 inhibitor in high-risk patients could reduce PsA incidence by 64%.¹⁶

Personalized Clinical Care

Even as we become accustomed to higher PASI 90, PASI 100, and mean PASI improvement numbers with our newer biologics, drug development in psoriasis has not stopped. Pipeline medications include an oral peptide-based IL-23 inhibitor¹⁷ and targeted tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitors.^18,19 What is perhaps most interesting is to envision a future in which we could select treatments based on either patient phenotype (eg, involvement of hands and feet could suggest a certain single or class of medicine) or genotype.²⁰ This has clear impacts on patient care, as dedicated trials of psoriasis medications tend to result in lower achievement of outcome measure thresholds than subanalyses of clinical trials; for example, in a dedicated trial of risankizumab for nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, achievement of a palmoplantar Investigator Global Assessment score of clear or almost clear was demonstrated in 33.3% of treated patients vs 16.1% of those receiving placebo at week 16 (P=.006).²¹ A subanalysis from the pivotal UltiMMA trials showed that more than 70% of risankizumab-treated patients achieved complete clearance (palmoplantar PASI score of 0) by week 16.²² Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that the pathophysiology of plaque psoriasis, nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis, and palmoplantar pustular psoriasis are different, with more interferon-γ signaling involved in nonpustular palmoplantar psoriasis²³—which may explain why some limited case reports have suggested the use of Janus kinase inhibitors for recalcitrant cases of palmoplantar plaque psoriasis.²⁴

Even with such high rates of skin clearance, the treatment landscape in PsA lags behind. There is a need for higher-efficacy treatments in PsA. On a positive note, it may be reflective of how advanced our treatment conversations about psoriasis have become that rather than analyzing gross PASI improvements between one drug and another, we now are able to address nuanced differences between various presentations of psoriasis to help us select the right tool from our treatment toolbox.

Final Thoughts

We are lucky to practice dermatology in a time when there has been so much development, with many good treatment options for patients with psoriasis. What we had thought of as the ultimate goal in the past—to get the skin relatively clear—is now a realistic outcome for most patients. This allows us to focus on other important considerations, such as assessing and addressing comorbidities, improving access to care, implementing technology to improve psoriasis care, and refining our understanding of how different manifestations of psoriasis should alter our approach to treating patients. And though we have come a long way in recent years, there still is much to be done to lift up the psoriasis community as a whole. It’s reassuring to know that many are still working toward this goal.

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

With increasing reports of terbinafine resistance, how has your strategy for treating dermatophyte onychomycosis evolved?

DR. LIPNER: Most cases of onychomycosis are not resistant to terbinafine, so for a patient newly diagnosed with onychomycosis, my approach involves evaluating the severity of disease, number of nails affected, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications and then discussing the risks and benefits of oral vs topical treatment. If a patient’s onychomycosis previously did not resolve with oral terbinafine, I would test for terbinafine resistance. If positive, I would treat with itraconazole for more severe cases and efinaconazole for mild to moderate cases.

Are there any new systemic or topical antifungals for onychomycosis that dermatologists should be aware of?

DR. LIPNER: There have been no new US Food and Drug Administration–approved antifungals for onychomycosis since 2014 (efinaconazole and tavaborole). For most patients, our current antifungals generally have good efficacy. For treatment failures, I would recommend reconfirming the diagnosis and testing for terbinafine resistance.

When do you choose oral antifungal therapy vs topical/combination therapy?

DR. LIPNER: almost never prescribe combination antifungal therapy because monotherapy alone is usually effective, and there is no obvious benefit to combination therapy. If treatment is working (or not working), it is hard to know which agent (if any) is effective. The one time I would use combination therapy (eg, oral terbinafine and topical efinaconazole) would be if the patient has distal lateral subungual onychomycosis and a dermatophytoma. Oral terbinafine would generally be most effective for distal lateral subungual onychomycosis, and topical efinaconazole would likely be most effective for dermatophytoma.

What is the role of adjunctive therapies in onychomycosis?

DR. LIPNER: Debridement can be effective for patients with very thick nails, combined with oral or topical antifungals. Nail avulsion generally is not helpful and should be avoided because it causes permanent shortening of the nail bed. Devices (eg, lasers, photodynamic therapy) are not subject to the same stringent endpoints as medication-based approvals. Because studies to date are small and have different efficacy endpoints, I do not use devices for treatment of onychomycosis.

How do you counsel patients about expectations and timelines for onychomycosis therapy and cure vs improvement?

DR. LIPNER: Oral treatments for toenail onychomycosis are generally given for 3-month courses, but patients should be counseled that the nail could take up to 12 to 18 months to fully grow out and look normal. If patients also have mechanical nail dystrophy, the fungus may be cured with antifungal therapy, but the nail may look better but not perfect, so it is important to manage long-term expectations.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

When Skin Cancer Awareness Month rolls around every May, my social media feed is inundated with posts extolling the benefits of total body skin examinations and the life-saving potential of skin cancer screenings; however, time and again the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)—the leading authority on evidence-based public health recommendations in the United States—has found the evidence supporting skin cancer screenings to be insufficient. The USPSTF has cited a lack of high-quality studies and inadequate data to recommend screening for the general population, excluding those at elevated risk due to personal, family, or occupational history.¹ A 2019 Cochrane review went further, concluding that current evidence refutes the utility of population-based screening for melanoma.²

Despite these findings, skin cancer screenings and total body skin examinations remain popular among patients both with and without a personal or family history of cutaneous malignancy. Indeed, the anecdotal experience of dermatologists worldwide suggests an intangible benefit to screening that persists, even if robust data to support it remain elusive.

Putting aside studies that suggest these screenings help identify melanomas at earlier stages and with reduced Breslow thicknesses,³ there is a crucial benefit from face-to-face interaction between medical professionals and the public during skin cancer screening events or health fairs. This interaction has become especially important in an era when misinformation thrives online and so-called skin care “experts” with no formal training can amass tens of thousands—or even millions—of followers on social media.

So, what are the intangible benefits of the face-to-face interactions that occur naturally during skin cancer screenings? The most obvious is education. While the USPSTF may not recommend routine screening for skin cancer in the general population, it does endorse education for children, adolescents, and adults on the importance of minimizing exposure to UV radiation, particularly those with lighter skin tones.⁴ Publicly advertised skin cancer screenings at health fairs or other community events may offer an opportunity to raise awareness about sun safety and protection, including the value of peak UV avoidance, sun-protective clothing, and proper sunscreen use; these settings also serve as platforms for health care providers to counter misinformation, including concerns about sunscreen safety both for the patient and the environment, overhyped risks for vitamin D deficiency from sun avoidance, and myths about low skin cancer risk in patients with skin of color.

While the benefits of skin self-examination (SSE) remain uncertain, especially in low-risk populations, screening events provide an opportunity to educate patients on who is most likely to benefit from SSE and in whom the practice may cause more harm than good.⁵ For higher-risk individuals such as melanoma survivors or those with a strong family history, screening fairs can serve as meaningful touchpoints that reinforce the importance of sun protection and regular examinations with a health care provider. For those eager to perform SSEs, these events offer the chance to teach best ­practices—how to conduct SSEs effectively, what features to look for (eg, the ABCDE method or the ugly duckling sign), and when to seek professional care.

Finally (and importantly), skin cancer screening events provide peace of mind for patients. Reassurance from a professional about a benign skin lesion can alleviate anxiety that might otherwise lead to emergency or urgent care visits. While cellulitis and other skin infections are the most common dermatologic conditions seen in emergency settings, benign neoplasms and similar nonurgent conditions still contribute a substantial burden to urgent care systems in the United States.⁶ Outside emergency care, systems-level data support what many of us observe in practice: two of the most common reasons for referral to dermatology are benign neoplasms and epidermoid cysts, accounting for millions of visits annually.⁷ In fact, recent claims data suggest that the most common diagnosis made in US dermatology clinics in 2023 was (you guessed it!) seborrheic keratosis.⁸

What if instead of requiring a patient to wait weeks for a primary care appointment and months for a dermatology referral—all while worrying about a rapidly growing pigmented lesion and incurring costs in copays, travel, lost wages, and time away from work—we offered a fast, trustworthy, and free evaluation that meets the patient where they live, work, or socialize? An evaluation that not only eases their fears but also provides meaningful education about skin cancer prevention and screening guidelines? While precautions must of course be taken to ensure that the quality and completeness of such an examination equals that of an in-clinic evaluation, if services of this quality can be provided, public screening events may offer a simple, accessible, and valuable solution that delivers peace of mind and helps reduce unnecessary strain on emergency, primary, and specialty care networks.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

What clinical signs suggest antimicrobial resistance is affecting acne treatment response, and how can dermatologists identify them early? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: Antibiotic resistance is a difficult phenomenon to define clinically for acne due to many pathogenic contributors, namely the increase in sebum production stoked by hormonal changes, which further provokes Cutibacterium acnes biofilms, follicular plugs, and various inflammatory cascades. The sequence and primacy of these steps are enigmatic in each patient, therefore the role and extent of true antimicrobial therapy are debatable. Acne is more complex than other conditions that utilize antimicrobials, such as tinea corporis. In acne, lack of treatment response may be due to various factors, including long-term adherence challenges (such as inconsistent home dosing and trending complex over-the-counter [OTC] regimens), hormonal fluctuation, and confounders such as gram-negative or pityrosporum folliculitis. Therefore, determining if resistant bacteria are “causal” in acne recalcitrance or exacerbation is vague. In older patients (or younger patients with chronic conditions), proof of bacterial resistance from wound, pulmonary, or gastrointestinal studies might be available, but a typical acne patient would not present with these data. 

Do you routinely rotate patients off oral antibiotics after a fixed treatment period, or is it symptom based? How do you balance the risk for disease recurrence with resistance concerns? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: For my patients, the typical “triple threat” for moderate acne—oral antibiotics, topical benzoyl peroxide, and topical retinoids—still is tried and true. I typically prescribe 6 weeks of low-dose antibiotic therapy (doxycycline 50 mg daily) and arrange a telemedicine visit at 4 to 6 weeks to assess progress and adherence. Subsequently, I might substitute topical for oral antibiotics, with long-term plans to discontinue all antibiotics. In females, I might add spironolactone and/or oral contraceptive pills, and for recalcitrant or progressive acne, I would discuss isotretinoin. If the patient’s acne is under good control without antibiotics but they still experience intermittent deeper papules, I consider adding burst therapy of low-dose doxycycline for 1 week as needed, or for instance, during sports seasons. I try to maintain the lowest possible dosage of doxycycline while toeing the line between short-term antibacterial and longer-term anti-inflammatory control. In fact, I typically recommend that patients take it with their morning meal to absorb slightly less than the full 50-mg dosage, mitigate adverse effects, and increase adherence. All of these regimens include a benzoyl peroxide wash for its many anti-acne properties and in the context of this discussion to mitigate C acnes on acne-prone skin without creating antibiotic resistance. 

Do you see a future for point-of-care microbiome or resistance testing in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think we should be receptive to the evolution of these tests, and depending on the patient’s insurance coverage, efficient collection methods, and applicability to all patients, we someday may approach antimicrobial pharmacotherapy in a more personalized way. The microbiome is a broad topic with protean approaches to testing and prebiotic/probiotic supplementation, so openminded but cautious and well-studied utilization is key. 

What language do you find effective when setting expectations for acne treatment that avoids overreliance on antibiotics? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I find it important to first determine the patient’s prior therapies. Many patients with acne present to dermatology after taking a full dosage of various antibiotics for broad amounts of time, and they may have experienced acne exacerbation (or at least perception of such) when the refills ran out. Also, I ask them to outline their past and current OTC regimens, which provides context for where and how the patient gets their information and advice. I like providing the patient’s next steps in written form, even telling them to tape the instructions to their bathroom mirror. It is just as vital to take time at the first office visit to explain the expected time to improvement and why acne is a multifactorial condition for which antibiotics are only part of the approach with benzoyl peroxide and retinoids. 

What are your top practical tips for incoming dermatologists to practice antibiotic stewardship in acne management? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines recommend 3 to 4 months as the maximum threshold for systemic antibiotics for moderate to severe acne, with tetracyclines having the best evidence for efficacy and safety. The AAD recommends never utilizing these as monotherapy and always including concomitant benzoyl peroxide to avoid bacterial resistance and topicals such as retinoids to provide a bridge to a maintenance phase without antibiotics. Starting there gives trainees structure within which to build their own acne management approach and style for their patient population. Some dermatologists might prescribe middle to high antibiotic dosages at first followed by a taper or initiate low antibiotic dosages with a standard 3- to 4-month follow-up, or a bit of a hybrid of these, as outlined in my approach. As mentioned, standardized testing for resistance to guide our dosing is not mainstream. There are countless ways to apply these guardrails, consider a place for hormonal or future isotretinoin therapy, and include the many varieties of OTC and prescription acne topicals to round out a personalized regimen for each patient based on their schedule, medication intolerances, skin type, fertility plans, and lifestyle. 

What’s the single most impactful change a busy dermatology clinic could make right now to reduce antibiotic overuse in acne care? 

DR. ROSAMILIA: I think telemedicine or in-person check-ins at the 1- or 2-month mark are vital to the assessment of the patient’s and/or family’s understanding of the treatment schedule, their ability to procure the prescription and OTC products successfully, and their consistency in using them. This is a good opportunity to remind them that our goal is to see true acne improvement; take fewer medications, not more; and create a reality where their acne regimen is intuitive and safe.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and is confined to a range of 400 to 700 nm. Visible light phototherapy can be delivered across various wavelengths within this spectrum, with most research focusing on blue light (BL)(400-500 nm) and red light (RL)(600-700 nm). Blue light commonly is used to treat acne as well as actinic keratosis and other inflammatory disorders,^1,2 while RL largely targets signs of skin aging and fibrosis.^2,3 Because of its shorter wavelength, the clinically meaningful skin penetration of BL reaches up to1 mm and is confined to the epidermis; in contrast, RL can access the dermal adnexa due to its penetration depth of more than 2 mm.⁴ Therapeutically, visible light can be utilized alone (eg, photobiomodulation [PBM]) or in combination with a photosensitizing agent (eg, photodynamic therapy [PDT]).^5,6

Our laboratory’s prior research has contributed to a greater understanding of the safety profile of visible light at various wavelengths.^1,3 Specifically, our work has shown that BL (417 nm [range, 412-422 nm]) and RL (633 nm [range, 627-639 nm]) demonstrated no evidence of DNA damage—via no formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and/or 6-4 photoproducts, the hallmark photolesions caused by UV exposure—in human dermal fibroblasts following visible light exposure at all fluences tested.^1,3 This evidence reinforces the safety of visible light at clinically relevant wavelengths, supporting its integration into dermatologic practice. In this editorial, we highlight the key clinical applications of PBM and PDT and outline safety considerations for visible light-based therapies in dermatologic practice.

Photobiomodulation

Photobiomodulation is a noninvasive treatment in which low-level lasers or light-emitting diodes deliver photons from a nonionizing light source to endogenous photoreceptors, primarily cytochrome C oxidase.^7-9 On the visible light spectrum, PBM primarily encompasses RL.^7-9 Photoactivation leads to production of reactive oxygen species as well as mitochondrial alterations, with resulting modulation of cellular activity.^7-9 Upregulation of cellular activity generally occurs at lower fluences (ie, energy delivered per unit area) of light, whereas higher fluences cause downregulation of cellular activity.⁵

Recent consensus guidelines, established with expert colleagues, define additional key parameters that are crucial to optimizing PBM treatment, including distance from the light source, area of the light beam, wavelength, length of treatment time, and number of treatments.⁵ Understanding the effects of different parameter combinations is essential for clinicians to select the best treatment regimen for each patient. Our laboratory has conducted National Institutes of Health–funded phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials to determine the safety and efficacy of red-light PBM.^10-13 Additionally, we completed several pilot phase 2 clinical studies with commercially available light-emitting diode face masks using PBM technology, which demonstrated a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction across multiple self-reported measures.^14,15 These findings highlight PBM as a reliable and well-tolerated therapeutic approach that can be administered in clinical settings or by patients at home.

Adverse effects of PBM therapy generally are mild and transient, most commonly manifesting as slight irritation and erythema.⁵ Overall, PBM is widely regarded as safe with a favorable and nontoxic profile across treatment settings. Growing evidence supports the role of PBM in managing wound healing, acne, alopecia, and skin aging, among other dermatologic concerns.⁸

Photodynamic Therapy

Photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive procedure during which a photosensitizer—typically 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) or a derivative, methyl aminolevulinate—reacts with a light source and oxygen, resulting in reactive oxygen species.^6,16 This reaction ultimately triggers targeted cellular destruction of the intended lesional skin but with negligible effects on adjacent nonlesional tissue.⁶ The efficacy of PDT is determined by several parameters, including composition and concentration of the photosensitizer, photosensitizer incubation temperature, and incubation time with the photosensitizer. Methyl aminolevulinate is a lipophilic molecule and may promote greater skin penetration and cellular uptake than 5-ALA, which is a hydrophilic molecule.⁶

Our research further demonstrated that apoptosis increases in a dose- and temperature-dependent manner following 5-ALA exposure, both in cutaneous and mucosal squamous cell carcinoma cells and in human dermal fibroblasts.^17,18 Our mechanistic insights have clinical relevance, as evidenced by an independent pilot study demonstrating that temperature-modulated PDT significantly improved actinic keratosis lesion clearance rates (P<.0001).¹⁹ Additionally, we determined that even short periods of incubation with 5-ALA (ie, 15-30 minutes) result in statistically significant increases in apoptosis (P<.05).²⁰ Thus, these findings highlight that the choice of photosensitizing agent and the administration parameters are critical in determining PDT efficacy as well as the need to optimize clinical protocols.

Photodynamic therapy also has demonstrated general clinical and genotoxic safety, with the most common potential adverse events limited to temporary inflammation, erythema, and discomfort.²¹ A study in murine skin and human keratinocytes revealed that 5-ALA PDT had a photoprotective effect against previous irradiation with UVB (a known inducer of DNA damage) via removal of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers.²² Thus, PDT has been recognized as a safe and effective therapeutic modality with broad applications in dermatology, including treatment of actinic keratosis and nonmelanoma skin cancers.¹⁶

Clinical Safety, Photoprotection, and Precautions

While visible light has shown substantial therapeutic potential in dermatology, there are several safety measures and precautions to be aware of. Visible light constitutes approximately 44% of the solar output; therefore, precautions against both UV and visible light are recommended for the general population.²³ Cumulative exposure to visible light has been shown to trigger melanogenesis, resulting in persistent erythema, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tones across all Fitzpatrick skin types.²⁴ Individuals with skin of color are more photosensitive to visible light due to increased baseline melanin levels.²⁴ Similarly, patients with pigmentary conditions such as melasma and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation may experience worsening of their dermatologic symptoms due to underlying visible light photosensitivity.²⁵

Patients undergoing PBM or PDT could benefit from visible light protection. The primary form of photoprotection against visible light is tinted sunscreen, which contains iron oxides and titanium dioxide.²⁶ Iron (III) oxide is capable of blocking nearly all visible light damage.²⁶ Use of physical barriers such as wavelength-specific sunglasses and wide-brimmed hats also is important for preventing photodamage from visible light.²⁶

Final Thoughts

Visible light has a role in the treatment of a variety of skin conditions, including actinic keratosis, nonmelanoma skin cancers, acne, wound healing, skin fibrosis, and photodamage. Photobiomodulation and PDT represent 2 noninvasive phototherapeutic options that utilize visible light to enact cellular changes necessary to improve skin health. Integrating visible light phototherapy into standard clinical practice is important for enhancing patient outcomes. Clinicians should remain mindful of the rare pigmentary risks associated with visible light therapy devices. Future research should prioritize optimization of standardized protocols and expansion of clinical indications for visible light phototherapy.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.

The original four HPEER Advanced Fellowship sites were established by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliation in 2014, and expanded in 2020 to include 8 sites and a national coordinating center with leadership shared between VA facilities in Houston and White River Junction. The VA invests heavily in training the nation’s healthcare professionals. The mission of HPEER is to develop leaders who can educate, evaluate, and innovate in Health Professions Education for the VA and the nation. All HPEER sites take part in a nationally coordinated curriculum covering topics in curriculum design, learner assessment, leadership, interprofessional education, as well as scholarship and educational research.

As part of the national HPEER curriculum covering scholarship and educational research, and in concert with Wednesday, May 14, 2025 VA Research Week 2025, HPEER organized a joint conference with the Center for Health Professions Education at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This interagency online event included poster sessions and oral presentations from HPEER fellows and students in USUHS certificate and graduate degree programs.

Education scholarship is broad, ranging from descriptions of curricular innovations and works in progress to advanced research using techniques drawn from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, and other scientific disciplines. The abstracts presented here summarize some of the work being done by HPEER fellows. Dougherty et al (Boston) described a project to create a primer outlining methodology for conducting and interpreting cost-effectiveness evaluations in the context of proposed HPE innovations. Cohen et al (Cleveland) found reduction in potentially problematic orders in the context of life-sustaining treatment following a multifaceted intervention program. Sorenson (Dublin, Georgia) reported an expanded Tai Chi program that included modifications allowing seated positions for veterans with mobility limitations. Young et al (Dublin) described an interprofessional curriculum to strengthen communication between nurses and social workers in their conversations with women veterans living in rural settings. Misedah-Robinson et al (Houston) showed that a new training program strengthened coordinators’ self-reports of preparedness and confidence in their ability to support veterans who have experienced human trafficking. Tovar et al (Salt Lake City) describe a methodology for using data from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse to optimize schedules of HPE students assigned to VA clinical rotations. Yanez et al (San Francisco) presented initial observations of learner-centered outcomes following participation in a new multidisciplinary integrative health elective. Resto et al (West Haven) reported that implementation of self-serve kiosks increased distribution of substance use harm reduction resources beyond usual clinical care.

A second joint conference between VA HPEER and USUHS is planned for VA Research Week 2026; we look forward to the abstracts that will be produced by this new cohort of fellows, as well as to the future scholarship and contributions to the field that will be made by alumni of the HPEER Advanced Fellowship.