Claire R. Stewart, BA

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

The ability of advanced practice providers (APPs) to practice independently has been a recent topic of discussion among both the medical community and legislatures. Advanced practice provider is an umbrella term that includes physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice registered nurses, including nurse practitioners (NPs), clinical nurse specialists, certified nurse-midwives, and certified registered nurse anesthetists. Since Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, APPs can bill and be paid independently if they are not practicing incident to a physician or in a facility.¹ Currently, NPs can practice independently in 27 states and Washington, DC. Physician assistants are required to practice under the supervision of a physician; however, the extent of supervision varies by state.² Advocates for broadening the scope of practice for APPs argue that NPs and PAs will help to fill the physician deficit, particularly in primary care and rural regions. It has been projected that by 2025, the United States will require an additional 46,000 primary care providers to meet growing medical needs.³

On October 3, 2019, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors, in which he proposed an alternative to “Medicare for all.”⁴ This order instructed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prepare a regulation that would “eliminate burdensome regulatory billing requirements, conditions of participation, supervision requirements, benefit definitions and all other licensure requirements . . . that are more stringent than applicable Federal or State laws require and that limit professionals from practicing at the top of their field.” Furthermore, President Trump proposed that “services provided by clinicians, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, are appropriately reimbursed in accordance with the work performed rather than the clinician’s occupation.”⁴

In response to the executive order, members of the medical community utilized Reddit, an online public forum, and Medscape, a medical news website, to vocalize opinions on the executive order.^5,6 Our goal was to analyze the characteristics of those who participated in the discussion and their points of view on the plan to broaden the scope of practice and change the Medicare reimbursement plans for APPs.

Methods

All comments on the October 3, 2019, Medscape article, “Trump Executive Order Seeks Proposals on Medicare Pay for NPs, PAs,”⁵ and the corresponding Reddit discussion on this article⁶ were reviewed and characterized by the type of commenter—doctor of medicine (MD)/doctor of osteopathic medicine (DO), NP/RN/certified registered nurse anesthetist, PA, medical student, PA student, NP student, pharmacist, dietician, emergency medical technician, scribe, or unknown—as identified in their username, title, or in the text of the comment. Gender of the commenter was recorded when provided. Commenters were further grouped by their support or lack of support for the executive order based on their comments. Patients’ comments underwent further qualitative analysis to identify general themes.

All analyses were conducted with RStudio statistical software. Analyses were reported as proportions. Variables were compared by χ² and Fisher exact tests. Odds ratios with 95% CIs were calculated. P<.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 352 comments (130 on Medscape and 222 on Reddit) posted by 155 unique users (57 on Medscape and 98 on Reddit) were included in the analysis (Table 1). Of the 51 Medscape commenters who identified a gender, 60.7% were male and 39.2% were female. Reddit commenters did not identify a gender. Commenters included MD and DO physicians (43.2%), NPs/RNs/certified registered nurse anesthetists (13.5%), medical students (11.0%), PAs (9.7%), pharmacists (3.2%), NP students (1.9%), PA students (1.3%), emergency medical technicians (1.3%), dieticians (0.6%), and scribes (0.6%). Physicians (54.5% vs 36.73%; P=.032) and NPs (22.8% vs 8.2%; P=.009) made up a larger percentage of all comments on Medscape compared to Reddit, where medical students were more prevalent (16.3% vs 1.8%; P=.005). Nursing students and PA students more commonly posted on Reddit (4.08% of Reddit commenters vs 1.75% of Medscape commenters), though this difference did not achieve statistical significance.

A majority of commenters did not support the executive order, with only 20.6% approving of the plan, 54.8% disapproving, and 24.5% remaining neutral (Figure). Advanced practice providers—NPs, PAs, NP/PA students, and APPs not otherwise specified—were more likely to support the executive order, with 52.3% voicing their support compared to only 4.8% of physicians and medical students expressing support (P<.0001). Similarly, physicians and medical students were more likely to disapprove of the order, with 75.0% voicing concerns compared to only 27.3% of APPs dissenting (P<.0001). A similar percentage of both physicians/medical students and APPs remained neutral (20.2% vs 18.2%). Commenters on Medscape were more likely to voice support for the executive order than those on Reddit (36.8% vs 11.2%; P=.0002), likely due to the higher percentage of NP and PA comments on the former.

Comment

President Trump’s executive order follows a trend of decreasing required oversight of APPs; however, this study indicates that these policies would face pushback from many physicians. These results are consistent with a prior study that analyzed 309 comments on an article in The New York Times made by physicians, APPs, patients, and laypeople, in which 24.7% had mistrust of APPs and 14.9% had concerns over APP supervision compared to 9% who supported APP independent practice.⁷ It is clear that there is a serious divide in opinion that threatens to harm the existing collaborations between physicians and APPs.

Primary Care Coverage With APPs
In the comments analyzed in our study, supporters of the executive order argued that an increase in APPs practicing independently would provide much-needed primary care coverage to patients in underserved regions. However, APPs are instead well represented across most specialties, with a majority in dermatology. Of the 4 million procedures billed independently by APPs in 2012, 54.8% were in the field of dermatology.⁸ The employment of APPs by dermatologists has grown from 28% of practices in 2005 to 46% in 2014, making this issue of particular importance to our field.^9,10

Education and Training of APPs
In our analysis, many physicians cited concerns about the education and training of APPs. Dermatologists receive approximately 10,000 hours of training over the course of residency. Per the American Academy of Physician Assistants, PAs spend more than 2000 hours over a 26-month period on various clinical rotations, “with an emphasis on primary care.”¹¹ There are multiple routes to become an advanced practice RN with varying classroom and clinical requirements, with one pathway requiring a bachelor of science in nursing, followed by a master’s degree requiring 500 to 700 hours of supervised clinical work. Although the Dermatology Nurses’ Association and Society of Dermatology Physician Assistants (http://www.dermpa.org) provide online modules, annual conventions with training workshops, and short fellowship programs, neither have formal guidelines on minimum requirements to diagnose and treat dermatologic conditions.² Despite the lack of formalized dermatologic training, APPs billed for 13.4% of all dermatology procedures submitted to Medicare in 2015.¹²

Quality of Patient Care
In our study, physicians also voiced concern over reduced quality of patient care. In a review of 33,647 skin cancer screening examinations, PAs biopsied an average of 39.4 skin lesions, while dermatologists biopsied an average of 25.4 skin lesions to diagnose 1 case of melanoma.¹³ In addition, nonphysician providers accounted for 37.9% of defendants in 174 legal cases related to injury from cutaneous laser surgery.¹⁴ Before further laws are enacted regarding the independent practice and billing by NPs and PAs in the field of dermatology, further research is needed to address patient outcomes and safety.

Limitations
This study was subject to several limitations. Because of a lack of other sources offering discussions on the topic, our sample size was limited. Self-identification of users presents a challenge, as an individual can pose as a physician or APP without validation of credentials. Although great care was taken to minimize bias, grouping comments into broad categories may misinterpret a poster’s intentions. Furthermore, the data collected represent only a small proportion of the medical community—readers of Medscape and Reddit who have the motivation to create a user profile and post a comment rather than put their efforts into lobbying or contacting legislators. Those posting may have stronger political opinions or more poignant experiences than the general public. Although selection bias impacts the generalizability of our findings, this analysis allows for deeper insight into the beliefs of a vocal subset of the medical community who may not have the opportunity to present their opinions elsewhere.

Conclusion

Our analysis of the response to President Trump’s executive order reveals that a rollout of these regulations would be met with strong opposition. On October 29, 2019, more than 100 professional organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology, wrote a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that eloquently echoed the sentiments of the physician commenters in this study: “Scope of practice of health care professionals should be based on standardized, adequate training and demonstrated competence in patient care, not politics. While all health care professionals share an important role in providing care to patients, their skillset is not interchangeable with that of a fully trained physician.”¹⁵ The executive order would lead to a major shift in the current medical landscape, and as such, it is prudent that these concerns are addressed.

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.¹ High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”² However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.³ The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.⁴ Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.⁵ Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.

The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.¹ High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”² However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.³ The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.⁴ Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.⁵ Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.

The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.

Residency application is an arduous experience for many medical students. The National Resident Matching Program reported that US medical school seniors who matched into dermatology applied to a median of 90 programs and attended 9 interviews in 2019.¹ High application and interview travel costs are a disadvantage for applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We propose that the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic should serve as a call to action for dermatology to update and promote a more equitable, time-effective, and cost-efficient residency interview process.

In light of COVID-19, dermatology residency program directors have recommended a holistic application review process, taking into consideration “disparities in strength of applications due to lack of opportunity for students with smaller home programs or in areas more affected by this crisis.”² However, in a 2018 survey of 180 dermatology faculty members, 80% stated that time spent reviewing residency applications was already excessive.³ The Association of American Medical Colleges reported that for medical student applicants with US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores lower than 237 or higher than 251, the value added by submitting one additional application beyond means of 43 (95% confidence interval [CI], 34-53) and 34 (95% CI, 28-41), respectively, is reduced relative to the value added by each application before reaching the point of diminishing returns.⁴ Therefore, we suggest limiting the number of applications per applicant to the upper bounds of the CI for the lower US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 score (53), facilitating a more detailed review of fewer applications by each program and limiting student expenses.

On May 7, 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges made a statement strongly encouraging medical school and teaching hospital faculty to conduct interviews through videoconferencing.⁵ Videoconferencing interviews (VCIs) minimize travel-associated health risks, providing a more equitable structure for applicants and programs in areas disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. In the 2018 survey of dermatology faculty members, only 11% believed that applicants interviewing virtually received equal consideration to those interviewing in person; a solution to this problem would be to mandate that all applicants use VCIs during the COVID-19 pandemic.³ This coming year, residency programs may elect to replace in-person interviews with VCIs, or they may utilize VCIs as screening tools to narrow down the applicant pool and for students to rank their preferred programs prior to an in-person interview. By inviting fewer applicants for in-person interviews, travel-associated health risks, financial costs, and missed educational activities would be minimized. Given that many medical students have had academic activities cancelled or postponed due to COVID-19, student opportunities for live clinical experiences should be maximized.

As programs plan for future application cycles beyond COVID-19, they must work to balance competing interests. Videoconferencing interviews allow for improved access to interviewing for applicants of lower socioeconomic classes, improved geographic mobility of applicants, and increased flexibility in accommodating faculty schedules with reduced time away from patient care and research; however, with VCIs one may lose the personal element that comes from the in-person interview, including interactions among applicants, faculty, current residents, and staff on the day of interview, as well as the departmental tour. Additionally, the quality of VCIs may be diminished by technical difficulties and the possibility of distractions, making standardization of the interview experience for applicants challenging.

The COVID-19 pandemic will surely leave its mark on the residency application cycle. We must take time now to collaborate and brainstorm creative solutions to maximize the equity and efficiency of the application process for both residency programs and students. We welcome reader feedback on these ideas and other possible solutions in the form of Letters to the Editor.