derrick dermatology

[Iamnew2]

hi dermatology friends, I'm a non term but have seen the above practice everywhere! curious how does a term get to open >20 practices? is it typically?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Doctor MD]

hi dermatology friends, I'm a non term but have seen the above practice everywhere! curious how does a term get to open >20 practices? is it typically?

I googled them and it looks like they have a lot of offices concentrated in 2 states and have ~75% midlevels to ~25% MDs in their provider list. There are a ton of giant dermatology chains like this regionally and nationally, most of which are typically private equity based by the time they get that size. No idea what this one is, but there are some smaller/medium sized groups that aren't PE backed or run. I've seen some local entrepreneurial dermatologists who get up to 3-4 offices in a metro area that they personally manage and hire for, but typically it's harder to get much larger than that without more help/investors/partners. These mega groups aren't uncommon at all in dermatology right now, but certainly isn't typical and not something your average dermatologist is founding or managing. The people running these conglomerates are usually usually less of a clinician and more of an administrator/businessman. This really isn't anything different or unique to dermatology and you see these loco-regional chains in other specialties and urgent cares all the time. It's just another business by the time you have 20 offices.

 

[Iamnew2]

I googled them and it looks like they have a lot of offices concentrated in 2 states and have ~75% midlevels to ~25% MDs in their provider list. There are a ton of giant dermatology chains like this regionally and nationally, most of which are typically private equity based by the time they get that size. No idea what this one is, but there are some smaller/medium sized groups that aren't PE backed or run. I've seen some local entrepreneurial dermatologists who get up to 3-4 offices in a metro area that they personally manage and hire for, but typically it's harder to get much larger than that without more help/investors/partners. These mega groups aren't uncommon at all in dermatology right now, but certainly isn't typical and not something your average dermatologist is founding or managing. The people running these conglomerates are usually usually less of a clinician and more of an administrator/businessman. This really isn't anything different or unique to dermatology and you see these loco-regional chains in other specialties and urgent cares all the time. It's just another business by the time you have 20 offices.

Yes I noticed the large ratio of midlevels to doctors. They are in my neck of the woods and I'm looking for a dermatologist but then saw their reviews and saw that they are primarily PA/NP based and figured prob not for the best but was shocked to see 21 locations! that takes some significant $$$$

 

[dermie1985]

Amy Derrick is literally the personification of all the worst stereotypes of a dermatologist rolled into one person. There. I said it.

 

[Iamnew2]

Amy Derrick is literally the personification of all the worst stereotypes of a dermatologist rolled into one person. There. I said it.

Oh yikes why is that?

 

[notaplantt]

i know yall arent taking cheap shots at Amy Derrick when she is one of the fiercest lobbyists for our specialty locally and nationally. our salaries would be so much lower and scope of practice threatened way more if there were fewer people like Amy out there. most of you are jealous youre not the one partying out in Miami because you have some sort of weird pseudo-moralist notion that derms need to overcompensate for some image problem in the house of medicine that some academic derms who trained you are overly concerned about

 

[notaplantt]

also, sure Derick Dermatology is a chain. it is a chain run by dermatology leadership that has a higher ratio of non-derm providers to Dermatology physicians than some completely Derm physician-run practices. last time I checked, Derick Dermatology is not private equity owned nor does it come with the issues that come with PE.

 

[dermie1985]

i know yall arent taking cheap shots at Amy Derrick when she is one of the fiercest lobbyists for our specialty locally and nationally. our salaries would be so much lower and scope of practice threatened way more if there were fewer people like Amy out there. most of you are jealous youre not the one partying out in Miami because you have some sort of weird pseudo-moralist notion that derms need to overcompensate for some image problem in the house of medicine that some academic derms who trained you are overly concerned about

Amy Dericks recent achievements/policy moves have been:

1. Making the IL legislature pass a law that all skin checks need to be covered by insurance at a higher reimbursement level than a typical visit…even though there is little evidence universal skin cancer screening programs reduce rates of skin cancer deaths and the USPSTF recommends against routine skin cancer screening due to lack evidence. Moral of story: if we can’t prove the benefit of our practice through peer reviewed research, we can just use the legislature to require private insurance companies to cover potentially unnecessary screenings. Great for our healthcare system and our image as an evidence based specialty!

2. Tried to remove any data collection related to sexual orientation or gender identity in AAD physician surveys because they “shouldn’t ask about our genitals”. Let’s just make sure marginalized groups in medicine remain invisible!

Again. She’s everything wrong with derm. Policies and achievements are self serving and not directed at providing high quality, evidence based care to all communities including marginalized communities.

 

[notaplantt]

Amy Dericks recent achievements/policy moves have been:

1. Making the IL legislature pass a law that all skin checks need to be covered by insurance at a higher reimbursement level than a typical visit…even though there is little evidence universal skin cancer screening programs reduce rates of skin cancer deaths and the USPSTF recommends against routine skin cancer screening due to lack evidence. Moral of story: if we can’t prove the benefit of our practice through peer reviewed research, we can just use the legislature to require private insurance companies to cover potentially unnecessary screenings. Great for our healthcare system and our image as an evidence based specialty!

2. Tried to remove any data collection related to sexual orientation or gender identity in AAD physician surveys because they “shouldn’t ask about our genitals”. Let’s just make sure marginalized groups in medicine remain invisible!

Again. She’s everything wrong with derm. Policies and achievements are self serving and not directed at providing high quality, evidence based care to all communities including marginalized communities.

re 2. I did not know this. Is there actual evidence this is the case or the reasoning behind this move to remove those questions about the physician surveys. I'd love to hear a debate about this between the AAD members who have influence over those survey! I think a lot of physicians, dermatologists included would feel that we should not try to make marginalized groups in medicine invisible but at the same time though I myself don't necessarily have a dog in this fight I think a lot of physicians, dermatologists included, actually somewhat agree with the statement that outside of it pertaining to direct medical care (including care for patients in a way that affirms their sexual and gender identities) there could be little upside to asking people about their genitals in other contexts.

Regarding point 1. I think there are many interests here as you allude to beyond the interests of the lone dermatologist in perpetuating a legal system that upholds evidence-based care. I actually think the needle is moving though in derm circles beyond academic ones that there is a lot of discrepancy between what the evidence actually shows in the literature and what policies are being lobbied for (including by AAD and dermatologist-run groups). Let's have more debate on this issue as well among the AAD members.

I think we should challenge ideas, not people. I did not actually know a lot of these points you brought up but I do agree with you on some.

 

[dermie1985]

re 2. I did not know this. Is there actual evidence this is the case or the reasoning behind this move to remove those questions about the physician surveys. I'd love to hear a debate about this between the AAD members who have influence over those survey! I think a lot of physicians, dermatologists included would feel that we should not try to make marginalized groups in medicine invisible but at the same time though I myself don't necessarily have a dog in this fight I think a lot of physicians, dermatologists included, actually somewhat agree with the statement that outside of it pertaining to direct medical care (including care for patients in a way that affirms their sexual and gender identities) there could be little upside to asking people about their genitals in other contexts.

Regarding point 1. I think there are many interests here as you allude to beyond the interests of the lone dermatologist in perpetuating a legal system that upholds evidence-based care. I actually think the needle is moving though in derm circles beyond academic ones that there is a lot of discrepancy between what the evidence actually shows in the literature and what policies are being lobbied for (including by AAD and dermatologist-run groups). Let's have more debate on this issue as well among the AAD members.

I think we should challenge ideas, not people. I did not actually know a lot of these points you brought up but I do agree with you on some.

1. Resolution was proposed by a Georgia dermatologist and supported by Amy. She is Vice Chair of the AADA. It got shot down by voting members, and caused a big uproar because (1) Georgia member didn’t even have formal approval of their state derm society to propose the resolution (2) resolutions weren’t prior made public until at the actual AADA meeting (mean previously no meaningful way for broader debate before a meeting that isn’t always attended by stakeholders). AADA (driven by the Chair and Vice Chairs) has generally been trying to move towards becoming a more powerful organization with more sway over AAD politics and decision making - some of this has stemmed by the conservative bent of the AADA relative to the AAD and their dissatisfaction with certain AAD priorities (eg LGBT disparities, climate change).

2. You’re right that it’s not just Amy. AAD supported the IL legislation even though it was bad policy and not supported by medical evidence. I point out Amy in particular because that’s what this thread was about and she has an outsized influence in policy and has been one of (many) people who exemplify problems with the AAD and dermatology’s image in the house of medicine that need to change. Mid level providers role in dermatology is an ongoing debate we all need to have, because they do serve a role. But, creating a large chain practice that is 75% mid level providers is not a practice model focused on promoting MD dermatologists and providing high quality care to patients….but probably more focused on making $$$ IMO.

 

[PatsyStone]

Amy Dericks recent achievements/policy moves have been:


2. Tried to remove any data collection related to sexual orientation or gender identity in AAD physician surveys because they “shouldn’t ask about our genitals”. Let’s just make sure marginalized groups in medicine remain invisible!

I agree with everything dermie1985 posted. On a one-on-one basis, Amy is a nice person. Online, she is absolutely unhinged.

 

[MOHS_01]

hi dermatology friends, I'm a non term but have seen the above practice everywhere! curious how does a term get to open >20 practices? is it typically?

Slow your roll, people.

Typical? No, absolutely nothing typical about it. Exceptional in its success is the only way to objectively describe what she has been able to do, the outlier of outliers -- all done without the backing of PE money.

Envy is not a good look... nor is some blind faith allegiance to a world that has long since died. Offering a good, appreciated service is nothing to be shamed. She is not conscripting the patients who fueled the growth FFS; no, she did it better than those around her and was rewarded for it. Her screening bill rewarded every dermatologist who performed the service, not unique to her practice. Attacking this is poorly reasoned at best.

Maybe more later, back to the grind.

 

[MOHS_01]

P.S. The words the IL derms should be looking for are "thank you"

 

[MOHS_01]

Amy Dericks recent achievements/policy moves have been:

1. Making the IL legislature pass a law that all skin checks need to be covered by insurance at a higher reimbursement level than a typical visit…even though there is little evidence universal skin cancer screening programs reduce rates of skin cancer deaths and the USPSTF recommends against routine skin cancer screening due to lack evidence. Moral of story: if we can’t prove the benefit of our practice through peer reviewed research, we can just use the legislature to require private insurance companies to cover potentially unnecessary screenings. Great for our healthcare system and our image as an evidence based specialty!

2. Tried to remove any data collection related to sexual orientation or gender identity in AAD physician surveys because they “shouldn’t ask about our genitals”. Let’s just make sure marginalized groups in medicine remain invisible!

Again. She’s everything wrong with derm. Policies and achievements are self serving and not directed at providing high quality, evidence based care to all communities including marginalized communities.

Okay.

1. No one "makes" a legislature pass jack all. Full stop. There are sophomoric interpretations representing little more than a superficial understanding of complex realities.... then there is this UT Austin level ideological and nonsensical drivel position. Choose wisely.

2. We now know (some) of what she has done for the specialty. What about you? I mean, beyond hurling personal attacks clearly motivated by your own political (activist) biases? Biases that may actually be less supported upon scrutiny?

I do wonder if this discussion anonymously targeting a specific individual represents a TOS violation, btw.