Dermatologists to vote on residencies funded by industry

The dermatology academy says a program using drug company money will help alleviate a shortage of the specialists, but some members object to the plan.

By Damon Adams, AMNews staff. Sept. 5, 2005.

Some dermatologists were upset when the American Academy of Dermatology decided to use pharmaceutical company money to fund extra residency slots. They said the academy moved ahead with the plan, despite a petition calling for AAD members to vote on the matter.

Now the AAD has decided to let members have their say.

The academy in March will ask members to vote on a measure calling for the AAD not to support or fund any initiative intended to influence the size of the dermatologist work force without approval by a two-thirds vote. The measure was proposed by dermatologists who don't want drug companies funding residencies. "The lesson we learned was you probably need to get a pretty good consensus before going forward," said AAD President Clay Cockerell, MD, who practices in Dallas.

Although the AAD is allowing the vote, its board is recommending that members vote against the measure, saying there are enough safeguards in place to prevent conflicts of interest.

The pilot program was intended to fund 10 slots per year for three years. Corporate sponsors contributing funds include 3M Pharmaceuticals, Amgen and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.

Board members of the nearly 15,000-member academy say the program is designed to alleviate a dermatology work-force shortage by increasing the number of dermatologists.

The academy cites a 2002 dermatology practice profile survey that found one-third of dermatologists wanted to add another dermatologist to their practices and that patients waited an average of 36 days for an appointment with a dermatologist.