E D I T O R ' S Q U E S T I O N
DR VIKTORYIA KAZLOSUKAYA
MD / PHD, OWNER OF DERMATOLOGY CIRCLE
People are increasingly seeking convenience, and as a result, digital dermatology is on the rise. Some are looking for easier access to prescriptions – leading to the rapid growth of services like Hims / Hers, Alloy and Musely.
Others are drawn to the ability to consult a dermatologist online by simply sending a photo and receiving a diagnosis.
The benefits are clear: convenience, accessibility – especially in areas where dermatologists are scarce and wait times can stretch for months – and often affordability, as these services tend to be lower-cost. In straightforward cases, this model can work well. However, its limitations become more evident when dealing with more complex conditions. The downsides include less experienced providers, as highly trained dermatologists are less likely to participate in low-cost, high-volume platforms. There’ s also a risk of misdiagnosis or incomplete assessment, since telemedicine can’ t always provide the full picture needed for an accurate diagnosis.
KYLE SOBKO
CEO AT SONDERCARE
The shift in dermatology to a digital model is most evident with asynchronous telederm platforms: applications where patients upload photos and receive treatment plans without needing a live visit. This has improved access to diagnosis for remote and mobilityrestricted patients. But the tradeoff is too significant. Lighting and camera quality can play a role, as can use of skin tone to influence a more accurate assessment. I saw this difference play out with one client who uploaded photos of a mole that she suspected was growing with a low-end smartphone.
The outcome for her was a boilerplate treatment recommendation, and weeks later, a diagnosis of melanoma. It is not the technology, but how the experience is intentionally designed – a photo and form aren’ t enough without careful escalation policies or real-time access when required.
From the provider’ s perspective, dermatologists are required to make snap decisions on limited data. The platforms often favor rapid communication, which is not always good medicine. I have heard clinicians state they feel like they are practicing under a timer and they are burning out faster because they are reviewing photos and lengthy descriptions instead of seeing patients. That isolation compounds.
Our team created a conduit from home-based nurses to dermatologists, where photos came with contextual notes and follow-up availability. This connected care improved the quality of care but did not add to much time.
On the patient side, the biggest advantage is not having to wait in a waiting room or travel for a benign complaint. However, I have also seen too many people take the digital dermatology option and treat it as a one and done, which inevitably leads to delayed care if things get worse. My conclusion? The value in this new approach comes when digital tools are appropriately used within long-term clinical practice rather than as a summarising and immediate solution to a discrete issue. This requires a design that enables convenience, but is still situated within clinical judgment, not a replacement for it. �
www. intelligenthealth. tech 27