Charles Scales
· Associate Professor of UrologyVerifiedDuke University · Urology
Active 1934–2026
About
Charles Scales is an Associate Professor of Urology at Duke University and serves as the Associate Dean for Clinical Research Initiatives. He is also an Associate Professor in Population Health Sciences and a member of the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Additionally, he is an Affiliate Faculty Member at the Duke-Margolis Institute for Health Policy. His roles indicate a focus on clinical research, urology, and health policy, contributing to the academic and clinical missions of Duke University through leadership in research initiatives and education within the Department of Urology.
Research topics
- Medicine
- Computer Science
- Internal medicine
- Nursing
- Emergency medicine
- Intensive care medicine
- Medical emergency
- Physical therapy
- Surgery
- Psychology
- Finance
Selected publications
World Journal of Urology · 2026-01-11 · 1 citations
articleOpen accessThe Journal of Urology · 2026-04-27
articleThe Lancet · 2026-03-01 · 4 citations
articleOpen accessSenior authorThe Journal of Urology · 2026-04-27
articleHealth Policy OPEN · 2026-01-26
articleOpen access• We examine payments for drugs alone compared to payments for drug and delivery fees required for drug administration. • Price transparency for drugs currently only includes payments for drug alone. • While there are substantial differences in OOP payments for first-line treatments of drugs alone, when including additional payments associated with drug delivery, payments across first-line treatments are more similar. • The amount a patient pays to receive a medication for mCRPC can be very different from the OOP payment for drug alone, thus impacting the potential effectiveness of price transparency. Price transparency has been cited as a tool to reduce out-of-pocket (OOP) payments to patients. These tools for prescription drugs often focus on the price to patients for the drug alone. However, costs associated with drug delivery (i.e. infusion center fees, labs, etc) are often unknown and could impact the effectiveness of price transparency tools. Objective: To examine total OOP payments on day of drug receipt (“full day”, i.e. drug + drug administration fees) out-of-pocket (OOP) payments associated with six first-line treatments for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer and compare these with payments for drug alone and by insurance type. Using the IBM Marketscan databases, we identify male patients who initiated treatment with one of six focus drugs (docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium-223) used to treat mCRPC from 07/01/2013–06/30/2019. We calculated total OOP payments on day of drug receipt (full day OOP payments) by drug type for six first line treatments. We then used a two-part model to assess the association of first-line therapy with OOP payments for the four most frequently prescribed during the study time period. We find that there is variation in the proportion of payments for drug alone relative to full day payments across first-line treatments. However, regression-adjusted mean full day OOP payments are not statistically different across first-line treatments for mCRPC for the four most frequently prescribed drugs. There are differences in the likelihood that an individual will incur any OOP payment by first-line treatment type and by health plan type. These analyses suggest that when accounting for additional services required on the day of drug receipt, the amount a patient pays to receive a medication for mCRPC can be very different from the OOP payment for the drug alone; these payments also vary by drug and health plan type. Therefore, price transparency for drug alone may not lead to reduced OOP payments for patients.
The Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08
articleUrology · 2025-09-09
articleOpen accessUrology Practice · 2025-12-12
articleINTRODUCTION: We investigated the effect of timing to stone surgery on perioperative outcomes and costs for patients who presented with renal colic and concomitant UTI. METHODS: The 2018 Healthcare Utilization Project databases were used to identify patients who presented with renal colic and underwent upper urinary tract stone surgery within 3 months. Patients were stratified by infection status at presentation and time to surgery. Binary logit model and ordered logistic regressions with average marginal effect were used to estimate the odds of 30-day postoperative revisit based on time to surgery, evaluate surgical timing on probability of cost quartiles, and identify variables associated with surgical timing. RESULTS: < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefit in delaying surgery with respect to 30-day postoperative revisits for patients presenting with renal colic and concomitant UTI. Delays led to higher total episode-related costs, largely driven by the preoperative period. UTI at presentation was associated with delays in surgery, and our findings illustrate the importance of future prospective studies evaluating the impact of surgical timing on patients with urolithiasis and UTI.
Urology · 2025-09-11
articleOpen accessThe Journal of Urology · 2025-04-08
article
Recent grants
Urinary Stone Disease Research Network: Scientific Data Research Center
NIH · $6.9M · 2016–2022
Urinary Dysfunction in the Elderly: Informing Accountable Urologic Care
NIH · $232k · 2014–2017
Frequent coauthors
- 132 shared
Glenn M. Preminger
Duke Medical Center
- 98 shared
Philipp Dahm
Minneapolis VA Health Care System
- 98 shared
Michael E. Lipkin
Duke Medical Center
- 81 shared
Deborah R. Kaye
Duke Cancer Institute
- 68 shared
Gregory E. Tasian
- 59 shared
Hussein R. Al‐Khalidi
Clinical Research Institute
- 57 shared
Jodi Antonelli
Duke Medical Center
- 53 shared
Christopher S. Saigal
- Resume-aware match score
- Save to shortlist
- AI-drafted outreach
See your match with Charles Scales
PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.
- Free to start
- No credit card
- 30-second signup