Last Tuesday a woman in her 40s walked in with a referral reading “rule out lupus” and a shopping bag of records. Hundreds of pages: prior labs, imaging, urgent care summaries, pain clinic notes, neurology notes, her own online printouts. ANA 1:80 speckled. CRP, ESR, CBC, CMP, UA — all normal, repeatedly, across years. No rash, no ulcers, no synovitis, no alopecia, no serositis, no renal flags. What she had was 18 months of total-body pain, crushing fatigue, poor sleep, a typed list of 30-plus symptoms, and a PCP who understandably didn’t know what else to do. I reviewed the stack, examined her, went through the list point by point, explained what fibromyalgia is and isn’t, outlined a realistic plan, and referred her back. Over 70 minutes. Three patients with active inflammatory disease waiting.
This is most days. And it’s the clearest illustration of a problem we keep tiptoeing around: isolated fibromyalgia does not belong in rheumatology long-term.
Real, but not rheumatic
Fibromyalgia (FM) is a real, often disabling central pain processing disorder. ACR and AAFP say so directly. But “real” and “rheumatic” aren’t synonyms. No autoimmunity, no inflammation, no synovitis, no erosive damage, no DMARD to titrate. Pain in muscles and joints makes it musculoskeletal anatomically — the way a headache is “cranial” — but anatomy isn’t mechanism, and mechanism should determine specialty ownership. Fibromyalgia’s world is central sensitization, sleep, fatigue, mood overlap, graded activity. It shares almost nothing with inflammatory arthritis, CTD, crystal disease, or myositis.
How we got stuck
FM lands in rheumatology because PCPs need somewhere to send diffuse pain, low-titer ANAs, and unexplained distress. In that diagnostic role, we’re the right specialists — trained to rule out RA, SLE, SpA, vasculitis, myositis. But diagnostic workup does not equal long-term ownership, and the profession conflates the two constantly. NHS Lanarkshire states FM patients discharged from rheumatology are “very unlikely to benefit from further review” and re-referral “may simply delay referral to pain services.” The RCP notes FM doesn’t need diagnosis by any particular specialty. These aren’t radical positions. They’re obvious clinical logic that American practice has been slow to absorb.
The workforce math
ACR’s 2025 projections: demand will outpace supply by >4,700 clinicians by 2030. Every slot filled with non-inflammatory chronic pain is a slot unavailable for lupus nephritis, new-onset vasculitis, or IA where a three-month delay in DMARD initiation changes joint outcomes. We all know what this looks like in practice — the new patient with bilateral hand synovitis who waits two months to get in, the young woman with malar rash and proteinuria whose referral sits in a queue behind a dozen chronic pain evaluations.
The numbers back up the intuition. A Canadian study found median wait to rheumatology was 66 days for systemic inflammatory disease, with benchmarks unmet even for urgent cases. A quality study of FM/chronic pain referrals found zero ultimately diagnosed with IA or CTD — yet every referral consumed resources and generated costs. Pittsburgh drew the logical conclusion: they built a GIM-led FM clinic specifically because rheumatology was drowning in FM referrals and wait times were hurting autoimmune patients. That is a department saying out loud what many of us mutter in private.
The patients nobody discusses openly
Many FM patients are extraordinarily labor-intensive. Severe pain, profound fatigue, cognitive fog, medication sensitivity, trauma history, mood symptoms, repeated help-seeking, high message volume. They need more time, more explanation, more expectation-setting than standard IA follow-up. That doesn’t make them illegitimate. It makes them poorly served by a 15-minute rheumatology visit designed around joint counts and immunosuppressive monitoring. The mismatch isn’t that they’re “too much.” They’re in the wrong branch of medicine. A clinic built for synovitis and biologic titration cannot deliver the longitudinal biopsychosocial care that chronic widespread pain demands. Pretending otherwise helps no one — it just lets everyone avoid an uncomfortable triage conversation.
Cost of misplacement
Annual direct costs per FM patient: $1,750–$35,920 in U.S. studies. Even at the conservative end, much of that spending reflects the pattern I see daily — repeated specialty visits, redundant labs, more imaging, another med trial, another cycle of reassuring-but-incomplete follow-up — all accumulating for months or years after the autoimmune question was answered on day one. Parking the case in rheumatology doesn’t improve FM care. It delays placement into the right care structure and adds utilization without changing the therapeutic destination.
The ask
If the presentation is typical FM without inflammatory red flags, the diagnosis can be made and managed in primary care. If real flags exist — objective swelling, inflammatory back pain, rash, weakness, organ findings, unexplained inflammatory markers — rheumatology should be involved. But once the workup yields isolated FM, management belongs in PCP, pain medicine, PM&R, behavioral health, or PT. Caveat: FM coexisting with true rheumatic disease stays in rheumatology — for the rheumatic disease.
Three concrete changes are required. PCP residencies need better FM training so straightforward cases never leave the office. The ACR should issue a position statement that isolated FM, once inflammatory disease is excluded, doesn’t require ongoing rheumatology management. Institutions should build dedicated pain-focused pathways so discharging FM from rheumatology doesn’t mean discharging into nothing.
We have a specialty running out of clinicians, patients stuck in the wrong clinic, and an access crisis punishing the sickest inflammatory-disease patients. The fix isn’t mysterious. It just requires saying what most of us already know: fibromyalgia is real, it deserves good care, and that care is not ours to give indefinitely.
Olga Goodman, MD, FACR, FAAP, FACP, is a practicing rheumatologist in IL with five board certifications, including internal medicine, rheumatology, and pediatrics. She writes about professional self-regulation, physician time burdens, and real-world quality improvement.
This article is part of the Medical Insights vertical on Op-Med, which features study breakdowns, resources, and insights from Doximity members on popular topics in medicine. Want to submit to Medical Insights? See our submission guidelines here; note that we are especially interested in articles covering oncology, dermatology, or rheumatology.
Image by Anton Vierietin / Shutterstock
