Stephen W. Rex, MD
Family Medicine
Hospital Affiliations
Inova Mount Vernon Hospital
Image
Get Started Today
This physician has limited availability and may have a Waiting List. Fill out the form to receive more information about Dr. Rex.
MDVIP Annual Membership Fee
MDVIP’s annual fee covers the Wellness Program and generally can be made in quarterly, semi-annual and annual payments.
Quarterly
$625.00*
Semi-Annual
$1,250.00*
Annual
$2,500.00*
About Stephen W. Rex, MD
I strive to identify opportunities where my patients and I can intervene to help attain their health and wellness goals. This can only happen after listening carefully to the patient's story and then explaining my advice in detail. I believe that when I take the time to understand the patient as a whole person I am in the best position to offer meaningful advice.
Residency
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
Philadelphia, PA
1991-1993
Philadelphia, PA
1991-1993
Internship
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
Philadelphia, PA
1990-1991
Philadelphia, PA
1990-1991
Medical School
Ohio State University College of Medicine
Columbus, OH
Doctorate of Medicine 1990
Columbus, OH
Doctorate of Medicine 1990
Undergraduate
Miami University
Oxford, OH
Bachelor of Science, Physics 1985
Oxford, OH
Bachelor of Science, Physics 1985
American Board of Family Practice
Inova Mount Vernon Hospital
Chairman of the Family Practice Department, Inova Mount Vernon Hospital 2002-2004
Top Doctors, Northern Virginia Magazine 2012, 2017
Top Doctors, Washingtonian Magazine 2008, 2015, 2017
Top Doctors, Consumer Checkbooks 2004
Top Doctors, Washingtonian Magazine 2008, 2015, 2017
Top Doctors, Consumer Checkbooks 2004
Virginia
Spending time with family and friends, fitness including bicycling and rowing, woodworking and reading
Benefits of joining Dr. Rex's practice with MDVIP
MDVIP Wellness Program
Expect comprehensive screenings and tests and a custom wellness plan designed for you.
Better Doctor-Patient Relationship
97% of MDVIP members are satisfied with their relationship (vs 58% in traditional PCP).
Same/Next-Day Appointments
See Dr. Rex quickly and take your time during each appointment.
Reachable 24/7
Reach Dr. Rex by phone after-hours and on weekends.
Smaller Practice Size
MDVIP practices are smaller than most primary care practices, which means your doctor has more time to help you.
Your Dedicated Doctor
See Dr. Rex when you go to the office — not someone else like a nurse practitioner or physician assistant
Travel Benefits
If you need urgent care while traveling, your physician can help arrange your care with a local hospital, pharmacy or doctor.
Medical Centers of Excellence
For patients who need care beyond what is available locally, MDVIP can connect your doctor with specialists at some of the country’s leading medical institutions
Better Health Outcomes
Members have better control of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and hypertension.
The office of Stephen W. Rex, MD
Hours
| Mon | 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM |
| Tue | 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM |
| Wed | 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM |
| Thu | 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM |
| Fri | 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM |
| Sat | Closed |
| Sun | Closed |
What our members are saying
Words can't begin nor adequately express what it means to us to have you as our primary health care professional. Simply stated, we couldn't be happier and more satisfied. You have set the bar high for your colleagues -- a standard that goes far and above that is called for/expected in this day and age. Caring, compassionate, and dependable, you have always been there when we needed…
John and Judy
February 23, 2014
Dr Rex is a very caring and conscientious doctor. He is very prompt when returning replies to emails either by phone or email. Even before he became an MDVIP doctor he would personally call me instead of having his nurse call when he felt I needed a little extra reassurance since I am a worrier.
He can be reached in the evening or weekends if needed. The evening of my gallbladder surgery I was…
Deborah
March 26, 2014
Last October, while visiting in Chicago, my wife became painfully ill. It was almost midnight and I was going to call 911 from our hotel, but first I placed a call to Dr. Rex. I thought I would get an answering service, as before MDVIP, but Dr. Rex answered! When I explained her symptoms and responded to his questions, he said it appeared to be food poisoning and recommended Benadryl. We had…
Charles
January 31, 2013
I am 90 years old and my doctor treats me as if I were 50. He never referrs to at your age as some do. He treats me as if I am just as healthy as any body he has. When I do get sick he will call and or send someone to see that I am doing all right. He treats me like someone who he can trust to understand what he is saying. I like this because many people think a 90 year old is just not with it…
emelia anne
March 21, 2017
Reviews from the web
10/26/2025
–
A More Honest Look at Alcohol and Cancer Risk
(A Bayesian Rebuttal to “The Hidden Risk in Your Glass” by Dr. Wendy Walker)
The article by Dr. Wendy Walker correctly points out that alcohol can contribute to several forms of cancer. Where it falls short, however, is in how it presents the numbers. The statistics cited are conditional risks — percentages that describe how much more likely a cancer is among drinkers than nondrinkers — but they don’t account for the base probability of developing each cancer in the first place. That omission exaggerates the apparent danger and leads readers to misjudge the magnitude of the real risk.
A more rigorous way to look at this issue is through Bayesian analysis, which multiplies the prior probability (the baseline lifetime risk) by the likelihood ratio (the relative risk increase). Doing so preserves the real-world context.
1. Why Relative Risk Misleads
Saying a certain behavior “raises cancer risk by 46%” sounds alarming — until you realize it’s 46% of a small number. If a woman’s baseline lifetime risk of breast cancer is about 13%, a 46% increase doesn’t mean nearly half of drinkers will develop cancer. It raises her lifetime risk from 13% to about 19% — a 6-point increase, not 46.
That is not trivial, but it’s far less dramatic than the headline suggests. The same holds true for most other alcohol-related cancers.
2. The Bayesian Perspective
Using the same relative risks cited in the article, but applying them to U.S. baseline lifetime probabilities, the results look like this:
Cancer Type Baseline Risk Relative Risk (from article) Bayesian-Adjusted Lifetime Risk Absolute Increase
Breast (F) 13% ×1.32 (3–4 drinks/day) ≈ 17% +4 pts
×1.46 (>4/day) ≈ 19% +6 pts
Colorectal (M+F) 4.1% ×1.63 (AUD) ≈ 6.7% +2.6 pts
×2.67 (11 yrs AUD) ≈ 10.9% +6.8 pts
×0.92 (≤2 drinks/day) ≈ 3.8% –0.3 pts
Esophageal 0.5% ×1.3 (1–2 drinks/day) ≈ 0.65% +0.15 pts
×5.0 (>4/day) ≈ 2.5% +2 pts
Laryngeal 0.3% ×2 (moderate drinker) ≈ 0.6% +0.3 pts
×5 (heavy + smoke) ≈ 1.5% +1.2 pts
Liver 1.1% ×2 (heavy) ≈ 2.2% +1.1 pts
Mouth/Throat 0.7% ×30 (heavy + smoke) ≈ 21% +20 pts (synergy dominates)
Notice how most absolute increases are just a few percentage points.
The truly dangerous outlier is alcohol + smoking, which creates a synergistic jump — not a simple multiple.
3. Context Matters
Cancer risk from alcohol is real but must be seen in proportion.
Moderate drinking (one drink per day) slightly affects risk, while heavy and chronic consumption, especially with tobacco use or poor nutrition, produces substantial harm.
For most people:
A glass of wine at dinner adds fractions of a percent to lifetime risk.
A bottle of whiskey every week adds several percent.
Smoking while drinking multiplies the danger dramatically.
Without these distinctions, risk reporting becomes more fear-based than fact-based.
4. Why Bayesian Framing Is More Honest
It preserves priors — baseline probabilities grounded in population data.
It shows scale — the real difference between “relative” and “absolute” risk.
It respects causality — distinguishing correlation from confounding lifestyle factors (diet, obesity, smoking, genetics).
It avoids moralizing — empowering people with informed, quantitative understanding.
5. A Responsible Conclusion
There is no question that excessive alcohol harms the body, and moderation — or abstinence — is always a healthy choice. But scientific honesty requires that we distinguish between doubling a 1% risk and doubling a 20% risk.
Presenting conditional percentages without context makes small risks look large and undermines public trust in health communication.
A Bayesian approach restores that trust by showing how much risk actually changes in absolute terms — usually, by just a few points.
(A Bayesian Rebuttal to “The Hidden Risk in Your Glass” by Dr. Wendy Walker)
The article by Dr. Wendy Walker correctly points out that alcohol can contribute to several forms of cancer. Where it falls short, however, is in how it presents the numbers. The statistics cited are conditional risks — percentages that describe how much more likely a cancer is among drinkers than nondrinkers — but they don’t account for the base probability of developing each cancer in the first place. That omission exaggerates the apparent danger and leads readers to misjudge the magnitude of the real risk.
A more rigorous way to look at this issue is through Bayesian analysis, which multiplies the prior probability (the baseline lifetime risk) by the likelihood ratio (the relative risk increase). Doing so preserves the real-world context.
1. Why Relative Risk Misleads
Saying a certain behavior “raises cancer risk by 46%” sounds alarming — until you realize it’s 46% of a small number. If a woman’s baseline lifetime risk of breast cancer is about 13%, a 46% increase doesn’t mean nearly half of drinkers will develop cancer. It raises her lifetime risk from 13% to about 19% — a 6-point increase, not 46.
That is not trivial, but it’s far less dramatic than the headline suggests. The same holds true for most other alcohol-related cancers.
2. The Bayesian Perspective
Using the same relative risks cited in the article, but applying them to U.S. baseline lifetime probabilities, the results look like this:
Cancer Type Baseline Risk Relative Risk (from article) Bayesian-Adjusted Lifetime Risk Absolute Increase
Breast (F) 13% ×1.32 (3–4 drinks/day) ≈ 17% +4 pts
×1.46 (>4/day) ≈ 19% +6 pts
Colorectal (M+F) 4.1% ×1.63 (AUD) ≈ 6.7% +2.6 pts
×2.67 (11 yrs AUD) ≈ 10.9% +6.8 pts
×0.92 (≤2 drinks/day) ≈ 3.8% –0.3 pts
Esophageal 0.5% ×1.3 (1–2 drinks/day) ≈ 0.65% +0.15 pts
×5.0 (>4/day) ≈ 2.5% +2 pts
Laryngeal 0.3% ×2 (moderate drinker) ≈ 0.6% +0.3 pts
×5 (heavy + smoke) ≈ 1.5% +1.2 pts
Liver 1.1% ×2 (heavy) ≈ 2.2% +1.1 pts
Mouth/Throat 0.7% ×30 (heavy + smoke) ≈ 21% +20 pts (synergy dominates)
Notice how most absolute increases are just a few percentage points.
The truly dangerous outlier is alcohol + smoking, which creates a synergistic jump — not a simple multiple.
3. Context Matters
Cancer risk from alcohol is real but must be seen in proportion.
Moderate drinking (one drink per day) slightly affects risk, while heavy and chronic consumption, especially with tobacco use or poor nutrition, produces substantial harm.
For most people:
A glass of wine at dinner adds fractions of a percent to lifetime risk.
A bottle of whiskey every week adds several percent.
Smoking while drinking multiplies the danger dramatically.
Without these distinctions, risk reporting becomes more fear-based than fact-based.
4. Why Bayesian Framing Is More Honest
It preserves priors — baseline probabilities grounded in population data.
It shows scale — the real difference between “relative” and “absolute” risk.
It respects causality — distinguishing correlation from confounding lifestyle factors (diet, obesity, smoking, genetics).
It avoids moralizing — empowering people with informed, quantitative understanding.
5. A Responsible Conclusion
There is no question that excessive alcohol harms the body, and moderation — or abstinence — is always a healthy choice. But scientific honesty requires that we distinguish between doubling a 1% risk and doubling a 20% risk.
Presenting conditional percentages without context makes small risks look large and undermines public trust in health communication.
A Bayesian approach restores that trust by showing how much risk actually changes in absolute terms — usually, by just a few points.
08/03/2025
–
Steve is just what I need as a physician; he is extremely knowledgeable and has a great doctor-patient rapport. The nursing staff is fun, friendly and right on point in keeping track of my meds and health concerns. Sometimes I pop in just to get a dose of good vibes.
03/23/2025
–
There are no doctors, that I am familiar with, whose care and concern for me and his other patients can be surpassed. Been with him from the start. Great medical group. His team of ladies work together with Dr. Rex and are fun, caring and professtional. He is a giving, compassionate man. Those of my friends who use his services love him. If ever he retires it will be a sad day in heaven. There is nothing more to say.
03/14/2023
–
Best Doctor I ever had!!
02/17/2023
–
The best physician ever! He has been an incredible doctor, diagnostician, resource and support. Always listens to me, provides sound advice and recommendations, and supports my decisions. Truly exceptional.
02/27/2022
–
Doctor Rex and staff have consistently and without exception provided outstanding care. They are friendly, courteous, kind, cheerful and have great demeanors and attitudes. Thank you for taking such good care of me 😊
10/19/2021
–
Watch this company people, just from acquiring & looking these guys took money 💰 out of my account!. And once I called on numerous occasions to have them to stop, they still try & take money. Gladly my Bank alarmed me of this matter.
02/18/2020
–
Steve Rex is an excellent phsycian but he is also a good person. He goes out of his way to take care of his patients. I count him as a friend who is genuinely interested in my health.
02/16/2020
–
I am very pleased with the service and advice that Dr. Rex has provide over many years. He knows me well the history of my health and stresses that I have endured.
02/13/2019
–
I spent 30 years calling on doctors throughout the United States, Dr. Rex is one of the most knowledgeable physicians I have ever met. He stays current on new data and studies, takes a preventive approach to healthcare and has the best communication skills and bedside manner I’ve seen in my career in healthcare. His staff is friendly, competent and proactive. I can not recommend him highly enough. He is one of the best doctors anywhere, you would be fortunate to be one of his patients, as I am.
Frequently Asked Questions
Doctors who operate in the MDVIP models typically see far fewer patients than traditional primary care doctors. That gives them more time to develop deeper doctor-patient relationships that can lead to better outcomes. They can also offer conveniences that most primary care doctors can’t, including same- and next-day appointments. They’re available after hours for urgent matters. And they have time to focus on prevention. That focus begins with the MDVIP Wellness Program, which patients pay for with their annual membership fee.
Most MDVIP-affiliated primary care practices accept insurance (your physician can tell you whether they accept your specific insurance plan). Your annual fee pays for preventive care medical services that insurance usually doesn’t cover (e.g., advanced diagnostic testing and screenings). Your MDVIP-affiliated physician will continue to bill your insurance and charge copays, co-insurances and deductibles as he or she currently does for other medical services like sick visits.
MDVIP makes wellness and prevention easier by providing your physician with innovative tools and technology. MDVIP supports your physician’s practice and seeks to eliminate barriers to a positive healthcare experience. Your doctor will determine whether and how to incorporate these tools at his/her discretion.
**The message above is a personal introduction from the physician, intended to help you get to know them better. The views, opinions, and statements expressed above are solely those of the physician and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of MDVIP. This content is intended for general background purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Any mentions of expertise or quality of care are personal expressions and should not be interpreted as guarantees of performance or outcomes.