What is going on with the ADA?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

mike3kgt

Hopefully scuba diving
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
886
Reaction score
8
Anybody seen the new ADA New Dentist news on the front of the ADA News? It's like a freggin' glorified advertisement for Medicaid dentistry.

What is going on with this organization? Since when do we equate being a Medicaid provider as one who "is involved in community service"? I still cannot believe that organized dentistry feels that Medicaid is the solution to access to care. I feel these "articles" placed on front of the magazine are incredibly disingenuous and give the false illusion to the new grad that becoming a Medicaid provider = good community service. What a farce.

Seniors/New Grads... beware suckling from the government teet... don't believe everything the ADA throws at you. Medicaid is very very scary.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I was trying to figure this out myself - if you want to work for the feds why not join the military? Both are service.
 
the-obama-cope-poster.jpg
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Time to step back and take a deep breath here about this. Having a business partner who is on the national ADA committee dealing with the access to care issue gives me quite a bit of insight as to what the ADA is doing publically and why.

Fact: In many areas of the country, access to dental care for the medicaid population is a big issue

Fact: In many areas of the country, the percentage of dentists that accept medicaid is very low

Fact: Our, generally uneducated(dentally) legislators here more often from their constituents on medicaid that can't get in to see a dentist than from us dentists who treat some medicaid patients

Fact: Our legislators are more and more making the assumption that if in medicine a nurse practitioner can deliver care to more people for less money, that there should be some type of equivalent provider in dentistry

Why the ADA is taking this proactive stance about access to care/medicaid dentistry/etc is so that in all likelyhood WHEN the legislature drafts a law on this (remember we're also viewed by many a legislator as "rich dentists" and attempts by us to block this are often looked at from the greed standpoint rather than the care standpoint) we will have our foot in the door about what the bill says and how it will affect us. And dentistry as a whole would much rather be involved in what legislation may or may not say than not be involved.

The bottomline, is the best thing that we in the profession can do to deal with/control this, is actually get involved with our legislators (both on a state and national level). Contact them via e-mail/phone. Attend fundraisers for them (this is very effective since you can quickly establish a face to face relationship with your legislator and advise them directly about dental issues, which is much more effective than that sole e-mail of which they gets lots of on a daily basis). This is not an issue where we can just sit back in our offices, remaining quiet, and expect that the status quo will remain. Dentist's in general need to take a fwe minutes and establish that relationship with their legislator. If a local dental society has a "political night" (which is being strongly encouraged in just about every state), go, meet your legislator face to face. Also, even enrolling in medicaid and taking a few patients makes a difference, because if you're talking to a legislator about this, and they ask you if you participate and you answer "no" that doesn't exactly help with the rest of what you'll say to that legislator.

We need to think big picture here, not small picture to saty ahead of this.
 
Fact: Reimbursement rates for Medicaid are pitiful (in most states)

Fact: Medicaid no-show rates are high

Fact: If you mis-bill (over but not under) Medicaid by $.01 you can be charged with a felony and suffer a DOJ investigation

Fact: Dentists have gone to jail due to the previous fact

DrJeff, I agree with you on your points, but when the ADA is spendig so much time brainwashing new grads and spouting NIMBY (or for dentists NIMO(office)), regarding Medicaid enrollment it's hard to remain quiet. I was in the trenches... I did Medicaid for 8 months, I also worked at a community health center for almost 2 years and spent time at the Indian Health Service... I have been there.

I fully believe in giving back to the community and to those who cannot afford nor even comprehend the importance dental care. I do not agree with supporting a totalitarian government-run bureaucracy.

After my experiences, I will NEVER participate in Medicaid ever again in my professional career. I would rather spend time at a community or volunteer clinic, IHS, or just give pro bono to patients who do without. Joining with these types of groups or performing pro bono services can be a great practice builder and lead to much better positive press about one's practice rather than touting "I give back by taking Medicaid."

I do, however, agree with you that the legislature is brainwashed themselves. When one is elected to represent an electorate and a good proportion of your electorate has Medicaid, you are concentrating on your re-election when the issue comes up. In very much similar ways, many dentists rely upon Medicaid for their practices' bottom line and can be a big 'electorate' in ADA.

I believe that Medicaid is not the answer to access to care. There are better ways and my hope is to give future grads the knowledge to know what they are getting into when signing up with "Uncle Sam". We should all be critical of what we hear from various sources, including the ADA, our professors, and me!! :p
 
mike, did you read the ADA articles?

I believe the ADA is lobbying to increase medicaid reimbursement rates and to improve medicaid.
 
mike, did you read the ADA articles?

I believe the ADA is lobbying to increase medicaid reimbursement rates and to improve medicaid.

If even reimbursement rates were at the level or even higher than private plans I would not participate. Too much liability.

They would have to minimize the risk of liability (i.e. federally employed or federal protection of some sort) before anybody should participate. With all of the attorneys in DC, I seriously doubt that any reform would happen... rhetoric will prevail!
 
When one is elected to represent an electorate and a good proportion of your electorate has Medicaid, you are concentrating on your re-election when the issue comes up.

Can anyone direct us to stats on how many Americans of voting age receive Medicaid dental coverage? Or what proportion of Medicaid covered adults participate in elections?
 
Fact: with the inevitability of a healthcare bill being passed the ADA MUST play ball to get the best deal for dentists. The votes (60 democrats) are inevitable for reform so its best to control the reform.

Fact: IHS services are usually billed out to state Medicaid anyway. My IHS clinic gets federal money and bills our state medicaid.

Fact: All the above negatives about medicaid are true from my experience.


Suggestion: Develop scholarships for full ride (books, stipend) to dental school if you give back 4 years in a medicaid clinic. Currently the small loan repayment offers don't temp enough people. Forget about increasing reimbursement rates so that Mr. Insurance dentist and FFS dentist is tempted to switch over their practice. Its not going to happen.

4 year scholarships just like the USPHS scholarship! No one is going to stay on after 4 years, but you can just bring in new people every year and get a constant stream of dentists into the medicaid system and really help solve the access to care issues.

Take 30% of each dental school class, and pay their way and that's a huge number of new 4 year committed medicaid dentists out there.
 
Total spending on dental services is around 4% of all health care expenses. Peter Orzag, the White House Budget chief, said in a recent interview that money spent on dental care is so small that it isn't worth the time or money to add it into any of the bills being proposed.

As for mid-level providers in dentistry, counterparts to nurse practioners, I think it won't happen. The treatment they could perform is much too easy for dentists to do themselves, and the ADA reports that dentists are unlikely to pay a higher wage to these mid-level providers. Therefore, people who might be interested in becoming mid-level providers aren't going to invest the time and money in an education unless they feel confident that they will have a job upon graduating. Since doctors are unlikely to start hiring mid-level practioners, there aren't going to be any folks lining up to be trained for these positions.

It's far too easy for legislators to write a bill that creates mid-level providers and hold a press conference saying they've solved the problem of access to care. And this allows legislators to kick the can further down the road instead of dealing with practical solutions today.

Lastly, the loan repayment programs have been shrinking over the last 30 years, and they are not attractive enough to lure dentists away from more enticing private practice opportunities.

The ADA is trying to push for higher medicaid reimbursement, subsidized transportation from low access-to-care areas into high access-to-care areas, and more.

I don't mind treating medicaid patients as long as the fees are reasonable. Here in Texas, most of the fees are close to PPO fees. But, you have to adopt a high volume practice model to make it work. And, in my experience, the doctors that do this make very good money. It all boils down to personal philosophy.
 
hahahahaha the SDN tea party is at it again. relax guys, Obama isn't gonna come take away your yacht quite yet. :laugh:

What an insightful post. Rather than cutting down hard working dentists who have valid opinions about how CRAPPY medicaid is (probably because they HAVE ACTUALLY WORKED IN THE FIELD AND WITNESSED THE REIMBURSEMENTS), maybe you should actually put forward something worth reading and responding to. There is a reason why medicaid is a FAILURE in dentistry. Go read some dentaltown posts with respect to medicaid. The only way to have a viable "medicaid" practice is to run a cattle call. Its a shame.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
As for mid-level providers in dentistry, counterparts to nurse practioners, I think it won't happen. The treatment they could perform is much too easy for dentists to do themselves, and the ADA reports that dentists are unlikely to pay a higher wage to these mid-level providers. Therefore, people who might be interested in becoming mid-level providers aren't going to invest the time and money in an education unless they feel confident that they will have a job upon graduating. Since doctors are unlikely to start hiring mid-level practioners, there aren't going to be any folks lining up to be trained for these positions.

question: what would stop legislation from being passed that would set up clinics run by ADHP's/Dental Therapists + hygenists in rural areas? isn't it possible that we could one day see clinics that operate without dentists on-site to provide basic services? This model already exists in some places with PA clinics. An MD/DO 'supervises' the clinic, but it's almost entirely run by the PA's (in fact, one PA i know personally says the MD is never onsite, if there is an issue, they just call the Doctor's cell phone).

this may sound like a dumb question, but i'm not a dentist :)
 
question: what would stop legislation from being passed that would set up clinics run by ADHP's/Dental Therapists + hygenists in rural areas? isn't it possible that we could one day see clinics that operate without dentists on-site to provide basic services? This model already exists in some places with PA clinics. An MD/DO 'supervises' the clinic, but it's almost entirely run by the PA's (in fact, one PA i know personally says the MD is never onsite, if there is an issue, they just call the Doctor's cell phone).

this may sound like a dumb question, but i'm not a dentist :)


How about TORT reform as an answer first. Whomever does the dentistry is still held to the standard of a dentist/specialist. Why not control the costs first, then work on the coverage. Do you want a hygienist diagnosing and treating your dental needs?
 
well i have yet to come across any tort reform legislation in both versions of the proposed healthcase bill (house and senate finance).

and it does seem that the ADHP's might actually become a reality should the current version of the bill pass. from one section:

SEC. 434. ALTERNATIVE DENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

sec 304h, lines 8 - 20
The Secretary is authorized to award grants to 15 eligible entities to enable such entities to establish a demonstration program to establish training programs to train, or to employ, alternative dental health care providers in order to increase access to dental health care services in rural and other underserved communities.
‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—The term ‘alternative dental health care providers’ includes community dental health coordinators, advance practice dental hygienists, independent dental hygienists, supervised dental hygienists, primary care physicians, and dental therapists.

it just kind of feels like this thing is inevitable.
 
question: what would stop legislation from being passed that would set up clinics run by ADHP's/Dental Therapists + hygenists in rural areas? isn't it possible that we could one day see clinics that operate without dentists on-site to provide basic services? This model already exists in some places with PA clinics. An MD/DO 'supervises' the clinic, but it's almost entirely run by the PA's (in fact, one PA i know personally says the MD is never onsite, if there is an issue, they just call the Doctor's cell phone).

this may sound like a dumb question, but i'm not a dentist :)

It boils down to this: Is it moral or ethical for someone who doesn't have access to care receive a lower level of care than a person who does have access to care?

Dentistry is very difficult, complex, and dangerous. There is more to extracting a tooth than just wiggling it loose. There is more to placing a filling than just scooping out the caries. There are 32 teeth connected to bone attached to a skull by the TMJ that is used more than any other joint in the body. A person who goes to a dentist needs to be seen by someone who can evaluate the entire dental complex, provide a diagnosis, and perform treatment.

Lawmakers view dentistry as oversimplified. If they had any idea of how precise dentistry must be to be effective, they'd reconsider allowing mid-level providers to do much more than brush teeth.

I can go on and on. If you want more specifics, I can happily provide more.
 
i agree %100 percent with what is being said.

i also agree that legislators have a very oversimplified viewed about what dentistry and oral health means. as such, this may negatively impact the profession in the coming years.

think about the politics of it - it looks good for a governor in the state of Minnesota to help legislation get passed that provides somelevel of coverage to undeserved/rural communities. if a legislator is going to boil down his decisions to either (a) providing care (at whatever level) to his or her constituency or (b) ensuring that dentistry is administered in the fullest sense of the profession and ideals of oral health, i think they will go with option a.
 
- The biggest promotors of mid-levels are the insurance companies. They are pushing them and donating money to democratic politicians.

- The second biggest promotors of mid-levels are the democratic politicians who claim they now have the solution to the problem with an army of new providers.


Its an alliance of insurers and liberal democrats... I know its wierd at first glance.. but pay attetion: that is EXACTLY who is pushing the new healthcare reform nationally. The new HC bill scheduled to be passed next week will mandate coverage (its a kiss to the insurance companies) and they in closed door deals have agreed not to attack the liberal HC bill in TV ads... notice you haven't seen ANY attack ads on TV from actual insurance companies...?
 
- The biggest promotors of mid-levels are the insurance companies. They are pushing them and donating money to democratic politicians.

- The second biggest promotors of mid-levels are the democratic politicians who claim they now have the solution to the problem with an army of new providers.


Its an alliance of insurers and liberal democrats... I know its wierd at first glance.. but pay attetion: that is EXACTLY who is pushing the new healthcare reform nationally. The new HC bill scheduled to be passed next week will mandate coverage (its a kiss to the insurance companies) and they in closed door deals have agreed not to attack the liberal HC bill in TV ads... notice you haven't seen ANY attack ads on TV from actual insurance companies...?

Like I said before, this is WHY the ADA is taking the proactive stance that it is on this issue. They're not dumb at the central office in Chicago, they can see what is likely coming as would rather have a voice in this than not have one. I seriously can't stress enough that the best way to help out dentistry on this issue is to politically get involved. Goto the local component society "legislative nights" that the ADA and individual state societies are strongly pushing currently. Meet you local gov't reps face to face and tell them about what it's really like on the front lines. Also, I can't stress enough, actually enroll with medicaid(even if it's just seeing only 5 or 10 patients) in your state for at least 2 reasons: 1) it helps politically by giving organized dentistry the ability to say that a larger % of their members participates 2) WHEN you meet your state/federal rep face to face and are talking with them and they ask you if you participate in medicaid, the ability to answer "yes" to that question will give the rest of your conversation that much more merit.

Getting involved on this level is quite easy. As a practicing dentist all you need to do is see a few extra patients and then take maybe 2 or 3 hours on one night a year to goto a component society dinner and meet you legislator. And as a student, I'd bet that just about any local component society would be more than happy to let you attend a local legislative night dinner and talk with the reps. As the current president of my local component society I know that I'd be more than happy to have my society buy a few students dinner to talk to our elected officials.
 
Like I said before, this is WHY the ADA is taking the proactive stance that it is on this issue. They're not dumb at the central office in Chicago, they can see what is likely coming as would rather have a voice in this than not have one. I seriously can't stress enough that the best way to help out dentistry on this issue is to politically get involved. Goto the local component society "legislative nights" that the ADA and individual state societies are strongly pushing currently. Meet you local gov't reps face to face and tell them about what it's really like on the front lines. Also, I can't stress enough, actually enroll with medicaid(even if it's just seeing only 5 or 10 patients) in your state for at least 2 reasons: 1) it helps politically by giving organized dentistry the ability to say that a larger % of their members participates 2) WHEN you meet your state/federal rep face to face and are talking with them and they ask you if you participate in medicaid, the ability to answer "yes" to that question will give the rest of your conversation that much more merit.

Dr. Jeff, I respect your advice and a few years ago, I would've considered what you mentioned. I understand it is important to talk to the legislators and keep them aware of the dentist's point of view. But then I read the Roy Shelbourne story over on DentalTown and I have to say "No, thanks." And with all the fraud and abuse I've seen from the actual recipients to Medicaid dentistry, I can't help but not want to be involved in such a slimy program.
 
Dr. Jeff, I respect your advice and a few years ago, I would've considered what you mentioned. I understand it is important to talk to the legislators and keep them aware of the dentist's point of view. But then I read the Roy Shelbourne story over on DentalTown and I have to say "No, thanks." And with all the fraud and abuse I've seen from the actual recipients to Medicaid dentistry, I can't help but not want to be involved in such a slimy program.

I'll pose my question of a call to dental political activism in a slightly different way then. Would you prefer to be legally mandated to see medicaid patients as a requirement to maintain your license??? In this political day and age, that's not as far fetched a concept as it was not that long ago. Unfortunately cases of fraud will be there, but there will be way more instances of honest work than fee padding fraudulent work.

Right now we as dentists can choose to "ignore" this problem. If too many of us continue to do so, no ifs ands or buts about it, the gov't will see to it that we won't be able to ignore this problem. As tough as it may be for many of us, it's time to get out of our 1500 sq. ft. sanctuaries that represent our offices and take a proactive stance before some piece of cr@p legislation is mandated on us.

The same position that I'm taking here is what my state society is putting forth and what I led off my last component society meeting with. Take a couple of hours and go to a component society "legislative night", talk to your reps face to face, and then see atleast a few medicaid patients (5 or 10 is all that it will take) - which as I'm sure you'll agree isn't even a tiny blip on the radar for most practices. This is all about being able to show the generally speaking clueless folks, when it comes to dentistry, that comprise our elected officials that dentistry as a whole IS doing something to deal with access to care.

Here in CT, here's what's happened via a couple of years of this basic concept. We had at most 15% dentist enrollment with medicaid a couple of years ago, and it was taking medicaid patients on average 6 months to get in for a new patient exam. We had (and still have) a former hygienist who's a state rep and sits on the state public health council, and was forcing a mid-level provider bill. The state dental society got together and got the membership behind a proposal where if the state upped the fees to a fair level, that dentists would enroll. Now 18 months later, mid level provider legislation died in committee, the reimbursement rate was upped to the 70% percentile (not 70% of UCR, but a level where 70% of the offices in CT would find the rate at/above their usual rates), over 700 additional dentists enrolled with medicaid giving us now almost 60% of all dentists in the state enrolled, and the average wait time for a new medicaid to get into an office is less than 2 weeks, and statewide the average number of medicaid patients each enrolled dentist is seeing is 25.

Dinner with your local dental colleagues and legislators, a few extra patients seen by you, and suddenly dentistry as a whole is able to negotiate from a stronger standpoint that can greatly help us out for years and years to come.
 
I agree. But for Minnesota, in 2004 according the MN Demographic Center, 325,000 immigrants were estimated to call Minnesota home... How on earth can one have the resources of health care to keep supplying population increases like this? This is only for one year. Most general dentists can treat how many patients, on average per year? Granted they will not all receive treatment (maybe those in the ED will disagree), something has to give....



I'll pose my question of a call to dental political activism in a slightly different way then. Would you prefer to be legally mandated to see medicaid patients as a requirement to maintain your license??? In this political day and age, that's not as far fetched a concept as it was not that long ago. Unfortunately cases of fraud will be there, but there will be way more instances of honest work than fee padding fraudulent work.

Right now we as dentists can choose to "ignore" this problem. If too many of us continue to do so, no ifs ands or buts about it, the gov't will see to it that we won't be able to ignore this problem. As tough as it may be for many of us, it's time to get out of our 1500 sq. ft. sanctuaries that represent our offices and take a proactive stance before some piece of cr@p legislation is mandated on us.

The same position that I'm taking here is what my state society is putting forth and what I led off my last component society meeting with. Take a couple of hours and go to a component society "legislative night", talk to your reps face to face, and then see atleast a few medicaid patients (5 or 10 is all that it will take) - which as I'm sure you'll agree isn't even a tiny blip on the radar for most practices. This is all about being able to show the generally speaking clueless folks, when it comes to dentistry, that comprise our elected officials that dentistry as a whole IS doing something to deal with access to care.

Here in CT, here's what's happened via a couple of years of this basic concept. We had at most 15% dentist enrollment with medicaid a couple of years ago, and it was taking medicaid patients on average 6 months to get in for a new patient exam. We had (and still have) a former hygienist who's a state rep and sits on the state public health council, and was forcing a mid-level provider bill. The state dental society got together and got the membership behind a proposal where if the state upped the fees to a fair level, that dentists would enroll. Now 18 months later, mid level provider legislation died in committee, the reimbursement rate was upped to the 70% percentile (not 70% of UCR, but a level where 70% of the offices in CT would find the rate at/above their usual rates), over 700 additional dentists enrolled with medicaid giving us now almost 60% of all dentists in the state enrolled, and the average wait time for a new medicaid to get into an office is less than 2 weeks, and statewide the average number of medicaid patients each enrolled dentist is seeing is 25.

Dinner with your local dental colleagues and legislators, a few extra patients seen by you, and suddenly dentistry as a whole is able to negotiate from a stronger standpoint that can greatly help us out for years and years to come.
 
I agree. But for Minnesota, in 2004 according the MN Demographic Center, 325,000 immigrants were estimated to call Minnesota home... How on earth can one have the resources of health care to keep supplying population increases like this? This is only for one year. Most general dentists can treat how many patients, on average per year? Granted they will not all receive treatment (maybe those in the ED will disagree), something has to give....

Its all about the actual number of the medicaid population that is seeking care, not the total number of folks on medicaid. As you eluded to, not all of the 325,000 will seek care, in reality, most of the time the medicaid population will seek dental care at roughly the same rate as the privately insured population which is somewhere around 60%. This is what it real problem with the gov't view of healthcare, the fact that they're trying to solve each and every problem(person) when in reality not everyone will utilize the system (even if it is "free" to them)

So using your numbers, that's already down to 200,000. Then as seems to be the focus, especially in these tough economic times, make the treatment of kids the top priority - In CT how they did this, is the medicaid reimbursement rate is "full fee" for those enrolled under age 21 and at 52% of "full fee" for those over age 21. If you take the kids out of those say 200,000, now your down to I'm sure under 100,000, if not closer to 60 - 70,000. That becomes a number that across an entire state becomes manageable. You can argue the merits of this concept about making the kids priority #1 over the adults, but when push comes to shove in this political world, most legislators when looking at the costs associated with things will put the limited $$'s to the kids 1st and then go from there. My business partner who is very active, both statewide and NATIONALLY on this entire access to care issue, summed it up to me in the follwoing after a meeting that he had about a year ago with the Governor of CT, about dental access to care. Off the top of my head I can't remember the exact dollar figures, but they're pretty close to the following. The amount that used to be spent by CT on medicaid services per year was roughly 20 million. To cover everyone, under the new 70% fee scale with dental care (and not just basic emergency services) was estimated to cost 100 million. The governor's reply was essentially "that's great, BUT that same extra 80 million your looking for is also being sought after by almost every other social program in CT right now, and there's NOT enough money to go around" The key though IS to have a plan in place that shows that dentistry in general is wants to come to the table to be involved in determining a plan that is fair to dentistry and also increases access to care.

I don't think that I need to tell anyone that frorm a pure and simple manpower standpoint there's realistically no way that we could take care of every single american, and still remain sane! Realistically to do that we'd have to basically double the number of dentists and auxillaries, and that's not happening anytime soon for a slew of reason. This very fact that we CAN'T solve each and every problem about access ISN'T a reason why we shouldn't get involved, but the reason why we should, so that we in the profession who put the gloves on and put our fingers in peoples mouths are part of the descision making process about how resources will be allocated, not just a bunch of non-dentists who's dental knowledge is rudimentary at best. A good turn out by dentists at a legislative night shows our elected officials that we as dentists do care. A larger number of dentists participating in medicaid (even if it's only a few patients) shows that we do care.

Also, if organized dentistry suddenly says something like we need to all take 100 medicaid patients, that will scare off a lot of dentists. If organized dentistry says, well take 10 patients, not a daunting task, and then for many docs, if the states make the reimbursement rates fair, they'll see that 10 medicaid patients is no big deal and they'll take anothet 10 or 20 or 50 or 100, and suddenly a significant dent in the access to care issue is being made. And Doc, i'm sure with you in school admin you know all to well that we dentists respond much better to slow "manipulation" than wholesale mega-changes!
 
Last edited:
DrJeff,

The problem I have with the ADA at this time is not that they want to decrease pressures from legislatures or increase access to care but with the method employed.

The biggest problem I have with their argument is that the ADA believes increasing Medicaid enrollment is the solution. It seems to many that they are trying to pigeonhole dentists into thinking they are increasing access to care and giving back to the community by enrolling in Medicaid, even in small numbers. While I believe it is a possible temporary & expeditious remedy, it is, however, a poor option given the current climate of Medicaid.

DrJeff, you said it yourself, "I can't stress enough, actually enroll with medicaid(even if it's just seeing only 5 or 10 patients)." So say you do this and now you have 50+ calls everyday for patients wishing to schedule new appointments for emergency care or cleanings who are on the medicaid program. :scared: But wait, you have 'accepted' your 5-10 patients? How do you control this in your practice? You thought you accepted Medicaid to "give back" or "get involved" and now you have people begging to get in to your office. Do you 1. schedule them and risk your practice by driving away traditional patients or 2. tell them 'we are not accepting new patients at this time'. What happens if that same patient calls back later that day and doesn't admit they have medicaid and states they are paying cash? Your receptionist states she can get in tomorrow morning at 8am? This can lead to a pretty pissed off patient. Now you have a potential ADA (disability act) lawsuit on your hands. :thumbdown:

I am all for "getting involved" but I'd rather do so by giving away dentistry to 5-10 people rather than participating in Medicaid-like programs. I have worked in a practice that accepted Medicaid, I have worked with this population and know what SOME are like (not all are mean and nasty people). I have been in the trenches and have lived to tell about it. I will NEVER, EVER work in this environment again. :annoyed:

So say I'm at that meet and greet with my politician and it's asked, "well, doctor, what do you know, you're not a medicaid provider"... I will, with a smile, tell them exactly what I believe in. The aformentioned is just one of the reasons why... there are several reasons why besides low reimbursement.

I certainly feel there are better ways to increase access to care than increasing medicaid-enrollment and implementing mid-level providers. We can, as a profession, band together and do more for our underserved populations rather than "giving-in" or enrolling in a totalitarian government monster. I feel like the ADA is a hammer and maybe Medicaid is the nail. Keep on hammerin'!
 
Its an alliance of insurers and liberal democrats... I know its wierd at first glance.. but pay attetion: that is EXACTLY who is pushing the new healthcare reform nationally. The new HC bill scheduled to be passed next week will mandate coverage (its a kiss to the insurance companies) and they in closed door deals have agreed not to attack the liberal HC bill in TV ads... notice you haven't seen ANY attack ads on TV from actual insurance companies...?

here is news to the contrary:
"Insurance industry launches attack on Democrats' healthcare reform plan"
 
:thumbup: Newsmedia...

Somehow, poor people in San Joaquin, CA have access to dental care by visiting a community health clinic even though CA dropped their adult dental medicaid system. Maybe if we lobbied for increased funding for these programs so they can expand and accommodate more patients?

Is this the solution? nope. A step in the right direction? Yep.

Now if we can only get to the ADA :mad:

------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33315758/ns/health-health_care/

Community clinics crucial in health reform
Legislators planning to nearly quadruple the clinics’ federal funding
The Associated Press
updated 6:28 p.m. ET, Wed., Oct . 14, 2009

SAN JOAQUIN, Calif. - Francisco Lupercio has insurance for his house, his truck and the store he runs with his wife. But he can't afford health insurance, so he joined dozens of other people lining up for exams at a community clinic.

As the recession grinds on, more and more people are relying on taxpayer-supported health centers that offer care on a sliding fee scale. If Congress passes a law giving more Americans access to health insurance, the clinics will also be a critical element to ramping up capacity to care for millions of new patients.

"There is going to be a wave of chronically ill people," said Tanir Ami, executive director of the Community Clinic Consortium for Contra Costa and Solano counties, east of San Francisco. "We're well positioned to care for them."

This year, federally qualified clinics are on track to handle more than 20 million patients — 2 million more than last year. Visits by uninsured patients jumped 21 percent from 2008 to 2009.

Legislators working to restructure the health care system are planning to nearly quadruple the clinics' federal funding. House Democrats would provide billions of dollars over the next decade, as would a version of the Senate health care bill.

But first, the clinics spread across 7,500 communities nationwide must cope with a historic surge in demand at a time when 27 states have cut their health care budgets.

Waiting lists at some centers have grown to hundreds of families, according to the National Association of Community Health Centers.

At the San Joaquin Health Center, in California's rural heartland, Lupercio and other patients lined up for services. Among them was Maria Gomez, the wife of a farmworker who drove from the nearby town of Cantua Creek to have her 5-year-old son's eyes checked.

The farmworker used to pick tomatoes, onions and cotton alongside her husband, but a drought and the sour economy have left them both without jobs. Now they have no insurance and no income.

Her own visit to the optometrist is no longer covered after California cut benefits such as dental and eye care for adults from the state's Medicaid program.

"I will always put my children's health first, but I wonder what will happen tomorrow? What will happen if even this clinic goes away?" she asked.

The centers cut health costs by providing primary care to a population that might otherwise delay treatment and end up in an emergency room — a far more expensive alternative.

Unlike free clinics, which run mostly on private donations and city funding, federally qualified health care centers receive money from the federal and state governments to varying degrees. The fees paid by uninsured patients are important, but they only cover a fraction of costs, providers said.

House and Senate health care proposals would bolster the clinics' mission of caring for low-income and underserved communities, a mandate dating to President Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty.

The money would also prepare community clinics for the onslaught of new patients that would probably result from giving more Americans access to care — a national version of what happened in Massachusetts after the state required patients to be insured.

Clinics in Ami's consortium, such as the Clinica de la Raza in Oakland, have seen their waiting list go from 300 patients three months ago to more than 700.

"We're stretched to the limit," said Jane Garcia, the clinic's CEO.

The new patients are just as eager for a new approach to health care.

Wendi Niehuis, an information security analyst from Walnut Creek, lost her job with Washington Mutual in February. Eight months later, she has cashed in her retirement plan, but feels she is one serious illness away from financial ruin.

"I didn't think I'd ever be without health insurance," she said. "Now I don't know if I'll ever have it again."

Such patients are walking into centers in record numbers, said Dan Hawkins, Senior Vice President of Policy and Research for the National Association of Community Health Centers.

"Many of them had a good job, had insurance, were pretty solidly in the middle class, and the bottom just fell out," Hawkins said.

A one-time injection of $2 billion in stimulus money is helping cover the rise in demand. But much of that money was intended for capital expenditures such as building new clinics, not new patients.

In Richmond, Calif., stimulus funding is helping Brookside Community Health Center add a second level, double the number of dental exam rooms, expand the children's clinic and add to the prenatal wing.

But the center is seeing an average of 358 new patient visits a month right now.

"We're maxed-out on space," said Sheryl Johnson, executive director at Brookside.

Other clinics were hit so hard by state cuts they had to lay off staff or close their doors entirely.

At least 27 states slashed funding for health programs, with California leading the way. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger eliminated in July a $35 million pool of money designed to support centers serving rural areas, migrant agricultural workers and Native Americans.

In the rural community of Potter Valley, about 110 miles north of San Francisco, the clinic that had served the region for 30 years was forced to close.

"A lot of rural community centers are facing the same fate," said Cathy Frey, executive director of the Alliance for Rural Community Health. "People don't have anywhere to go."
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33315758/ns/health-health_care/

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2009 MSNBC.com
 
Another interesting tidbit. Not intimately related to the topic but caught my eye:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/218183

"Because of the recession, Harvard is laying off workers and Stanford is selling a billion dollars of its endowment. Declining state support makes the pain in public universities even worse. From 2000 to 2006, total state higher-education funding rose only 17.6 percent while average tuition at public four-year institutions went up 63.4 percent. The main cause of declining state support was the runaway costs of Medicaid, which rose over the same period by 62.6 percent. And Congress is now considering a health-care reform bill that would shift even more Medicaid costs to the states."

Interesting? :eek:
 
I think it is very naive to think we will be able to serve the dental needs of America by simply volunteering time/pro bono work. There are definite areas of our country that lack enough providers or lack providers willing to accept Medicaid. For every person without medical insurance, there are at least 3 without dental insurance. The fact of the matter is we as dentists are not giving adequate care for under served communities, and especially for those who can not afford dental care.

The ADA is doing the right thing by participating in discussions that will ultimately affect the legislature concerning dental care. Why? Because if not politicians can pat themselves on the back for simply writing into law that dentists should provide treatment without creating the systems needed to do so. The whole process of increasing care must be thoroughly thought through from top to bottom: Who is going to provide care? Where? How will they get paid? And in the long run, if the ADA is not involved in negotiations concerning the practice of dentistry, they tend to counteract progress with litigation. The Native American Health Consortium is a perfect example of that.

We seriously as a profession need to be more inclusive in providing care.
 
I think it is very naive to think we will be able to serve the dental needs of America by simply volunteering time/pro bono work. There are definite areas of our country that lack enough providers or lack providers willing to accept Medicaid. For every person without medical insurance, there are at least 3 without dental insurance. The fact of the matter is we as dentists are not giving adequate care for under served communities, and especially for those who can not afford dental care.

The ADA is doing the right thing by participating in discussions that will ultimately affect the legislature concerning dental care. Why? Because if not politicians can pat themselves on the back for simply writing into law that dentists should provide treatment without creating the systems needed to do so. The whole process of increasing care must be thoroughly thought through from top to bottom: Who is going to provide care? Where? How will they get paid? And in the long run, if the ADA is not involved in negotiations concerning the practice of dentistry, they tend to counteract progress with litigation. The Native American Health Consortium is a perfect example of that.

We seriously as a profession need to be more inclusive in providing care.
I don't understand how not having dental insurance figures into this? You can get a tooth extracted for $40 a community clinic. I know because I have been a dentist at a community clinic. You don't need insurance to cover these types of procedures. Ideally, insurance is for catastrophic costs, like a $300,000 hospital bill after a car accident.
 
You are absolutely right. An extraction costs $40. Then what? A gaping hole in the patient's mouth? Do you discuss restoring the space for the patient? Because restoring an edentulous space costs a lot more than $40, especially if the person doesn't have dental insurance. People that lack dental insurance are less likely to go for routine preventative services, like prophy, restorative, check-up... which is why they end up coming at the end of the line, in pain, needing an extraction. That is not comprehensive dental care. And to be honest, for some people $40 is alot of money. I agree, dentists should be paid for their services. I just feel that there are significant areas of the country where we are not meeting the need.
 
You are absolutely right. An extraction costs $40. Then what? A gaping hole in the patient's mouth? Do you discuss restoring the space for the patient? Because restoring an edentulous space costs a lot more than $40, especially if the person doesn't have dental insurance. People that lack dental insurance are less likely to go for routine preventative services, like prophy, restorative, check-up... which is why they end up coming at the end of the line, in pain, needing an extraction. That is not comprehensive dental care. And to be honest, for some people $40 is alot of money. I agree, dentists should be paid for their services. I just feel that there are significant areas of the country where we are not meeting the need.

What do you have stock in Delta? Are you a lobbyist for MetLife? You make it seem that if a patient doesn't have dental benefits or is enrolled in a dental plan, they can't get adequate care. Hogwash.

Having an edentulous space is not going to kill a patient, but an infected tooth may and $40 for the extraction may be the best money that patient ever spends. On the flip side, people will die from cardiovascular disease or pneumonia much more frequently than dental abscess. I'm not advocating removing the medicaid system entirely, I only want to see the healthcare dollars spent where they absolutely need to be and not one somebody's 6-11 MILF composites just because they had a baby and now are on the government's bill and come 1 year later needing everything replaced because it's all failed due to new caries.

If you truly are a dental student, you know that patient motivation and ownership of their dental condition goes farther for treatment acceptance than if the patient gets 2 free cleanings a year and 50% off of an extraction. Ownership/motivation could be something simple as "I just can't stand the pain of this tooth any longer" or "I don't like this black hole in my front tooth, I want that fixed!" It's certainly not "Doc, I want you to fix these 6 teeth because medicaid is paying for it!" or "I want new dentures because I'm entitled to it!!"

Then again, you could also be a first or second year student and nothing nothing about the realities of dentistry. :D
 
Oh to be a student again. The altruism.
 
So Mikey Mike, let's try not to be so assuming. :p I just finished dental school, I'm currently earning a Master of Public Health, specializing next year, and then...I plan to work in federally funded clinics, public policy, & program planning to increase access to care for under served populations and communities. I have experience working with clinics, lots of it, too. So, no, I'm not just spouting off thoughts for the sake of countering what you say. I do my research, write my papers, and have a different take on the situation. That's cool, right?

Everyone does not need dental insurance, you can get great care without it-- IF you can afford it. If you can't afford it, then what? You make your situation work until the pain is unbearable, get it extracted. Regular check-ups + prophy could help to at least identify a lesion at an earlier stage, hopefully preventing its progression. For the 20% of the population with 80% of disease that would make a difference.

Giving someone insurance obviously means nothing unless they are motivated to use it. Let's not just assume that if someone can't afford regular dental care and have showed up in excruciating pain requesting an extraction they are not motivated. $ is a huge barrier to care. I do agree with something you said though. It's not just about giving care. Patient education also goes a long way.
 
So Mikey Mike, let's try not to be so assuming. :p I just finished dental school, I'm currently earning a Master of Public Health, specializing next year, and then...I plan to work in federally funded clinics, public policy, & program planning to increase access to care for under served populations and communities. I have experience working with clinics, lots of it, too. So, no, I'm not just spouting off thoughts for the sake of countering what you say. I do my research, write my papers, and have a different take on the situation. That's cool, right?
I think you have to open your own practice, hire your own employees (pay for their healthcare, 401k etc), pay rent, pay tax, pay back student loans etc…. in order to understand that you cannot just offer free (or low cost) extraction and bridge/implant to patients who cannot afford it. You will never understand the risk of losing a business that many rookie dentists are facing if you work at one of these federally funded clinics.
Everyone does not need dental insurance, you can get great care without it-- IF you can afford it. If you can't afford it, then what?
The patient should pay for his own dental treatment. There are several payment plans available for those who don't have dental insurance or cannot afford it (ie in-house financing, CareCredit, Unicorn etc.). From paying for an expensive bridge, he will learn how to take care of his teeth better…ie stop smoking, stop eating candies and brush/ floss more frequently.
 
So Mikey Mike, let's try not to be so assuming. :p I just finished dental school, I'm currently earning a Master of Public Health, specializing next year, and then...I plan to work in federally funded clinics, public policy, & program planning to increase access to care for under served populations and communities. I have experience working with clinics, lots of it, too. So, no, I'm not just spouting off thoughts for the sake of countering what you say. I do my research, write my papers, and have a different take on the situation. That's cool, right?

Everyone does not need dental insurance, you can get great care without it-- IF you can afford it. If you can't afford it, then what? You make your situation work until the pain is unbearable, get it extracted. Regular check-ups + prophy could help to at least identify a lesion at an earlier stage, hopefully preventing its progression. For the 20% of the population with 80% of disease that would make a difference.

Giving someone insurance obviously means nothing unless they are motivated to use it. Let's not just assume that if someone can't afford regular dental care and have showed up in excruciating pain requesting an extraction they are not motivated. $ is a huge barrier to care. I do agree with something you said though. It's not just about giving care. Patient education also goes a long way.

This is where a HUGE part of the problem is. The gov't is trying to find a way (and an expensive, system changing one at that) for the small percentage of the population that doesn't have insurance at the expense of those that do have, and generally speaking like their insurance. Then in their attempts to cover everyone, maybe 50% to atmost 60% of those that aren't currently covered, and would be will actually use their "free" coverage.

I had lunch yesterday with the director of the dental clinic at my local community healthcenter, and what she was saying about this lack of utilization of care by those that legislators are fighting hard to get(and spending a ton of $$ in doing so) is eye opening. She was telling me in one of the local school systems, which is in the city where the healthcenter is located, and has over 75% of the enrolled student on medicaid (we call it the Husky program in CT), the "dental van" that the community healthcenter has that goes TO the school for screening visits of all the kids who parents give permission to have examined - can't examine without consent and the exam costs the parents nothing) - she gets on average ONLY 40% of the eligible students consented for a screening, and of those that need work, only 30% of them show up at the clinic (which is atmost 3 miles from the furthest outlying elementary school in that city) to have the diagnosed treatment(mind you once again it costs them nothing) done.

The biggest issue I have with the public health systems and the folks driving it, is they want to take what to some are viewed as extreme measures, often with great dollar signs attached to them, to give access to care to everyone, however a significant portion of those folks who comprise the "access issue" DON'T want care. The resources to fix this aren't unlimited, and IMHO focusing in on those who need care and WANT it, is a much better way to allocate our limited resources than trying to solve every last scenario. Maybe I'm just too much of a realist???
 
Last edited:
So Mikey Mike, let's try not to be so assuming. :p

I try very, very hard to not be assuming with patients. I have just been programmed by the same thing over and over again with patients enrolled in the federal medicaid plan systems. My experiences are similar to others I speak with around the country.

I just finished dental school, I'm currently earning a Master of Public Health, specializing next year, and then...I plan to work in federally funded clinics

Excellent choice, there is always something to be said about getting the most amount of education for something you feel passionate about. I have, worked in IHS, federally/state supported clinics, in a cash-only comprehensive private practice, and at a group office/clinic that 50-90% of the patients were on medicaid.

The most rewarding environment is cash-only private practice. No plans, no benefit %'s etc. True ownership scenario. It was also the most demanding business-wise and skill-wise.

Out of the others, I can say definitively that the best experiences I had were in IHS. It was an excellent opportunity and well run. IHS is not always the best model to emulate because of special rights given to native american populations, but the community health center model is more appropriate. 9-5, steady, good environment. No pressure, no sales. Comfortable living, you just have to enjoy remote locations and MODBL amalgams :). Lots of pathology.

I had a very enjoyable experience in the community health center. The center's model was cost-sharing with a % covered by federal grants, a % covered by state/local grants & donations, and a % covered by the patient themselves. I cannot say what % they were because it would change (shifting more towards patient) when federal/state funding would change. Patients were kind and friendly (for the most part) but were down and out who sought the best they could do for themselves and their condition. Some took ownership, others did not, some took advantage of the center. For the most part, it worked well when the state/federal system stood up to the plate. The director has a big heart and all he cared about was breaking even to stay open. No profit-motive and no big push for production. No pressure on what type of procedures I would choose to perform or refer. I worked there part time for almost 2 years.

I had a very poor experience in the group practice that participated in the medicaid plans. Some private plans and cash but mostly medicaid. Almost noone took ownership, many were riding the system. Many people came in to the office because their "medical card" would expire in 1 week and they wanted all of their dentistry done NOW. There were some truly down and out people, but many were on welfare for a long time and will continue to be for a long time. High profit focus, high production focus. I was pushed to produce at all cost. I was pushed to perform procedures I did not feel comfortable with and was discouraged to refer. I never gave in to their pressures, however, and they were always mad at me for not making a killing (even though I made them a ton of $). I worked full time for about 10 months. I just couldn't stand it anymore.


DrJeff is right in his posts, it was so well said I'd encourage you to re-read it. Spoken like somebody who has been there and knows the realities.
 
Thanks for the responses to my posts. I'm not out in the real world yet, so I don't know all of the ins/outs of what works/doesn't work. I'm definitely learning from this forum.
 
Top