threat of dental education expansion

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

iLuvDAT

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
232
Reaction score
2
Points
4,536
  1. Pre-Dental
i read an article from wall street journal that the majority of law school students end up getting paid far less than expected, and only a small portion of the graduating student pool get paid like a real lawyer. Part of the problem arise from the fact that every year the US graduate more lawyers than they actually are needed, and US colleges have increasingly been creating their law programs not to accomodate the need of the society but mainly to increase their profit generated from the programs. What are the barriers for colleges to enter into the dental education market? I know the entry cost for dentistry would be certainly higher than that of law school but are we at risk of this expansion trend? Competition would naturally drives our salary down in the long run.
 
Of course we'll likely make less money if theres 2x as many dentists all of a sudden. The thing is, thats not likely to happen any time soon. Last year, about 6000 dentists in the country retired and only about 4500 graduated from Dental School. Thats a big difference, and that difference will be about the same for the next 5-10 years until schools expand, new schools open, and the baby-boomers have all retired.

Dental school classes used to be a lot bigger at many schools than they are today. My uncle went to UofM in the early 70's and said that his class was almost 150. Today's classes at Michigan are around 110. ALong this same line, many schools closed in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's ( such as Emory in Atlanta, Georgetown in DC, Wash U in St Louis, Northwestern in Chicago, and Loyola University). This accounts for the 1500 deficit.

Now that the demand for dentists has been recognized, schools are expanding and new schools are opening in the next few years, but those both take time. The prognosis: it will be a long time before the US has more d-school grads than retirees, and an even longer time before the market becomes saturated.
 
vcu is expanding its class by 20,

unc is expanding their class size, and it seems that another school is opening in nc.
 
Wouldn't the fact that the population keeps expanding keep dentistry as a high demand even with the expansion?
 
Wouldn't the fact that the population keeps expanding keep dentistry as a high demand even with the expansion?
It's pretty obvious, dentistry must adjust to the changing demographics.

As the U.S. population grows (~1% every year, which is ~3 million people), ~4,500 new dentists can't keep entering the profession each year over the next 5, 10, or even 20 years. The ratio of dentist to population is already considered to be a shortage, especially when a lot of dentists are retiring. So expect at least 2-3 new programs to open by 2012.

Something that was mentioned in one of my classes the other day... "Americans 65+ will grow from 35 million in 1995 to 80 million by 2045. By 2030, over 20% of U.S will be 65+ ("America will look like Florida"). Today, men 65+ can expect to live to 80+ and women 65+ can expect to live to 85+"
 
"Americans 65+ will grow from 35 million in 1995 to 80 million by 2045. By 2030, over 20% of U.S will be 65+ (“America will look like Florida”). Today, men 65+ can expect to live to 80+ and women 65+ can expect to live to 85+"

If you want to make money.. maybe you should start investing in Nursing homes and Funeral services then. 🙄
 
i read an article from wall street journal that the majority of law school students end up getting paid far less than expected, and only a small portion of the graduating student pool get paid like a real lawyer. Part of the problem arise from the fact that every year the US graduate more lawyers than they actually are needed, and US colleges have increasingly been creating their law programs not to accomodate the need of the society but mainly to increase their profit generated from the programs. What are the barriers for colleges to enter into the dental education market? I know the entry cost for dentistry would be certainly higher than that of law school but are we at risk of this expansion trend? Competition would naturally drives our salary down in the long run.

The long term possibility of this happening shouldn't have a big impact on our careers. By the time it occurs, we will hopefully have an established practice. You are, however, very correct about the law school situation. I graduated law school in the top ten percent of my class, and while I found a job pretty easily, I was certainly not paid like you would expect. The highest paying firm in my town (Omaha) pays it attorneys 75k to start and works them to bone.

Now I must get back to studying histo, which is the most soul sucking class I have ever taken...
 
Haven't orthodontics residencies been criticized in the past for intentionally keeping supply of new orthodontists low to ensure that it will always be a lucrative specialty for practitioners? I kind of support this for the entire dental field -- sort of like a "we watch your back, you watch ours" kind of thing.
 
I'm an Australian dental student and this is currently a very current topic which has the ADA here quite worried. In Australia up until now there have been 4 dental schools and there are now 7 more universities agitating for new ones. One has already opened and within the next 2 years there will be 2 more. In 2003 it was stated that we needed an additional 150 dentists per year to keep up with demand. Since that time, the current schools have increased their intakes from about 70 on average to nearer 100, the amount of overseas trained dentists passing the exams has increased from 36/year to 120 and now new schools are opening. The talk here is that if there isn't an excess of supply by 2020 there will be by 2025. Of course, anything can change between now and then. I think (and this is purely on my own judgement) the first thing that will be cut will be will be overseas trained dentists. The thing is, nothing is lasting or secure and I can't think of 1 profession which would be immune from changes taking place in general society. If you really want to ponder something that could potentially wipe dentistry as we know if of the map, check out: http://www.oragenics.com/product_replacement.php If this company is successful in what they are trying to do then caries may be the next disease to be eliminated after polio.
 
I'm an Australian dental student and this is currently a very current topic which has the ADA here quite worried. In Australia up until now there have been 4 dental schools and there are now 7 more universities agitating for new ones.

Its not as bad as you make out. CSU is only taking 20-30 students per year. Sydney is even reducing its intake back to 80 next year. They will severly cut back the foreign dentist exam spots before there is a "surplus".


Also, I wouldnt worry that we will be put out of buisness by a vaccine anytime soon.

No reason to freak out. 🙂
 
Of course we'll likely make less money if theres 2x as many dentists all of a sudden. The thing is, thats not likely to happen any time soon. Last year, about 6000 dentists in the country retired and only about 4500 graduated from Dental School. Thats a big difference, and that difference will be about the same for the next 5-10 years until schools expand, new schools open, and the baby-boomers have all retired.

Dental school classes used to be a lot bigger at many schools than they are today. My uncle went to UofM in the early 70's and said that his class was almost 150. Today's classes at Michigan are around 110. ALong this same line, many schools closed in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's ( such as Emory in Atlanta, Georgetown in DC, Wash U in St Louis, Northwestern in Chicago, and Loyola University). This accounts for the 1500 deficit.

Now that the demand for dentists has been recognized, schools are expanding and new schools are opening in the next few years, but those both take time. The prognosis: it will be a long time before the US has more d-school grads than retirees, and an even longer time before the market becomes saturated.

I preface this response by stating that in no way whatsoever do I mean it to be sexist.

Those numbers of 6000 dentists retiring per year vs. 4500 graduating while true don't fully represent how that 4500 is replacing the work load that those 6000 filled. Plain and simple, when those 6000 odd dentists graduated dental school 30, maybe 40 years ago the graduating classes were predominantly male. Nowadays, graduating classes around the country are basically 50/50 male/female. If you then look at the ADA work surveys they take, you'll see that on average female dentists work less hours per week than male dentists (the exact hour difference slips me right now, but I do believe it was close to a 8 hour a week difference)

Basically then those 6000 or so dentists retiring are currently being replaced by somethign closer to the number of hours worked by 3500 dentists. Plus, throw in the fact that people are living longer and keeping their teeth longer too.

Realistically you could likely double the number of graduates nowadays and not see any decreases in the volume of work for the dental profession
 
Basically then those 6000 or so dentists retiring are currently being replaced by somethign closer to the number of hours worked by 3500 dentists. Plus, throw in the fact that people are living longer and keeping their teeth longer too.
Good point.

Another big problem in regards to new graduates is that very few of them end up practicing in rural america. In underserved communities, people travel 20-30 miles, maybe more, just to go to the dentist.

So this maldistribution of dentists makes it more difficult, I doubt most of the retiring dentists work in areas where graduates would love to practice.

And then there is the other issue most people don't think about, many of the nation's dental schools are struggling just to maintain current operations; I read somewhere that there are more than 350 vacant faculty positions because of an exodus of teachers into better-paying private practice.
 
Good point.

Another big problem in regards to new graduates is that very few of them end up practicing in rural america. In underserved communities, people travel 20-30 miles, maybe more, just to go to the dentist.

QUOTE]

Oh, it's just horrific practicing in a rural area😉:spam: All you do all day long is just pull teeth and make dentures😉🙄 You never do any crown and bridge or cosmetic cases😉😉 And it really stinks having to live in a rural area with all the affordable housing and that big lawn that you end up having to take care of😉😀 I don't know whay any new graduate would want to consider practicing in a rural, underserved area😉😀
 
Here's an interesting article:

Boom Times for Dentists, but Not for Teeth

For American dentists, times have never been better.

The same cannot be said for Americans' teeth.

With dentists' fees rising far faster than inflation and more than 100 million people lacking dental insurance, the percentage of Americans with untreated cavities began rising this decade, reversing a half-century trend of improvement in dental health.

Previously unreleased figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years with data available, 27 percent of children and 29 percent of adults had cavities going untreated. The level of untreated decay was the highest since the late 1980s and significantly higher than that found in a survey from 1999 to 2002.

Despite the rise in dental problems, state boards of dentists and the American Dental Association, the main lobbying group for dentists, have fought efforts to use dental hygienists and other non-dentists to provide basic care to people who do not have access to dentists.

For middle-class and wealthy Americans, straight white teeth are still a virtual birthright. And dentists say that a majority of people in this country receive high-quality care.

But many poor and lower-middle-class families do not receive adequate care, in part because most dentists want customers who can pay cash or have private insurance, and they do not accept Medicaid patients. As a result, publicly supported dental clinics have months-long waiting lists even for people who need major surgery for decayed teeth. At the pediatric clinic managed by the state-supported University of Florida dental school, for example, low-income children must wait six months for surgery.

In some cases, the results of poor dental care have been deadly. A child in Mississippi and another in Maryland died this year from infections caused by decayed teeth.

The dental profession's critics — who include public health experts, some physicians and even some dental school professors — say that too many dentists are focused more on money than medicine.

"Most dentists consider themselves to be in the business of dentistry rather than the practice of dentistry," said Dr. David A. Nash, a professor of pediatric dentistry at the University of Kentucky. "I'm a cynic about my profession, but the data are there. It's embarrassing."

A defender of the profession is Dr. Terry D. Dickinson, a practicing dentist who is also the executive director of the Virginia Dental Association. He says he believes that dentists are charitable and want to provide care to poor patients. But dentists are also in business; they must pay rent and employee salaries, and they deserve fair fees, he said.

"Charity is not a health care system," Dr. Dickinson said.

Dentists, of course, are no more obligated to serve the poor than are lawyers or accountants. But the issue from a public health standpoint, the critics say, is that even as so many patients go untreated, business is booming for most dentists. They are making more money while working shorter hours, on average, even as the nation's number of dentists, per person, has declined.

The lack of dental care is not restricted to the poor and their children, the data shows. Experts on oral health say about 100 million Americans — including many adults who work and have incomes well above the poverty line — are without access to care.

A federal survey shows that 27 percent of adults without insurance saw a dentist in 2004, down from 29 percent in 1996, when dental fees were significantly lower, even after adjusting for inflation. For adults with private insurance, the rate was virtually unchanged, at 57 percent, up from 56 percent. Since 1990, the number of dentists in the United States has been roughly flat, about 150,000 to 160,000, while the population has risen about 22 percent. In addition, more dentists are working part time.

Partly as a result, dental fees have risen much faster than inflation. In real dollars, the cost of the average dental procedure rose 25 percent from 1996 to 2004. The average American adult patient now spends roughly $600 annually on dental care, with insurance picking up about half the tab.

Dentists' incomes have grown faster than that of the typical American and the incomes of medical doctors. Formerly poor relations to physicians, American dentists in general practice made an average salary of $185,000 in 2004, the most recent data available. That figure is similar to what non-specialist doctors make, but dentists work far fewer hours. Dental surgeons and orthodontists average more than $300,000 annually.

"Dentists make more than doctors," said Morris M. Kleiner, a University of Minnesota economist. "If I had a kid going into the sciences, I'd tell them to become a dentist."

But despite the allure of rising salaries, the shortage of dentists will almost certainly worsen, because the nation has fewer dental schools and fewer dentists in training than a generation ago. After peaking at 5,750 in 1982, the number of dental school graduates fell to 4,440 in 2003, as several big dental schools closed their doors. The average dentist is now 49 years old, according to the American Dental Association, and for at least the next decade retiring dentists will probably outnumber new ones.

Even if more students wanted to enter the profession, states are not moving aggressively to expand dental schools or open new ones. Training dentists is expensive, because dental schools must provide hands-on training — unlike medical schools, which send doctors to hospitals for training after they graduate. Hospitals receive federal subsidies for the training they provide to medical interns and residents, but the equivalent system does not really exist in dentistry.

Dr. Kathleen Roth, president of the A.D.A., said that the association is working to increase Medicaid's reimbursement rates to make it more cost-effective for dentists to treat low-income patients. While Medicaid is supposed to cover both basic care and emergency procedures for children, the program will pay only for emergency procedures — not basic care — for adults in most states.

"Access to dental care, especially for children, has been a growing problem for 10 years," Dr. Roth said. "State and federal programs have decreased the amount of dollars available."

Besides calling for higher Medicaid reimbursement, Dr. Roth said, the association supports putting health aides with basic dental training into public schools. The aides would help get appointments for children who need them and teach children basic habits like brushing teeth.

But critics say the association's plans would do little to solve the basic problem of access to care. Moreover, even in states that have raised Medicaid payments, most dentists still do not accept Medicaid patients. Virginia, for example, overhauled its Medicaid program in 2005, raising rates 30 percent. But only about 25 percent of all Virginia dentists now accept Medicaid patients, compared with 15 percent before the changes.

Some dentists do not accept Medicaid patients because they frequently miss appointments, which means lost revenue, said Dr. L. Jackson Brown, the former managing vice president for health policy at the A.D.A.

With little dental care available for poor children, pediatricians are teaching themselves how to apply fluoride varnish on baby teeth, a simple procedure that can prevent cavities, said Dr. Amos S. Deinard, a pediatrician and associate professor at the University of Minnesota.

"The dentists don't want to see these kids," Dr. Deinard said.

Outside the United States, more than 50 countries, including some western European nations, now allow technicians called dental therapists to drill and fill cavities, usually in children.

Proponents of the therapists say their training is comparable to the practical training that dentists receive, but without the general medical training dentists get. Studies of the work performed by the therapists have concluded that it is comparable to, and in some cases better than, that of fully trained dentists.

Dr. Frank Catalanotto, a professor of community dentistry at the University of Florida, said dental therapists would be a cost-effective way to provide basic care to children and some adults who could not otherwise afford treatment.

But state boards of dentistry have blocked dental therapists from working, arguing that only dentists should be allowed to drill teeth, because it is an "irreversible surgical procedure" and can lead to serious complications like infections or nerve damage. Children of Alaska Natives in remote areas have high rates of cavities and essentially no access to dentists, so a coalition of tribes began a program in 2003 to use therapists to treat native children.

"There's never been a dentist in these rural areas," said Dr. Ron Nagel, a dentist who helped create the Alaska program and is a consultant for the tribal coalition.

But the American Dental Association fought the program almost as soon as it began, dropping its effort only in July, after a state judge ruled in favor of the program. Still, the group continues to oppose letting dental therapists practice anywhere in the continental United States.

"What we're extremely uncomfortable with is that they need to drill teeth and sometimes extract teeth," said Dr. Roth, the association's president. Use of therapists would create a two-tier system where some people have access to dentists, while others must settle for less-qualified practitioners, she said.

Dr. Caswell A. Evans, a dentist and associate dean at the University of Illinois-Chicago, said dentists must stop fighting efforts to expand care to patients they are not currently treating. The system is failing many patients, he said.

"Right now we have a double standard of care," Dr. Evans said. "Some people can get it and some people can't."
 
That article is so skewed it is laughable. Thank goodness for those nice pediatricians that are willing to teach themselves how to place fluoride because we hate little children. If only those communities would put fluoride in their water. 🙄 Those mean, nasty dentists that work a couple of hours and make so much money. I can't wait until next semester when we take "how to hate the poor and squeeze every dime out of your patients 101." Laughable. Reading this article is like reading an article on how America was bombed by terrorists because of McDonalds. 😡

Also, lets say we let auxiliaries do fillings. What happens when the caries are larger than shown on the radiograph? What happens when they perf the canal? What about anesthetizing the patient? What happens when the patient goes into acute systemic anaphylactic shock? What about retentive and resistant features that are required for the restoration so it doesn't fail? What about proper sterilization techniques? etc, etc. Claiming that auxiliaries should be able to do restorations is like saying that nurses should be able to remove tonsils. People look and say that anyone can do it without understanding the whole picture. I mean, taking out a tonsil is just open, say ahh, snip, and go home, right?
 
interesting read. also, the article mentions that a few dental schools have shut down in 80s but did not say why. does anyone know? there always seems to have been more people applying than the schools are allowed to accept.
 
interesting read. also, the article mentions that a few dental schools have shut down in 80s but did not say why. does anyone know? there always seems to have been more people applying than the schools are allowed to accept.

They were all private schools (Emory, Loyola Chicago, Georgetown, Farleigh Dickinson and a few others) and likely too expensive to run. The last dental school to close was Northwestern University in 2001. However, Nova, UNLV, and Arizona have all opened since then, and a few more are apparently opening too so I wonder if it will be evened out in a another decade.
 
They were all private schools (Emory, Loyola Chicago, Georgetown, Farleigh Dickinson and a few others) and likely too expensive to run. The last dental school to close was Northwestern University in 2001. However, Nova, UNLV, and Arizona have all opened since then, and a few more are apparently opening too so I wonder if it will be evened out in a another decade.


so the cost was the issue. they charge $40K a year, how could dental schools still lose money then? What is the biggest expense on their balance sheet?
 
I think most of you are missing a key point. The article talks about a group called dental therapists. Guess what? There is a new dental midlevel group called the dental assistants who are edging onto your traditional territory. They can't drill but they can clean and scrape and in some places they are lobbying to work independently. They have already started to organizie and have formed a national organization, albeit they are still small for now. A few states like Michigan have already recognized them.

Having the supply-demand curve skewed in favor of more demand than supply means your salaries go up. However, that also invites other groups to want a piece of your action, even though their education is inferior to yours. The barrier to entry is sufficiently low enough in dentistry that a midlevel group can do some of your traditional tasks such as cleaning indepedently and in theory provide cheaper and more accessible care to more people. C'mon folks, this isn't brain surgery. Interestingly, this is the second piece in the NY Times casting dentistry is a not-so-great light. Do you think that the politicians aren't reading this stuff too? It'll be interesting what dentistry looks like 20 years from now.
 
I think most of you are missing a key point. The article talks about a group called dental therapists. Guess what? There is a new dental midlevel group called the dental assistants who are edging onto your traditional territory. They can't drill but they can clean and scrape and in some places they are lobbying to work independently. They have already started to organizie and have formed a national organization, albeit they are still small for now. A few states like Michigan have already recognized them.

Having the supply-demand curve skewed in favor of more demand than supply means your salaries go up. However, that also invites other groups to want a piece of your action, even though their education is inferior to yours. The barrier to entry is sufficiently low enough in dentistry that a midlevel group can do some of your traditional tasks such as cleaning indepedently and in theory provide cheaper and more accessible care to more people. C'mon folks, this isn't brain surgery. Interestingly, this is the second piece in the NY Times casting dentistry is a not-so-great light. Do you think that the politicians aren't reading this stuff too? It'll be interesting what dentistry looks like 20 years from now.

I don't think this article is favorable for dentistry either. I think it casts all dentists as very rich and dentistry as a luxury that fewer and fewer can afford. Regarding the former, I think it takes a very long time before the value of that dental degree usurps the unpaid years of education, the financial debt of dental school and the cost of starting up or purchasing a dental practice; however, I agree with the latter. I think the intent of the mid-level, dental therapists is to have them perform dentistry where no dentist is available or where a traditional dentist is not affordable. This includes potential drilling. The article implies a dental therapist's clinical training is equivalent to a graduate from an accredited dental school. This isn't anywhere near true and is very misleading to the general public. Which leads to the ultimate question, "Is questionable dentistry better than no dentistry at all?" Unfortunately, while an increase in the number of dentists graduating would allow for greater availability of dental care and financial competition, it is doubtful that dental schools will spring up or that class sizes will increase too much. It is just too expensive to run a dental school, even when tuitions alone at many private schools and at state schools for out-of-state students already exceed $50,000/yr. How expensive is it for a law school to throw in another ten to twenty students in a lecture hall and collect another $40,000/yr tuition from each? But dental schools have to basically mentor and tutor each student through clinical, and clinical training starts the first year and continues through graduation four years later, not including residency training which is an option more and more students are taking. Dentistry is expensive to teach and many will find expensive to perform even in a dental office setting. As far as another post, "Do Doctors Respect Dentists? I think more and more medical doctors think dentists have an easier path to financial freedom than they do and maybe some of them resent it just a little bit, but that's just my observation. I think it's just a case of the grass looking greener on the other side. Regardless, we're all doctors!
 
I posted some of these thoughts in the other thread about expanding dental health care, but it seems sad to me that Americans think paying $600 a year for good dental care is such a burden. Americans spend WAY more than that on eating out, cell phones, cars, tv, computers, etc.
Also, all it would take is for one or two of these drill-and-fill techs to royally screw something up and there'd be a huge public uproar over the whole thing. The country is run by suburban soccer moms and I don't think they'll be happy about taking their sweet little babies to a hygienist with a drill. I can understand allowing dental assistants to scrap teeth on their own, but they'd have to charge significantly less than a dental office to start drawing significant numbers of patients away from dentists. If I can pay a dental office $90 to clean my teeth, have my annual x-rays and have a dentist do a routine check, why would I pay a dental assistant down the road $90 to do the same thing? If they looked in my mouth and saw a carie, they'd say, "Uh, I think you have a cavity, but I'm not sure. Let me send you down to see Dr. So-and-so to get that checked out."
There are a lot of great solutions to this problem that do not involve cheapening the actual care that patients receive from a highly trained dental professional.
 
Just ask the suburban soccer mom how much they pay to have some lady name Kim, probably with a bogus license, paint their 20 toenails/fingernails every few weeks. Then suddenly they'll realize they got a awesome deal on their teeth cleaning done by a highly-trained degreed professional. Even if my assistant did the cleaning it's still a great deal. If they failed to understand it by then, just ask them to go elsewhere; as I've done many times.
 
Here is the response by Vincent Mayher, AGD President. Not as butt kicking as I like, but effective neverless. 😀

October 11, 2007

Clark Hoyt
Public Editor
New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
(October 11 letter submitted via e-mail: [email protected])

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

On behalf of the Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), I am writing to express my great regret about the biased advice Alex Berenson provides in his article, “Boom Times for Dentists, but Not for Teeth.” Your readers deserve to read editorially accurate, truthful and objective information. This article misleads the public and does nothing to help your readers understand what is at the root of access to care problems in this country.

America should be disappointed with its leadership, not with the thousands of dentists that are working every day to provide free care to needy patients. Many of these dentists also work with Donated Dental Services (DDS). Do your readers know that these dentists have provided more than $116 million in comprehensive pro bono oral health therapies for more than 77,000 needy, disabled or elderly and medically compromised individuals?

Do your readers know that the decision by President Bush to veto the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) reauthorization bill on October 3 has denied uninsured children an opportunity for dental care? The inclusion of guaranteed dental coverage in the final SCHIP bill would have ensured that millions of children would receive essential oral health care. Approximately 23 million children are without dental care insurance in the United States.

Do your readers know that by seeing a licensed dentist, as opposed to a dental assistant or dental hygienist, their life can be saved? This happens hundreds of times, yet it is never reported on. For example, one AGD dentist found an enlarged node on the neck of a long-time patient and insisted the patient see her physician immediately. The patient finally visited a physician and learned she had lymphoma. She was treated in a timely manner and went into remission. She recently passed away after having many additional years she may not have had.

Do you readers know that dentists are taking America’s access to care problem into their own hands? One AGD dentist started a free health clinic in his community for those that may make too much money to receive federal help and not enough to afford insurance. It has a medical and a dental program. In the dental program, there is approximately 85 to 90 percent participation by the dentists in the community. All of the dental care is free, and the clinic provides thousands of dollars worth of free dentistry to hard-working individuals.

The point is that dentists today are more in tune with the overall medical condition and total well-being of patients. Every day, dentists save lives when they discover pre-cancerous or cancerous lesions and refer the affected patients to an oral surgeon. Every day, dentists help to prevent cardiovascular problems when they perform routine blood pressure evaluations and find patients with hypertension and refer them immediately to their physicians.

The New York Times often has featured stories such as these in its pages. Organized dentistry and its members are working together to find answers to the access to care problem. However, America’s leadership ignores requests to allocate more government funds toward these solutions while media outlets, such as yours, spread mistruths and mislead the public to falsely point their fingers.

General dentists are the primary oral health care providers for patients of all ages. They rely on a variety of resources, including your publication, to help them stay up-to-date in the profession and provide accurate information to patients. We expect that the editorial team at your publication will remain committed to sharing non-biased articles with the New York Times audience.

Best regards,

Vincent C. Mayher, DMD, MAGD
AGD President, 2007-2008

If I have time, I plan to rip this article to shreds this weekend. (I am such a dork because I am actually looking forward to. Kinda excited actually :laugh:)
 
Top Bottom