ADH, a good thing?

[rkamsterdam]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I read here alot of b*tching and whining about the extended responsibility of the dental hygienist. it's as if dental students, and pre-dents feel as if their field of expertise is being invaded. Its this us vs. them mentality that really irks me. arent dh's and dentists part of the same team and exists to accomplish the same goal? Arent dh's and dentists regulated by the same state and federal boards? I think the purpose of ADH (a concept devised by dentists no doubt) is analogous to PA's and physicians--that is to decrease the routine workload of the dentists/physician so the dentist can treat more complicated cases, not to mention more productive cases, and at the same time broaden access to care. ADH's must work under the supervision of a dentist, right?. I just dont see why there is any argument here, please enlighten me, because it keeps all three parties happy--dh and dentists alike get more money and become more efficient 🙂, patients get better access to care!

 

[armorshell]

Without it you would probably be pretty dehydrated, so yeah I'd say it's a good thing.

 

[Yellow Snow]

I read here alot of b*tching and whining

Yeah, you're clearly ready to engage in a respectful and productive debate about the pros/cons of the proposed ADH.

 

[Taurus]

Learn some history about midlevels before you make some asinine proclamations.

Read my signature.

 

[aphistis]

I read here alot of b*tching and whining about the extended responsibility of the dental hygienist. it's as if dental students, and pre-dents feel as if their field of expertise is being invaded.

It is. If you knew enough about our field of expertise to understand why, you'd be a dentist and feel the same way.

Arent dh's and dentists regulated by the same state and federal boards?

For now, but organized hygiene would love nothing more than to escape regulation by dental boards.

I think the purpose of ADH (a concept devised by dentists no doubt)

This is some kind of joke, right?

and at the same time broaden access to care. ADH's must work under the supervision of a dentist, right?

Exactly. Nothing enhances access to care like stuffing more people inside the dental offices that already exist.

I just dont see why there is any argument here

Somehow, I don't have any trouble believing you don't.

 

[rkamsterdam]

Aphistis, rather than just rebutting my claims, id just like to see your logic against allowing ADHP's to practice. I'm open minded and obviously dont understand the reasons behind your opinion-- maybe thats because you havent expressed them and haven't formulated an argument opposed to my stance, but merely stood on your dictatorial moderator high horse and quickly dismissed my statement without reason or evidence.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Aphistis, rather than just rebutting my claims, id just like to see your logic against allowing ADHP's to practice. I'm open minded and obviously dont understand the reasons behind your opinion-- maybe thats because you havent expressed them and haven't formulated an argument opposed to my stance, but merely stood on your dictatorial moderator high horse and quickly dismissed my statement without reason or evidence.

Having ADH doesn't solve the problems they are proposed to solve. The proprosed reasons for creating ADH are that there are underserved areas and that dental care costs are prohibitive. People who become ADH will have the same pros/cons regarding where to practice and how much to charge as people who attend dental school and therefore nothing will have changed. If it is then proposed that certain limitations be made on ADH to compel them to serve only underserved populations, well then it can then be strongly argued that incentives should be made to attract dentists to underserved areas as they can provide a complete range of services and it doesn't require the creation of a new provider class and the expense of governing them. I believe the problem isn't the number of dentists, it is the distribution.

Also, we are talking about surgery. Even if we are talking about class 1's or class 3 lesions, etc people only have 32 permanent teeth and these are irreversible procedures. I imagine a handful of the graduates each year from dental school practice substandard work. How many more would graduate doing substandard work from a two year program?

Also, when the introduction of a new provider class is mentioned, it would only be reasonable to consider the impact this might have on other previously established groups. Would it further discourage dentists from practicing in underserved areas? Isn't there already a shortage of hygenists? What happens if you draw from their already insufficient numbers? If dentists have even greater competition how will patient care be effected as they try and manage the many costs they are faced with?

Finally, there is nothing wrong with dentists wanting to protect their territory. There are groups out there trying to basically harness the financial power of a dental license by contracts or finances and turn the dentist into just a body who happens to be licensed by the government. We would be negligent not to advocate on our own behalf.

 

[aphistis]

Aphistis, rather than just rebutting my claims, id just like to see your logic against allowing ADHP's to practice. I'm open minded and obviously dont understand the reasons behind your opinion-- maybe thats because you havent expressed them and haven't formulated an argument opposed to my stance, but merely stood on your dictatorial moderator high horse and quickly dismissed my statement without reason or evidence.

Right. That's exactly it. 🙄