Email Printer Friendly
Patient's death blamed on dental Medicaid cuts
By Laird Harrison, Senior Editor

October 19, 2009 -- A Michigan woman with severe periodontitis died this month because the state eliminated adult dental Medicaid benefits, according to the director of a chain of clinics that attempted to arrange her treatment.

The woman, whose name has not been released at the request of her family, died October 8 after getting a blood infection, said Thomas Veryser, D.D.S., M.H.S.A, executive director of Michigan Community Dental Clinics. He said he did not know her precise cause of death, but to explain the blood infection "physical examination provided no alternative to the obvious chronic periodontitis that the patient suffered from."

"If this patient had received the care she obviously needed, she would still be with us," he said.

“If she had had an infected anything else, Medicaid would have paid for it.”
— Thomas Veryser, D.D.S., M.H.S.A,
     executive director, Michigan
     Community Dental Clinics

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm eliminated adult dental benefits July 1 through the state's Medicaid program by executive order. The cut was projected to save $5 million from the state's 2010 budget and a proportional amount from its 2009 budget, but critics said it would cost the state more because of increased use of emergency services, according to a report on Mlive.com.

Granholm's office did not return a call from DrBicuspid.com requesting comment on the patient's death.

Dr. Veryser said the patient suffered from a mental disability that prevented her from cooperating with dental care. She had some cleaning and prophylaxis under general anesthesia, but not the scaling and root planing that might have controlled her periodontitis.

When a physician detected her blood infection in early July, he recommended that all her teeth be extracted. The dental clinic scheduled this treatment at a local hospital, but the hospital postponed the procedure because she had mild pneumonia that prevented the use of general anesthesia.

By the time she recovered from the pneumonia, the state had eliminated dental services and the hospital would not put her under general anesthesia because the cost -- which it estimated at $4,500 to $6,000 -- would not be reimbursed by the state, Dr. Veryser said.

"Our hospital coordinator tried to come up with Medicaid reasons to force the hand of Medicaid," but the Medicaid office wouldn't budge, he said.

The Michigan Department of Community Health, which administers the state's Medicaid program, is investigating the case, said Kelly Niebel, a spokesperson. "It sounds like a tragic situation," she said. "We would offer our condolences to the family."

The case illustrates problems with the way government programs treat oral health, said Dr. Veryser. "We have to get our arms around the idea that dental care is an essential part of healthcare and if people are not treated they can die," he said. "If she had had an infected anything else, Medicaid would have paid for it. Since it was teeth, they would not cover it. Since when is a tooth not part of the body?"

The federal government provides funds for Medicaid, but states must also provide funding in order to qualify. States must provide most types of healthcare but have the option of whether to provide dental, optical, and mental health benefits. Several states eliminated dental benefits this year because their revenues declined during the recession.

"We need to make this mandatory so that places like Michigan don't cancel dental benefits every time they have a hiccup in their budget," said Dr. Veryser.

Copyright © 2009 DrBicuspid.com

U.S. Congress panel faults dental Medicaid, October 9, 2009

Class-action Medicaid lawsuit moves forward in Florida, October 8, 2009

Error slashes Utah Medicaid reimbursement, September 22, 2009

NM may ax adult dental Medicaid, September 22, 2009

ADHA testifies at Medicaid town hall forum, August 6, 2009


Last Updated np 10/26/2009 4:09:06 PM

2 comments so far ...
10/20/2009 1:27:28 PM
drfredc
In regards to a patient whose death due to perio complications was blamed on Medicaid Dental limitations, outside of the likely contribution of poor home care by the patient, the solution here is relatively simple --

Allow providers to deduct
unreimbursed charity care
from their income. 


  In this sort of case, if such a simple change in the tax code where in effect, whether or not this patient were covered by Medicaid and the whims of politicians, it's highly likely she'd have been able to find a dentist or periodontist who would see to her care. 
  • Adding adult dental benefits to Medicaid would only make things worse -- This isn't a solution to this sort of problem, it would only create more and more problems and distortions in the short and long run. 
  • Get politics out of health care! -- Allowing tax deductibility for charity care would give providers some modest incentive to offer charity care and you'll get a lot of clinics that currently provide little to no Medicaid or Charity care to step up to provide high quality care, free from the limits of government red tape. 
  • Tax deductible charity care would be self limiting and subject to less fraud because there's a break even point where additional tax deductions would not benefit a clinic/provider.
  • Tax deductibility for unreimbursed charity care would provide a needed check and balance to poor reimbursement rates and excessive red tape that runs rampant in government run programs.  (Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP and more).   
  • Clinics everywhere could develop long term stable systems to provide charity care on a sliding scale that makes sense to their individual community and situation. 
  • Tax deductible charity care offers about the same cost/benefit to providers as many Medicaid payments, but without Medicaid's limitations on quality care.  
  • If a grocery store donates food to a food bank, it's tax deductible for the store.  If Microsoft donates software to schools, it's tax deductible.  Why can't charity care be allowed the same tax treatment for providers? 
  • Also, because such care would be related to provider charity, not political handouts, it's highly likely that the folks receiving charity care would be much more appreciative of the care received than they currently are under Medicaid rules.
Doctors, not politicians, provide health care!

Always, Fred Chittenden DDS
Lake Stevens, WA
* {color:#000000;}
10/22/2009 12:40:09 AM
JP Sansen
[color=#660066][size=4]O my dear ![color=#660066][size=4]What a shame on the "dental and medical profession" to let die a patient who cannot afford to pay ![color=#660066][size=4]It's to easy to transfer the responsability towards the State or any other thirth party.[color=#660066][size=4]It's ALL the responsabilithy and [size=5]the bloody duty of the medical profession itself to take care of a patient, poor or rich ![color=#660066][size=4]Having money yes or not, having an insurance yes or not, having the right regulation yes or not, [color=#660066][size=4]CAN NEVER BE A CRITERIUM TO TREAT A PATIENT YES OR NOT.[color=#cc0000][size=5]PRIMUM NON NOCERE ![color=#660066][size=5]Shame on you ! USA- peers.[color=#000080][size=4] [color=#000080][size=2]JP Sansen, dentist
Abacus Dental
Burg. Gillonlaan 143
8500 Kortrijk - Belgium
Tel. 0032 (0)56 25 25 29
Email Printer Friendly


|| 15 Minutes to Excellence || ADA News || Advertising || Ask Marty || Case Archives || Case Study || Communities || Conferences || Contact Us || Education || Equipment For Sale || Facebook || Forums || Future of Dentistry || Home || Hygienist Resources || Jobs || Links || Mobile || News in Brief || Online CE || Opinion || Privacy Policy || Twitter || Vendor Connect || Video || XML/RSS ||

Copyright © 2013 DrBicuspid.com. All Rights Reserved.