Email Printer Friendly
Pew report finds economic upside to midlevel providers
By DrBicuspid Staff

December 7, 2010 -- Most private-practice dentists who hire new types of dental care providers can serve more patients while maintaining or improving their financial bottom line, according to a report released December 6 by the Pew Center on the States -- the first to examine the effects of hiring hygienist or dental therapists on the productivity and profits of a private practice, according to Pew.

The study also assesses the effects of dental hygienists, who are currently employed by most dental practices. Dental therapists and hygienist-therapists are trained to perform a broader range of services -- including restorative procedures -- than hygienists.

“This report shows that hiring allied providers can produce a win-win outcome.”
— Shelly Gehshan, director, Pew
     Children's Dental Campaign

The report, titled "It Takes A Team: How New Dental Providers Can Benefit Patients and Practices," applies an economic tool that Pew commissioned -- the Productivity and Profit Calculator -- to evaluate the effects for dental practices that hire one of these three allied providers. The calculator was created for Pew by Scott & Company, a California-based firm that works with organizations interested in developing or assessing new business models in healthcare, in close consultation with a panel of dentists, dental hygienists, and dental office managers, according to Pew.

The calculator tested multiple private practice scenarios: A solo, pediatric dental practice, with a dentist, two dental assistants, and administrative support; a solo, general practice, with a staff structure similar to the first scenario; and a small group practice with a dentist owner, two associate dentists, six dental assistants, and administrative support.

The calculator includes two new types of providers in addition to a registered dental hygienist. The first is the “dental therapist,” who would be certified to perform a limited set of preventive and restorative services. The second is the “hygienist-therapist,” who would have training necessary for a larger range of restorative and preventive services. These terms reflect the outlines of provider models being explored by states; however, this report is not intended to advocate for a specific type of allied provider, Pew noted.

In analyzing the calculator's findings for each private practice scenario tested, most showed that hiring new types of providers can enable a practice to expand services and see more low-income patients without experiencing a drop in profits, the report noted. Among the specific findings:

  • In solo dental practices devoted to serving the privately insured, adding any allied provider increased productivity and pretax profits. In every scenario tested, solo dental practices increased their earnings by a range of 17% to 54% when hiring a new provider.
  • In a state with an average Medicaid reimbursement rate (60% of dentists' standard fees), solo practice dentists serving only the privately insured could hire a dental therapist, shift their patient mix to 80% privately insured and 20% Medicaid patients, and still see their pretax profits increase between 6% and 7%.
  • In states with Medicaid reimbursement rates that are 30%, dental practices see reduced profits when they serve Medicaid enrollees. Yet even in these instances, Pew's study found that dentists fared better financially serving low-income patients with an allied provider rather than without one.

Although these scenarios represent typical dental practices, the specific impact of allied providers will differ from state to state and practice to practice. For this reason, Pew has made the Productivity and Profit Calculator accessible online to dentists and policymakers. Users can assess the potential effects of new providers by inserting data from their own dental practice to reflect the costs and market conditions in their area, as well as test the effects of providers with different scopes of service. The calculator is not intended as a business-planning tool to forecast actual profit and loss, Pew noted.

"We want to replace guesswork with data by giving dentists and policymakers a tool to help them understand the impact of new types of providers in their states," said Shelly Gehshan, director of the Pew Children's Dental Campaign, in a press release. "This report shows that hiring allied providers can produce a win-win outcome. Dentists can serve more low-income children without seeing their earnings decline."

Wayne Cottam, associate dean of community partnerships at the Arizona School of Dentistry and Oral Health, welcomed the report.

"Coupled with other emerging studies on new providers, this report should encourage an honest dialogue around what is best for the patient, the community, and the larger public," he said. "More importantly, this report brings much-needed evidence to help guide the vigorous policy discussions on this topic."

Nationwide, 17 million low-income children go without dental care each year. Multiple factors fuel this problem, including a shortage of dentists serving rural and poor communities. As a number of states consider authorizing new types of dental providers to fill this unmet need, dentists in private practice are looking at the effects of this potential change on their businesses.

The healthcare reform law enacted this year guarantees medical and dental insurance for nearly all children. This means an estimated 5.3 million more kids will secure dental coverage by the year 2014. States will be hard pressed to ensure that the supply of dental providers meets this greater need for care. New types of providers offer policymakers a sound strategy to significantly improve access for low-income and rural children, the Pew report concluded.

Copyright © 2010 DrBicuspid.com

More states moving forward with midlevel providers, November 17, 2010

AAPD skeptical of Alaska midlevel provider report, October 27, 2010

Wash. lawmakers to mull midlevel provider bills, October 27, 2010

ADHA president talks healthcare reform, midlevel providers, August 10, 2010

Austin Group, Boston Group talk midlevel providers, July 26, 2010


Last Updated hh 3/7/2011 11:12:52 AM

26 comments so far ...
12/7/2010 6:14:20 AM
glenp
Sure. Charge the patient full fare for some second rate OJT work from someone who has no clue of the entire stomatologic system.
12/7/2010 6:45:29 AM
mcentiredds
.....and since children are so easy to treat and manage it just makes perfect sense to let under-trained providers deliver their care.
12/7/2010 6:51:01 AM
Thomas
We already have this position in dentistry, it's the Expanded Function Dental Assistant (EFDA). It has been in place in Ohio for over 30 years.  Many other states have them as well and they do help practices to be more efficient and able to see more patients.  Instead of creating a mid-level person, use what already exists and even expand their scope of practice.  There are schools all over the country which train these assistants, therefore starting a new program and new schooling would take time and divert monies away from the much needed areas to create a new person who may not prove to be more cost effective than what we already have.
12/7/2010 7:15:37 AM
Transition_Leader
An EFDA/EDDA is not an equivalent to the therapist positions being discussed. 

The issue predominantly lies in addressing MA patients, particularly in rural areas.  MA reimbursement in most states is closer to 30% than 60%.  The only real take away from this article is that introducing a therapist to an existing practice serving MA patients should help the owner *lose less* with a therapist vs. a dentist.  That really makes little sense business-wise.  If you're losing money, you're losing money.  Does it matter if your margin is -20% or -10% servicing a particular patient base? 

It's difficult to envision a successful, non-MA, private practice employing a therapist outside the context of rural locations where the availability of a 2nd doctor is limited to non-existent.

We should expect to see most therapists, at least initially, employed by community health organizations and FQHCs in areas of need that receive fee-for-service equivalent returns on MA patients.  The latter brings to bear an entirely different discussion about the equity of FQHC reimbursement vis a vis private practitioners.  Between the pork being fed to FQHCs and the capital going into therapist training programs...why not just offer a more reasonable reimbursement rate on MA services to private practitioners?  An entirely variable cost which would allow doctors to treat these patients.
12/7/2010 9:04:12 AM
paf
While it is nice and enticing to throw profit numbers out, has there been an assessment that identifies potential risks to the practice owners? Since we are talking about expanded scope of functions by mid level providers along with a supervision requirement by a dentist, what can we expect from this scenario? Yet I have to see an article that takes the bad and the good into consideration, for now I see just the hype of benefits that mid level providers can bring to the system...
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.