Impact of SARS-CoV2 (Covid-19) on dental practices: Economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To combat SARS-CoV2 (Covid-19), policy makers worldwide have adopted different policy alternatives, often including mitigation/suppression policies. We assessed the economic impact of such policies on dental practices in Germany using a modelling approach. METHODS: A providers' perspective within German healthcare was taken, with two provider scenarios (low/high volume practice, low/high proportion of non-statutory insurance revenue, low/high staff pool and costs; S1 and S2 scenarios) being modelled. Providers' costs were estimated in different blocks (staff, material, laboratory, others). A telephone-based survey was conducted on 24th March to 2nd April 2020 on a random sample of 300 German dentists (response: n = 146) to determine the experienced dental services utilization changes in these service blocks. A Markov model was constructed, following 100 practices in each scenario for a total of 365 days. Different Covid-19 mitigation/suppression periods (90 days: base-case, 45, 135 days: sensitivity analyses) were modelled. Monte-Carlo micro-simulation was performed and uncertainty introduced via probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mitigation/suppression reduced utilization of all services, the most severe for prevention (-80 % in mean), periodontics (-76 %) and prosthetics (-70 %). Within the base-case, mean revenue reductions were 18.7 %/15.7 % from the public insurance, 18.7/18.6 % from private insurers and 19 %/19 % for out-of-pocket expenses in S1/S2, respectively. If the mitigation/suppression was upheld for 135 days, overall revenue decreased by 31 %/30 % in S1/S2, respectively. In this case, 29 %/12 % S1/S2 would have a negative net profit over the course of one year. CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 and associated policies have profound economic effect on dental practices. CLINICAL SIGNIFIANCE: Policy makers will want to consider our findings when designing governmental subsidy and safety nets with immediate and midterm economic relieve effects. Dentists may consider practice re-organization to reduce costs and maintain minimum profitability.

A cost-minimization analysis of an RCT of three retention methods.

BACKGROUND: There are few cost evaluation studies of orthodontic retention treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the costs in a randomized controlled trial of three retention methods during 2 years of retention treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: To determine which alternative has the lower cost, a cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was undertaken, based on that the outcome of the treatment alternatives was equivalent. The study comprised 75 patients in 3 groups consisting of 25 each. The first group had a vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) in the maxilla and a cuspid retainer in the mandible (group V-CTC), the second group had a VFR in the maxilla combined with stripping of the incisors and cuspids in the mandible (group V-S), and the third group had a prefabricated positioner (group P). Direct cost (premises, staff salaries, material and laboratory costs) and indirect costs (loss of time at school) were calculated. Societal costs were defined as the sum of direct and indirect costs. RESULTS: The societal costs/patient for scheduled appointments for 2 years of retention treatment in group V-CTC were €497, group V-S €451 and group P €420. Societal costs for unscheduled appointments in group V-CTC were €807 and in group V-S €303. In group P, there were no unscheduled appointments. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: After 2 years of retention in compliant patients, the cuspid retainer was the least cost-effective retention appliance. The CMA showed that for a clinically similar result, there were differences in societal costs, but treatment decisions should always be performed on an individual basis.

Reducing the risk of an awDA lawsuit.

Improving access to your dental office now is cheaper than waiting to be sued.

Drug cost implications for antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential economic impact from the practice of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the prevalence of patients in the United States with 15 medical conditions and devices. We multiplied the prevalence for each patient population by the percentage of specialists recommending prophylaxis, then by the estimated number of dental office visits per year, and then by an average pharmacy cost to arrive at a total estimated range of annual cost for this practice. RESULTS: The 15 medical conditions and devices included in the present study involve upward of 20 million people and an estimated annual cost between $19,880,279 and $143,685,823. The actual cost may be far greater because of an underestimation of these prevalence figures and the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for additional patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a significant cost for antibiotic prophylaxis in the dental practice setting and the need for evidence-based recommendations concerning this practice.

Knowing (and understanding) the key numbers for your practice.

Most dentists see accounting and bookkeeping as a necessary evil instead of a helpful tool. Yet the most financially successful and happy dentists understand the need for good financial management. Here's an overview that will help you better-understand the key numbers in your practice.

Economic impact of dental hygienists on solo dental practices.

The fact that a significant percentage of dentists employ dental hygienists raises an important question: Are dental practices that utilize a dental hygienist structurally and operationally different from practices that do not? This article explores differences among dental practices that operate with and without dental hygienists. Using data from the American Dental Association's 2003 Survey of Dental Practice, a random sample survey of U.S. dentists, descriptive statistics were used to compare selected characteristics of solo general practitioners with and without dental hygienists. Multivariate regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of dental hygienists on the gross billings and net incomes of solo general practitioners. Differences in practice characteristics--such as hours spent in the practice and hours spent treating patients, wait time for a recall visit, number of operatories, square feet of office space, net income, and gross billings--were found between solo general practitioners who had dental hygienists and those who did not. Solo general practitioners with dental hygienists had higher gross billings. Higher gross billings would be expected, as would higher expenses. However, net incomes of those with dental hygienists were also higher. In contrast, the mean waiting time for a recall visit was higher among dentists who employed dental hygienists. Depending on personal preferences, availability of qualified personnel, etc., dentists who do not employ dental hygienists but have been contemplating that path may want to further research the benefits and opportunities that may be realized.

Expanded function allied dental personnel and dental practice productivity and efficiency.

This study examined the impact of expanded function allied dental personnel on the productivity and efficiency of general dental practices. Detailed practice financial and clinical data were obtained from a convenience sample of 154 general dental practices in Colorado. In this state, expanded function dental assistants can provide a wide range of reversible dental services/procedures, and dental hygienists can give local anesthesia. The survey identified practices that currently use expanded function allied dental personnel and the specific services/procedures delegated. Practice productivity was measured using patient visits, gross billings, and net income. Practice efficiency was assessed using a multivariate linear program, Data Envelopment Analysis. Sixty-four percent of the practices were found to use expanded function allied dental personnel, and on average they delegated 31.4 percent of delegatable services/procedures. Practices that used expanded function allied dental personnel treated more patients and had higher gross billings and net incomes than those practices that did not; the more services they delegated, the higher was the practice's productivity and efficiency. The effective use of expanded function allied dental personnel has the potential to substantially expand the capacity of general dental practices to treat more patients and to generate higher incomes for dental practices.

Electronic dental records: start taking the steps.

Converting paper patient records charts into their electronic counterparts (EDRs) not only has many advantages, but also could become a legal requirement in the future. Several steps key to a successful transition includes assessing the needs of the dental team and what they require as a part of the implementation Existing software and hardware must be evaluated for continued use and expansion. Proper protocols for information transfer must be established to ensure complete records while maintaining HIPAA regulations regarding patient privacy. Reduce anxiety by setting realistic dead-lines and using trusted back-up methods.