Search

This article examines the current safety net activities of dental schools and reviews strategies by which schools could care for more poor and low-income patients. The primary data come from the annual Survey of Dental Education, a joint American Dental Education Association (ADEA) and American Dental Association (ADA) activity. The analyses use descriptive statistics and are intended to give ballpark estimates of patients treated under varying clinical scenarios. Some 107.4 million people are underserved in comparison to utilization rates for middle-income Americans. In 2013-14, pre- and postdoctoral students treated about 1,176,000 disadvantaged patients. This is an estimate; the actual value may be 25% above or below this number. The impact of potential strategies for schools to provide more care to poor and low-income patients are discussed; these are larger class size, more community-based education, a required one-year residency program, and schools' becoming part of publicly funded safety net clinics. While dental schools cannot solve the access problem, they could have a major impact if the payment and delivery strategies discussed were implemented. This article was written as part of the project "Advancing Dental Education in the 21 st Century."

This article examines the history, current status, and future direction of community-based dental education (CBDE). The key issues addressed include the reasons that dentistry developed a different clinical education model than the other health professions; how government programs, private medical foundations, and early adopter schools influenced the development of CBDE; the societal and financial factors that are leading more schools to increase the time that senior dental students spend in community programs; the impact of CBDE on school finances and faculty and student perceptions; and the reasons that CBDE is likely to become a core part of the clinical education of all dental graduates.

To develop a long-term, sustainable partnership with dental schools, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) need to assess the financial impact of dental students on their financial operations. Primary concerns are that students will not cover their marginal costs and will reduce the productivity of clinic dentists. This study uses data from Asian Health Services, an FQHC in Oakland, California, to examine revenues generated by senior dental students and by FQHC dentists when students are and are not present. The analysis of ten months of electronic record data showed that two full-time equivalent students generated $420,549 in gross revenues and reduced dentist output by only $29,000. While the results are from just one FQHC, they strongly suggest that students make a significant contribution to clinic productivity and finances.

Dental schools are hard pressed to find the resources to adequately fund their mission of education, research, and service. Over the years, schools have tried to make up for the loss in public funds by increasing student tuition, increasing enrollment, and reducing the growth in faculty and staff salaries and program costs. Unfortunately, these strategies have not solved the financial problems. Declining resources are threatening the future of dental education. Data presented in this report attempt to answer the following question: will community-based dental education restore the fiscal health of dental schools and provide students an equal or better education? By reducing the number of chairs per student and developing revenue-sharing relationships with community clinics, community-based dental education offers a realistic option for putting dental schools on a solid financial footing.

Junior and senior dental students generate a significant portion of dental school clinical revenues. Some deans and faculty members are concerned that school clinic income declines when students spend substantial time in community clinics on extramural rotations. This study uses data from eight dental schools to examine the difference in senior clinic operating revenues and expenses between schools with extensive community-based dental education programs and those with limited community-based dental education programs. The analysis shows that schools with extensive programs have substantially lower per senior student clinic losses. This is due to having fewer chairs per student and having a larger class size, thus generating more tuition revenues. The economic advantages of community-based dental education programs for their schools are substantial.

The financial impact of community-based dental education on dental school and community clinic budgets is a major issue. The evidence suggests that community experiences for dental students of fifty or more days, if effectively managed, can increase school net revenues due to the following factors: 1) the community rotations increase student productivity, approximating the loss of dental school clinical income; 2) the reallocation of unused clinical resources at the dental school reduces student clinic deficits; 3) schools and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that share surplus student patient revenues generate additional net income; and 4) enrollment of more students without additional new facilities and faculty increases total school tuition revenues. For FQHC dental clinics, student rotations increase the number of patients treated and may generate surplus revenues. Community-based dental education also provides schools and clinics important non-financial advantages.

Disparities in access to dental care are a major problem in the United States. Effectively run community-based dental education programs can make a significant contribution to reducing access disparities and at the same time enrich the educational experiences of dental students and residents. For complex historical reasons, dental schools did not base their clinical training programs in community hospitals and clinics like the other health professions. Now, because of trends in school finances, changes in societal values, and limitations in current educational experiences, schools are increasing the time students spend in community clinics. This is likely to continue. The chapters in the first section of the report on the Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education program--for which this chapter serves as an introduction-provide detailed information on the operation of community-based education programs.

Funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the California Endowment and with student financial aid from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the primary goal of the Pipeline, Profession, and Practice: Community-Based Dental Education program is to reduce disparities in access to dental care. In a national competition, fifteen dental schools were selected to participate. By the final year (2007) of the five-year project, the schools are expected to achieve three objectives: 1) increase the time (sixty days/year) that senior students and residents spend in patient-centered community clinics and practices treating underserved populations; 2) provide didactic and clinical courses for students and residents that prepare them for their community experiences; and 3) recruit more underrepresented minority and low-income students. The national program office that directs the project is located at Columbia University, and a national advisory committee oversees the program for the sponsoring organizations. The challenge is to demonstrate that the Pipeline objectives are achievable and that the program is sustainable without external support.