Search

Objectives: In many countries increasing use is being made of dental care professionals (DCPs) to provide aspects of clinical activity previously undertaken by dentists. This study evaluates the differences in practice efficiency associated with the utilisation of DCPs in the provision of General Dental Services in the National Health Service (NHS) in England., Methods: One hundred twenty-one NHS practices completed a questionnaire and shared practice information held at the NHS Business Services Authority. Practice efficiency was estimated using data envelopment analysis with the robustness of the findings checked using Stochastic Frontier Model estimation., Results: Dental practices operated at an estimated mean level of technical efficiency of 64%. Variations among practices in the use of DCPs were not associated with variations in practice efficiency after controlling for other staffing levels, patient population characteristics and practice variables., Conclusions: The current NHS dental contract limits the potential for efficiency improvements by setting annual practice activity targets that produce little incentive for role substitution. Whilst DCPs may by practising efficiently, this is not reflected in practice-level efficiency, possibly because of dentists using the time released for other non-NHS activity., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In May 2009, the Northern Ireland government introduced General Dental Services (GDS) contracts based on capitation in dental practices newly set up by a corporate dental provider to promote access to dental care in populations that had previously struggled to secure service provision. Dental service provision forms an important component of general health services for the population, but the implications of health system financing on care delivered and the financial cost of services has received relatively little attention in the research literature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the policy effect capitation payment in recently started corporate practices had on the delivery of primary oral healthcare in Northern Ireland and access to services., Methods: We analysed the policy initiative in Northern Ireland as a natural experiment to find the impact on healthcare delivery of the newly set up corporate practices that use a prospective capitation system to remunerate primary care dentists. Data was collected from GDS claim forms submitted to the Business Services Organisation (BSO) between April 2011 and October 2014. Health and Social Care Board (HSCB) practices operating within a capitation system were matched to a control group, who were remunerated using a retrospective fee-for-service system., Results: No evidence of patient selection was found in the HSCB practices set up by a corporate provider and operated under capitation. However, patients were less likely to visit the dentist and received less treatment when they did attend, compared to those belonging to the control group (P < 0.05). The extent of preventive activity offered and the patient payment charge revenue did not differ between the two practice groups., Conclusion: Although remunerating NHS primary care dentists in newly set up corporate practices using a prospective capitation system managed costs within healthcare, there is evidence that this policy may have reduced access to care of registered patients.

Background: Dental caries is the most common disease of childhood. The NHS guidelines promote preventative care in dental practices, particularly for young children. However, the cost-effectiveness of this policy has not been established., Objective: To measure the effects and costs of a composite fluoride intervention designed to prevent caries in young children attending dental services., Design: The study was a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with an allocation ratio of 1 : 1. Randomisation was by clinical trials unit, using randomised permuted blocks. Children/families were not blinded; however, outcome assessment was blinded to group assessment., Setting: The study took place in 22 NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland, UK., Participants: The study participants were children aged 2-3 years, who were caries free at baseline., Interventions: The intervention was composite in nature, comprising a varnish containing 22,600 parts per million (p.p.m.) fluoride, a toothbrush and a 50-ml tube of toothpaste containing 1450 p.p.m. fluoride; plus standardised, evidence-based prevention advice provided at 6-monthly intervals over 3 years. The control group received the prevention advice alone., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was conversion from caries-free to caries-active states. Secondary outcome measures were the number of decayed, missing or filled tooth surfaces in primary dentition (dmfs) in caries-active children, the number of episodes of pain, the number of extracted teeth and the costs of care. Adverse reactions (ARs) were recorded., Results: A total of 1248 children (624 randomised to each group) were recruited and 1096 (549 in the intervention group and 547 in the control group) were included in the final analyses. A total of 87% of the intervention children and 85% of control children attended every 6-month visit (p = 0.77). In total, 187 (34%) children in the intervention group converted to caries active, compared with 213 (39%) in the control group [odds ratio (OR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.04; p = 0.11]. The mean number of tooth surfaces affected by caries was 7.2 in the intervention group, compared with 9.6 in the control group (p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the number of episodes of pain between groups (p = 0.81). However, 164 out of the total of 400 (41%) children who converted to caries active reported toothache, compared with 62 out of 696 (9%) caries-free children (OR 7.1 95% CI 5.1 to 9.9; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of teeth extracted in caries-active children (p = 0.95). Ten children in the intervention group had ARs of a minor nature. The average direct dental care cost was £155.74 for the intervention group and £48.21 for the control group over 3 years (p < 0.05). The mean cost per carious surface avoided over the 3 years was estimated at £251.00., Limitations: The usual limitations of a trial such as generalisability and understanding the underlying reasons for the outcomes apply. There is no mean willingness-to-pay threshold available to enable assessment of value for money., Conclusions: A statistically significant effect could not be demonstrated for the primary outcome. Once caries develop, pain is likely. There was a statistically significant difference in dmfs in caries-active children in favour of the intervention. Although adequately powered, the effect size of the intervention was small and of questionable clinical and economic benefit., Future Work: Future work should assess the caries prevention effects of interventions to reduce sugar consumption at the population and individual levels. Interventions designed to arrest the disease once it is established need to be developed and tested in practice., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36180119 and EudraCT 2009-010725-39., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: This paper is a summary document of the Prevention in Practice Conference and Special Supplement of BMC Oral Health. It represents the consensus view of the presenters and captures the questions, comments and suggestions of the assembled audience., Methods: Using the prepared manuscripts for the conference, collected materials from scribes during the conference and additional resources collated in advance of the meeting, authors agreed on the summary document., Results: The Prevention in Practice conference aimed to collate information about which diseases could be prevented in practice, how diseases could be identified early enough to facilitate prevention, what evidence based therapies and treatments were available and how, given the collective evidence, could these be introduced in general dental practice within different reimbursement models., Conclusions: While examples of best practice were provided from both social care and insurance models it was clear that further work was required on both provider and payer side to ensure that evidence based prevention was both implemented properly but also reimbursed sufficiently. It is clear that savings can be made but these must not be overstated and that the use of effective skill mix would be key to realizing efficiencies. The evidence base for prevention of caries and periodontal disease has been available for many years, as have the tools and techniques to detect, diagnose and stage the diseases appropriately. Dentistry finds itself in a enviable position with respect to its ability to prevent, arrest and reverse much of the burden of disease, however, it is clear that the infrastructure within primary care must be changed, and practitioners and their teams appropriately supported to deliver this paradigm shift from a surgical to a medical model.

Evidence on the efficacy of preventive procedures in oral health care has not been matched by uptake of prevention in clinical practice. Reducing oral disease in the population reduces the size of the future market for treatment. Hence a provider's intention to adopt prevention in clinical practice may be offset by the financial implications of such behaviour. Effective prevention may therefore depend upon prevention-friendly methods of remuneration if providers are to be rewarded appropriately for doing what the system expects them to do. This paper considers whether changing the way providers are paid for delivering care can be expected to change the utilisation of preventive care in the population in terms of the proportion of the population receiving preventive care, the distribution of preventive care in the population and the pattern of preventive care received. A conceptual framework is presented that identifies the determinants of rewards under different approaches to provider remuneration. The framework is applied to develop recommendations for paying for prevention in clinical practice. Literature on provider payment in dental care is reviewed to assess the evidence base for the effects of changing payment methods, identify gaps in the evidence-base and inform the design of future research on dental remuneration.

Background: Methods of remuneration have been linked with the professional behaviour of primary care physicians. In dentistry, this can be exacerbated as clinicians operate their practices as businesses and take the full financial risk of the provision of services. The main methods for remunerating primary care dentists include fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. The aim of this review was to determine the impact that these remuneration mechanisms have upon primary care dentists' behaviour., Objectives: To evaluate the effects of different methods of remuneration on the level and mix of activities provided by primary care dentists and the impact this has on patient outcomes., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2013); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1947 to 11 June 2013); EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 11 June 2013); EconLit (1969 to 11 June 2013); the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) (11 June 2013); and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED) (11 June 2013). We conducted cited reference searches for the included studies in ISI Web of Knowledge; searched grey literature sources; handsearched selected journals; and contacted authors of relevant studies., Selection Criteria: Primary care dentists were defined as clinicians that deliver routine or mainstream dental care in a primary care environment. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. The methods of remuneration that we considered were: fee-for-service, fixed salary and capitation payments. Primary outcome measures were: measures of clinical activity; volume of clinical activity undertaken; time taken and clinical session length, or both; clinician type utilised; measures of health service utilisation; access and attendance as a proportion of the population; re-attendance rates; recall frequency; levels of oral health inequalities; non-attendance rates; healthcare costs; measures of patient outcomes; disease reduction; health maintenance; and patient satisfaction. We also considered measures of practice profitability/income and any reported unintended effects of the included methods of remuneration., Data Collection and Analysis: Three of the review authors (PRB, JP, AMG) independently reviewed titles and abstracts and resolved disagreements by discussion. The same three review authors undertook data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence from all the studies that met the selection criteria, according to Cochrane Collaboration procedures., Main Results: Two cluster-RCTs, with data from 503 dental practices, representing 821 dentists and 4771 patients, met the selection criteria. We judged the risk of bias to be high for both studies and the overall quality of the evidence was low/very low for all outcomes, as assessed using the GRADE approach.One study used a factorial design to investigate the impact of fee-for-service and an educational intervention on the placement of fissure sealants in permanent molar teeth. The authors reported a statistically significant increase in clinical activity in the arm that was incentivised with a fee-for-service payment. However, the study was conducted in the four most deprived areas of Scotland, so the applicability of the findings to other settings may be limited. The study did not report data on measures of health service utilisation or measures of patient outcomes.The second study used a parallel group design undertaken over a three-year period to compare the impact of capitation payments with fee-for-service payments on primary care dentists' clinical activity. The study reported on measures of clinical activity (mean percentage of children receiving active preventive advice, health service utilisation (mean number of visits), patient outcomes (mean number of filled teeth, mean percentage of children having one or more teeth extracted and the mean number of decayed teeth) and healthcare costs (mean expenditure). Teeth were restored at a later stage in the disease process in the capitation system and the clinicians tended to see their patients less frequently and tended to carry out fewer fillings and extractions, but also tended to give more preventive advice.There was insufficient information regarding the cost-effectiveness of the different remuneration methods., Authors' Conclusions: Financial incentives within remuneration systems may produce changes to clinical activity undertaken by primary care dentists. However, the number of included studies is limited and the quality of the evidence from the two included studies was low/very low for all outcomes. Further experimental research in this area is highly recommended given the potential impact of financial incentives on clinical activity, and particular attention should be paid to the impact this has on patient outcomes.

Changes were made to the management and delivery of primary dental care in the NHS in England in 2006 aimed at improving access to NHS dental services among populations with low use. These included: (i) commissioning of NHS dental services by primary care trusts (ii) replacing item of service patient charges by Course of Treatment cost bands and (iii) changing the remuneration of dentists providing NHS dental care. Using longitudinal data from the 1991-2008 waves of the British Household Panel Survey, we estimate the effects of these changes on the levels and distribution of dental care in the population and on the public-private mix of primary dental care services in England using dynamic probit models. We find evidence of a decrease in NHS use, driven by reductions in use among populations with previously good access to care and a positive effect of the reforms on consumer transitions from NHS to private practice. Our results highlight the potential (unintended) consequences of reforming public health care systems. It appears that contrary to expanding NHS access, the dental reforms contracted NHS use amongst those with previously good access. This contraction relied upon the ability of the private sector to absorb this group., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Using an administrative database of dental service records from the Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program of Health Canada for 1994-2001, the authors set out to test whether regular visitors had lower program expenditures., Methods: The age-specific mean expenditures per client were compared among those with regular examinations in 8, 7 and fewer years. The study further examined the effect of regular visiting over the first 6 years on expenditures in the last 2 years. "Continuity of care" was measured by the numbers of consecutive years prior to 2000 in which clients had a regular examination. In a "gap analysis" individuals were classified according to the number of years prior to 2000 since they last had an initial or recall examination. Mean expenditures per client were analyzed by age group and type of service., Findings: Over the 8-year period, clients with regular visits had the highest expenditures. In both the continuity of care and gap analyses, the findings were generally consistent; the more that clients visited over the first 6 years, the higher the expenditures in the final 2 years. Clients with more "regular" (initial and recall) examinations received a relatively standard, age-specific, pattern of service but incurred greater expenditures compared to clients with fewer regular, or longer gaps in, examinations., Conclusion: The observations of the authors in this client group do not support the thesis that regular visiting is associated with lower expenditures on dental care.

In Canada, the delivery of dental care is left largely to private markets; public funding is limited to targeted groups of the population and substantial variation between provinces exists. In this article, the levels and sources of expenditures on dental care, the levels and distribution of service use associated with these expenditures and the oral health outcomes "produced" in Canada are considered in an international context. The international trend toward an increasing share of public funds for dental care expenditures is not observed in Canada. Instead an increasing reliance on private funds is associated with greater barriers to care, particularly among less prosperous groups. In the absence of oral health data at the national level, the impact of these trends on oral health outcomes is unknown. Several key messages are identified in the comparative analysis to inform any future oral health strategy for Canada.

Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults and adolescents, using a natural experiment design. Methods: A 10‐year retrospective cohort study (2010–2020) using routinely collected NHS dental treatment claims data. Participants were patients aged 12 years and over, attending NHS primary dental care services in England (17.8 million patients). Using recorded residential locations, individuals exposed to drinking water with an optimal fluoride concentration (≥0.7 mg F/L) were matched to non‐exposed individuals using propensity scores. Number of NHS invasive dental treatments, DMFT and missing teeth were compared between groups using negative binomial regression. Total NHS dental treatment costs and cost per invasive dental treatment avoided were calculated. Results: Matching resulted in an analytical sample of 6.4 million patients. Predicted mean number of invasive NHS dental treatments (restorations 'fillings'/extractions) was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (5.4) than the non‐optimally fluoridated group (5.6) (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967, 0.971). Predicted mean DMFT was 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983, 0.985). There was no difference in the predicted mean number of missing teeth per person (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999, 1.003) and no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Optimal water fluoridation in England 2010–2020 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excludes initial set‐up costs). NHS dental treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients 2010–2020 were 5.5% lower, by £22.26 per person (95% CI ‐£21.43, −£23.09). Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation 2010–2020 resulted in very small positive health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals. Existing fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower NHS dental care utilization. This return should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most water fluoridation studies were conducted on children before the widespread introduction of fluoride toothpastes. There is a lack of evidence that can be applied to contemporary populations, particularly adolescents and adults. Objective: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health in a contemporary population of adults, using a natural experiment design. Design: Retrospective cohort study using routinely collected National Health Service dental claims (FP17) data. Setting: National Health Service primary dental care: general dental practices, prisons, community dental services, domiciliary settings, urgent/out-of-hours and specialised referral-only services. Participants: Dental patients aged 12 years and over living in England (n = 6,370,280). Intervention and comparison: Individuals exposed to drinking water with a fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were matched to non-exposed individuals on key characteristics using propensity scores. Outcome measures: Primary: number of National Health Service invasive dental treatments (restorations/'fillings' and extractions) received per person between 2010 and 2020. Secondary: decayed, missing and filled teeth, missing teeth, inequalities, cost effectiveness and return on investment. Data sources: National Health Service Business Services Authority dental claims data. Water quality monitoring data. Primary outcome: Predicted mean number of invasive dental treatments was 3% lower in the optimally fluoridated group than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (incidence rate ratio 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971), a difference of −0.173 invasive dental treatments (95% CI −0.185 to −0.161). This magnitude of effect is smaller than what most stakeholders we engaged with (n = 50/54) considered meaningful. Secondary outcomes: Mean decayed, missing and filled teeth were 2% lower in the optimally fluoridated group, with a difference of −0.212 decayed, missing and filled teeth (95% CI −0.229 to −0.194). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth per person (0.006, 95% CI −0.008 to 0.021). There was no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in treatments received or missing teeth; however, decayed, missing and filled teeth data did not demonstrate a typical inequalities gradient. Optimal water fluoridation in England in 2010–20 was estimated to cost £10.30 per person (excluding original setup costs). Mean National Health Service treatment costs for fluoridated patients 2010–20 were 5.5% lower per person, by £22.26 (95% CI −£23.09 to −£21.43), and patients paid £7.64 less in National Health Service dental charges per person (2020 prices). Limitations: Pragmatic, observational study with potential for non-differential errors of misclassification in fluoridation assignment and outcome measurement and residual and/or unmeasured confounding. Decayed, missing and filled teeth data have not been validated. Water fluoridation cost estimates are based on existing programmes between 2010 and 2020, and therefore do not include the potentially significant capital investment required for new programmes. Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects, which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence of a reduction in social inequalities. Existing water fluoridation programmes in England produced a positive return on investment between 2010 and 2020 due to slightly lower National Health Service treatment costs. These relatively small savings should be evaluated against the projected costs and lifespan of any proposed capital investment in water fluoridation, including new programmes. Future work: National Health Service dental data are a valuable resource for research. Further validation and measures to improve quality and completeness are warranted. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary: Fluoride is a natural mineral that prevents tooth decay. It is added to some drinking water and toothpastes to improve dental health. Water with fluoride added is known as 'optimally fluoridated'. Most research on water fluoridation was carried out before fluoride was added to toothpastes in the 1970s and only included children. We wanted to know if water fluoridation still produced large reductions in tooth decay, now that decay levels are much lower because of fluoride in toothpaste. We also wanted to look at its effect on adults and teenagers. Dental patients we spoke to told us they worried about needing treatment with the 'drill', or 'injection', losing their teeth and paying for their dental care. To see if water fluoridation helped with these concerns, we compared the National Health Service dental records of 6.4 million adults and teenagers who received optimally fluoridated or non-optimally fluoridated water in England between 2010 and 2020. We found water fluoridation made a very small difference to each person. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of NHS fillings and extractions was 3% lower per person for those who received optimally fluoridated water. We found no difference in the number of teeth lost per person and no strong sign that fluoridation reduced differences in dental health between rich and poor areas. Between 2010 and 2020, the cost of optimal water fluoridation was £10.30 per person (not including setup costs). National Health Service dental patients who received optimally fluoridated water cost the National Health Service £22.26 (5.5%) less and paid £7.64 (2%) less per person in National Health Service dental charges over the 10 years. The benefits we found are much smaller than in the past, when toothpastes did not contain fluoride. The cost to set up a new water fluoridation programme can be high. Communities may need to consider if these smaller benefits would still outweigh the costs. Scientific summary: Background: There is a lack of contemporary evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation in populations who are also using fluoride toothpastes and have significantly lower levels of decay than when most of the research on water fluoridation was carried out. In their 2002 review of water fluoridation, the UK Medical Research Council identified several priority areas for future research, in particular: the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults the effects of fluoridation on health and well-being beyond the usual measures of decayed, missing or filled teeth the economic impacts of water fluoridation how the effects of water fluoridation vary with social class. Conducting research on the effects of water fluoridation in adults involves significant methodological challenges. This has resulted in a paucity of evidence and recommendations for research that have not been addressed in 20 years. The present study has been designed to contribute to the evidence base in a pragmatic and cost-efficient way, using routinely collected NHS dental claims data. During our initial public engagement work, patients and the public told us that preventing dental treatment, particularly 'the drill' or 'injection', was a key impact that they would hope water fluoridation would produce. Other impacts were not losing teeth to extraction and avoiding costly dental charges. This feedback is reflected in our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures. Aim: To pragmatically assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing dental treatment and improving oral health. Primary objective: Impact of water fluoridation on NHS invasive dental treatments (fillings, extractions). Secondary objectives: Impact on oral health [number of teeth and caries experience, missing and filled teeth (DMFT)]. Impact on social inequalities. Cost effectiveness and return on investment (ROI). Study inclusion criteria: Adults and adolescents aged 12 years and over who had attended an NHS dental practice in England within the last 10 years. Adolescents were included in the study cohort because they are likely to have all of their permanent, adult teeth. Patient confirmed as a unique individual using the combination of NHS Business Service Authority (BSA) identifier (initial, surname, gender, date of birth) and NHS number. Study exclusion criteria: Individuals who did not have at least two episodes of dental attendance within the 10-year observation period. The reason for this was to provide at least two data points on location of residence (to assign fluoridation exposure). Cohort setting: The study population data set was supplied by NHS BSA , which processes payment claims for NHS for dentists. The NHS BSA data retention period is 10 years. National Health Service primary dental care is delivered in a range of settings and types of services, including: general dental practices (high street practices) prison dental services community dental services (special care referral service, which treats patients with additional needs, including medical conditions, disabilities, homelessness or drug use) domiciliary settings (home visits for housebound patients) urgent/out-of-hours services for patients without a regular dentist specialised referral-only services such as sedation or oral surgery. Data on care delivered in all of the above services are collected by NHS BSA. Selection of the study population: Selection of the study population was carried out on 21 October 2020, by NHS BSA. Individual dental treatment claim entries for England and Wales were screened for linkage and selection by NHS BSA in the following order: Identifiable data: Withdrawn or 'no information' claims (FP17s) were dropped. Claims with no 1 : 1 match between NHS number and NHS BSA ID were dropped. Claims containing only orthodontic care were dropped. Patients whose NHS number was on 'NHS national data opt-out list' were dropped. Anonymised data: Patients who had attended only once were dropped. Patients aged under 12 years were dropped. Patients whose first recorded address was not in England were dropped. Patients whose first course of treatment was prior to 22 November 2010 were dropped. The study population data set, securely transferred to the University of Manchester, included anonymised data on 17,855,239 unique individuals. Exposure assignment: Water fluoride sample data (mg F/l) were obtained from water suppliers in England under the Environmental Information Regulations (2004) and converted from water supply zones to lower super output areas (LSOAs) using mapping in statistical software 'R'. This resulted in a record of annual mean water fluoride concentrations by LSOA for every year between 2010 and 2020. Individuals within the study population data set were then assigned an individual water fluoride exposure (mg F/l) by combining their residential history (recorded in the NHS BSA dental claims data set) with the annual concentration of fluoride in the drinking water of the LSOAs they lived in between 2010 and 2020. Individuals exposed to drinking water with a grand mean fluoride concentration ≥ 0.7 mg F/l between 2010 and 2020 were assigned to the 'optimally fluoridated' group, and those with a grand mean of < 0.7 mg F/l were assigned to the 'sub/non-optimally fluoridated' group. Propensity score matching: Individuals in the optimally fluoridated group were matched to individuals in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group using propensity scores. The baseline characteristics used to create the propensity scores were selected using subject matter knowledge and theory to include all hypothesised confounders and important outcome predictors. To inform the selection of these variables, causal assumptions were made explicit using directed acyclic graphs. Baseline characteristics for propensity score estimation and matching were based on data recorded at the patient's first course of treatment: sex age ethnicity deprivation decile NHS exemption status rural–urban classification number of units of dental activities (UDAs) commissioned per person with the patient's local authority of residence dental practice contract type dental practice deprivation decile. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and matching was carried out using three specifications of nearest neighbour matching (one-to-one, variable ratio and variable ratio with a 0.25 calliper). The resulting matched data set which best met our pre-specified criteria regarding overall sample size, balance on baseline characteristics and ability to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated group was taken forwards for further analysis. Analysis of health effects: The effect of optimal water fluoridation on primary and secondary clinical outcomes was estimated using negative binomial regression models, including matching weights and using cluster-robust standard errors. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the mean number of invasive dental treatments received, the mean number of DMFTs and the mean number of missing teeth by fluoridation group. To determine whether there was a differential effect of water fluoridation according to deprivation, we included patient deprivation decile [Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015] as an interaction term. 'Clinical' relevance of primary outcome: We engaged with 54 public and professional stakeholders from across the UK through 3 online workshops to explore views on what might be considered a relevant/practically significant effect of optimal water fluoridation on our primary outcome. We identified a wide range of views and some suggestions that dentists felt smaller reductions were meaningful, compared to non-dentists, but most contributors felt a reduction of at least one invasive NHS dental treatment per person over 10 years would be needed to be considered meaningful (a 16% relative reduction in the workshop scenario). Health economic evaluation: The health economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness and a ROI analysis. The time horizon was 2010–20, and the perspective was public sector payors [NHS, Public Health England (PHE) and local authorities]. Operating and capital costs of water fluoridation for England were supplied by PHE for the financial years 2013–9, with mean annual costs used for 2010–2. All costs are reported in 2020 prices. National Health Service dental care utilisation and patient charges were contained within the study population data set provided by NHS BSA , and an average UDA price for England supplied by NHS BSA [under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)] was used to calculate NHS costs. Differences in costs between patients from optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were estimated using a generalised linear model (GLM) with a log-link and a gamma distribution to account for right-skewed cost data. Cost effectiveness was based on the primary study outcome, assessed as the additional cost per avoided episode of invasive dental treatment [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)]. We also calculated total NHS dental charges paid by patients in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups. Water fluoridation cannot be provided on an individual basis, therefore per-patient cost effectiveness and ROI estimates were extrapolated from our sample to the estimated population of regular users of NHS dental services using a range of scenarios. Results: The study population data set (the full cohort) supplied by NHS BSA included records relating to 17,855,239 unique individuals. After propensity score matching (using nearest neighbour, one-to-three variable ratio), the matched cohort contained data on 6,370,280 individuals: 4,777,710 in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group and 1,592,570 in the optimally fluoridated group. Primary objective: The rate of invasive dental treatments in the optimally fluoridated group was 3% lower than that of the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.969, 95% CI 0.967 to 0.971). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.173 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.185 to 0.161) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. During our stakeholder engagement work, only 4 of 54 contributors considered this magnitude of reduction to be meaningful. Secondary objectives: Oral health: Mean DMFT in the optimally fluoridated group was 2% lower than in the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 0.984, 95% CI 0.983 to 0.985). There was a predicted mean difference of 0.212 fewer DMFTs (95% CI 0.229 fewer to 0.194 fewer) in the optimally fluoridated group compared to the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group. We found no significant difference in the mean number of missing teeth between the optimally fluoridated group and the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group (IRR 1.001, 95% CI 0.999 to 1.003). The negative binomial model predicted a mean difference of 0.006 more missing teeth in the fluoridated group, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of no effect (95% CI 0.008 fewer to 0.021 more). Effect of water fluoridation on social inequalities: In all deciles, the predicted number of invasive treatments was lower in the optimally fluoridated group than the sub/non-optimally fluoridated group, but the size of the reductions was very small. The largest predicted reduction of 0.337 fewer invasive dental treatments per person (95% CI 0.371 fewer to 0.302 fewer) was in the most deprived decile (IMD 1), a relative reduction of 5.3%. The relationship between patient deprivation and DMFT was unclear and did not demonstrate a social inequality gradient in the expected direction. Therefore, we are unable to conclude whether water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in DMFT. Small differences were evident in each decile, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Small differences in the number of missing teeth per person in the optimally fluoridated and sub/non-optimally fluoridated groups were evident in each decile of deprivation, but the direction of effect was not consistent. Overall, we could find no compelling evidence that water fluoridation reduced socioeconomic disparities in oral health in adult and adolescent users of NHS dental services. Health economic results: Water fluoridation costs: Total expenditure on water fluoridation between 2010 and 2019 was estimated to be £46,791,388. The cost of optimal water fluoridation per person over 10 years was estimated to be £10.30. No new water fluoridation programmes were commissioned between 2010 and 2020; therefore, our cost estimates for water fluoridation do not include setup costs, which are highly site-specific and can be significant. National Health Service dental treatment and patient charges: In the GLM , the marginal effects estimate revealed a saving in NHS treatment costs for optimally fluoridated patients over the study period of £22.26 per person (95% CI £21.43 to £23.09). This represents a relative reduction in costs to the NHS of 5.5% per person between 2010 and 2020. Patients in the optimally fluoridated group paid £7.64 less (2%) in total NHS dental charges than patients in the non-optimally fluoridated group between 2010 and 2020. Population-level cost effectiveness and return on investment: Water fluoridation is a whole-population intervention, which cannot be implemented on a per-person basis. In terms of cost effectiveness and ROI, it is important to consider the potential size of the population to whom our within-sample (per person) findings may apply. In the scenario thought to be most likely by our steering committee (that 62.9% of the population aged 12 years can be expected to use NHS dental services at least twice in 10 years), we estimate that: The cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) was £94.55. The predicted ROI for water fluoridation in England between November 2010 and October 2020 was estimated to be £16,884,595 (a 36% return on the investment). Conclusions: Receipt of optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in very small health effects which may not be meaningful for individuals, and we could find no evidence that water fluoridation reduced social inequalities in dental health. Slightly lower dental service utilisation produced a positive ROI during the period of observation, but it must be remembered that the cost estimates for water fluoridation did not include the initial set-up of the programmes. Where new capital investment in water fluoridation is required, the estimated project costs should be evaluated against the estimated savings contained within this report and the projected lifespan of the infrastructure. Whether the case for water fluoridation programmes can be based solely on a predicted ROI rather than meaningful health improvements may need to be considered by stakeholders. Recommendations for research: NHS primary care dental data are a potentially valuable resource for research, surveillance and epidemiology. Consideration should be given as to how to develop this resource further. Suggestions include: commissioning enhanced data collection through a network of dental providers (similar to medical G.P. Clinical Practice Research Datalink network); mandatory use of NHS numbers, recording the reason for treatment (caries, periodontal disease, trauma, repair of old restoration); steps to increase the completeness of patient ethnicity data and validation of the DMFT data. Routinely collected water quality monitoring data should be made publicly available. A central, annually updated database of water fluoride concentrations (mg F/l) at a small area level is required to support future research and monitoring of water fluoridation. To broaden the evidence base for triangulation, the effect of water fluoridation on the dental health of adults should be investigated in any future national dental epidemiology surveys. To determine if the estimated cost to avoid one invasive dental treatment (the ICER) represents good value for money, further work is required to identify a threshold level for 'good value' for this outcome. Trial registrations: This trial is registered as ISRCTN96479279, CAG: 20/CAG/0072, IRAS: 20/NE/0144. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128533) and is published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Choosing between reusable instruments (RIs) and disposable instruments (DIs) for dental care provision requires a careful consideration of costs and their contributing factors, alongside other choice criteria. This study aimed to assess the current use of instruments in the West Moreton Oral Health Service (WMOHS) in Queensland, Australia, with a broader goal of informing future practice in this and comparable organizations. Methods: A cost model was developed reflecting costs arising from procurement, reprocessing and disposal, depending on the RI and DI composition of instrumentation. The current practice in WMOHS was compared to modular (RI‐only and DI‐only) strategies by considering four standard instrument sets (examination, simple extraction, surgical extraction, restoration) and the annual use of instruments in the organization at large. The use of resources (water, electricity) and emissions (waste) were quantified for each strategy. The robustness of findings was explored across a range of scenarios that involved varying instrument prices, lifespans, factors impacting on the cost of reprocessing (labour, water, energy), the cost of waste disposal and couriering. Results: At the organization level, the current mix of instruments (A$1.28 m per year) was 4% more costly than the lower cost, RI‐only alternative (A$1.23 m). However, with lower DI prices or higher labour costs current practice would become the lowest cost option. Results for specific instrument sets varied by service type. DI‐only offered the lowest cost option for oral examinations (A$6.29), and the current practice of mixed instrumentation for simple extractions (A$16.56). RI‐only sets were less costly in more resource intensive procedures such as surgical extractions (A$40.19) and restorations (A$43.83). In terms of environmental impacts, the use of instruments based on current practice required 37% of water and energy use of an RI‐only alternative and generated 36% waste of the DI‐only alternative. Conclusions: Reusable instruments are generally less costly than DIs, but for specific instrument sets the outcome depends on the type of procedure. In some circumstances, mixed instrumentation can provide the lowest cost alternative. While the WMOHS instrument mix used in current practice does not minimize cost for the provider, it may be justified in light of operational risks, logistics and uncertainty regarding cost factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Oral surgery referrals from NHS dental practices are rising, increasing the pressures on available hospital resources. We assess if an electronic referral system with consultant or peer (general dental practitioner) led triage of patient referrals from general dental practices can effectively divert patients requiring minor oral surgery into specialist led primary care settings at a reduced cost whilst providing care of the same or enhanced quality. One year of no triage (all referrals treated in secondary care) was followed by one-year of consultant led triage, which in turn was followed by year of peer-led triage.Method: A health economic evaluation of all patient referrals from 27 UK dental practices for oral surgery procedures. The follow-up is over a three-year period at hospital dental services in two general hospitals, one dental hospital, and a single specialist oral surgeon based in two primary care practices. The evaluation is a comparison of mean outcomes in the hospitals and in specialist primary care dental services between the study periods (i.e. periods with and without the triage system). The main outcomes of interest are mean NHS cost saving per referral (costs to the NHS and costs to broader society), proportion of diverted referrals, case-mix of referrals and patient reports of the quality of dentistry services received at their referral destination.Results: The proportion of referrals diverted to specialist primary care was similar during both periods (45% under consultant-led triage and 43% under GDP-led triage). Statistically significant savings per referral diverted were found (£116.11 under consultant-led triage, £90.25 under GDP-led triage). There were no statistically significant changes in the case-mix of referrals. Cost savings varied according to the coding (and hence tariff) of referred cases by the provider hospitals. Patients reported similarly high levels of satisfaction scores for treatment in specialist primary care and secondary care settings.Conclusions: Implementation of electronic referral management in primary care, when combined with triage, led to appropriate diversions to specialist primary care. Although cost savings were realised by referral diversion these savings are dependent on the particular tariff allocation (coding) practices of provider hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A pilot NHS dental contract was introduced in Northern Ireland between 2015 and 2016, which involved changing the method for paying general dental practitioners working in the NHS from fee‐for‐service (FFS) to capitation‐based payments, providing an opportunity for a robust evaluation. We investigated the impact of a change in payment methods on clinical activity and the quality of care provided. Design: A difference‐in‐difference (DiD) evaluation was applied to clinical activity data from pilot NHS dental practices in Northern Ireland compared to matched control NHS practices and applied to a questionnaire survey of patient‐rated outcomes of health outcomes and care quality. We estimated the impact on access to care, treatment activity levels, practice finances and patient‐rated outcomes of care of a change from FFS to a capitation‐based system for 1 year, as well as the impact of a reversion back to FFS at the end of the pilot period. Results: The monthly number of registered patients in the pilot practices increased more than the control practices during the capitation period, by 1.5 registrations per 1000 registered patients. The monthly reductions in the volumes of all treatments in the pilot practices during the capitation period were much larger than the control practices, with 175 fewer treatment items. All measures rapidly returned to baseline levels following reversion from capitation back to FFS. NHS income per month increased in pilot practices, by £5920 per month (calculated on FFS item cost basis) more than controls in the capitation period. The analysis of patient questionnaires suggest found that patients notice differences only in waiting times, skill‐mix and number of radiographs, but not on other measures of healthcare process and quality. Conclusion: General dental practitioners working in the NHS respond rapidly and consistently to changes in provider payment methods. A move from FFS to a capitation‐based system had little impact on access to care, but did produce large reductions in clinical activity and patient charge income. Patients noticed little change in the service they received. This shows that changes in remuneration contracts have the potential to meet policy goals, such as meeting the expectations of patients within a predictable cost envelope. However, it is unlikely that all policy goals can be met simply by changing payment methods. Therefore, work is also needed to identify and evaluate interventions that can complement changes in remuneration to achieve desirable outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Role-substitution describes a model of dental care where Dental Care Professionals (DCPs) provide some of the clinical activity previously undertaken by General Dental Practitioners. This has the potential to increase technical efficiency, the capacity to care and reduce costs. Technical efficiency is defined as the production of the maximum amount of output from a given amount of input so that the service operates at the production frontier i.e. optimal level of productivity. Academic research into technical efficiency is becoming increasingly utilised in health care, although no studies have investigated the efficiency of NHS dentistry or role-substitution in high-street dental practices. The aim of this study is to examine the barriers and enablers that exist for role-substitution in general dental practices in the NHS and to determine the most technically efficient model for role-substitution. Methods/design: A screening questionnaire will be sent to DCPs to determine the type and location of role-substitutive models employed in NHS dental practices in the United Kingdom (UK). Semi-structured interviews will then be conducted with practice owners, DCPs and patients at selected sites identified by the questionnaire. Detail will be recorded about the organisational structure of the dental team, the number of NHS hours worked and the clinical activity undertaken. The interviews will continue until saturation and will record the views and attitudes of the members of the dental team. Final numbers of interviews will be determined by saturation. The second work-stream will examine the technical efficiency of the selected practices using Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Modeling. The former is a non-parametric technique and is considered to be a highly flexible approach for applied health applications. The latter is parametric and is based on frontier regression models that estimate a conventional cost function. Discussion: Maximising health for a given level and mix of resources is an ethical imperative for health service planners. This study will determine the technical efficiency of role-substitution and so address one of the key recommendations of the Independent Review of NHS dentistry in England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aims were (i) to propose a framework for costing diagnostic methods in oral health care and (ii) to illustrate the application of the framework to the radiographic examination of maxillary canines with eruption disturbances. Methods The framework for costing, following Drummond et al. (2005), includes three elements: (i) identification of different resources used in producing and delivering the service, (ii) measurement of the amount of each resource required and (iii) valuation of the resources in monetary terms. Four data collection instruments were designed - a protocol for apportioning the cost of capital equipment to each diagnostic procedure, separate forms for recording consumable items, for the time of different health care providers used for a diagnostic examination and a patient survey for calculation of the total cost to the patient associated with the examination. The framework was applied to the radiographic examination of maxillary canines with eruption disturbances comparing two imaging methods: (i) a new method with cone beam computed tomography and panoramic radiography and (ii) a conventional method using intraoral and panoramic radiography. The primary analysis was performed from the perspective of the health care system. A separate analysis included patient costs with health care system costs to provide a societal perspective. Comparison of the two perspectives allows consideration of whether any costs savings to the health care system are generated at the expense of greater costs for patients and their families. Data for the cost-analysis were retrieved from 47 patients (mean age 14 years) referred to a department of radiology for examination of maxillary canines. Results Application of the framework for costing allowed us to compare the resources used to perform examinations of the two methods. The mean total cost per examination for the new method was 128.38€ and 81.80€ for the conventional method, resulting in an incremental cost per examination of the new method of 46.58€. Conclusions The application of the framework demonstrates the feasibility of measuring and comparing the total costs as well as the distribution of total costs between providers and patients for different approaches to this common examination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We describe service patterns and compare changes in program expenditures with the Consumer Price Index over eight years in a dental program with a controlled-fee schedule offered to Canadian First Nations and Inuit people. Methods: We obtained the computerized records of dental services for the period from 1994 to 2001. Each record identified the date and type of service, region and type of provider, age of the client and encrypted identifying information on clients, bands, and providers. We classified the individual services into related types (diagnostic, preventive, etc.). We aggregated the records by client and developed indices for the numbers of clients, mean numbers of services per client, cost per service, and prices. Findings: Over the 8 years, 16.0 million procedures, totaling $811.8 million, were provided to 538,034 different individuals, approximately 76% of the eligible population. Restorative procedures accounted for 36% of alt expenditures followed by diagnostic (12.7%). preventive (12.2%). and orthodontic (8.9%) services. For much of the period, increases in program expenditures were exceeded by increases in the Consumer Price Index. This was consistent with fewer services per client, a less expensive mix of services, and relatively flat prices. However, in 2000 and 2001 higher prices and more clients resulted in increasing expenditures. Conclusions: Program expenditures were influenced by different factors over the study period. In the final two years, increasing expenditures were driven by price increases and increasing numbers of clients, but not by increasing numbers of services per client, nor a ‘richer’ mix of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Birch S, Sohn W, Ismail AI, Lepkowski JM, Belli RF. Willingness to pay for dentin regeneration in a sample of dentate adults. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004; 32: 210–6. © Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004 Objectives: Measurement of individuals’ valuation of dental treatments is important in the evaluation of new technologies. In this paper the value of dentin regeneration, a new treatment for teeth with reversible pulpitis, is measured based on what individuals say they would be willing to pay to receive the treatment. Methods: A total of 611 randomly selected dentate adults answered willingness to pay (WTP) and dental insurance questions. Detailed descriptions of the process and expected outcomes for dentin regeneration were presented to subjects as part of a larger study measuring preferences for different treatments. WTP was determined for two different levels of success for dentin regeneration. Results: At a success rate of 95%, the mean WTP for dentin regeneration was $262.70 (noninsured) and $11.00 per month (insured subjects). For success rate of 75%, the corresponding values were $210.90 and $9.20 per month. Multivariate analyses were used to identify any significant relationships between WTP and a range of variables covering socio-demographic, socio-economic, dental experience and oral health status variables. The findings indicate that individuals’ valuations of treatments involve substantial unexplained variation. About half of the noninsured subjects would pay for dentin regeneration if it cost $200 per tooth. Conclusions: The data on the WTP for dentin regeneration indicate that a substantial percentage of adults will pay for this new technology. This study provides for the first time an estimate of WTP for dentin regeneration among the population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent report by the Department of Health and Society Security (DHSS) has argued that a 10% reduction in the intake to dental schools is needed if an oversupply of dentists over the next forty years is to be avoided. Whilst welcoming this recommendation it is likely that it may not go far enough. In this article we describe the approach used in the DHSS report to estimate the demand for and supply of dental care and examine the relevance and implications of the methods used and assumptions made in that report. It is argued that the use of extrapolations of past trends and the absence of sensitivity analysis in much of the analysis implies that little confidence can be placed in the estimates and that on balance the conclusions of the report are likely to lead to an excess supply of dentists over the next forty years. Recommendations are made for improving the planning of the future supply of dentists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article points out some of the lessons that can be learned by Canadian policy makers on the financial support and delivery of oral health care provided by Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, and the U.S. According to the authors, government expenditures per capita on oral health care in Canada are high compared with the four countries. They add that countries in North America support publicly funded oral health programs for children.