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."

In many developed countries, the primary role of dental therapists is to care for children in school clinics. This article describes Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC)-run, school-based dental programs in Connecticut and explores the theoretical financial impact of substituting dental therapists for dentists in these programs. In schools, dental hygienists screen children and provide preventive services, using portable equipment and temporary space. Children needing dentist services are referred to FQHC clinics or to FQHC-employed dentists who provide care in schools. The primary findings of this study are that school-based programs have considerable potential to reduce access disparities and the estimated reduction in per patient costs approaches 50 percent versus providing care in FQHC dental clinics. In terms of substituting dental therapists for dentists, the estimated additional financial savings was found to be about 5 percent. Nationally, FQHC-operated, school-based dental programs have the potential to increase Medicaid/CHIP utilization from the current 40 percent to 60 percent for a relatively modest increase in total expenditures.

This article estimates the impact of dental therapists treating children on Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) dental clinic finances and productivity. The analysis is based on twelve months of patient visit and financial data from large FQHC dental clinics (multiple delivery sites) in Connecticut and Wisconsin. Assuming dental therapists provide restorative, extraction, and pulpal services and dental hygienists continue to deliver all hygiene services, the maximum reduction in costs is about 6 percent. The limited impact of dental therapists on FQHC dental clinic finances is because 1) dental therapists only account for 17 percent of children services and 2) dentists are responsible for only 25 percent of clinic expenses and cost reductions are related to the difference between dental therapist and dentist wage rates.

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.

In community-based dental education programs, student-provided services can be an important source of community clinic and practice revenues. The University of Michigan School of Dentistry has developed a revenue-sharing arrangement with multiple community clinics and practices. During their ten-week externship, senior students produce at least $800 a day in patient care revenues, and the school receives an average of $165 per student per day from community sites. These funds are used to cover program costs and enrich the curriculum. Revenue-sharing with community clinics and practices helps to ensure program longevity and is an increasingly significant source of school revenues.

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.

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.

California is home to one-third of the U.S. population with limited English proficiency (LEP). Studies indicate that treating LEP patients without professional interpreters can result in miscommunication, decreased patient satisfaction, and serious medical errors. To address this problem, federal laws require all health care institutions receiving federal monies to provide interpretation services to their LEP patients at no cost to the patient. In this study we surveyed 122 students and fifty-six faculty members from the five California dental schools with respect to number, communication strategies, impact on education and clinic finances, and student and faculty perceptions regarding serving LEP patients in their clinics. Over 50 percent of students surveyed spoke a foreign language either fluently or moderately fluently. Students reported that about 10 percent of their patients required interpreters, that untrained interpreters (e.g., family, friends, bilingual students) worked adequately, but that LEP patients were more difficult to treat. To comply with federal laws, dental schools are confronted with the challenge of covering the cost of providing language services to LEP patients.

Dental school clinics, originally envisioned as closely similar to private practice, evolved instead as teaching clinics. In the former, graduate and licensed dentists perform the treatment while undergraduate dental students are assigned treatment within their capabilities. In the latter, dental students provide the treatment under faculty supervision. It is generally recognized that the care provided by the teaching clinics is inefficient. However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, dental school clinics began to pay much more attention to how treatment is rendered. The comprehensive care movement and quality assurance systems are leading towards more efficient patient-centered care. Case studies at the University of Maryland, Columbia University, and University of Louisville describe activities to make their clinic programs more efficient and patient-friendly. This article explores whether the potential exists for faculty to take a direct patient care delivery role in dental clinics in order for those clinics to become efficient patient care delivery systems as originally envisioned in the early part of the twentieth century.

Many reports have documented the growing financial challenges faced by dental schools. This article examines the financial implications of two new models of dental education: 1) seniors spend 70 percent of their time in community clinics and practices, providing general dental care to underserved patients, and 2) schools develop patient-centered clinics where teams of faculty, residents, and senior students provide care to patients. We estimate that the average dental school will generate new net revenues of about $2.7 million per year from the community-based educational programs for senior students and about $14 million per year from patient-centered care clinics. These are upper boundary estimates and vary greatly by school. The organizational and financial challenges of moving to these new educational models are discussed.

Dental school clinics, originally envisioned as closely similar to private practice, evolved instead as teaching clinics. In the former, graduate and licensed dentists perform the treatment while undergraduate dental students are assigned treatment within their capabilities. In the latter, dental students provide the treatment under faculty supervision. It is generally recognized that the care provided by the teaching clinics is inefficient. However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, dental school clinics began to pay much more attention to how treatment is rendered. The comprehensive care movement and quality assurance systems are leading towards more efficient patient-centered care. Case studies at the University of Maryland, Columbia University, and University of Louisville describe activities to make their clinic programs more efficient and patient-friendly. This article explores whether the potential exists for faculty to take a direct patient care delivery role in dental clinics in order for those clinics to become efficient patient care delivery systems as originally envisioned in the early part of the twentieth century.