Search

Background: This article examines the impact of different dental plan types, dental markets, premiums, out-of-pocket costs and enrollee demographics on the enrollees' perceived oral health status., Methods: The authors randomly sampled enrollees in dental benefit plans offered by eight Fortune 500 companies and interviewed them regarding their experiences with their plans, including perceived oral health status. The sample consisted of 2,340 respondents, of whom 42.3 percent were enrolled in capitation, or CAP, plans, and 57.7 percent were enrolled in fee-for-service, or FFS, plans., Results: The authors used chi2 tests, analysis of variance and multinomial logistic regression. They set significance at P < .05. Results indicate that nonwhites, CAP-plan enrollees and those with higher out-of-pocket cost were less likely to rate their oral health "good," "very good" or "excellent" compared with whites, FFS-plan enrollees and those with lower out-of-pocket costs, respectively., Conclusions: CAP-plan enrollees rated their oral health more poorly than did FFS-plan enrollees. Further studies are necessary to determine if adverse selection occurs and if CAP plans provide inferior quality of care., Practice Implications: Practitioners' awareness of and willingness to address the variety of factors that influence perceived oral health status may improve their patients' perceived oral health status and satisfaction with care.

Background: This article examines the impact of capitated, or CAP, and fee-for-service, or FFS, dental benefit plans on the enrollees' satisfaction with their plans and their satisfaction with their dentists., Methods: The authors selected four dental markets: California, New Jersey, Michigan and North Carolina. Eight Fortune 500 companies participated. Enrollees were selected randomly and interviewed about their experiences with their dental plans. The sample consisted of 2,340 respondents, of whom 42.3 percent were enrolled in CAP plans and 57.7 percent in FFS plans., Results: The major findings were that those enrolled in FFS plans were four times more likely to be very satisfied than dissatisfied with their dental plans than were those in CAP plans. The FFS plan enrollees were 16 times more likely to be very satisfied than dissatisfied with their dentists than were those in CAP plans., Conclusion: Enrollees generally were satisfied with their plans and their dentists but those in FFS plans were the most satisfied. The higher the premium paid, the higher the level of satisfaction., Practice Implications: Enrollees with perceived unmet needs were less satisfied with their dental benefit plans and dentists. Taking care of needs is the most significant thing dentists can do to affect patients' satisfaction.