Right now in Massachusetts, the Mass Dental Society is spending large amount of money to prevent citizens from receiving local, affordable dental care. Specifically, the Dental Society is lobbying the Massachusetts Legislature not to allow mid-level professionals called Dental Hygiene Practitioners DHP) to perform needed dental services. These DHP would be a strong answer to help prevent the two million visits to emergency rooms for dental problems as well as the sharp increase in personal bankruptcies due to mounting dental bills.
The basic issue of allowing mid-level practitioners to perform in the medical field was decided long ago when Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants proved their value in treating the 75% of patients who do not need to see a doctor and have their health problems resolved by these mid-levels. The value of these mid-level medical professionals is established beyond question by both physicians and the public.
But even with that experience in the health field, dental societies refuse to allow mid-level dental practitioners to perform comparable services. The reason given by the Massachusetts Dental Society in a recent Boston Globe full-page ad is lack of “minimal training”. This flies in the face of facts. The training required for a DHP is a two-year program comparable to a Master’s degree and up to 2000 hours of hands-on training supervised by a dentist. The dental services provided by a DHP are limited to the precise training they received and are performed under a dentist’s supervision. As further proof of their value, programs similar to the DHP program have been in place in over 50 countries with outstanding acceptance and effectiveness. Why the resistance to a program that would provide affordable dental services in rural areas of this country without enough or even some dentists to serve the population?
The answer is how the power of a few can override the need of the many. At issue here is the moneyed interests of a special interest group, the Mass Dental Society, pitted against the dental health needs of thousands of children and elderly Americans. What is unusual here is how clear-cut the issue is – who will be served, the public in need of dental services or dentists protecting their wallets? We wait for the Massachusetts Legislature to decide.
The Boston Globe just posted an editorial, Give low-income residents access to dental care.
The editorial makes the important point that good oral health is critical for overall health. Allowing “dental hygiene practitioners” to provide basic dental care will reduce costs from heart disease, diabetes complications, stroke and other issues that can be prevented by access to oral health. Too many people have trouble getting the care they need, and DHPs have worked successfully in other states to fill the gap.
It’s good to see the Globe willing to go against an interest that took out a full page A-3 color ad on Sunday, and a quarter-page ad opposite the editorial page.
I’m an educated guy, pretty worldly, but I have no idea how to determine if this proposal is a good one or not. Nor do I have the time or interest, frankly.
The Globe shouldn’t really have a horse in this race either, so by coming out in favor of the proposal to allow non-D.D.S. (in this case, DHPs) to perform more procedures, my opinion moves from “no opinion” to “lean in favor of DHPs”.
why dental care is set apart from other medical care, and why the USA is the only nation in the developed world without heath care as a right….and why we are now supporting a Democrat who, for now, does not want health care to be a right when doing so saves so many from misery and saves so much money……..but just like the Mass Dental Society, it’s all about more money for the .1%. I aim to change that.