| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Association Report |
Key words: midlevel dental health professionals, dental public health, dental workforce, oral health care for the underserved
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Dental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
The health of low-income, underserved populations including millions of low-income children is at stake because of the extensive disparities in their oral and medical health care. This tragedy was demonstrated recently in a story that first appeared nationally in the Washington Post describing the death of twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver of Maryland.3 Driver died of complications from an acute dental infection that spread to his brain. His hospitalization was estimated to cost $250,000. Earlier dental treatment of his condition would have cost approximately $80. Driver’s case has brought national attention to a basic need in the U.S. health care system to identify individuals with acute dental needs and ensure that they obtain timely and necessary treatment.
An aging population, large numbers of transient, non-English-speaking populations, geographic isolation of populations in rural areas, and the difficulties facing children with disabilities in accessing oral health care are placing further pressures and demands upon our nation’s oral health care system. Advocates for underserved groups are raising the demand for oral health care that goes beyond the traditional model of care.
Economic factors also impact access to care. States often have difficulty enrolling participating dentists in Medicaid—the only public program that provides a dental benefit guarantee—due to reimbursement rates that are one-half to one-third of fees in private dental practice.4 The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), enacted in 1997, has expanded oral health care to millions of low-income children who do not qualify for Medicaid, but the benefit is not defined and dental coverage remains optional under the program. Medicaid’s Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Program (EPSDT) includes comprehensive dental coverage for low-income children; however, dental coverage for adults is optional, and few states provide services beyond emergency dental coverage for adults. Dentists are also reported to be resistant to the burdensome administration of the public system, which often varies greatly from private dental insurance.5 Consequently, millions of Americans enrolled in publicly insured programs, although entitled to dental services, experience difficulties in receiving care.
Finally, large numbers of aging dentists are projected to retire from practice during the next ten to fifteen years. Over the next decade, two dentists will retire for every new one who graduates.6 The swell of dentists retiring is occurring simultaneously with other demographic changes that are increasing the demand for oral health services and may portend a potential shortage in the dental health workforce.2 At the same time, significant disparities exist within the dental and allied dental workforce: minorities are disproportionately underrepresented compared to their numbers in the general population.1
All these factors have a combined impact on meeting the oral health needs of specific population groups. The severity of the oral health access problem has intensified the call for policymakers to address workforce capacity and identify new solutions that meet the needs of all sectors of the U.S. population.4 Given the cultural diversity of our citizenry and the circumstances that impact oral health, no one solution is likely to address the myriad of oral health needs facing our nation.
Contemporary responses from policymakers to address access and workforce issues are occurring mostly at the state level. States typically aim to improve access to care for underserved populations in geographically isolated areas and to reduce health care disparities. States with burgeoning minority populations are increasingly concerned about diversifying their health workforce to reflect the makeup of their population.4 State solutions have included incentives that encourage dental graduates to work in-state after they graduate and to practice in underserved communities.
Workforce contingent financial aid (WCFA) programs have become an increasingly popular means utilized by states to address workforce shortages. WCFA programs help individuals with their education expenses in exchange for a commitment to work in an occupation or area that is experiencing a workforce shortage. There are 161 different WCFA programs in forty-three states.7 Despite the number of WCFA programs, the number of students enrolled is small compared to other financial aid programs. While teachers, nurses, and medical students are the most frequent beneficiaries of WCFA programs, some states offer WCFA programs to dental students. One program recently enacted in Wyoming will support as many as ten dental students annually over four years who agree to practice in the state after their graduation from dental school in Nebraska.8 While WCFA programs hold promise, little is known about their effectiveness in contributing to the growth of the workforce. Moreover, many state loan and scholarship programs still struggle to retain health care providers once they have completed their service obligation.2
State responses have also taken the form of regulatory changes in licensure for dental and allied dental professionals. These include loosening licensing and continuing education requirements for retired volunteer dentists and expanding the scope of practice of allied dental professionals who provide care in underserved communities. In 2006, state legislatures in thirty-one states faced proposed expansions to the scope of practice of a variety of allied health professions.4 One of the most common scope-of-practice expansions that states considered was permitting a registered dental hygienist to work independently of a dentist’s supervision in public health settings. In the past five years, nine states (Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) have revised the scope of dental practice to allow a dental hygienist to initiate treatment based on his or her assessment of a patient’s needs without the specific authorization of a dentist, treat the patient without the presence of a dentist, and maintain a provider-patient relationship.9 Finally, a smaller number of states have succeeded in gaining legislators’ support for payment reforms for dental care provided in public programs, such as Medicaid.10
To address oral health care workforce concerns, several efforts are under way that would expand the workforce by incorporating new models of care. Access to oral health care is the most critical issue driving these new workforce models. The three predominant models are 1) the advanced dental hygiene practitioner (ADHP); 2) the community dental health coordinator (CDHC); and 3) the dental health aide therapist (DHAT). Following is a description of the three models (Table 1
) and an update on their status.
|
|
Dental Hygiene’s Response: Advanced Dental Hygiene Practitioner |
|---|
|
TopAbstractDental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
Dental hygienists are educated in more than 289 accredited programs in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. These programs graduate about 5,000 new hygienists each year. Approximately 49 percent of hygienists have a baccalaureate degree, 44 percent have an associate degree, and 7 percent have completed a certificate program.2 Dental hygienists held 158,000 jobs in 2004. Currently, the number of dental hygiene jobs exceeds the number of dental hygienists. For this reason, it is not unusual for a hygienist to hold more than one job. Half of all dental hygienists work part-time (less than thirty-five hours per week).11 Until relatively recently, dental hygienists were employed exclusively in the offices of dentists.
Dental hygiene practice is determined by state law and regulation. While most dental hygienists graduate from a program accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), this is not a requirement in every state. Dental hygienists in all states provide preventive oral health services, including oral prophylaxis and dental hygiene education services. In many states, they are also allowed to perform radiographic examinations, administer fluoride treatments, and apply sealants.2 In recent years, state dental practice acts have further loosened restrictions on the practice of dental hygiene. Prior to these changes, dental hygienists practiced exclusively under the direct supervision of a dentist. The expansion of dental hygienists’ scope of practice has occurred incrementally and is inconsistent across states.2 Consequently, practice varies significantly from state to state (see Table 2).
|
and 3). In twenty states, hygienists can treat certain patients in public health settings without initial consultation by a dentist.12 Today, twenty-six states include more than one dental hygienist on their state dental board, and fifteen states have established dental hygiene committees that have varying degrees of influence with the dental boards in their states.9 However, acceptance of the dental hygiene committee recommendations by state dental boards often is not mandatory.4 Finally, twelve states allow for direct reimbursement of dental hygienists through Medicaid9 although the laws do not always ensure funding is available for this purpose. Reports regarding the quality of dental hygiene practice in supervised and unsupervised practice settings show preliminary evidence that independent dental hygiene practice does not increase risk to the health and safety of the public; these practices consistently attract new patients; and these practices increase access to care, contain costs, and increase visits to the dentist.13–15
|
According to the ADHA, the ADHP is intended to provide primary oral health care services (preventive, therapeutic, and restorative) as a mid-level provider much like a nurse practitioner does today within the medical care model. ADHPs are expected to provide oral health care services to patients who are medically compromised, children, adolescents, and geriatric populations. The ADHPs would practice in a variety of settings such as rural clinics and other institutions where they will provide basic oral health care to underserved and unserved populations. It is intended that the ADHP will be one of the comprehensive health care team members who will identify and make appropriate referrals for those in need of more comprehensive dental services.
Scope of Practice
The responsibilities of this new practitioner will be to provide primary oral health care that includes advanced preventive therapies, diagnosis, and treatment such as restorative procedures to populations with limited access to oral health care.17 The ADHP will evaluate oral health needs and develop, implement, and monitor dental hygiene care plans for these populations. The scope of practice includes but is not limited to the following:
Education and Training
Since there are already certificate, associate, and baccalaureate degree dental hygiene practitioners, the ADHP will be created as a master’s degree level program. The ADHA indicates that it purposely chose competencies to match its vision of the role of an expanded practice professional in the treatment of dental disease rather than as a "trained technician." The competency framework (Table 4) assumes delivery within a university setting but can be taught in other settings as well. The master’s degree level program does not duplicate entry level courses required for a registered dental hygienist (R.D.H.) credential.
|
In December 2005, the ADHA succeeded in securing report language in Congress that encourages the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to explore the development of the ADHP. The language reads:
The Committee is aware that dental disease disproportionately affects our Nation’s most vulnerable populations, including many in rural America. New ways of bringing oral health care to rural and underserved populations are needed. The Committee encourages HRSA to explore alternative methods of delivering preventive and restorative oral health services in rural America. Specifically, the Committee encourages HRSA to explore development of an advanced dental hygiene practitioner who would be a graduate of an accredited dental hygiene program and complete an advanced education curriculum, which prepares the dental hygienist to provide diagnostic, preventive, restorative, and therapeutic services directly to the public in rural and underserved areas.18
HRSA has not yet acted on the language, and Congress did not appropriate funding for this purpose. The ADHA has enlisted its members to contact legislators to urge HRSA forward, and efforts for gaining federal support for the ADHP concept by ADHA members are ongoing. The following groups have written to HRSA "urging exploration" of the ADHP: American Public Health Association, Special Care Dentistry Association, National Rural Education Association, and National Rural Health Association.
The ADHA is conducting a credentialing feasibility study to assess the level of interest of various stakeholders for advanced credentials in dental hygiene. While the ADHA supports formal education and voluntary accreditation, specific steps have not yet been initiated with the Commission on Dental Accreditation (or any other specialized accrediting agency); however, the ADHA expects that ADHP programs will become accredited.
|
Dentists Propose New Community Dental Health Coordinator to Address Barriers to Access |
|---|
|
TopAbstractDental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
By 2020, the ratio of active dentists per 100,000 population is projected to fall to levels of the 1950s.21 A large majority of dentists (92 percent in 2004) are in private practice.22 The average net income for a general dentist in 2004 was $185,940 and for a dental specialist $315,160.22 As with other health professions, dental licensing is under the jurisdiction of states. State legislation sets the parameters for dental practice that are implemented by state dental boards. State boards are affiliated with the American Association of Dental Examiners.
In 2004, the American Dental Association (ADA) House of Delegates directed three work groups to study dental workforce issues in an effort to improve access to oral health and to address gaps in the oral health care workforce. Resolution 85H-2005 created a nineteen-member workforce task force with membership from each trustee district, two trustees, and representatives of the ADA Councils on Dental Practice and Access, Prevention, and Interprofessional Relations. The task force’s charge was to analyze data regarding the adequacy of the current workforce to meet the needs of the underserved and make recommendations.
In 2006, the ADA House of Delegates approved the report of the workforce task force and enacted Resolutions 3H-2006 and 25H-2006, which created two new dental team members (Figure 1) and offered a guide that states can use to expand duties for allied dental professionals.23,24 The ADA workforce model is meant to provide states with maximum flexibility to meet their own needs. The two new members of the dental workforce that the ADA is proposing are outlined in Table 5.
|
|
The community dental health coordinator (CDHC) is a new dental team model that, like the OPA, in nearly all cases (from a scope of practice perspective) outlines many duties that can be done today by dental assistants and dental hygienists. The ADA plan calls for the CDHC to be trained under an entirely new academic program to help organize community programs, function in remote locations, and provide service to patient groups and areas that are underserved. He or she would be employed by federally qualified community health centers (FQCHC), the Indian Health Service (IHS), state or county public health clinics, or private practitioners serving dentally underserved areas. The CDHC would be supervised by a dentist. Working in facilities without the continuous presence of a dentist, the CDHC could perform palliative temporization of conditions (limited to hand instrumentation only) for later diagnosis and treatment by a dentist.
Status
The ADA’s Workforce Models National Coordinating and Development Committee’s (NCDC) Curriculum Subcommittee is leading the development of an eighteen-month model academic program for the CDHC. The program will include a comprehensive curriculum with objectives, outlines, teaching aids, resources, learning activities, and evaluation mechanisms. The NCDC hopes to have the curriculum finalized by the end of 2007. Standards for the academic programs that will lead to certification of the CDHC will be developed by CODA.
In April 2007, the ADA issued a call for letters of interest to identify institutions to pilot the CDHC academic model being developed by the NCDC.25 Eight letters of interest were received from schools, institutions, and organizations interested in piloting the program. The NCDC is reviewing the submissions and plans to make visits to six sites that are potential pilots for the model. The ADA plan is to pilot the program in at least three sites; however, the number of pilot sites may change depending upon the level of private, federal, state, and/or local funding available for the program.
The goal is to test and evaluate the CDHC model in urban, rural, and American Indian community settings. Groups that could pilot the project include colleges, universities, dental schools, vocational-technical schools, technical institutes, federal service training centers, hospitals, community health centers, and federally qualified community health centers. A representative from each institution serving as a pilot site will sit on the NCDC Curriculum Subcommittee.
Each pilot site must train at least eighteen CDHCs over a three-year period and coordinate their activities with a state coordinating committee that includes representatives from the state board(s) of dentistry, dental associations, academic dental institutions, and the NCDC. A two-year evaluation will be conducted to determine the overall success of the pilot programs. The evaluation will determine how effective the programs are in educating individuals as CDHCs, the extent to which they improve access to dental care, and whether they reduce disparities of care in their communities.26 After the evaluation is completed, the NCDC may consider refinements that would enhance the success of the CDHCs.
In 2006, the ADA Foundation granted $334,000 for development of the CDHC curriculum as the first phase of the project. The ADA is currently seeking additional funding in order to pilot the program. The cost is expected to be around $300,000 annually per site for three years, or $5.4 million for the duration of the project if all six sites are approved to pilot the model. Legislation pending in Congress, if enacted, could provide funds needed to test, evaluate, and implement the curriculum at the local sites. According to the ADA, local sites will contribute to funding by leveraging their relationships with state agencies, foundations, state dental associations, and others in their communities to bring additional resources to the program.
Legislation Sought to Implement the CDHC
The American Dental Association won introduction of the CDHC model in the U.S. House of Representatives. Representatives Albert Wynn (D-4-MD), Mike Simpson (R-2-ID), and Carolyn Kilpat-rick (D-13-MI) introduced H.R. 2472, the "Essential Oral Health Care Act of 2007." The bill would amend Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 14 et. seq.), adding language for demonstration grants to develop and implement a model community health coordinator education program. H.R. 2472 provides such funds as necessary for six sites to test the CDHC model over a four-year period (2008 through 2012). Each of the six sites must recruit and train at least twelve CDHCs over a three-year period, establish a "state-specific coordinating committee," and work with the NCDC.
The CDHC is referred to in the legislation as "a new midlevel allied dental professional who will work in underserved communities where residents have no or limited access to oral health care." H.R. 2472 requires that CDHCs be employed by a federally qualified health center, Indian Health Service facility, state or county public health clinic, private practitioner serving dentally underserved populations, or other similar entity. All CDHCs would work under the supervision of a licensed dentist to "provide community-focused oral health promotion and coordination of dental care" in collaboration with health organizations, community organizations, schools, and similar organizations.
The secretary of health and human services (HHS) is responsible for an evaluation of the program over a two-year period that would be conducted by a national evaluation team and coordinated by the American Dental Association’s Workforce Models National Coordinating and Development Committee.
|
A Federal Response to an Oral Disease Epidemic in Alaska: The Dental Health Aide Therapist |
|---|
|
TopAbstractDental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
1616l. Today, the program is the backbone of the health care delivery system for rural Alaska Natives, providing more than 350,000 patient visits each year. The program always included dental services; however, in 2002, additional categories of dental health aide therapists (DHATs) were added to address the oral health, geographic, and cultural needs of Alaska Natives. Despite efforts by the Indian health system to improve health care in Alaska Native communities, providing oral health care remains a huge challenge. Significant geographic barriers combine with severe and unpredictable weather patterns that adversely impact access to health care. As a result, approximately 85,000 native Alaskans live in 200 remote villages without road access and with no access to dental care. To travel to these remote villages, one must go by plane or snow machine or by boat in summer. The villages cannot support a full-time dentist, and getting dental services to villages is expensive. Most patients are seen annually, if at all, when a dentist is flown in to conduct a dental clinic.
The dental health of Alaska Natives is the worst of any group in the United States. Alaska Natives experience oral disease at rates that are 250 percent above the national rate.27 One-third of Alaska Native children miss school due to dental pain. Two-thirds of Alaska Native adults present signs of periodontal disease.28 Alaskan Tribal Health Programs experience a 25 percent vacancy rate among dentists and a 30 percent average annual turnover among dentists. According to the native Alaskan community, a dental workforce study showed that even if the Indian Health Service and tribal health system doubled the number of dentists in the state, it would take ten years to eliminate the epidemic of dental disease among Alaska Natives.
To that end, Congress set out seven specific dental objectives to be met by the DHAT program: 1) reducing dental caries in children, 2) reducing untreated dental caries in children and adolescents, 3) reducing the proportion of adults sixty-five years old and over who have lost all of their natural teeth, 4) increasing the proportion of adults who have never lost a permanent tooth due to caries or periodontal disease, 5) reducing periodontal disease in adults, 6) increasing the use of protective sealants on permanent teeth in children, and 7) reducing the prevalence of gingivitis in adults.29
Scope of Practice
The DHAT concept is an accepted primary care model in more than fifty countries, including Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand. The DHAT program focuses on prevention, pain and infection relief, and basic restorative services. Each DHAT is assigned to a dentist who is responsible for writing standing orders, providing general supervision, and being the point of contact for the therapist. Supervising dentists are located in hub hospitals serving the villages. Dentists are connected to the DHAT through a telehealth network. This network, the largest of its type in the world, provides dental health aides in remote locations with the ability to relay real-time digital images to dentists in clinics, hospitals, and other hub locations, thus enabling the dentists to view the same images and radiographs being examined by the DHAT.
There are four basic dental health aide categories, two of which function at two levels. Each category accompanied by its scope of practice appears in Table 6.
|
.
|
In June 2007, the Rasmuson Foundation approved $170,000 for further investments in oral health care that will include support of the Alaska DHAT program. Since 2002, the foundation has made four grants to the ANTHC for oral health care services to support the DHAT program. This initiative will 1) inform policymakers, organized dentistry, and other stakeholder groups regarding rural oral health care and the DHAT program; 2) develop a comprehensive oral health delivery plan for the Bristol Bay region; and 3) create an internship program for out-of-state fourth-year dental students in rural Alaska.30
The following groups have endorsed the DHAT program: Alaska Native Health Board, Nation Indian Health Board, Indian Health Service, American Public Health Association, American Association of Community Dental Programs, National Rural Health Association, Alaska Rural Health Association, Alaska Primary Care Association, Hispanic Dental Association, American Dental Hygienists’ Association, and American Association of Public Health Dentists. In addition, Oral Health America has issued a special commendation to the DHAT project in Alaska.
Certification/Accreditation
Currently, the community health aide (CHA) program and its dental component do not fall within the parameters of the Alaska State Medical or Dental Practice Acts. As part of the CHA program, each DHAT meets qualifications established by the Federal Community Health Aide Program Standards and Procedures.31 This requires certification by a twelve-member federal board that includes one dentist. The board is authorized by Congress and appointed by the Indian Health Service under standards adopted by the Alaska area director of the Indian Health Service. The board has the ability to prohibit someone from practicing if necessary.
The DHATs undergo a competency-based credentialing process that evaluates services they provide in day-to-day practice. Each DHAT’s scope of practice is directly related to his or her individual competencies. This credentialing process includes domains of patient access, chart review, and patient satisfaction surveys. The process for credentialing DHATs requires 400 hours in preceptorship under the direct supervision of a dentist. DHATs must demonstrate their ability to perform each procedure for their scope of practice before they may practice under a consultation/referral status with a dentist—usually the dentist who supervised them during the preceptorship. This same dentist is responsible for writing the standing orders for the DHAT and for the oversight and recertification of the DHAT. DHATs must be recertified on a biennial basis. The continuing education requirements for DHATs are identical to those of dentists in the state of Alaska.
Philanthropic support for this program has come from the Rasmuson Foundation, Paul G. Allen Charitable Trust, Ford Foundation, Alaska Mental Health Trust, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Kellogg Foundation.
Status
Although federal legislators failed to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in the 109th Congress, legislation introduced in 200732,33 includes compromise language that has been accepted by both chambers regarding the DHAT program. The language, which preserves the ability of dental therapists to continue serving rural Alaskans, limits the scope of practice of DHATs. Specifically, if enacted, the legislation will ensure that pulpal therapy (not including pulpotomies on deciduous teeth) or extraction of adult teeth can be performed by a dental health aide therapist only after consultation with a licensed dentist who determines that the procedure is a medical emergency that cannot be resolved with palliative treatment, and further that dental health aide therapists are strictly prohibited from performing all other oral or jaw surgeries, provided that uncomplicated extractions shall not be considered oral surgery under this section.
The language further prevents the DHAT program from being nationalized in any of the lower forty-eight states as part of the national Community Health Aide Program and directs the Indian Health Service to conduct an evaluation of the DHAT program and report to Congress.32 The evaluation must specifically consider 1) the ability of DHAT services to address the dental health needs of Alaska Natives; 2) the quality of care provided through those services; and 3) whether there are safer and less costly alternatives to the DHAT program.
Two assessments in the United States have reviewed the quality of care provided by the DHATs to Alaska Natives.34,35 The most recent was a chart review of the DHATs currently practicing in rural Alaskan communities with the purpose of determining whether the DHATs are delivering care within their scope of practice; determining whether there were any recorded adverse outcomes or complications resulting from treatment; and comparing the entries from patient charts of DHATs with patient charts of those treated by dentists during the same time period. This study reviewed charts at three of the health corporations that employ DHATs, two regional hub clinics, and three remote village clinics in Alaska. Only procedures considered "irreversible" were counted for the analysis. Three categories were reviewed: 1) DHAT under direct supervision, 2) DHAT under general supervision, and 3) dentists as a control group. While there were limitations in the study due to its small sample size and the short history of DHAT practice, the conclusion was that no significant differences in treatment were rendered by the DHATs compared with the dentists and there were no significant differences in the incidence of complications from treatment between the two groups.35
The ANTHC, the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), and the University of Alaska-Anchorage (UAA) are collaborating on a broader evaluation of various aspects of the DHAT program. The project will evaluate the program’s impact on access to quality dental care for rural Alaska Natives and determine whether care is culturally acceptable and integrated into the overall health delivery system. The project is collecting baseline data on oral health status from thirty-seven villages. It will include control villages with and without dental health aides and will use the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD) model to follow the effects of the DHATs’ activities. A Dental Health Aide Evaluation Advisory Committee is being assembled by several philanthropic organizations that will seek input on evaluation design from professional dental associations such as the ADA and AAPHD and other interested organizations.
Although not altogether opposed to the use of DHATs for certain procedures, the ADA and the Alaska Dental Society (ADS) had advocated for the removal of the dental health aide therapist’s ability to perform "irreversible surgical procedures." The ADA claimed that DHATs did not have sufficient education to extract teeth, prepare cavities, and perform pulpotomies. Therefore, the ADA argued that DHATs exposed patients to "a lower standard of care." (Licensed dentists typically complete eight years of higher education to graduate from dental school.) To that end, the ADA and the ADS filed a lawsuit in January 2006 against the ANTHC (the entity that administers the dental therapists program), the State of Alaska, and eight dental health aide therapists on the grounds that the DHATs were illegally performing "unlicensed" dental procedures.36
On June 27, 2007, the Alaska Superior Court upheld the decision of the Alaska attorney general, who had previously ruled in favor of the continuation of the DHAT program.37,38 The court’s decision was based upon the Federal Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It ruled that the federal act preempted Alaska state law with regard to the provision of oral health care to Alaska Natives. After the court decision, ADA President Kathleen Roth, D.D.S., and Executive Director James B. Bramson, D.D.S., announced a "full and final settlement" with the ANTHC and the state of Alaska. The ADA said that a settlement was "imperative" to maintain the ability to work cooperatively with the ANTHC to improve the oral health of Alaska Natives.
Under the settlement, the ANTHC has agreed to 1) ask the Indian Health Service to add a licensed dentist nominated by the ADA to the Community Health Aide Program Certification Board’s Dental Academic Review Committee; 2) support a pilot program for the ADA’s community dental health coordinator model; 3) support a longitudinal review of the use of dental health aides, dental health aide therapists, public health dentists, private sector dentists, community dental health coordinators, and any other model that provides direct care to patients; and 4) work with the ADA to preserve the language in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act that limits the scope of DHAT practice and confines it to the state of Alaska.
In return, the ADA has agreed to 1) work with dental schools to build residency partnerships and support residencies and rotating internships in Alaska; 2) work to develop a pipeline program offering tuition incentives to dental school graduates to work for at least two years in remote areas of Alaska; and 3) contribute $537,500 to the ANTHC Foundation and $75,000 to the state of Alaska to promote preventive oral health in remote Alaska. According to the ADA, this contribution relieves the ADA of paying the significant attorney’s fees to which the ANTHC is entitled under Alaska law. Drs. Roth and Bramson emphasized that the contribution will not fund the DHAT education program.39
|
Dental Education: A Major Force in Sustaining the Oral Health Workforce |
|---|
|
TopAbstractDental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
Although it is not ADEA’s role to develop new practice workforce models, ADEA policy supports extended employment of allied dental professionals as one way to improve oral health care delivery and availability.41 While academic dental institutions can not make changes in laws and regulations, they can inform and influence legislative leaders about ways that allied dental professionals can complement, supplement, or, in some cases, substitute for dentists to alleviate severe access to care problems in their communities and states.
As states expand scopes of work and as levels of supervision are modified, education and credentialing requirements must keep pace with practice requirements. To ensure the competence of allied dental professionals, the academic dental community must continue to support accredited programs, national certification of dental assistants and laboratory technicians, and licensure of dental hygienists. The academic dental community also needs to anticipate and prepare for curriculum changes that these new workforce models will demand. These new workforce pressures place an additional burden on academic dental institutions, many of which are also facing the need to modernize aging infrastructures, adapt to rapid changes in technologies, and address the challenges of faculty shortages. Enhanced financial support for dental education from state and federal governments is needed to allow these institutions to expand their educational capacity and respond to the needs of an evolving oral health care workforce. Funds are also needed to support institutional efforts to build a pipeline of diverse professionals who enter careers in oral health through accredited academic programs. While many dental education institutions receive financial support from states and dental school residents receive support from the dental graduate medical education (D-GME) program, these funds have diminished in recent years.
The United States spends more money per capita on health care than any other country in the world.42 Yet there are still many underserved groups that do not have any access to oral health care. In a handful of states, the need for oral health care is so great that other medical professions are being utilized to provide services traditionally provided by oral health care professionals.2 To address the complex circumstances facing our dental workforce, solutions will almost certainly involve a broad spectrum of interests that include oral health and public health care professionals, representatives from minority interests, insurers and other payers such as businesses, consumers, and, most importantly, federal and state legislatures. Dental educators, including those in dental schools, allied dental programs, and advanced education programs, must work together to strengthen and build partnerships within these communities to ensure their seat at the table as broader discussions about our nation’s health care workforce ensue. It is only by working together with one voice that dental education will have the means to meet the challenging diversity of oral health needs facing our nation and to maintain a viable and strong academic dental education system.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopAbstractDental hygiene's response:...Dentists propose new community...A federal response to...Dental education: a major...References |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. S. Wilder, A. M. Iacopino, C. A. Feldman, J. Guthmiller, J. Linfante, S. Lavigne, and D. Paquette Periodontal-Systemic Disease Education in U.S. and Canadian Dental Schools J Dent Educ., January 1, 2009; 73(1): 38 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Wilder, J. A. O'Donnell, J. M. Barry, D. M. Galli, F. F. Hakim, L. J. Holyfield, and M. R. Robbins Is Dentistry at Risk? A Case for Interprofessional Education J Dent Educ., November 1, 2008; 72(11): 1231 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Wilder, K. M. Thomas, and H. Jared Periodontal-Systemic Disease Education in United States Dental Hygiene Programs J Dent Educ., June 1, 2008; 72(6): 669 - 679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O.T. Wendel and M. Glick Lessons Learned: Implications for Workforce Change J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2008; 139(3): 232 - 234. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
