(1/5) The effects of denturism on denture prices.

In 1978, the country's first denturism initiative was passed in Oregon, legalizing the independent construction of dentures by non-dentists. The major campaign issue was the effect denturism would have on the cost of dentures. A review of Oregon dental insurance data shows that the costs of dentures, which had been rising at the same rate as other dental services, had a much lower rate of increase after passage of the denturism initiative.  (+info)

(2/5) The denturism initiative.

Denturism, an organized movement by dental laboratory technicians to increase their control over the provision of denture services to the public, has generated a great deal of controversy among members of organized dentistry, the National Denturist Association, the Federal Trade Commission, consumer groups, and prepaid dental plans.Denturism is currently legal in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon. In the first three States, the denturist must practice under the supervision of a dentist, but in Oregon the denturist is able to enter independent practice.The American Dental Association has held that a denturist is educationally unqualified to provide denture services directly to the consumer, Representatives of organized dentistry have characterized denturists as untrained and unskilled persons who would endanger the public's health and return one phase of dentistry to the apprentice system. They see denturism as constituting a major step backward in health care delivery and having an adverse effect on preventive dental care.The National Denturist Association, however, defines a denturist as a highly skilled person who specializes in the making of full and partial dentures. Denturists maintain that the dentist is an unnecessary middleman in the provision of denture services and is the primary cause of the high cost of dental prostheses. They contend that State dental laws providing that only dentists may render denture services have led to the high cost of these services without contributing significantly to the health and safety of the public.Organized dentistry in the United States has been fighting denturism in a number of ways. One that has met with considerable success has been the establishment of programs to provide people access to dental care, especially denture services, at lower costs. A second alternative under consideration is to license denturists but require them to practice under the supervision of a dentist. A third alternative under discussion is to expand the duties of existing dental auxiliary personnel.The final decision on denturism, however, will not be made by the dental profession or the denturists, but by the voting public and their elected representatives, based on the evidence they have before them.  (+info)

(3/5) Professional encroachment: a comparison of the emergence of denturists in Canada and Oregon.

In 1978, supporters of denturism in Oregon succeeded in passing an initiative which allows denturists to provide dentures directly to the public. The steps which led to the referendum included three unsuccessful attempts to have the state legislature enact a law legalizing denturism. After capturing broad-based consumer support, the issue was placed on the ballot and passed by an overwhelming margin. Both the denturists and the dentists in Oregon adopted strategies similar to those used in Canada over 20 years ago when the issue was raised in a number of provinces. As was the case in Canada, the denturists prevailed. Denturists stressed the price differential and the issue of freedom of choice. Dentists stressed health and safety issues. The public perceived the dentists' campaign as negative and self-serving. This perception may have contributed to the election results. In order to avoid this tarnished image, dentists must anticipate the public's needs, and formulate strategies to meet such needs.  (+info)

(4/5) The reaction of the dental profession to changes in the 1970s.

This paper explores the changing realities of dentistry in the 1970s: the development of denturism; the maldistribution of dental practitioners; the growth and activities of expanded function auxiliaries; the intrusion of the Federal Trade Commission into professional issues resulting in advertising, supermarket and franchise dentistry; and the effect of prepayment plans. These realities are considered in terms of their impact on the profession and the efforts by the individual practitioner and his representative organizations to come to terms with them.  (+info)

(5/5) Alberta's universal dental plan for the elderly: differences in use over 6 years by two cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: Dental services use by two cohorts under the universal dental plan for the elderly in Alberta, Canada, was examined. METHODS: Two birth cohorts 65 to 69 years old at entry who used the plan from 1978 to 1979 (n = 17,816) or from 1985 to 1986 (n = 27,474) were analyzed over 6 successive years for differences in dental services use and costs. RESULTS: The 1985/86 cohort received 24% more visits per patient than the 1978/79 cohort. Their inflation-adjusted expenditures increased by 19% mainly as a result of increases in denturists' expenditures (33%) (dentists' expenditures increased just 4% because of lower plan fee increases). The 1985/86 cohort received relatively many more periodontal and fewer denture services. Annual attendance over 6 consecutive years was high, especially for the 1985/86 cohort and dentists' patients; 55% of the 1985/86 cohort who used dentists did so in 5 or all 6 years. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in plan expenditures per patient between the birth cohorts and dentists and denturists, along with the high continuity of care for dentists' patients, have important implications for planning and administering dental plans for the elderly. The large expenditure decreases for removable dentures and the large increases for periodontal services to the 1985/86 cohort are noteworthy.  (+info)