Kabir J, Mellor A C
GDP, 3 Mayfield Street, Atherton, Manchester M46 0BF, UK.
Br Dent J. 2004 Aug 28;197(4):200-3; discussion 191. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4811572.
To examine how pricing policies were contrived in general dental practice in terms of fee-for-item and hourly rate and how these were affected by specialist status and the level of private care provided in a practice.
A postal questionnaire.
Members of the British Society for General Dental Surgery working in dental practice.
Out of 160 eligible members, responses were received from 124 members (78%). Fifty-seven respondents claimed to specialise in one or more fields of dentistry. The majority of respondents consulted fellow colleagues or partners for advice on fee setting. A minority took external advice. The charging method varied according to the item of treatment with fee-for-item used predominantly for items such as a new patient examination, and hourly rate used more for items such as a direct composite restoration. Seventy-one respondents stated that their practice was 80-100% private treatment and these practitioners were significantly more likely to charge by hourly rate than fee-for-item for many items of treatment. Specialist status did not have any effect on charging method. The most important factors related to the setting of fees-for-item or hourly rate were clinical time spent, practice overheads and laboratory costs.
This project has taken the views of a large group of experienced general dental practitioners, many of whom work purely in the private sector. The most important factors affecting fee setting were clinical time, practice overheads and laboratory costs. The method of charging was most affected by the proportion of private treatment provided by the practice.
