Abrams S H
J Can Dent Assoc. 1997 Nov;63(10):771-4.
The 1996 Denturist Association of Ontario fee guide and the Ontario Dental Association Fee Guide for General Practitioners were examined to identify variations in the fees charged for a range of removable prosthodontic services. Fee guides were selected for this analysis as third-party insurers and government dental plans frequently use them to establish fee schedules and levels of reimbursement. However, it is recognized that dentists set their own fees, which may be higher or lower than the fees suggested in the guide. Although the descriptions of the specific services listed in the guides were similar in many cases, no attempt was made to examine variations in the quality of care provided by dentists and denturists, or the approach to treatment offered by their respective professions. The analysis revealed that a number of procedure fees were, on average, 15 per cent higher in the Ontario Dental Association (ODA) fee guide compared to the denturists' fee guide. However, a wide range of prosthetic services, including partial dentures, were less expensive in the ODA fee guide. Based on this analysis, there appears to be no substantial cost differential between the services provided by dentists and denturists six years after the proclamation of the new Regulated Health Professions Act in Ontario, as the denturists have claimed. The denturist association's further claims of greater choice and improved access may also be questionable, and should be reexamined in light of these findings.
研究了1996年安大略省假牙师协会收费指南以及安大略省牙科协会全科医生收费指南,以确定一系列可摘义齿修复服务收费的差异。选择收费指南进行此分析,是因为第三方保险公司和政府牙科计划经常使用它们来制定收费表和报销水平。然而,人们认识到牙医会自行设定费用,可能高于或低于指南中建议的费用。尽管指南中列出的具体服务描述在许多情况下相似,但并未尝试研究牙医和假牙师提供的护理质量差异,或各自专业的治疗方法差异。分析显示,安大略省牙科协会(ODA)收费指南中的一些程序费用平均比假牙师收费指南高15%。然而,包括局部义齿在内的多种修复服务在ODA收费指南中价格更低。基于此分析,安大略省新的《受监管健康职业法》颁布六年后,牙医和假牙师提供的服务之间似乎不存在如假牙师协会所声称的巨大成本差异。假牙师协会关于有更多选择和更好可及性的进一步说法也可能存在疑问,应根据这些发现重新审视。