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.