Pros and Cons of Lowering Dental Costs - Essay Example

?Pros and Cons of Lowering Dental Costs It is widely known fact that many employers all over the world prefer to hire employees with a pleasing personality, and good teeth. It may seem preposterous at first, but yes, good oral health is one of the aspects that make an individual employable. Even highly skilled and qualified members of the labor market are at times denied of employment because of bad, crooked teeth. Thus, many are supporting the proposal to lower dental fees in order for low-income people to be able to pay for important dental procedures. These advocates claim that low-income people suffer more from poor oral health than those belonging to higher socioeconomic status, which make their chances of getting hired less likely. But there are opponents to this proposed move to lower dental costs. They believe that dentists are already disadvantaged, monetarily speaking, by dental insurances that do not sufficiently reimburse for dental procedures. Further lowering dental fees will further hurt them. And, critics believe that dentists will be forced to sacrifice the quality of their services to prevent these financial losses, which, in the end, will cause disadvantages to the patients themselves. Arguments opposing the proposal to lower dental costs or making it more affordable for low-income adults place emphasis on its disadvantages to dentists and the quality of dental care. The lowered dental fees have already forced dentists to perform dental services at a monetary loss. A current research by the American Dental Association discovered that some dental health maintenance organizations (HMO) do not sufficiently pay for even the low-cost preventive oral health services (Gordon, 2013). And thus, due to insufficient reimbursements, some dentists providing services to individuals holding HMO insurance usually lower the quality of their services, such as hastening procedures, in order to avoid financial drawbacks. Thereby, critics argue that in the end the people themselves will be the ones to suffer from low quality oral care services. Many dentists refuse to accept Medicaid recipients because the repayments are insufficient. The president of the Florida Dental Association, Cesar Sabates, boldly stated, “I can’t afford to do Medicaid” (White, 2012, para 18). In essence, people belonging to minority and low-income populations suffer from more dental problems, but they have lesser access to quality oral care. Arguments supporting reduced dental costs focus mainly on the issues of employability and productivity. The first argument supporting reduced dental fees claim that affordable oral care services will increase the number of ‘employable’ individuals. In the article of Jonel Aleccia (2013) entitled Bad Teeth, Broken Dreams: Lack of Dental Care Keeps Many Out of Jobs, the importance of enhancing dental coverage and services in California were highlighted. According to the report, 3 million vulnerable individuals do not have access to dental care services because of financial difficulties. Because of this, the California Dental Association Foundation (CDA) launched a program providing free dental care services to thousands of people. The CDA recognizes the fact that poor oral health affects the employability of individual of working-age, especially in the service sector where in its employees are required to look pleasant for customers. The author emphasized that low-income individuals are more likely than middle- or high-income individuals to be unable to access oral health services. Thus these low-income people are more at risk of dental problems that effectively prohibit them from acquiring good employment opportunities. Employers prefer workers with good oral health because besides its pleasant appearance, it prevents losses in productivity. The Hyde study substantiated the effectiveness of lowering dental costs in resolving the problem of poor oral health among low-income adults. The second argument states that affordable oral care services are needed, especially for women, because beauty premiums include good oral health. The article of Stephen Dubner (2008) entitled The Economics of Teeth, and Other Beauty Premiums provides an interesting look at the issue of the relationship between dental health and employability. According to the author, there are different concepts that dominate in the economy, but not all of them are rational; some are utterly trivial, such as beauty, particularly good teeth. The author explained the concepts of ‘ugliness penalty’ and ‘beauty premiums’ which are widely exercised across the globe, especially in China, United States, Canada, and Britain. The concepts are simple: if a person is ugly, s/he is likely to experience social and economic disadvantages; in contrast, if a person is pleasant-looking, s/he is likely to receive better social and economic opportunities. But not like some criteria of beauty, such as height, the teeth can be repaired. Unfortunately, poor people do not have the needed resources to afford such dental repairs. Glied and Neidell, in their study on the effect of oral health on income, discovered that women with good oral health earn more than those who have bad teeth. They found out that women with low socioeconomic standing are more likely to have poor oral health than those belonging to higher socioeconomic status. According to Mercedes White (2012), in her article entitled No Teeth Means No Job, roughly 130 million people in the United States have no dental coverage in 2012. The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging reported that the bulk of dental expenditures are paid directly by patients. This fact reveals the greater likelihood of poor families to experience poor oral health. These poor families do not have extra money to afford dental services. Hence they delay going to the dentist, up to the point where their dental problems become too severe and much costlier. The third argument supports lowered dental costs due to the social and economic losses caused by poor oral health, not only for the company, but for the entire nation. The impact of socioeconomic status on oral health is also substantiated by the Oral Health, U.S. 2002 Annual Report. A large number of low-income adults suffer from poor oral health which, consequently, hampers their chances of getting a good job. Employers take into consideration their workers’ dental health because poor oral health simply equates to productivity losses. This problem is not only company-wide, but also nationwide. According to the report, in 1989, roughly 164.179,700 work hours were used by workers in the United States for dental consultations because of dental problems. It was also found out that most of those who incurred the biggest losses in work hours were the poor. The article of Dylan Scott (2013) entitled Can Medicaid Dental Coverage Boost the Economy supports the importance of enhancing dental coverage and lowering dental costs to the larger economy. The director of the Massachusetts Medicaid department, Julian Harris, explained that poor oral health decreases employability, as well as productivity, which could then negatively affect the national economy. The American Dental Association reported that there are only a few states that presently offer complete oral care services for adults. The author cited Massachusetts as one of the Medicaid states that successfully provides comprehensive oral services to its people, by directly collaborating with professional dentists. Almost half of the dentists in Massachusetts take part in Medicaid, and almost all of the Medicaid recipients in the state have dentists who are willing to provide them with quality dental care. Therefore, all these arguments supporting reduced dental fees attempt to promote the fact about the importance of enhancing dental coverage, not only for companies, but for the national economy. Good oral health increases the employability of the members of the labor market, enhances productivity of employees, and reduces company losses in terms of work hours. And the populations that need greater access to dental care services are the poor, elderly, and disabled. To sum up, this essay has discussed the pros and cons of lowering dental fees. Critics of reduced dental costs believe that this move will only bring about disadvantages to dentists who are forced to perform dental procedures at a financial loss. Consequently, insufficient reimbursements will force dentists to lower the quality of their services to prevent these disadvantages. Nevertheless, supporters of reduced dental costs focus on the importance of making dental procedures affordable to low-income people in order to increase their employability and productivity. These advocates believe that affordable dental fees will not only benefit individuals and companies, but the larger society. References Aleccia, J 2013, “Bad Teeth, Broken Dreams: Lack of Dental Care Keeps Many Out of Jobs”, The Daily Beast. Retrieved 20 August 2013 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/13/bad-teeth-broken-dreams-lack-of-dental-care-keeps-many-out-of-jobs.html Dubner, SJ 2008, The Economics of Teeth, and Other Beauty Premiums. Freaknomics.com, retrieved 20 August 2013 Gordon, J (2013), “Digesting the alphabet soup of dental insurance”, howstuffworks. Retrieved 24 August 2013 http://www.howstuffworks.com/dental20.htm NIDCR/CDC. Oral Health 2002, U.S. 2002 Annual Report, Social And Economic Impact Of Oral Disease, retrieved 20 August 2013 http://drc.hhs.gov/report/17_1.htm Scott, D 2013, “Can Medicaid Dental Coverage Boost the Economy”, Governing the States and Localities. Retrieved 20 August 2013 http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-do-medicaid-dental-benefits-work-as-economic-development.html White, M 2012, “No teeth means no job”, Desert News. Retrieved 20 August 2013 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865569512/No-teeth-means-no-job-How-poor-oral-health-impacts-job-prospects.html?pg=all Read More