Dental Home Linkage

Oral health has a direct impact on the general health, hence, it is important that all Canadians have adequate access to dental care services. Over the years successive Governments have reduced financial support to programs delivering dental care to most vulnerable populations. As a result, many low income families and other vulnerable groups have been unable to access dental care. There is further escalation in the disparities in oral health care among Canadians, as the number of Canadians losing dental care benefits continues to increase. Also, higher oral health care costs can be expected in the near future due to shortage of health care professionals.

The prevention of caries is accomplished through the execution of a variety of measures, such as the fluoridation of the drinking water supply as well as the utilization of sealants and topical fluorides (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Despite the ease of preventability of tooth decay, it is one of the most common childhood chronic diseases, with more than half of the nation’s children having detectable caries (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625). Unfortunately, only 62% of water supplies are fluoridated, and underserved communities with low-income and minority families are usually the ones who are disproportionately affected (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). Low-income individuals are generally less likely to seek preventative care, increasing their costs of neglected oral diseases and morbidity factors (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2626). In addition, only one in five children who are covered by Medicaid are authorized for preventative oral healthcare, while restorative care is generally not even a consideration (Mouradian, Wehr, and Crall 2625).

The problem in accessing dental care for low-income community is complex and cannot be determined simply. Lack of utilisation is as a result of lack of demands for dental health (Al Agili, Bronstein & Greene-McIntyre 2005). Demand also depends on the economic condition that supports the patients. At the individual level it has been known for years that financial reason is an essential barrier for not able to visit a dentist (Wallet et al. 2014). However, in this case, the Government try to assist low-income people by reducing financial barrier through the benefit offering by CDBS. Even though the scheme has not maximally encouraged those are eligible for the scheme. In addition to the financial barrier, perceived need is one of the reasons

While most of the patients I interacted with were seeking non-dental care, I met patients who were seeking care to health conditions that stem from their oral health such as oral abscesses, which our team was unable to treat except for prescribing antibiotics or painkillers. I encountered similar situations when I shadowed physicians in the emergency room of hospitals, observing a variety of craniofacial disorders originating from a preventable tooth decay. From these observations, I learned that patients often did not receive treatment that addressed the root of their problems: their oral health. As the result, I learned that many physicians saw the same patient repeatedly for problems that would otherwise be easily prevented through proper preventive dental care. Determining to address the unmet needs for accessible preventive dental care, I decided to pursue a career in dentistry so that I can provide a positive and meaningful impact to the underserved community on their oral health and ultimately their overall

Oral health in Australia is a concern. The impact of poor dental health can instigate ulcers, gingivitis, gum disease and damage one’s overall health. Tooth decay is extensive among Australian adults, and tooth aches are a considerable amount of hospital admission for children (Parliament of Australia, 2013). Two in three children aged 14 years have deteriorated permanent teeth, while three in ten adults receive no treatment at all. Adults living in rural Australia are 1.7 times more likely to have no teeth than those in major cities. 14 percent of children and 37 percent of adults avoid or delaying seeing a dentist due to costs (Australian Institude of Health and Welfare, 2012). The advantages of installing a dental program within

Over 130 million Americans do not have dental insurance. On top of that, almost a million emergency room visits last year resulted from preventable oral conditions. Many Americans today are unaware of how the condition of their dentition affects their overall health. Socioeconomic limitations, the lack of dental education in parents, eating habits, and simply the availability of dentists plays a key role in the state of children’s oral health; implementing a universal dental care program will help lower the barriers that many people face when it comes to receiving the dental care they need. The program will target high-risk individuals who are prone to dental caries and provide them with standard

Lack of access to dental health services and providers also affects utilization rates within the adult Medicaid population (Licata & Paradise, 2012; Davis., Deinard &, Maïga, 2010; MacDougall, 2016; Hinton & Paradise 2016; PEW Center on the

Adults in the rural areas have increased rate of dental caries, increased loss of permanent tooth and debilitating chronic oral conditions due to under utilization of dental care, mainly attributed to the poverty, lack of or fewer dentists and increased distance from the nearest federally funded primary health care center. (4). (ADA)(5) National rural health association states that there are about 22 dentists for 100,000 people in rural areas and only 2% of dental care providers’ work for the federally funded programs. (ADA 6).

Unlike the previous studies mentioned here, this study by Decker & Lipton (2015) looked more on adults who are covered by the Medicaid. Two key findings were revealed in this study—first of all, an increase of the likelihood of dental care visit is evidenced by those who have Medicaid coverage and second, there is also a reduction of the likelihood of untreated dental caries. It is also concluded that Medicaid is essential in promoting dental care and that it is strongly suggested that it should be expanded to further benefit a wider population of

While the private sector provides excellent quality of oral health care for its patients, many vulnerable groups have difficulty with access.2 It is also these vulnerable groups who demonstrate extremely high levels of oral health disease. According to a 2014 report issued by the Canadian Academy of Health Services (CAHS), the following represent Canada’s most vulnerable groups: individuals with low incomes; younger age children living in low-income families; individuals working without dental insurance; elderly populations with low incomes and/or living in institutions; aboriginal people, immigrants/refugees; people with disabilities; and, populations living in rural/remote communities.2 The CAHS authors report that increasingly and in light of challenging economic times, families from lower-middle income strata are also demonstrating difficulty with accessing oral health care (this is partially attributable to an increasing tendency toward part-time employment rather than full-time employment with benefits).

As indicated by John J. Warren, DDS, MS Steven M. Exact, DDS, MPH, there is overpowering confirmation that fluoride dentifrice is an exceptionally viable method for caries aversion, and it has been hypothesized that fluoride dentifrice, alongside group water fluoridation, are the primary purposes behind the caries decrease in many industrialized countries. Despite the fact that there is little question of the adequacy of fluoride dentifrice in aversion of dental caries, concerns have been raised as of late with respect to the part of fluoride dentifrice in dental fluorosis. This paper surveys both investigations of dental fluorosis that have considered fluoride dentifrice as hazard element and the adequacy of low-fluoride focus dentifrices.

Lack of access to dental health services and providers also affects utilization rates within the adult Medicaid population (Licata & Paradise, 2012; Davis., Deinard &, Maïga, 2010; MacDougall, 2016; Hinton & Paradise 2016; PEW Center on the States, 2012). Licata & Paradise (2012), stated “More than 1 in 5 low-income adults reported that they had not had a dental visit in five years or more, or had never had a visit.” Low-income patients often have access barriers including lack of transportation, gaps in health literacy, and limited work flexibility (Licata & Paradise, 2012). In the case of oral health, a shortage of dental care providers places another barrier on patients. According to PEW Center on States, “Roughly 47 million Americans live in areas that are federally designated as having a shortage of dentists.” This shortage mainly affects those who are low income or possess special needs (Hinton & Paradise, 2016). Most Medicaid patients do not have the means to travel long distances for appointments. Further, less than half of dental providers in the United States accept public funded insurance due to poor reimbursement (MacDougall, 2016). For Medicaid patients, dental care is simply to difficult

Access to healthcare has been considered a major reason behind many adverse health outcomes and it is attributed to be the primary reason or and intermediate factor which increases infant morbidity and mortality. [1] However, it is equally important to understand the pattern of utilization of healthcare services, when they are made available and accessible. Awareness about the available healthcare facilities and the importance of prevention over intervention is of utmost importance to support the measures taken to make access to healthcare available for all. Since October 2013, 47 states and District of Columbia physicians who have undergone a continuing medical education course are permitted by Department of Health Care Finance to provide and bill for oral health screenings and fluoride varnishes in children less than 3 years of age, as a measure to extend the preventive health force. [2] Numerous attempts made to educate the population about the importance of maintaining dental health have shown little effect, however it took one incident to make a huge difference at individual and policy level. In 2007, the death of 12-year old Deamonte driver due to a tooth infection leading to brain abscess raised a lot of questions for the existing issue of missing dental home linkage for pediatric Medicaid beneficiaries and children in general. Out of those eligible in Medicaid program for dental services, less than 20% children under age of 3 years received a dental

Although many Americans have good oral hygiene due to fluoride and making everyday good decisions, others do not have any access at all to oral health care. Over the years, dentists have been trying to demonstrate the importance of oral care. (“Access to Dental Care”) From commercials to campaigns, dentists will continue to demonstrate to their patients as well as to the people who don't have insurance the importance of oral health care. They will teach them preventative care and some techniques on how to prevent from getting any diseases.

The dental public health field is broken down into many different agencies trying to work together and fix the puzzle that is public health for the nation. Within all of these different agencies you can see that there are three broad governing bodies in place: national, state, and local governments. The national body is the biggest and has the most resources at its disposable due to how large the efforts need to be. State is right in the middle and local brings out the bottom with the least resources but the most specific issues. In this paper I will discuss the differing responsibilities of the national level with the state and local levels from the prospective of the 10 essential public health services. Starting with the first public health service of monitoring.