A Comparison of Quality in a Dual‐choice Dental Plan: Capitation versus Fee‐for‐service

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The quality of dental care provided under a dual-choice dental plan was evaluated. Eleven practices, six capitation and five fee-for-service, were examined. The methodology was based primarily on examinatbn of elements of structure and process of care. Samples of patient dental records were drawn from each practice for a total of 495 patient records. The results showed that none of the five fee-for-service dental practices and only two of the capitation practices were found to meet all the criteria for acceptable dental practice. Universally poor documentation made it extremely difficult to evaluate process measures of care. Fee-for-service patients received more visits and services than capitation patients. Overtreatment occurred in fee-for-service practices and undertreatmentoccurred in capitation practices. The distribution of services also differed, with capitation practices providing a less expensive type of service. Annual utilization of one or more services for capitation practices varied substantially by the practice. In this plan, both capitation and fee-for-service practices demonstrated a need for strong quality assurance mechanisms to protect the interests of patients.

This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit: