by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
News Bulletin : ADA News Bulletin February 2011
31 FEBRUARY 2011 • The 59% response for 2010 was much less than in 2009 (67%) and the lowest ever. • Response rate was higher for GPs (62% -- less than 75% in 2009) than for specialists (43%). • Australian results were weighted to reflect proportionate State membership. • The sample size was adequate for general practitioner, State and location analyses. A SUMMARY FOR GENERAL DENTAL PRACTITIONERS IS PRESENTED IN TABLE 1 • Members can compare their own fees for 70 selected items of service including hourly rate. • The Number in the sample for each item is that of responses providing the service for a $ fee. Number excludes blanks and $0 fees (excludes zeros). • The range of fees is that of the central 90% of member responses for each item. 5th percentile -- 5% charge less than the minimum fee shown. 95th percentile -- 5% charge above the maximum fee shown. • Mean $ fees for the central 90% responses (excluding zeros) are presented with standard deviations. • Mean fees for 2009 are also presented and per cent increase for the one year period to 1 July 2010 is given for the items of service. CHANGES IN GENERAL PRACTITIONER FEES FROM 2009 TO 2010 • Fee increases since 2009 were generally 1 to 4%, with an overall 2.9% increase. • Fee increases of 6% or more for individual items were: 072 -- Photographic records -- intraoral; 411 -- Direct pulp capping; 419 -- Extirpation pulp/debridement of root canal[s]; 575 -- Pin retention -- per pin; 733 -- Tooth/teeth [partial denture]; • Fee increases of less than 1% or decrease in fee were shown for individual items: Hourly rate ($/hour); 118 -- Bleaching, external -- per tooth; 121/111 -- Topical application fluoride; 141 -- Oral hygiene instruction; 222 -- Root planing and subgingival curettage -- per tooth; 232 -- Periodontal flap surgery -- per tooth; 455 -- Additional visit irrigate/dressing root canal system per tooth; 776 -- Impression -- denture -- repair/modification; 831 -- Full arch banding -- per arch; 911 -- Palliative care; 926 -- Individually made tray -- medicament[s]. TABLE 2 SHOWS THE WEIGHTED PER CENT FEE INCREASE FOR EIGHT ADA CATEGORIES OF SERVICE • The weighted increase for all items that were included at each survey in 2009 and 2010 surveys was 2.9%. • This increase was less than the 4.0% increase in the year to 1 July 2009. • Annual weighted fee increases from 2003 to 2008 ranged from 5--6%. • In 2010 Fee increase was greatest, at about 4%, for oral surgery and endodontic items. • Fee increase was least for preventive and orthodontic items. • The decrease in the periodontics category is possibly due to change in item definition. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATES IN THE LEVELS OF FEES CHARGED ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 4 • Differences between States were generally similar to those found in previous surveys. • The Australian mean is influenced more by fees charged in the larger States. • Generally the States were within ± 5% of the Australian mean. • Many apparent differences between States were not significant. • Table 3 presents the proportion of highest and lowest mean fees in individual States. • Overall the NT had the highest fees for 40% of the items surveyed. • ACT and Tasmanian GPs also had more items with higher than average Australian fees. • As in previous years South Australia had the lowest mean fee among States for 70% of items. FEE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE CAPITAL AND REST OF STATE ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5 • Fees charged for selected items in State capital city areas were even closer to rest of State fees and Australian mean fees than in 2009 and previous years. • Fees of general practitioners in capital city areas (determined by postcode) were generally the same or within 1% of fees in rest of State areas. • Capital city fees that were more than 5% higher than rest of state fees included items: 688 -- Insertion of one-stage endosseous implant -- per implant; 821 -- Active removable appliance -- per arch. • Rest of State fees that were more than 5% higher than capital city were: 222 -- Root planing and subgingival curettage -- per tooth; 582 -- Veneer -- direct. • Rest of State fees were similar [±1%] to capital city for most items in most States. Only a few items varied by 10% within States. FEE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND SPECIALISTS ARE PRESENTED IN TABLE 6 • There were responses from 385 specialists (43%) for 2010. • For all but two items, the specialist fees were more than those of general practitioners. • Specialist fees were about 13% higher (unweighted) than those of general practitioners. • This was the same as the 13% difference in 2008 and slightly more than the 9% in 2009. • There was a wide variation in fee differences between GPs and specialists. • Specialist fees were 20% or more than those of general practitioners for items: 011 -- Comprehensive oral exam; 014 -- Consultation; 118 -- Bleaching, external -- per tooth; 831 -- Veneer -- indirect; 821 -- Active removable appliance; 831 -- Full arch banding. • Specialist fees were less than 5% higher for items: 022 -- Intraoral periapical or bitewing radiograph -- per exposure; 071 -- Diagnostic model -- per model; 615 -- Full crown -- veneered -- indirect; 965 -- Occlusal splint. • General practitioner fees were higher than specialist fees for some items: 037 -- Panoramic radiograph; 151 -- Provision of mouthguard. Members are thanked for their time and cooperation in providing their usual fees charged. A copy of this article and the comprehensive data tables is available on the ADA members' website for reference by the Association, State Branches and individual members. PD Barnard dental fees survey
ADA News Bulletin December 2010
ADA News Bulletin March 2011