IADR Abstract Archives
Current payment methods and its related determinants in dental clinics, in Tehran, 2017
Objectives: Payment method is a main factor that influences the type of treatment provided by dentists and play role for health system. In this descriptive pilot study, the current payment methods and their related determinants in dental clinics, in Tehran, were evaluated. The relationships between dentist's work experience, dental technical assistant, degree of education of dentists, location of the clinic in the city, type of clinic management, and the current payment type were reviewed.
Methods: We referred to 20 licensed “dental clinics” according to the published list by Ministry of Health. The data collection was done, by a checklist, including general information of clinics (ownership status, number of dentists, district, number of working years of clinic, degree of dentist, number of working years of dentist) and payment method (fixed salary, fee for service and mixed payment). The statistical analyses were done by SPSS version 21. The differences between subgroups were tested by Chi-square test, and a p-value<0.05 was considered as significant.
Results: Overall, 20 dental clinics (14 private, 6 governmental) were studied. All private clinics used the FFS method, and in governmental clinics 3 used salary and 3 mixed method. In all clinics (100%), the technical assistant dentists had higher incomes. Most (45%) of general dentists earned a share percentage of 46-50 percent, followed by 40-45 percent in 35% of them. Half of specialist dentists earned 61-65 share percent of the total income. In the fixed salary method, experienced dentists had a higher income, while, in FFS there were no difference between experienced and non-experienced ones. There was no relationship (p=0.58) between working history of clinic and share percent of income. Dentists working in more affluent areas were paid a lower share percent of income (p=0.04).
Conclusions: Payment method was different in private (FFS) and governmental (fixed salary) dental clinics. Working as technical assistant dentist and in non-affluent areas were related with a higher share percentage of incme.
Methods: We referred to 20 licensed “dental clinics” according to the published list by Ministry of Health. The data collection was done, by a checklist, including general information of clinics (ownership status, number of dentists, district, number of working years of clinic, degree of dentist, number of working years of dentist) and payment method (fixed salary, fee for service and mixed payment). The statistical analyses were done by SPSS version 21. The differences between subgroups were tested by Chi-square test, and a p-value<0.05 was considered as significant.
Results: Overall, 20 dental clinics (14 private, 6 governmental) were studied. All private clinics used the FFS method, and in governmental clinics 3 used salary and 3 mixed method. In all clinics (100%), the technical assistant dentists had higher incomes. Most (45%) of general dentists earned a share percentage of 46-50 percent, followed by 40-45 percent in 35% of them. Half of specialist dentists earned 61-65 share percent of the total income. In the fixed salary method, experienced dentists had a higher income, while, in FFS there were no difference between experienced and non-experienced ones. There was no relationship (p=0.58) between working history of clinic and share percent of income. Dentists working in more affluent areas were paid a lower share percent of income (p=0.04).
Conclusions: Payment method was different in private (FFS) and governmental (fixed salary) dental clinics. Working as technical assistant dentist and in non-affluent areas were related with a higher share percentage of incme.