Massachusetts voters are gearing up for a decision that would change dental insurer spending and patient care.
A ballot measure spearheaded by Mouhab Rizkallah, DDS, will ask voters whether a medical loss ratio should be established for dental payers in the state. If passed, dental insurance companies would be required to spend at least 83 percent of premium dollars on dental services or refund the difference to patients, preventing them from spending that money on executive salaries or administrative costs.
Several dental groups have backed the initiative, including the American Dental Association, the Massachusetts Dental Society and the American Association of Endodontists.
Three dentists recently shared with Becker's their thoughts on the ballot measure and the impact they think it could have on the dental industry.
Chris Salierno, DDS. Chief Dental Officer at Tend (Nashville, Tenn.): All eyes are on Massachusetts. If this ballot initiative passes, I believe we will see state-by-state initiatives led by organized dentistry to repeat the success. Third-party payers will be held more accountable for how they spend premium dollars on patient care. This will benefit patients and their providers by reducing financial obstacles to improved oral health outcomes.
Gerald Danaher, DDS. Danaher Dental (Syracuse, N.Y.): I support the measure. In this time of high inflation, instability in the fuel and heat markets (higher expected heating costs this winter), it is my hope that patients will benefit from the initiative as more ideal treatment options will be available to benefit the patient's overall dental health.
Benjamin Joy, DDS. Joy Dental Pines (Pembroke Pines, Fla.): I think ballot measures, in general, are things Democrats use to pass legislation that otherwise would not pass during midterm elections, where Republican turnout is generally lower.
This particular ballot measure attempts to limit insurance companies' ability to attract and retain talent.
If enacted, I think talented insurance CEOs and administrators will take jobs outside of Massachusetts. Less talented CEOs and administrators will fill the void, and fewer quality insurance products will come out of Massachusetts. What else do you think happens when less talented people run companies?
If other states are looking to lower the talent of their insurance companies and in turn lower the quality of the state's insurance products, I think this is a great way to do it. Since the insurance company talent will be less compensated, this measure has the added benefit of possibly lowering the talent's taxable income for the state.