ADA Proposal Effectively Bans Most Dentists From Offering Oral Sedation
On December 15th, the American Dental Association’s Committee on Anesthesiology formally proposed extensive revisions to the ADA’s anesthesia guidelines and policy statement.
My colleagues and I have taken the time to thoroughly evaluate these proposals, keeping in mind the many constituencies that will be impacted. Having done so, we’ve concluded that the changes – if enacted – will disenfranchise tens of millions of current and future dental patients and the vast majority of dedicated dental professionals who serve them.
Let me be very clear. The ADA changes will effectively end the ability of all but oral surgeons, dental anesthesiologists and those dentists already offering IV sedation to provide patients with oral sedation dentistry.
If you are one of the 7,000-plus dentists who currently practices safe, effective oral sedation dentistry, you will lose your ability to continue. If you don’t currently offer oral sedation dentistry but think it may be a service you would like to provide one day, you will no longer have a reasonable option.
The ADA proposals should alarm all publicly-minded dentists. Approving them would be akin to banning the placement of dental implants by general dentists. Such actions are not only overkill, but most importantly, they take safe, proven methods away from the dental patient population that relies heavily on them.
Indeed, the ADA’s new proposals ignore the millions of patients who have already safely and successfully been treated using oral sedation dentistry. Whereas there is no known evidence that oral sedation dentistry as practiced according to existing ADA guidelines has ever resulted in an injury or fatality to a patient, there is overwhelming evidence of the price paid by patients who avoid dental care for five, ten, even twenty years out of fear and anxiety.
Effectively, the ADA committee seeks to protect dental patients by chasing them away from their current dentists – which is the real world impact that these new guidelines will have on millions.
The ADA is a powerful voice and – unfortunately – hard to dissuade. If we are to bring the ADA committee to its senses on behalf of our patients, it will take the joint efforts of many civic-minded dentists.
On Monday, January 8, 2007, and Thursday, January 11, 2007, the Dental Organization for Conscious Sedation will host a FREE teleconference to brief dentists on the ADA proposals and to suggest means for expressing our opposition. If you care about your patients and your practice, you will participate in one of these two sessions.
The Monday, January 8th session will be held by phone at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (6:00 p.m. on the West Coast).
The Thursday, January 11th session will be held by phone at 7:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (4:30 p.m. on the West Coast).
We are offering two dates and two times to permit as many dentists as possible to fit this important call into their schedules. You need only listen in on one of the two sessions.
To register, for the Monday conference (Jan. 8th), send an email with your name, phone and business address to Monday@team1500.org. To register for the Thursday conference (Jan. 11th), send an email with your name, phone and business address to Thursday@team1500.org. You will then receive a confirmed reservation PIN and telephone number for the appropriate teleconference. Questions about the teleconference or ADA actions should be addressed to questions@team1500.org.
We encourage you to share this letter with all your dental colleagues. They need not be members of the Dental Organization for Conscious Sedation nor even currently practicing oral sedation dentistry. They need only have a true commitment to the public’s health and providing equal access to quality care for all patients.
Please mark your calendars and email in your reservations immediately.
Sincerely,
Michael Silverman, DMD
President, Dental Organization for Conscious Sedation
p.s. To read the full text of the proposed ADA changes visit:
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/index.asp#pain
I am concerned about something in this information you have provided above. These two paragraphs that I have cut and psted contradict one another.
Paragraph 3 states:
Let me be very clear. The ADA changes will effectively end the ability of all but oral surgeons, dental anesthesiologists and those dentists already offering IV sedation to provide patients with oral sedation dentistry.
Paragraph 4 states:
If you are one of the 7,000-plus dentists who currently practices safe, effective oral sedation dentistry, you will lose your ability to continue. If you don’t currently offer oral sedation dentistry but think it may be a service you would like to provide one day, you will no longer have a reasonable option.
Can you clarify this information because the first paragraph says "ALL BUT" and the second one says "currently practices safe, effective oral sedation dentistry, you will lose your ability to continue.
That is an obvious contradiction in terms. It just confuses me and before I write a letter to the ADA, I would like to know exactly WHAT you're saying.
Thank you.
Reply to this
If I understand your question, the confusion may arise over the fact that the vast majority of dentists who currently offer oral conscious sedation based on existing ADA guidelines will no longer qualify to offer it under the newly proposed guidelines.
I know of dentists who have offered their patients OCS for more than a decade and never had any problem whatsoever. Nonetheless, unless they go back to the classroom and meet the new, much higher standards proposed by the ADA, all of their experience won't be work the price of a toothbrush.
That said, oral surgeons, anesthesiologists and those general dentists with IV permits, will meet the new ADA guidelines and thus be the only ones -- at least initially -- still able to offer OCS.
It is interesting to note that the group of "qualified" dentists under the newly proposed guidelines wouldn't be enough to meet the needs of patients by far. Patients will be stuck without anyone who can treat them, even if they've been successfully treated by their local dentist for years.
Let me know if this answers your question.
Reply to this