28
|
Volume1 Issue6
I
ssues and
P
eople
F
irst, the term 'corporatization' is too
broad tobeanaccuratedescriptor
asmost, if not all, practisingdentists
are incorporated. Rather the issue
lieswithownershipand/or financing
arrangements that directlycontrol or influ-
enceadentist’s ability tomeet their patients’
needs. In this case, thedentist’s ethical
responsibility to thepatient is supersededby
the interestsof thecorporation.
Grouppractices and satellitepractices
haveexisted for years. Thesedentistshave
benefited fromeconomiesof scale through
sharingof fixedcosts amonga larger
number of dentists. Themost common
areclinicswhere several dentistsoperate
their ownpracticeswith their ownpatients,
or alternatively, associatesworking for a
principalwithinapractice.
Theconcernariseswhenabusiness
arrangement places the interest of the
business entityover that of thepatient.
Howwould this look? The treatingdentist’s
ability toprovidecare is compromised
by restrictionsor limitsplacedby the
corporation, suchas:
• Treatment options aredeterminedby the
corporationandnot by thedentist’sper-
sonal scopeof practice;
• Corporate staffare responsible for billing,
rather than thedentist;
• Aggressiveproduction/patient quotas are
placedon thedentistwithfinancial penal-
ties if theyarenotmet;
• Financearrangementswhereacorporate
interest takes a shareof thepractice’snet
incomeandhas influenceover theman-
agement of thepractice.
Corporateownershipof dental offices is
common in theUSwhichprovidesCanadian
dentistry theopportunity to learnwhat is
goodor bad.
1
Manyarticles cite thepositive
benefits in termsof releasing thedentist
fromadministrativeburdens, decreasing
thecost of practice, improvingcontinuing
educationoptions, expandingemergency
coverageand loweringadvertisingcosts. It is
when theagreement strays into theareaof
treatment that the switch tobadcomes into
play.
Good corporatization
Goodcorporatizationexistswhere the
relationshipbetween thedentist and
thepatient ispreservedwithnoexternal
influencesor restrictions linked to treatment.
Theagreement couldbea standard
principal/associatearrangement or a loan
There has been considerable discussionaround ‘corporatization’ and the potential
impact itwill have on the profession inBC. But exactlywhat arewe talkingabout
and is it all bad?This is aworthwhile discussionbut requires clarityaround the
issue to betterunderstandboth the pros and cons in order to see the forest for the
trees.
CORPORATE INTERESTS
VERSUS
PATIENTS’ INTERESTS
JocelynJohnston
Jocelyn Johnston is
executivedirectorof the
BritishColumbiaDental
Association.
Good corporatization existswhere the relationshipbetween the
dentist and the patient is preservedwithno external influences or
restrictions linked to treatment.
