Given the media’s slant, is it any wonder the public is confused?

  Posted by: manpreet.boora      21st November 2017

Barry Cockcroft laments the emphasis on the negative when it comes to reporting on dentistry…

On the 11 and 12 October, the BDA and the Faculty of General Dental Practice both released press notices commenting on the CQC State of Care report (see page 6), which found dentistry to be safe, clinically effective, caring, responsive and well-led, a ringing endorsement of our profession. The BDA commented that “dental services in England have topped the league in providing high-quality care” and according to the FGDP the report, “highlighted the professionalism and dedication of dentists and dental teams across England”.
At a time when we all want as many people as possible to visit the dentist, especially the young and those from deprived backgrounds who tend to have the greatest needs, this would surely encourage them to attend.
However, on the 10 October, the BDA had apparently supported and contributed to a story in the Daily Mail that actually said NHS dentistry was unfit for purpose – completely contrary to its views expressed after the CQC report was published. Information around charges for dental treatment was also given, and I’d argue it was very misleading.
The article said that a basic exam costs £20.60 and a filling £56.30 with no explanation of the banding system. The intention here, it seems to me, was clearly to portray NHS dental care as being more expensive than it is. There was no mention of those entitled to free treatment and in one part of the article, an item of service charges in Scotland was directly compared with band charges in England with no attempt to explain the difference.
Later on in the article, the BDA is quoted as saying that rising charges are deterring people from seeking care at the dentist. I am sure that that situation can only be made worse by the media misleading the public about the true costs. So why did the BDA seem to support the Mail article? Obviously, the organisation is dissatisfied with the payment system for dentists in England, currently based on courses of treatment weighted by complexity (or the UDA system as it is usually referred to).
It seemed as if the BDA PEC member quoted in the article wanted a return to the item of the service system in place before 2006 (or “the item of service treadmill” as it was referred to for years!). Perhaps the BDA has forgotten that it made up 50% of the advisory working group that recommended weighted courses of treatment and was on the working group that devised the new patient charges arrangements in 2005.
Playing out complex arguments like this in the pages of the national press is never helpful, especially when it diverts attention away from other areas of concern and detracts from the positive image of dentistry that the CQC fleetingly offered.
I have said for many years that there is no good way to pay General Dental Practitioners but the three worst, in my opinion, are by an item or service, by capitation and the salaried option!
The current contract reform process has been trying (for nearly ten years now) to find a combination of all these to include improved outcomes for patients.
As the CQC report highlights, the dedication and professionalism of the dental teams across the country are ongoing and it’s a pity neither the media nor the BDA focuses on this more. The vast majority of dentists are just getting on doing what is right for their patients and don’t, as the piece in The Mail seemed to suggest, spend all their time looking at how much they will make from each patient.
Since the publication of Delivering Better Oral Health in 2007, the biggest single growth area in NHS dentistry has been the application of fluoride varnish as a preventive measure for children. This has occurred despite the fact that there is no direct financial reimbursement for doing this; a tribute to the profession.
Over the years I have made many visits, with dentists and their teams, to community schemes focused on getting preventive messages across and it is unusual for the clinicians to ask for payment. Why is the Daily Mail not reporting on this?
There were some important points in The Mail article but, sadly, these were hidden away. Patient charges are rising at a faster rate than contract values so the NHS is paying a smaller proportion of the cost, something that was specifically excluded when the new system was consulted on.
Probably more important now from the public perspective is the fact that where contracts are not being delivered, the money clawed back by the NHS is often not being reinvested in dental services. As I wrote last month, barriers are being placed in front of those providers wishing to recruit more clinicians to enable them to deliver their contracts, and the growth in DCP training that was part of the rationale for reducing dental student numbers in 2014 has still not happened.
I suppose as regards the slant of newspaper coverage of our profession is concerned we must resign ourselves to the reality of that old adage: bad news sells better than good. It’s a shame, though, given that there is so much ‘good’ out there.