SECTIONEDITOR
Private Elwood
prosthodontic
practice: A status report
H. Stade, D.D.S.,* and Keith
Southern Illinois University,
Winfield
Dickey,
D.D.S., M.B.A.**
School of Dental Medicine, Alton, Ill.
This article reports the data of a national poll of private prosthodontic practitioners. It reports incomes, overhead expenses, staff size, and character of prosthodontic practices. The study also develops a profile for a median prosthodontic practice and practitioner. (J PROSTHET DENT 1990;64:716-22.)
T
he specialty practice of prosthetic dentistry is a challenging and personally rewarding career. Numerous articles are continuously written to introduce new products and techniques. Clinical studies appear in the journals to provide information of treatment successes and failures. Little is found, however, that addresses the financial rewards or the typical practice profiles of successful prosthodontic practices. Are these practices typically different from general dentistry and if so what identifiable differences exist? This national study polled 695 prosthodontists who were listed in the membership roster of the American College of Prosthodontists. Each person received a survey form that requested not only demographic data but also practice profiles, financial arrangements for dental care, and the practitioner’s personal beliefs with regard to the present
*Section Head, Removable Partial Prosthodontics. **Section Head, Practice Management; Director, Dental Auxiliary Utilization.
71+ 68-70 =
61-65
iiss-so s!
51-55
:
46-50
P
41-45
20.4 22.6
36-40 31-35 2530
I 10
0
Percent
I 20
I 30
response
Fig. 2. Age of respondents.
Other
Pessimistic
10/l/18276
Skeptical
A
1
0
20
Percent
40 rerponses
60
80
Fig. 3. Practitioners’ attitude toward future of prosthodontics.
lb Percent
--
response
Fig. 1. Geographic distribution
716
1 26
of respondents.
30
and future practice of prosthodontics. All data were received by February 1, 1988. Data were recorded on computer disks to facilitate rapid recall and mathematical evaluations. A total of 356 completed surveys were received, which represented a response rate of 51.2%. The participants represented a good sample of all areas of the
DECEMBER1990
VOLUME64
NUMBER6
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
0 0
10
20
30
Percent
40
50
10 Percent
60
20
30
rerpanre
Fig. 5. Percentage of prosthodontics practiced in non-
response
Fig. 4. Hours spent per week in active patient treat-
limited offices.
ments.
Table
Gross income (in thousands of dollars)
I.
West Dollars
(n = 95)
Midwest (n = 56)
Northeast (n = 92)
O-20 21-35 36-50 51-100 IOl-200* 201-300 301-400 400+
2.1% 3.2% 8.4% 10.5% 24.2% 14.7% 12.6% 17.9%
1.8% 5.4% 8.9% 16.1% 28.6% 16.1% 10.7% 5.4%
3.3% 0.0% 8.7% 11.9% 7.6% 17.4% 26.1% 1.1%
*Median
gross income.
Table
II.
o-21 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-lOO* 101-150 151+
West (n = 95)
Midwest (n = 56)
10.5 % 10.5% 5 .(‘37 0 5.3% 15.8% 15.8% 19.0% 11.6%
8.9% 7.1% 14.3% 10.7% 12.5% 12.5% 14.3% 5.4%
PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTITIONER
The age distribution of the respondents is shown in Fig. 2. It is noteworthy that the largest age group (58.9%) is made up of those 31 to 45 years of age. However, approx-
THE
1.8% 0.0% 14.6% 20.0% 21.8% 10.9% 14.6% 9.1%
Northeast (n = 92) 4.4% 1.1% 9.8% 6.5% 13.0% 9.8% 15.2 % 25.0%
Mid-Atlantic (n = 58) 6.9% 1.7% 5.2% 10.3% 12.1% 13.8% 29.3% 13.8%
South (n = 66) 3.6% 7.3% 12.7% 10.9% 18.2% 7.3% 21.8% 7.3%
net income.
United States and were categorically grouped into one of five geographic areas: West, Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and South (Fig. 1).
THE
3.5% 1.7% 10.3% 10.3% 19.0% 17.2% 22.4% 15.5%
South (n = 55)
Net income (in thousands of dollars)
Dollars
*Median
Mid-Atlantic (n - 58)
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
imately 15 % of the practitioners were older than 55 years of age. Of the respondents, 94.6 % were men and 5.4 % were women. When asked to assesstheir feelings with regard to enjoyment of the practice of prosthodontics, 93.3% responded “yes” they were happy, whereas 6.7 % responded “no.” This assessment was carried further as participants were asked to classify their attitudes toward the future of prosthodontics (Fig. 3). Almost 70% were optimistic. 717
STADE
AND
DICKEY
400+ 301400 201-300
H
21-35
Dentistry
composite
*
O-20 20 Percent
Response
Fig. 6. Annual gross income per year (in thousands of dollars). (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988; 10~58.)
151t 101-150 I f
76-100
E . r E ii e 00 e
51-75 41-50 31-40
n
21.30
Dentistry composite’
B
6044
t a5
55-59 m
51-54
Prosthodontists
O-20 0
10 Percent
20
30
Response
10
20 Percent
r*spon*s
Fig. 7. Annual before tax net income per year (in thousands of dollars). (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988;10:62.)
Fig. 8. Annual overhead as a percentage of gross income. (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988;10:60.)
However, the other 30% were either skeptical, pessimistic, or noncommittal. Items of major concern were maintenance of busyness, specialty recognition by the public and the profession, third-party interferences, attraction of talented students into the specialty, and the maintenance of high practice standards.
laboratory duties. Responses to questions about the hours spent in laboratory work each week showed that 43.3% spend up to 5 hours, 34.8% spend 6 to 10 hours, 17.7% spend 11 to 20 hours, and 4.2% spend more than 20 hours in laboratory work each week. When asked whether they limit their practice to prosthodontics, 76.3% answered “yes” and 23.7% responded “no.” Of the “no” respondents, it was then asked what percentage of the practice was devoted to prosthodontics (Fig. 5). Two extremes showed the largest responses-lo% or less of the total time spent in prosthodontics was listed by 20.7% of these practices, whereas 28.5% reported that at least 81% of the time was devoted to the specialty. Those practices that spend 51% or more of their time in prosthodontics made up a total of 53.5% of the responses.
THE
PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
The time spent per week in active patient treatment is shown in Fig. 4. A total of 54% of the respondents spend between 31 and 40 hours of the workweek in active patient treatment. Of the remaining respondents, more than 35% spend less than 31 hours, and only 10.3% spend more than 40 hours a week in active patient treatment. These figures do not include the added hours spent in administrative and
‘718
DECEMBER
1990
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
6
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
1.4
0
1 0
20
10
Percent
10
20
30
Percent
30
40
50
60
response
Fig. 11. Number of dental technicians employed.
response
Fig. 9. Number of patients seen on an average day.
10
20 Percent
30
40
50
60
III. Dollars
West (n = 96)
O-50
1.1%
51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150
0.0% 7.4% 7.4% 4.2% 3.2% 6.3% 1.1% 5.3% 15.8%
176-200 201-225
226-250 250t gross income
Midwest (n=
56)
1.8% 1.8% 17.9% 10.7% 5.4% 1.8% 7.1% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4%
JOURNAL
30
40
50
rerpon*e
Fig. 12. Number of full-time dental assistants employed.
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
South
(n = 92)
(n = 58)
1.1% 1.1% 5.4% 2.2% 7.6% 6.5% 15.2% 0.0% 4.4% 10.9%
0.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0% 5.5% 14.6% 10.9% 0.0% 9.1% 1.8% 5.5% 7.3%
3.5% 6.9% 13.8% 5.2% 12.1% 1.7% 3.5% 5.2%
(n=
55)
per hour.
To gain a further insight into the practice styles of these practitioners, they were asked if they considered themselves to be adequately compensated for their efforts. “Yes” responses were listed by 50.3% of the participants and “no” responses were elicited from 49.7 % . Fig. 6 shows reported gross incomes. The median gross income ranged from $101,000 to $200,000. It is interesting to note that the second largest group reported gross incomes that exceeded
THE
20
Gross income per hour
151-175*
*Median
10 Percent
Fig. 10. Number of operatories used daily.
Table
0
response
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
$400,000. The Mid-Atlantic states had the highest number of those earning large gross incomes (Table I). Fig. 7 shows the net incomes. The most frequently reported incomes ranged from $101,000 to $150,000 per year. The median net income reported was $76,000 to $100,000 per year; again, the Mid-Atlantic area reported the greatest number of large net incomes (Table II). The reported median gross income per hour was $151 to $175 (Table III). 719
STADEANDDICKEY
7.2 51+
32.8 Less than lb
20 Porcont
30
40
50
10
60
0
.
40
I
2130
59
e 0 E 8 t P
30
response
Fig. 16. Percentage of practice time spent in removable complete denture treatment.
0.31
!51+
6
20 Percent
Fig. 13. Number of business office employees.
::
10
rorponro
0.62 IL
11-20
O-10
d
lb
2-o Percent
30
40
50
rrrponre
Fig. 14. Percentage of gross income paid in office salaries. Lees than 10 P. 0
I IO
*
I 20
.
Percent
I
30
-
I
10
7
I 50
.
t so
response
Fig. .17. Percentage of practice time spent in removable partial denture patient treatment. B E 1 z
30
20
0 66.9
10 Less than 10
Percent
response
Fig. 16. Percentage of practice time spent in examinations, diagnosis, and treatment planning.
The number of vacation days varied from 1 to 64+, with a median of 21 days. When asked whether they had attained full income potential, 83.5 % said “no” and 16.5 % said “yes.” Fig. 8 shows overhead as a percentage of gross income. The most frequent response was from the 23.3% who reported overheads of 60 % to 64 % . The median also was a 60 % to 64 % overhead, which is exactly what a recent survey reported for a dental practitioners’ composite.’
720
When asked what numbers of patients were seen on an average day, the largest response was between 7 and 10, which represents 43.1% of all responses (Fig. 9). This seemingly low patient volume was substantiated by the responses shown in Fig. 10, which illustrates the use of a smaller number of operations than that seen in many general dentistry practices. Most prosthodontists (66.1%) do not own their office space and 67 % do not share space with fellow prosthodontists. Further, 80.9 % do not practice in a partnership and 81.6% do not have an associate. A total of 52.9% have an in-house laboratory and the number of technicians they employ is shown in Fig. 11. Of those who use contractual laboratory services, 62.8% responded that 11% to 20% of their gross income was spent in laboratory fees, whereas an additional 22.5% stated they spent 21% to 30 % of gross income for this support. Fig. 12 illustrates the number of full-time dental assistants employed; the largest response was from the 48.4%) who employ only one assistant. One business office person is employed by 53.3% (Fig. 13), and
DEcEMr3ERieeo
VOLUME~~
NUMBERB
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
0.7
B.5
10 Less than 10 7
I
cl
10
20 Percent
30
10
40
20
responre
Fig. 18. Percentage of practice time spent in fixed partial denture treatment (three to six units in size).
Percent
30
40
50
rerponse
20. Percentage of practice time spent in gold inlay/ onlay patient treatment.
Fig.
51+
Less than 10 0 Percent
Fig.
19. Percentage of practice time spent in fixed partial
83% of these practicing prosthodontists employ one dental hygienist or none at all. The percentage of gross income paid in staff salaries is seen in Fig. 14. The largest number of respondents, 46.3 % , reported that they pay 11% to 20 % of gross income in salaries; 30.9% of the respondents indicated that they pay 21% to 30%. Some insight into the sources of practice revenue is offered in the following data. Only 1.6% responded that they were affiliated with capitation. Also, 65.4% reported that 25 % to 50 % of their gross income was from insurance carriers. A possible problem was identified in that only 44.8 % of the insurance carriers recognize prosthodontic practitioners as specialists. Sources of new patients are shown in Table IV. The respondents were further asked to identify by percentages the time spent in various diagnosis and treatment procedures. These percentages would give some
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
20
DENTISTRY
30
Percent
responre
denture treatment (seven+ units in size).
THE
10
40
50
60
response
21. Percentage of practice time spent in amalgam restoration patient treatment.
Fig.
=a 5 E G 5 0
51+ 50 40 30 20 10
Less than 10 0
40
20
Psrcsnt
60
60
response
22. Percentage of practice time spent in composite resin restoration patient treatment.
Fig.
721
STADE
Table
IV.
DICKEY
Sources of new patient referrals Existing patients
Private Elwood
prosthodontic
practice: A status report
H. Stade, D.D.S.,* and Keith
Southern Illinois University,
Winfield
Dickey,
D.D.S., M.B.A.**
School of Dental Medicine, Alton, Ill.
This article reports the data of a national poll of private prosthodontic practitioners. It reports incomes, overhead expenses, staff size, and character of prosthodontic practices. The study also develops a profile for a median prosthodontic practice and practitioner. (J PROSTHET DENT 1990;64:716-22.)
T
he specialty practice of prosthetic dentistry is a challenging and personally rewarding career. Numerous articles are continuously written to introduce new products and techniques. Clinical studies appear in the journals to provide information of treatment successes and failures. Little is found, however, that addresses the financial rewards or the typical practice profiles of successful prosthodontic practices. Are these practices typically different from general dentistry and if so what identifiable differences exist? This national study polled 695 prosthodontists who were listed in the membership roster of the American College of Prosthodontists. Each person received a survey form that requested not only demographic data but also practice profiles, financial arrangements for dental care, and the practitioner’s personal beliefs with regard to the present
*Section Head, Removable Partial Prosthodontics. **Section Head, Practice Management; Director, Dental Auxiliary Utilization.
71+ 68-70 =
61-65
iiss-so s!
51-55
:
46-50
P
41-45
20.4 22.6
36-40 31-35 2530
I 10
0
Percent
I 20
I 30
response
Fig. 2. Age of respondents.
Other
Pessimistic
10/l/18276
Skeptical
A
1
0
20
Percent
40 rerponses
60
80
Fig. 3. Practitioners’ attitude toward future of prosthodontics.
lb Percent
--
response
Fig. 1. Geographic distribution
716
1 26
of respondents.
30
and future practice of prosthodontics. All data were received by February 1, 1988. Data were recorded on computer disks to facilitate rapid recall and mathematical evaluations. A total of 356 completed surveys were received, which represented a response rate of 51.2%. The participants represented a good sample of all areas of the
DECEMBER1990
VOLUME64
NUMBER6
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
0 0
10
20
30
Percent
40
50
10 Percent
60
20
30
rerpanre
Fig. 5. Percentage of prosthodontics practiced in non-
response
Fig. 4. Hours spent per week in active patient treat-
limited offices.
ments.
Table
Gross income (in thousands of dollars)
I.
West Dollars
(n = 95)
Midwest (n = 56)
Northeast (n = 92)
O-20 21-35 36-50 51-100 IOl-200* 201-300 301-400 400+
2.1% 3.2% 8.4% 10.5% 24.2% 14.7% 12.6% 17.9%
1.8% 5.4% 8.9% 16.1% 28.6% 16.1% 10.7% 5.4%
3.3% 0.0% 8.7% 11.9% 7.6% 17.4% 26.1% 1.1%
*Median
gross income.
Table
II.
o-21 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-75 76-lOO* 101-150 151+
West (n = 95)
Midwest (n = 56)
10.5 % 10.5% 5 .(‘37 0 5.3% 15.8% 15.8% 19.0% 11.6%
8.9% 7.1% 14.3% 10.7% 12.5% 12.5% 14.3% 5.4%
PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTITIONER
The age distribution of the respondents is shown in Fig. 2. It is noteworthy that the largest age group (58.9%) is made up of those 31 to 45 years of age. However, approx-
THE
1.8% 0.0% 14.6% 20.0% 21.8% 10.9% 14.6% 9.1%
Northeast (n = 92) 4.4% 1.1% 9.8% 6.5% 13.0% 9.8% 15.2 % 25.0%
Mid-Atlantic (n = 58) 6.9% 1.7% 5.2% 10.3% 12.1% 13.8% 29.3% 13.8%
South (n = 66) 3.6% 7.3% 12.7% 10.9% 18.2% 7.3% 21.8% 7.3%
net income.
United States and were categorically grouped into one of five geographic areas: West, Midwest, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and South (Fig. 1).
THE
3.5% 1.7% 10.3% 10.3% 19.0% 17.2% 22.4% 15.5%
South (n = 55)
Net income (in thousands of dollars)
Dollars
*Median
Mid-Atlantic (n - 58)
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
imately 15 % of the practitioners were older than 55 years of age. Of the respondents, 94.6 % were men and 5.4 % were women. When asked to assesstheir feelings with regard to enjoyment of the practice of prosthodontics, 93.3% responded “yes” they were happy, whereas 6.7 % responded “no.” This assessment was carried further as participants were asked to classify their attitudes toward the future of prosthodontics (Fig. 3). Almost 70% were optimistic. 717
STADE
AND
DICKEY
400+ 301400 201-300
H
21-35
Dentistry
composite
*
O-20 20 Percent
Response
Fig. 6. Annual gross income per year (in thousands of dollars). (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988; 10~58.)
151t 101-150 I f
76-100
E . r E ii e 00 e
51-75 41-50 31-40
n
21.30
Dentistry composite’
B
6044
t a5
55-59 m
51-54
Prosthodontists
O-20 0
10 Percent
20
30
Response
10
20 Percent
r*spon*s
Fig. 7. Annual before tax net income per year (in thousands of dollars). (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988;10:62.)
Fig. 8. Annual overhead as a percentage of gross income. (Reprinted with permission from Anderson PE. Dentistry continues on a steady course. Dent Economics 1988;10:60.)
However, the other 30% were either skeptical, pessimistic, or noncommittal. Items of major concern were maintenance of busyness, specialty recognition by the public and the profession, third-party interferences, attraction of talented students into the specialty, and the maintenance of high practice standards.
laboratory duties. Responses to questions about the hours spent in laboratory work each week showed that 43.3% spend up to 5 hours, 34.8% spend 6 to 10 hours, 17.7% spend 11 to 20 hours, and 4.2% spend more than 20 hours in laboratory work each week. When asked whether they limit their practice to prosthodontics, 76.3% answered “yes” and 23.7% responded “no.” Of the “no” respondents, it was then asked what percentage of the practice was devoted to prosthodontics (Fig. 5). Two extremes showed the largest responses-lo% or less of the total time spent in prosthodontics was listed by 20.7% of these practices, whereas 28.5% reported that at least 81% of the time was devoted to the specialty. Those practices that spend 51% or more of their time in prosthodontics made up a total of 53.5% of the responses.
THE
PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
The time spent per week in active patient treatment is shown in Fig. 4. A total of 54% of the respondents spend between 31 and 40 hours of the workweek in active patient treatment. Of the remaining respondents, more than 35% spend less than 31 hours, and only 10.3% spend more than 40 hours a week in active patient treatment. These figures do not include the added hours spent in administrative and
‘718
DECEMBER
1990
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
6
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
1.4
0
1 0
20
10
Percent
10
20
30
Percent
30
40
50
60
response
Fig. 11. Number of dental technicians employed.
response
Fig. 9. Number of patients seen on an average day.
10
20 Percent
30
40
50
60
III. Dollars
West (n = 96)
O-50
1.1%
51-75 76-100 101-125 126-150
0.0% 7.4% 7.4% 4.2% 3.2% 6.3% 1.1% 5.3% 15.8%
176-200 201-225
226-250 250t gross income
Midwest (n=
56)
1.8% 1.8% 17.9% 10.7% 5.4% 1.8% 7.1% 0.0% 1.8% 5.4%
JOURNAL
30
40
50
rerpon*e
Fig. 12. Number of full-time dental assistants employed.
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
South
(n = 92)
(n = 58)
1.1% 1.1% 5.4% 2.2% 7.6% 6.5% 15.2% 0.0% 4.4% 10.9%
0.0%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0% 5.5% 14.6% 10.9% 0.0% 9.1% 1.8% 5.5% 7.3%
3.5% 6.9% 13.8% 5.2% 12.1% 1.7% 3.5% 5.2%
(n=
55)
per hour.
To gain a further insight into the practice styles of these practitioners, they were asked if they considered themselves to be adequately compensated for their efforts. “Yes” responses were listed by 50.3% of the participants and “no” responses were elicited from 49.7 % . Fig. 6 shows reported gross incomes. The median gross income ranged from $101,000 to $200,000. It is interesting to note that the second largest group reported gross incomes that exceeded
THE
20
Gross income per hour
151-175*
*Median
10 Percent
Fig. 10. Number of operatories used daily.
Table
0
response
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
$400,000. The Mid-Atlantic states had the highest number of those earning large gross incomes (Table I). Fig. 7 shows the net incomes. The most frequently reported incomes ranged from $101,000 to $150,000 per year. The median net income reported was $76,000 to $100,000 per year; again, the Mid-Atlantic area reported the greatest number of large net incomes (Table II). The reported median gross income per hour was $151 to $175 (Table III). 719
STADEANDDICKEY
7.2 51+
32.8 Less than lb
20 Porcont
30
40
50
10
60
0
.
40
I
2130
59
e 0 E 8 t P
30
response
Fig. 16. Percentage of practice time spent in removable complete denture treatment.
0.31
!51+
6
20 Percent
Fig. 13. Number of business office employees.
::
10
rorponro
0.62 IL
11-20
O-10
d
lb
2-o Percent
30
40
50
rrrponre
Fig. 14. Percentage of gross income paid in office salaries. Lees than 10 P. 0
I IO
*
I 20
.
Percent
I
30
-
I
10
7
I 50
.
t so
response
Fig. .17. Percentage of practice time spent in removable partial denture patient treatment. B E 1 z
30
20
0 66.9
10 Less than 10
Percent
response
Fig. 16. Percentage of practice time spent in examinations, diagnosis, and treatment planning.
The number of vacation days varied from 1 to 64+, with a median of 21 days. When asked whether they had attained full income potential, 83.5 % said “no” and 16.5 % said “yes.” Fig. 8 shows overhead as a percentage of gross income. The most frequent response was from the 23.3% who reported overheads of 60 % to 64 % . The median also was a 60 % to 64 % overhead, which is exactly what a recent survey reported for a dental practitioners’ composite.’
720
When asked what numbers of patients were seen on an average day, the largest response was between 7 and 10, which represents 43.1% of all responses (Fig. 9). This seemingly low patient volume was substantiated by the responses shown in Fig. 10, which illustrates the use of a smaller number of operations than that seen in many general dentistry practices. Most prosthodontists (66.1%) do not own their office space and 67 % do not share space with fellow prosthodontists. Further, 80.9 % do not practice in a partnership and 81.6% do not have an associate. A total of 52.9% have an in-house laboratory and the number of technicians they employ is shown in Fig. 11. Of those who use contractual laboratory services, 62.8% responded that 11% to 20% of their gross income was spent in laboratory fees, whereas an additional 22.5% stated they spent 21% to 30 % of gross income for this support. Fig. 12 illustrates the number of full-time dental assistants employed; the largest response was from the 48.4%) who employ only one assistant. One business office person is employed by 53.3% (Fig. 13), and
DEcEMr3ERieeo
VOLUME~~
NUMBERB
STATUS
OF PROSTHODONTIC
PRACTICE
0.7
B.5
10 Less than 10 7
I
cl
10
20 Percent
30
10
40
20
responre
Fig. 18. Percentage of practice time spent in fixed partial denture treatment (three to six units in size).
Percent
30
40
50
rerponse
20. Percentage of practice time spent in gold inlay/ onlay patient treatment.
Fig.
51+
Less than 10 0 Percent
Fig.
19. Percentage of practice time spent in fixed partial
83% of these practicing prosthodontists employ one dental hygienist or none at all. The percentage of gross income paid in staff salaries is seen in Fig. 14. The largest number of respondents, 46.3 % , reported that they pay 11% to 20 % of gross income in salaries; 30.9% of the respondents indicated that they pay 21% to 30%. Some insight into the sources of practice revenue is offered in the following data. Only 1.6% responded that they were affiliated with capitation. Also, 65.4% reported that 25 % to 50 % of their gross income was from insurance carriers. A possible problem was identified in that only 44.8 % of the insurance carriers recognize prosthodontic practitioners as specialists. Sources of new patients are shown in Table IV. The respondents were further asked to identify by percentages the time spent in various diagnosis and treatment procedures. These percentages would give some
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
20
DENTISTRY
30
Percent
responre
denture treatment (seven+ units in size).
THE
10
40
50
60
response
21. Percentage of practice time spent in amalgam restoration patient treatment.
Fig.
=a 5 E G 5 0
51+ 50 40 30 20 10
Less than 10 0
40
20
Psrcsnt
60
60
response
22. Percentage of practice time spent in composite resin restoration patient treatment.
Fig.
721
STADE
Table
IV.
DICKEY
Sources of new patient referrals Existing patients
