Costly chronic diseases: a retrospective analysis of Chronic Disease Dental Scheme expenditureLeonard A. Crocombe A B , Jennifer Kraatz A C , Ha Hoang A D , Daiyi Qin A and Diana Godwin A
A Centre for Rural Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Tasmania, Locked Bag 1372, Launceston, Tas. 7250, Australia. Email: Jennifer.Kraatz@utas.edu.au; firstname.lastname@example.org; Diana.Godwin@utas.edu.au
B Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Level 1, 122 Frome Street, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia. Email: email@example.com
C Oral Health Services Tasmania, Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services, Northern Dental Centre, Kelham Street, Launceston, Tas. 7250, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: Thi.Hoang@utas.edu.au
Australian Health Review 39(4) 448-452 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH14191
Submitted: 21 October 2014 Accepted: 19 December 2014 Published: 23 February 2015
Objective The aim of the present study was to investigate Medicare rebate claim trends under the Australian Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS) over time, region and type of service.
Methods CDDS data obtained from the Department of Human Services reflected all Medicare item claims lodged under the CDDS by dental practitioners and processed by Medicare. Retrospective analysis of CDDS rebate claims was conducted.
Results The CDDS rebates for the period 2008–13 totalled A$2.8 billion. Just under 81% of claims were from dental practitioners working in major cities. The most frequent rebates were for crown, bridge and implant (32.4%), removable prostheses (22.4%) and restorative services (21.3%). The rebate claims of restorative services, crown and bridge, and removable prostheses per dentist in all regional areas increased over the time of the CDDS. Per capita, the rebates for every type of dental service were lower in the more remote regions.
Conclusions Rebate claims increased in each of the last 3 full years of the CDDS across all areas. The majority of Medicare rebate claims were from major city areas and for crown and bridge, removable prostheses and restorative services. The service mix varied between regions.
What is known about the topic? The CDDS was described as ‘unsustainable’ from the governmental budgetary perspective, being controversial around the value of the program, ‘poorly targeted’ and having implementation and administrative requirement shortfalls.
What does this paper add? The CDDS rebates for the period 2008–13 totalled A$2.8 billion, with just under 81% of claims from dental practitioners working in major cities. The services with the highest rebate claims were crown and bridge, removable prostheses and restorative services.
What are the implications for practitioners? In future such schemes, the type of services offered could be reviewed regularly by policymakers in order to control item expenses. The take-up of Government dental schemes may be slow to start, but will tend to increase rapidly over the life of the scheme.
Additional keywords: dental health, oral epidemiology, rural health, utilisation of health services.
References Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Chronic disease and associated risk factors in Australia. Canberra: AIHW; 2006.
 Lam R, Kruger E, Tennant M. Dental demystification: a retrospective analysis of patterns of care under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Asia Pacific J Health Manage 2013; 8 30–8.
 National Advisory Committee on Oral Health (NACOH). Healthy mouths, healthy lives: Australia’s National Oral Health Plan 2004–2013. Adelaide: NACOH; 2004.
 Department of Health and Ageing. Medicare Benefits Schedule dental services. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing; 2012.
 Department of Health and Ageing. Bridging the dental gap: report into the inquiry on adult dental services. 2013. Available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=haa/dental/report.htm [verified 18 June 2013].
 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) 2011 structure and summary. Canberra: ABS; 2013. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/c453c497aadde71cca2576d300026a38/$FILE/ASGS%202011%20Structure%20and%20Summary.pdf [verified 25 August 2014].
 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Dental workforce 2011. Canberra: AIHW; 2013.
 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Risk factors contributing to chronic disease. Canberra: AIHW; 2012.
 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Geographic variation in oral health and use of dental services in the Australian population 2004–06. Adelaide: AIHW; 2009.
 Knott RJ, Cass A, Heeley EL, Chalmers JP, Peiris DP, Clarke PM. How fair is Medicare? The income-related distribution of Medicare benefits with special focus on chronic care items. Med J Aust 2012; 197 625–30.
| How fair is Medicare? The income-related distribution of Medicare benefits with special focus on chronic care items.CrossRef | 23230933PubMed |
 Adams C, Slack-Smith L, Larson A, O’Grady M. Dental visits in older Western Australians: a comparison of urban, rural and remote residents. Aust J Rural Health 2004; 12 143–9.
| Dental visits in older Western Australians: a comparison of urban, rural and remote residents.CrossRef | 15315541PubMed |
 Curtis B, Evans RW, Sbaraini A, Schwarz E. Geographic location and indirect costs as a barrier to dental treatment: a patients’s perspective. Aust Dent J 2007; 52 271–5.
| Geographic location and indirect costs as a barrier to dental treatment: a patients’s perspective.CrossRef | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c7gvVaitg%3D%3D&md5=51531699ebc0496246284a3fd4028159CAS | 18265681PubMed |
 Humphreys J, Jones M, Jones JA, Mara PR. Workforce retention in rural and remote Australia: determining the factors that influence length of practice. Med J Aust 2002; 176 472–6.
| 12065010PubMed |
 Teusner D, Chrisopoulos S, Brennan DS. Geographic distrubution of the Australian dental labour force, 2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2007.