Medicaid and Dental Care for Children

According to guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, all youth should see a dentist for routine dental screening and preventive care twice a year. Dental care is a mandatory benefit for most Medicaid eligibles under the age of 21, however, nationwide, the majority of low-income children enrolled in Medicaid do not receive any dental services in a given year. There are many beneficiary and provider-related issues that contribute to inadequate access to and delivery of dental care. To address this problem, some states have undertaken new Medicaid initiatives to attract and retain dental providers that may serve as models for other state Medicaid programs.

Medicaid and Dental Care for Children

January 8, 2009 (R40184)

Summary

According to guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, all youth should see a dentist for routine dental screening and preventive care twice a year. Dental care is a mandatory benefit for most Medicaid eligibles under the age of 21, however, nationwide, the majority of low-income children enrolled in Medicaid do not receive any dental services in a given year. There are many beneficiary and provider-related issues that contribute to inadequate access to and delivery of dental care. To address this problem, some states have undertaken new Medicaid initiatives to attract and retain dental providers that may serve as models for other state Medicaid programs.


Medicaid and Dental Care for Children

Lack of regular dental care can result in pain, infection, and delayed diagnosis of oral diseases. During the 2001-2004 period, one-fourth to one-third of children ages 2 to 19 in families with income below 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL)1 experienced untreated dental caries (decay), a sign that needed dental care was not received. In 2005, about one-third of all children living below 200% FPL did not have a recent dental visit.2 In a related study, GAO found that during the 1999-2004 period, roughly one in three Medicaid children ages 2 through 18 had untreated tooth decay, and data from 2004 through 2005 indicated that only 37% received any dental care over a one-year period.3

With respect to receipt of dental services, insurance matters. In 2006, 50.9% of individuals under the age of 21 in the United States had private dental coverage, another 30.4% had public dental coverage (primarily Medicaid and SCHIP), and 18.7% had no dental coverage. The percentage of individuals under age 21 that had a dental visit in 2006 varied by type of coverage—58.0% with private dental coverage had a dental visit that year, compared with 35.1% of those with public dental coverage and 26.3% of the subgroup with no dental coverage.4

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) recommends that every child be seen by a dentist following the eruption of the first tooth, but not later than 12 months of age. All other children should have additional periodic dental exams every six months (i.e., twice a year). Under Medicaid, states must adopt a dental periodicity schedule, which can be state-specific based on consultation with dental groups, or may be based on nationally recognized dental periodicity schedules, such as the AAPD's guidelines.5

One goal of the Healthy People 2010 initiative, a federal effort to increase quality and years of healthy life and eliminate health disparities, is that at least 66% of low-income children receive a preventive dental visit each year.6 Most Medicaid children under age 21 are entitled to Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) services.7 The Medicaid statute (Section 1905(r)) defines required EPSDT screening services to include dental services that, at a minimum, include relief of pain and infections, restoration of teeth, and maintenance of dental health. In addition, care that is necessary to correct or ameliorate identified problems must also be provided, including services that states do not otherwise cover in their Medicaid programs. Beneficiary cost-sharing for services such as dental care is prohibited for children under age 18, and is optional for those ages 18-20.8 Federal law is intended to eliminate or significantly reduce major barriers to dental services for Medicaid children.

Nonetheless, the research literature has identified several factors that affect the use of dental services among children. From a beneficiary perspective, barriers include, for example, ability to pay for care, navigating government assistance programs, finding a dentist who will accept Medicaid, locating a dentist close to home (especially in inner-city and rural areas), getting to a dentist office, cultural or language barriers, and lack of knowledge about the need for periodic oral health care.9

Most of the dental care provided in the United States is delivered by private dentists. In contrast to physician services, about half of all payments for dental services are made out-of-pocket, rather than through insurance. In addition, overhead in dental practices is high, averaging about 60 cents for every dollar earned, due in part to the need for expensive equipment. New dentists also face substantial debt because of the high cost of dental education.10

While there are questions about whether there is an overall shortage of dentists in the United States, there is general agreement that too few provide services to those who are publicly funded and those with special needs. Federal Medicaid law and regulations require that payment rates be sufficient to enlist enough providers so that services are available at least to the same extent that such services are available to the general population in the geographic area.11 Nonetheless, reimbursement rates are an obstacle to such participation.

In addition to reimbursement rates, dentists typically cite two other reasons for their low participation rates in Medicaid: burdensome administrative requirements and patient behavior (e.g., infrequent care-seeking behavior and high no-show rates for dental appointments).12 A recent study of physicians also shows a negative relationship between administrative issues (delays in receiving payments) and participation in Medicaid.13

Receipt of Dental Services Among
EPSDT Participants

The Medicaid statute (Section 1902(a)(43)) requires states to inform and arrange for the delivery of EPSDT services to eligible children, and also includes annual reporting requirements for states. The tool used to capture these required EPSDT data is called the CMS-416 form. The current CMS-416 form (effective as of FY1999) includes the unduplicated count of EPSDT eligibles by age and basis of eligibility who receive (1) any dental services, (2) preventive dental services, and (3) dental treatment services. Classification into one of these measures is based on specific dental procedure codes recorded on provider claims.

Across states in FY2006, use of dental services among Medicaid children was generally low, as shown in Table 1. Receipt of any dental services among Medicaid children eligible for EPSDT ranged from 18.9% (in North Dakota) to 55.7% (in West Virginia). Receipt of preventive dental services ranged from 6.7% (in Utah) to 51.0% (in Vermont). Finally, receipt of dental treatment services ranged from 6.4% (in Nevada) to 40.8% (in West Virginia).

Table 1. Percentage of EPSDT Eligibles Receiving Dental Services,
by Type and State, FY2006

States

Any Dental Services

Preventive Dental
Services

Dental Treatment
Services

Alabama

37.0

33.1

19.9

Alaska

39.3

31.6

21.8

Arizona

33.6

28.0

18.2

Arkansas

26.8

23.8

24.1

California

28.2

23.0

15.5

Colorado

34.5

28.6

17.6

Connecticut

33.2

27.6

14.1

Delaware

29.2

25.7

14.7

District of Columbia

26.2

22.1

15.3

Florida

20.9

13.3

7.8

Georgia

35.0

32.4

17.1

Hawaii

40.8

33.3

21.4

Idaho

40.4

34.1

25.2

Illinois

35.6

32.2

28.1

Indiana

41.4

37.0

22.1

Iowa

42.5

36.8

18.6

Kansas

36.1

32.8

18.2

Kentucky

32.9

24.9

19.7

Louisiana

27.6

23.1

15.0

Maine

NA

NA

NA

Maryland

30.7

25.4

13.0

Massachusetts

37.7

33.6

22.6

Michigan

30.0

29.0

12.6

Minnesota

33.7

29.6

16.7

Mississippi

35.2

27.3

19.3

Missouri

23.8

20.7

14.2

Montana

24.5

20.6

13.5

Nebraska

44.2

39.5

22.0

Nevada

19.7

15.7

6.4

New Hampshire

41.8

37.5

19.7

New Jersey

25.9

21.2

15.3

New Mexico

41.3

37.3

40.5

New York

27.4

19.7

14.3

North Carolina

39.3

35.0

18.5

North Dakota

18.9

15.6

9.0

Ohio

35.6

30.7

16.0

Oklahoma

36.7

33.9

17.6

Oregon

31.0

25.3

16.0

Pennsylvania

27.2

22.6

13.1

Rhode Island

37.7

31.2

18.3

South Carolina

South Dakota

34.2

29.9

12.5

Tennessee

36.3

31.7

18.8

Texas

42.5

36.4

21.8

Utah

31.8

6.7

14.3

Vermont

52.3

51.0

22.6

Virginia

31.8

28.5

16.3

Washington

42.2

38.9

21.0

West Virginia

55.7

35.2

40.8

Wisconsin

21.2

17.8

9.8

Wyoming

33.0

28.0

17.9

All Reporting States

32.8

27.7

17.5

Source: FY2006 Form 416 data from CMS as of December 23, 2008. Data for Maine are missing. Data for South Carolina are omitted due to reporting problems.

Note: NA = not available. "Any dental services" includes all such care. "Preventive dental services" and "dental treatment services" are mutually exclusive.

During routine immunization and well-child visits, there are a number of opportunities for physicians to inform parents about the need for dental services for their children. Guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics for well-child visits during 2006 (in effect since 2000) called for initial dental referrals at age three years, or as early as one year of age when indicated.14

Table 2 provides a more detailed analysis of the receipt of preventive dental services by age in FY2006. Across age groups within each state and for all reporting states as a whole, utilization patterns resembled a bell-shaped curve (see Figure 1). That is, children at the age extremes tended to receive fewer preventive dental services than children in the middle of the age range. Among nearly all states, the highest rates of preventive dental care were observed for the six- to nine-year-old age group. For this age group, 10 states15 had preventive dental rates over 50%, and one state (Vermont) met the Healthy People 2010 goal that at least 66% of such children receive a preventive dental visit.

The higher rates of preventive dental care among children aged six to nine may be related in part to school entry requirements for childhood immunizations. In order to attend kindergarten at ages five and six, for example, all states require that children have received common childhood immunizations (e.g., vaccinations for diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis, or DTaP; measles, mumps, and rubella, or MMR; and polio).16 When children receive those immunizations, health care providers may make referrals for other health services, including dental care.

Table 2. Percentage of EPSDT Eligibles Receiving Preventive Dental Services,
by Age Group and State, FY2006

States

Total

Age Groups

< 1

1-2

3-5

6-9

10-14

15-18

19-20

Alabama

33.1

0.2

11.7

46.5

48.9

43.5

31.6

4.3

Alaska

31.6

0.0

6.5

33.8

45.3

43.6

34.9

16.5

Arizona

28.0

0.0

3.3

33.4

48.5

41.9

25.1

10.4

Arkansas

23.8

0.2

10.3

33.0

38.3

32.7

23.5

2.1

California

23.0

0.0

5.3

26.8

34.9

32.0

23.1

13.0

Colorado

28.6

0.2

11.5

34.8

43.1

38.8

29.7

13.6

Connecticut

27.6

0.1

5.9

31.2

42.7

37.4

24.6

9.7

Delaware

25.7

0.0

2.6

32.0

41.6

36.4

23.6

10.7

District of Columbia

22.1

0.0

4.5

30.8

31.5

28.2

20.5

9.8

Florida

13.3

0.0

2.3

16.1

20.8

18.7

13.1

6.0

Georgia

32.4

0.0

6.4

42.5

51.5

45.4

32.2

15.4

Hawaii

33.3

0.5

22.3

46.1

46.0

39.3

27.4

11.2

Idaho

34.1

0.2

7.8

35.6

50.3

46.6

37.1

19.1

Illinois

32.2

0.4

9.9

45.7

50.3

39.4

21.6

6.4

Indiana

37.0

0.0

9.0

42.0

55.3

49.6

37.5

19.0

Iowa

36.8

5.6

17.9

44.2

47.8

45.4

38.7

31.1

Kansas

32.8

0.2

7.9

39.8

49.8

46.0

37.3

16.2

Kentucky

24.9

0.1

4.2

28.0

36.6

34.5

28.3

16.8

Louisiana

23.1

0.0

5.3

29.7

32.7

28.7

22.6

9.5

Maine

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Maryland

25.4

0.5

3.9

28.2

37.0

33.9

26.1

22.7

Massachusetts

33.6

0.1

5.9

39.3

48.5

45.8

35.4

17.8

Michigan

29.0

0.1

3.6

34.1

44.6

37.3

28.4

16.8

Minnesota

29.6

0.2

3.4

34.0

44.1

42.2

33.6

20.4

Mississippi

27.3

0.9

7.0

40.1

36.5

33.5

29.7

32.2

Missouri

20.7

0.0

1.9

22.5

31.9

29.0

21.1

8.2

Montana

20.6

0.2

4.7

23.6

30.0

26.9

20.2

8.6

Nebraska

39.5

4.8

7.7

44.7

57.9

55.2

42.3

24.8

Nevada

15.7

0.6

5.4

18.9

25.3

22.8

16.0

5.4

New Hampshire

37.5

0.1

6.3

38.7

52.9

49.8

41.7

19.9

New Jersey

21.2

0.1

4.2

24.4

31.6

28.7

21.5

12.4

New Mexico

37.3

0.2

12.7

43.4

55.5

48.5

32.9

15.7

New York

19.7

0.1

3.3

22.6

30.7

27.7

19.5

14.0

North Carolina

35.0

5.8

37.8

38.2

45.4

41.5

30.0

14.4

North Dakota

15.6

0.0

1.1

19.0

24.7

23.0

16.0

7.8

Ohio

30.7

0.1

5.6

37.4

44.9

39.7

29.9

17.5

Oklahoma

33.9

0.2

9.4

37.6

48.3

46.1

36.1

18.1

Oregon

25.3

0.2

8.5

30.0

38.4

34.0

26.9

15.4

Pennsylvania

22.6

0.0

2.6

25.0

34.3

30.8

23.8

13.1

Rhode Island

31.2

0.0

1.5

27.4

48.3

44.0

32.2

16.2

South Carolina

South Dakota

29.9

0.2

7.4

35.8

44.0

39.8

29.5

16.8

Tennessee

31.7

0.0

5.5

34.2

47.9

45.8

34.8

17.4

Texas

36.4

0.0

25.3

46.3

50.8

46.5

31.9

14.8

Utah

6.7

0.1

2.6

7.8

13.5

12.1

6.6

1.7

Vermont

51.0

0.3

13.6

53.7

67.1

63.9

55.4

35.2

Virginia

28.5

0.1

5.5

33.1

42.6

39.9

30.5

12.0

Washington

38.9

1.3

22.7

47.9

53.5

46.5

34.4

13.2

West Virginia

35.2

0.2

9.1

44.9

48.5

46.6

36.1

8.5

Wisconsin

17.8

0.3

5.0

22.6

28.8

25.1

15.5

4.6

Wyoming

28.0

0.2

4.0

30.4

43.8

40.5

32.3

14.4

All Reporting States

27.7

0.4

9.2

33.7

41.4

37.0

26.8

13.7

Source: FY2006 Form 416 data from CMS as of December 23, 2008. Data for Maine are missing. Data for South Carolina are omitted due to reporting problems.

Note: NA = not available.

Figure 1. Percentage of EPSDT Eligibles Receiving Preventive Dental Services,
by Age Group for All Reporting States Combined, FY2006

Source: Data taken from Table 2, above.

Emerging Models for Dental Care for
Medicaid Children

Many states recognize that dental care is underutilized across most Medicaid sub-populations. In a September 2008 hearing17 before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, state officials and other representatives from Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, and from the dental profession, described recent state actions to improve dental care for Medicaid children. Their recommendations included the following:

  • increase dental reimbursement rates to make them more in line with private market-based rates;
  • remove administrative barriers (e.g., prior authorization for certain procedures, simplified claims, and use of electronic billing);
  • carve out dental benefits from managed care contracts and use a single dental vendor to establish a more stream-lined approach to processing claims and paying providers;
  • when designing new dental program features, involve dentists and professional dental organizations;
  • establish dedicated dental units in state governments to help guide policy decisions; and
  • establish "dental extenders" to increase service capacity, including for example, (1) primary care medical professionals to provide oral evaluation and risk assessment, counseling for parents about oral hygiene, and application of fluorides,18 and (2) other allied dental providers that can do community outreach and education, and perform preventive services such as fluoride and sealant application, potentially expanding to additional dental treatment services.19

Other states may draw lessons from these experiences and recommendations. With respect to the final point above, provider groups hold varying opinions about the extent to which non-dentists can and should provide certain dental services. States may need to address such issues if they wish to expand access to dental care under Medicaid for children and other sub-groups.

Footnotes

1.

In 2004, for example, the federal poverty level for a family of four was equal to $18,850 (see 69 Federal Register 7336, February 13, 2004).

2.

National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2007 With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, MD: 2007. Hereafter referenced as Health, United States, 2007.

3.

Testimony by Alicia Puente Cackly, Acting Director, Health Care, Government Accountability Office, Medicaid: Extent of Dental Disease in Children Has Not Decreased, before the Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, September 23, 2008.

4.

See Manski, R.J. and Brown, E. Dental Coverage of Children and Young Adults Under Age 21, United States, 1996 and 2006. Statistical Brief 221. September 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, at http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st221/stat221.pdf

5.

As per 42 CFR 441.58; also see Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Guide to Children's Dental Care in Medicaid, October 2004, and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Guideline on Periodicity of Examination, Preventive Dental Services, Anticipatory Guidance, and Oral Treatment of Children, 2003.

6.

Originally, a goal of 57% was set for this participation rate (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010. Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 2000). A subsequent review increased that goal to 66% (see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Progress Report: Oral Health, February 7, 2008).

7.

While EPSDT is a mandatory benefit for the majority of Medicaid beneficiaries under 21, a small subset classified as "medically needy" may receive EPSDT at state option. Although an official count is not available, it is likely that all states currently provide EPSDT to this group. In addition, as an alternative to traditional Medicaid benefits, the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 allows states to offer benchmark benefit packages similar to coverage in the employer-based insurance market to many groups of Medicaid beneficiaries. This DRA option provides access to EPSDT as a "wrap-around" to these benchmark plans for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 19; in other words, states that use the DRA benchmark plan option must still provide EPSDT services to this sub-population when the benchmark plans do not cover this benefit.

8.

Under the DRA, cost-sharing is prohibited only for children in mandatory eligibility categories (e.g., those under age 18 who are covered through mandatory cash assistance-related eligibility groups) and certain foster care/adoption assistance children. Such children may nonetheless be subject to nominal cost-sharing for non-emergency use of an emergency room and prescribed drugs at state option.

9.

Health, United States, 2007.

10.

For more information on Medicaid payment rates, characteristics of dental practices, and factors that influence Medicaid participation among dentists, see, for example, S. Gehshan and M. Wyatt, Improving Oral Health Care for Young Children, National Academy for State Health Policy, April 2007; L.J. Brown, Adequacy of Current and Future Dental Workforce: Theory and Analysis. Chicago, IL: American Dental Association, Health Policy Resources Center, 2005,and Jane S. Grover, American Dental Association, testimony before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at the hearing Necessary Reforms to Pediatric Dental Care Under Medicaid, September 23, 2008.

11.

As per Section 1902(a)(30)(A) of the Social Security Act and 42 CFR 447.204.

12.

See, for example, S. Gehshan and M. Wyatt, Improving Oral Health Care for Young Children, National Academy for State Health Policy, April 2007, and A. Borchgrevink, A. Snyder, and S. Gehshan, The Effects of Medicaid Reimbursement Rates on Access to Dental Care, National Academy for State Health Policy, March, 2008.

13.

Peter J. Cunningham and Ann S. O'Malley, Do Reimbursement Delays Discourage Medicaid Participation by Physicians? Health Affairs—Web Exclusive, November 18, 2008, w17-w28.

14.

More recent 2008 guidance includes more frequent referrals to a dental home, if available, or if not, oral health assessments by physicians beginning at six months of age through age six years. For more information, see http://brightfutures.aap.org/pdfs/AAP%20Bright%20Futures%20Periodicity%20Sched%20101107.pdf.

15.

These states were Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.

16.

For detailed information on immunization requirements by type and state as of August 2006, see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/laws/downloads/izlaws05-06.pdf.

17.

See testimony at http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=2192.

18.

Also see, for example, American Academy of Pediatrics, Preventive Oral Health Intervention for Pediatricians, Pediatrics, vol. 122, no. 6, pp. 1387-1394, December 2008.

19.

Also see, for example, Snyder, A., and Gehshan, S. State Health Reform: How Do Dental Benefits Fit In? Options for Policy Makers. National Academy for State Health Policy, April 2008.