Apparently so. It also appears they do NOT care thousands of children are abused and have their mouths mangled by said Dental Serivice Organization. It seems to me, the children have been sold to the DSO’s. Interesting, being that it comes from the Black Causus, right? Just saying!
From Dentistry IQ:
“As part of its policy priorities for 2017, the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) has resolved to support the nation’s leading dental support organizations (DSOs) in their mission to provide affordable, quality dental services to underserved populations across the United States. The policy resolution, “HHS-17-17: A Resolution to Stand in Support of Dental Support Organizations,” was ratified during the NBCSL’s Annual Legislative Conference, held Dec. 2-5, 2016.”
Dr.
Michael W. Davis maintains a general dental practice in Santa Fe, NM.
He serves as chairperson for Santa Fe District Dental Society
Peer-Review. Dr. Davis also provides a fair amount of dental expert
legal work for attorneys. He may be contacted via email: MWDavisDDS@comcast.net
Corporate Dental Branding- What Dental Consumers Need to Know
A brand is a
name, term or symbol which one company uses to differentiate its products and
services, from that of another company.1 Corporations employ numbers
of different strategies in branding. Healthcare professionals are generally
fairly ignorant on corporate branding practices, as this is not an element of
their formal education. By contrast, those parties which beneficially own
corporate dental practices retain individuals well-skilled and well educated in
all forms of retail sales, marketing, and finance. Their abilities include a
plethora of differing and complex branding methodology.
In its
simplest form, a chain of corporate dental clinics may seek direct brand
recognition by consumers. They may market “outstanding dental care at
reasonable prices”, all associated with their brand. Branding may be part of a
marketing program to generate public goodwill via broad mechanisms, ranging
from well-publicized charitable events to sponsoring a NASCAR driver.2 Branding
may also be associated with the business model of dental Medicaid care.
Unfortunately
for the corporate dental industry, many of their more established brands have
become associated with abuses to the public welfare.3-9
(Author’s
note: References only cite a mere handful of well reported abuses generated
from corporate dentistry, disclosed by government officials.)
Dental clinics
managed and directed by non-doctor corporate management often have a troubling
record, which the public is witnessing. Likewise, dentists who may be employed
in such workplaces are also witnessing abuses to the public interest generated
and facilitated by brand-name companies in corporate dentistry. As such, many
in the public are avoiding dental services offered by branded corporate dental
practices. Further, these branded corporate practices are finding
employee/doctor attraction and retention increasingly challenging. One
corporate chain recently reported over 10% loss in total dentist staff for a
one-year period.10
Crowd Sourced Branding-
Numbers of
branded corporate dental groups are increasingly discovering their branded
identity has negative consequences. In fact, the term “corporate dentistry” is
an example of “crowd sourced branding”, in which the public assigns a company a
brand (positive or negative), versus the traditional method of branding, in
which a company designs their branding scheme.
Some dental
corporations have fought back by explicitly marketing their distance from
“corporate dentistry”. One such ad from a corporate dental chain openly states,
“You Hate Corporate Dentistry and So Do We”. The veracity of their claim seems
highly suspect, especially when one views their multiple settlement agreements
with multiple states’ attorney generals. However, corporate dental management
is evidently far more concerned with negative fallout of crowd sourced branding,
versus presenting truth in the public marketplace.
To further
counter the negative public impression of corporate dentistry generated by
crowd sourced branding, numbers of corporate dental chains market the
misrepresentation of doctors, and not faceless Wall Street types, as owning
dental practices. The reality is very different and highly disturbing.
Numbers of
dental chain corporations establish specific individual doctors to act fully as
sham-owners, who have no control of management, the sale of “their” asset of
the dental practice, or control of clinic bank accounts. In fact, these
shame-owner dentists have no idea how the funds generated by “their” dental
clinics are allocated; depositions in the Small Smiles mass action lawsuit made that abundantly clear.
Other
corporate dental chains establish a group of dentists acting as sham-owners,
via the accounting mechanism of a professional corporation (PC). Again, these
doctors have no true and valid ownership privileges of dental practices, as
beneficial ownership passes to non-doctor corporations, often private equity
investment firms. Some of the world’s largest and most well-known private
equity firms currently are or formerly have been the beneficial holders of
corporate dental chains, which direct patient dental care.Examples
include Morgan Stanley11, Valour Investments Ltd.12,
Carlyle Group13, American Capital Strategies13, FFL
Partners14, Gryphon Investors15, MSD Capital (holdings of
Michael Dell family)16,17, etc.
