Grassroots Efforts of Texas Dentists Challenge Activities of the American Dental Association

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.
 
 


A newly formed group of grassroots Texas dentists has challenged activities of the American Dental Association (ADA), with the Association of Dental Support Organizations (ADSO). In an open letter to ADA House of Delegates members, Concerned Dentists of Texas, Inc. has expressed their concerns about ADA leading officials meeting with ADSO representatives. The ADSO has gone so far as to highlight these meetings in their public online marketing. Concerned Dentists of Texas contend these clandestine meetings were unsanctioned and violate established ADA rules and protocols.  They also express that the ADA’s appearance of collusion is highly evident and problematic.
Membership of the ADSO raised more than a few eyebrows. Of note in the ADSO membership is Aspen Dental Management, Inc. Aspen Dental in recent months has formally signed individual and separate legal settlement agreements, with the state attorney generals of Massachusetts, New York, and Indiana. These settlements allege specific violations ranging from unlicensed practice of dentistry, violations to consumer protection laws, false and misleading advertising, violations to full disclosures in consumer borrowing, bait-and-switch business schemes, etc.
Another ADSO member, Heartland Dental Care, Inc., in 2008 settled with the federal government for alleged Medicaid fraud for falsification and misappropriation of doctors’ Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) numbers. This DSO also settled with the State of North Carolina in 2011, for alleged unlawful attempt to purchase a dental practice.
To follow is the open letter of Concerned Dentists of Texas, Inc. to ADA House of Delegates membership:

Concerned Dentists of Texas, Inc..

October 27, 2015
Dear ADA Delegates and Alternate Delegates,
Approximately 80% of ADA members practice as independent dentists in small local offices. We are a concerned part of that group. There is an effort by our ADA to support a corporate form of dentistry that we believe is counter to the best interests of our members and our patients. We must ask ourselves, will the ADA support its members or will it support organizations controlled and owned by hedge funds, private equity firms, and public pension plans? The increased proliferation of this type practice model poses serious risks to our 175 year established philosophy of patient care and the doctor-patient relationship.
By not taking a stand to inform and represent the majority of its current members the ADA actively supports the DSO philosophy. This is a membership gamble that the ADA cannot afford to take.
See attachments (pages numbered 1-4) documenting these major changes in the focus of ADA activities:
Page 1 &2. Breaking News Notable Joint Meeting: ADSO & ADA … Several workforce group meetings were held with ADSO (Association of Dental Support Organizations) and ADA representatives seeking a memorandum of understanding.
Page 2 & 3. The last 2 pages of a presentation asking for “collaboration”, “harmony”, and “input” between the ADA and DSOs given at the 2015 ADSO Summit that demonstrates the position ADA is taking regarding the DSOs mode of practice.
Page 1 & 4. The ADSO website screen shots showing proof of this presentation given by the ADA at the 2015 ADSO Summit and then subsequently removed from the website while the other presentations remained.
These changes are affecting the future of the private practice of dentistry and are occurring without bringing it before the House of Delegates for your vote or discussion.

• What does our House of Delegates want in regards to support of the private practice of dentistry?
• What do 80% of our practicing members want in support from their Association? Will the Tripartite support its members?
• What are our ADA candidates’ opinions and beliefs on the future models of dentistry?
• Will they be willing to support the majority of our ADA members and their autonomy?

Over five years of steadily decreasing membership will not be corrected by failing to inform and represent our current practicing members. Rather, the reversal of the trend will be affected by building relevancy and reason for belonging based on representation, transparency, accountability and adherence to long-established principles of professionalism, patient care, and enhancement of the traditional doctor-patient relationships.
Thank you for allowing us to express our concerns and personal opinions. Opinions are our own, but facts are facts. Please look forward to a blog, Concerned Dentists of Texas, which will further address these issues. The blog will serve as an informational source and reference site in order that members may stay informed. Please feel free to contact us at concerneddentistsoftexas@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
Concerned Dentists of Texas, Inc.
Attachments

Link to the entire letter including attachments

Agency Capture: Association of Dental Support Organizations (ADSO) main goal to get corporate dentists appointed to state dental boards

The Association of Dental Support Organizations, (ADSO) governmental affairs committee, chaired by non-dentist Heartland VP and 6 other non-dentist corporate guys decided that their number one priority is getting corporate/chain friendly dentists appointed to state dental boards.  

Read the article and tell me this isn't flat out corruption.  They are asking for volunteers in states where they have lobbyists.  They want to influence regulatory decisions.  And you've got to love the whole "often political preferences will apply to the candidate selection process".  

Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the top dogs at the corporations.

---

October 2015 Association of Dental Support Organizations Quarterly Newsletter:

ADVOCACY UPDATE

The Importance of Getting DSO-supported Dentists on Dental Boards

The ADSO Government Affairs Committee was formed this summer.  The committee, chaired by John Pantazis, Heartland’s Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary with representatives from 6 other ADSO member companies, meets monthly and is charged with providing the ADSO with strategic guidance on state and federal legislative and regulatory issues.  Among the committee’s top priorities is promoting DSO-supported dentists for appointments to state dental boards. 

Board appointments are a top priority for the ADSO government affairs team because many of the state issues the DSO industry faces grow out of dental board actions.  We strongly believe that having one or more DSO-supported dentists or strong public sector members on the board involved in discussions and rule-making will go a long way in mitigating state legislative and regulatory issues we have faced in recent years. 

While we are happy to promote candidates in any state, we recognize that we are much more likely to have success in one of the 13 states where we have a contract lobbyist on the ground to assist in shepherding the candidate(s) through the process. So make a committed effort when openings are coming up to reach out for potential candidates.  We include in our Government Affairs Weekly Round-up, which is distributed every Friday, the list of states with lobbyists where we need our members help to promote candidates (if you are not on the distribution list for the Round-up and would like to be, please contact Wendy Chew).  The lobbyists are able meet with the governors’ appointment staff and follow up throughout the decision-making process.  They can also assist the dentist in getting letters of support from state legislators or other recognized leaders in the state to support their nominations.

With few exceptions, Board appointments are made by the governor of the state.  Dental boards generally consist of dentists, hygienists, public sector (non-dental related) members and sometimes academics.  All states have rules around the appointments and can include: how long the term of service lasts; requirements on how long the candidate has been a resident of the state; how long the dentist/hygienist have practiced in the state; what area of the state the appointee needs to be from; as well as many other possible requirements.  Since the appointments are made by the governor of the state, often political preference will also apply to the candidate’s selection process.  

In the past year, the ADSO has helped get DSO-supported dentists on the dental boards in Colorado, Iowa and Florida and are actively working on appointments in every other state where we have lobbyists. In addition to supported dentists, the ADSO has also promoted public sector members for state dental board appointment.

If you haven’t already done so, please participate in the ADSO database project.  Your dentists’ information is confidential and will not be shared in any way, but having the information in the database allows us to identify potential candidates in states where there are openings on the dental board. Participation in the database also helps us when we have legislative issues in a state.  We are able to reach out through a contact at your company to activate supported dentists on issues of concern to our industry.

Dental Hygienists Struggle In Corporate Dentistry

Deborah Stewart is a dental hygienist, author, mentor, office manager, coach, consultant, and popular speaker for dental hygiene schools. She holds degrees in dental hygiene, organizational behavior and coaching as well as an MBA. She is author of the 2014 book “Perspectives on Dentistry: An Insider’s Guide to the Professional Business of Dental Hygiene (available here).

Deborah passionately promotes collaboration, ethical standards, and high achievement in both hygienists and the dental industry she loves. A proud member of The Daughters of the Republic of Texas, she is also an historian and a civic and community advocate. 

What Do Dental Hygienists Do to be Employed?
by Deborah Stewart

North Texas, the area where I live, was once roamed by Frank and Jesse James, and home to one of the top ten feuds in American history. The Lee-Peacock Feud was a continuation of the Civil War. North Texas was very prosperous with cotton agricultural growth after the Civil War, so a feud developed whether North Texas would continue to have slaves. Fighting a Civil War apparently was not enough for the additional 200 lives that were killed in the feud. 

To say North Texans are a bit hard headed is an understatement.  

One hundred fifty years later, North Texas dental hygienists are fighting another war. Striving to maintain respect for their profession, they fight the battles of what preventive dental hygiene services are to be performed and how they are to work in dental offices. Faced with very few options, what allies do dental hygienists develop in this fight to stay employed? 

What is obvious is disrespect and disregard for the dental hygiene profession by Texas dentists. This behavior by dentists provided a growth opportunity for corporate dentistry business models.  

You don’t have to have multiple offices and a logo to become corporate dentistry, you just have to have a mindset of disrespect. Texas dentists began disrespecting the profession of dental hygiene in the 1980s when the Texas Dental Association (TDA) decided that the Texas Dental Hygiene Association (TDHA) needed to have their own convention.

Since then, the industry has progressed to a corporate way of thinking that now thrives in North Texas. The “dental business” has a checklist for employment of dental hygienists.

Those items include: 

       1)  Businesses will set minimum production dollars per day 

       2)  “CREATE URGENCY” to pressure patients/parents to consent to procedures immediately

        3) Identify 3 patients that need SRP each day 

        4) Use intraoral camera to identify 3 patients per day that need dentistry with $1200-1900 per day. 

        5) All patients seven years and up need an orthodontic appointment    

        6) All patients 14-20 years of age need a wisdom tooth evaluation 

        7) All patients requiring Scaling and Root Planing (SRP) need to be referred to in-house Periodontist 

        8) Call 5 people per day to come into the clinic for treatment

        9) Clean the bathroom 

       10) No employment benefits with longevity  

       11) Hiring through temporary employment agencies; having no intention of providing full-time employment 

       12) Abusive employment policies.

Does anyone think this list of job duties is appropriate?  

DSO Business Model Includes Violating State Labor Laws

 
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.





David Sohn is the principal attorney at SOHN LEGAL GROUP, P.C., which prosecutes and defends employment and business disputes on behalf of individuals, small businesses, and non-profit organizations.  Prior to starting his own law firm, David worked at several prominent national law firms in San Francisco.  He received his bachelor’s degree in Economics from Stanford University and his law degree from Harvard Law School.  Due to the successful results he has achieved for his clients, David has been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer by Super Lawyers Magazine. David can be reached at 415-421-1300 and david@sohnlegal.com.
 
INTRODUCTION
David Sohn is an attorney in San Francisco specializing in employment litigation matters. Last year, he represented a dentist in his wage and hour lawsuit against Western Dental Services, Inc. (“Western Dental”) for misclassifying him as an exempt employee and not paying him overtime wages and providing proper meal and rest breaks, among other things. Mr. Sohn tried this case in San Francisco Superior Court against an army of big law firm lawyers hired by Western Dental – and prevailed. As a result of his trial victory, the overwhelming majority of dentists in California are now misclassified. They should be receiving overtime wages, proper meal and rest breaks, and all of the benefits and protections of California’s employment laws.
The case is entitled Nanda v. Western Dental Services, Inc . (Case No. CGC-13-529601).

Dr. Davis: Mr. Sohn, I sincerely thank you for taking the time and effort to address matters of this case. I understand much of your legal work involves labor workplace rights. The public may not appreciate how even a licensed dentist may have their rights violated in the workplace. Could you give our readers an overview of the merits of this case and how your client was damaged? 

Mr. Sohn: Thank you, Michael, for giving me an opportunity to discuss with you and your readers my trial victory against Western Dental. This is a very important, game-changing case that all dentists and to-be-dentists need to know about so that they understand what their workplace rights are.

When I decided to take on this case back in 2013, I didn’t know anything about the dental industry. I took it on because I saw a very interesting legal question. That question was: are dentists employed by Western Dental compensated in the form of a “salary?” Western Dental compensates its dentists by a fixed daily rate and/or a percentage of their production. They are not guaranteed in advance a minimum weekly or monthly amount of compensation.

This legal question is important because in order for dentists and other licensed professionals to be exempt from all of the benefits and protections of California’s employment laws – such as overtime wages and proper meal and rest breaks – they must be paid in the form of a “salary.” If they are not, they must be provided these benefits and protections.

California law does not provide a definition for the term “salary.” Instead, California courts look to federal regulations for the definition of “salary.” The pertinent federal regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a), states that an employee is paid on a “salary basis” if he or she “regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.” This same federal regulation also explains that if an employee is ready, willing, and able to work, but he or she does not work due some reason occasioned by the employer, he or she is not being paid on a “salary basis.”

At the conclusion of trial, the judge held that the dentist I represented was not paid in the form of a “salary.” The dentist never received on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount of compensation which was not subject to reduction based upon variation in the quality of quantity of work performed. He was only paid for the days that he worked and on occasion received a percentage of the production he generated. On numerous occasions, even though he wanted to work, if he was not called into work, he was not paid. Given these circumstances, he was entitled to overtime wages and proper meal and rest breaks like other non-exempt staff employed by Western Dental.

As a result of the judgment issued in my case, all dentists – and for that matter any licensed dental healthcare professional (such as orthodontists, periodontists, etc.) – in California paid on any basis other than a salary basis are “non-exempt” employees who are entitled to overtime wages, and proper meal and rest breaks.   

Dr. Davis:  The defendant in this case, Western Dental, is the largest employer of dentists in the state of California. They also operate dental clinics in Nevada and Arizona. They are the largest provider of dental Medicaid services for California. As large of a dental industry operation as is represented by Western Dental, is it reasonable to speculate on the pervasiveness of dentist/employee workplace labor violations (both in Western Dental and the dental service organization (DSO) industry, as a whole)?   

Mr. Sohn: During the course of my case against Western Dental, I discovered that Western Dental’s approach to how it compensates its dentists is not unique. I spoke to a number of dentists and specialists who worked for other practices large and small, including other DSOs and small private practices, and the impression I received was that the overwhelming majority of dentists and specialists in California – and in the country – are paid on a similar non-salary basis. That’s when I realized my case could have significant industry-wide consequences.

CDMO, Inc and CDET, LLC v. Comfort Dental Lawsuit Rages On

150908 Doc 109 CDMO & CDET v Comfort Dental Response to Opp

 

150908 Doc 109-1 CDMO & CDet v Comfort Dental Declarations

Sending A Message to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

They need 75 more signatures guys, let's make this happen. Texas is the worst state in the nation for dental fraud and lack of action by it's dental board. It's the state where criminal dentists thrive in administrative protection! Remember for every $1 of fraud in Texas, .50 is stolen from taxpayers of the other 49 states.

Another one of those “studies” paid for by Kool Smiles parent company suggests more Medicaid money is needed for dental benefits to serve children in Texas!

I know it’s hard but try to stop laughing and read this ridiculous press release.
(Benevis was formerly NCDR (Kool Smiles), owned by private equity firm FLL Partners.)

Study Finds Only 26.5% Of Texas Children Eligible For Medicaid Dental Coverage Frequently Visit Dentist.

PRNewswire (7/30) carries a release announcing that a new survey by the Benevis Foundation, conducted by Kennesaw State and Emory University researchers, finds that “only 26.5% of Texas parents with children eligible for Medicaid dental coverage consistently bring their children to the dentist as frequently as they should,” with parents citing financial hardships as the primary barrier to more frequent dental visits. Geoffrey Freeman, spokesperson for the Benevis Foundation, said, “This suggests that parents may not be aware of the complete coverage of their benefit, or that there may be secondary costs – such as transportation or unpaid time off work – that keeps these families from visiting the dentist as often as they would like.”

2015 Texas State Dental Board Continues Massive Failure to Protect Citizens

Aired WFAA July 20, 2015

Grassley Seeks Key Agency Updates on Medicaid Pediatric Dental Fraud

These answers should be interesting don’t’ ya think? I can answer. Little to nothing to “prevent” and even less to “punish”.

 

Jul 02, 2015

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley is asking key government agencies what they’re doing to prevent and punish Medicaid dental fraud, including billing for unnecessary treatments for children, in light of inspector general audits and related media reports documenting worrisome practices.

“Some dentists are clearly performing unwanted and unneeded medical procedures on children without the consent of parents and bilking Medicaid for the privilege,” Grassley wrote to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General Daniel Levinson. 

Grassley’s letters cited Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General audits of questionable billing practices for Medicaid pediatric dental services in four states: California, New York, Louisiana and Indiana.  All of these audits identified questionable billing practices that suggest Medicaid dental providers are performing medically unnecessary procedures on children.  Grassley wrote that this conclusion has been echoed by a variety of news sources that have reported on troubling practices performed by dentists treating children in Medicaid, including a Florida-based dentist who allegedly subjected hundreds of children to unneeded tooth extractions, improper dental fixtures, and other troublesome procedures.

Grassley asked Lynch for the number of criminal and civil fraud referrals from the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General related to Medicaid dentistry chains in the past five years, with a listing of the referrals by state and how each criminal and civil case was resolved; details of the number of ongoing Department of Justice Medicaid dental chain fraud investigations by state; and a description of the Department of Justice’s plan to address the findings by the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General that indicate health care fraud in the context of dental procedures provided to children in Medicaid. 

Grassley asked Levinson for the steps the inspector general’s office will take, or has already taken, to increase the auditing of dentistry offices that are recipients of federal dollars; the number of criminal and civil fraud referrals from the inspector general’s office to the Department of Justice relating to Medicaid dentistry chain activity in the past five years; details of the Medicaid dentistry audits the office performed by state in the past five years, with a note on whether the audit resulted in criminal or civil referral to the Department of Justice; the number of ongoing Medicaid dental fraud investigations by state; and a description of the progress on following up on billing fraud and unnecessary procedures in Medicaid pediatric dental services. 

In 2013, following a year-long investigation, Grassley and then-Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana issued a report and recommendations urging the administration to ban dental clinics from participating in the Medicaid program if the dental clinics circumvent state laws designed to ensure only licensed dentists own dental practices to prevent substandard care.  In 2014, the inspector general moved to disqualify a firm from Medicaid.  

Grassley’s latest letters are available here and

EXCLUSIVE: Dental Service Organizations (DSO’s): Truth Revealed by Financial Insider

June 25, 2015

By: Michael W. Davis, DDS

Dr. Michael W. Davis maintains a private general practice in Santa Fe, NM. He chairs the Santa Fe District Dental Society Peer-Review Committee. Dr. Davis is active in dental care for disadvantaged citizens, and expert legal work. His publications and lectures are on ethical and whistleblower issues within the dental profession, as well as numbers of clinical research papers. He may be contacted at: MWDavisDDS@comcast.net

Dr. Kevin Cain is an Assistant Professor of Management in the James M. Hull College of Business and guest lecturer in practice management in the College of Dental Medicine at Georgia Regents University. He teaches courses on strategy and entrepreneurship and does academic research in the fields of strategic management, organizational theory, and healthcare management. He also serves on a task force with the Georgia Dental Association and teaches continuing education courses focused on the business of dentistry. Additionally, he is a co-founder and board member of several companies serving the dental industry. He earned a PhD in Business Administration at the University of Georgia, an MBA from Wake Forest University and a BA in Economics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He can be contacted at: kevin@kevinwcain.com.
 

Introduction from Dr. Michael Davis-

Dr. Kevin Cain has an interesting and established history in study of the dental industry, and particularly dental service organizations (DSOs). He does research and has given lectures on the risks this business model presents against the public welfare and the integrity of the dental profession. Dr. Cain effectively counters the private equity spin of unlicensed corporate managers keeping at arm’s length from clinical decisions, within the doctor/patient relationship. He confronts DSO industry misrepresentations, of which there are many, head on.

Interview

Dr. Davis: Dr. Cain, please relay the personal story of your mother, a practicing nurse, and the degradation of her once honored profession by corporate health care. How did that affect you personally and influence your fields of academic research?
Dr. Cain: My mother has been a nurse within the same healthcare organization (and its predecessor hospitals) for 40 years. Since the late 1980s, she’s seen her role increasingly shift from being a caretaker to being part of a production line. The healthcare group she works for – mind you its a not-for-profit – sets performance benchmarks for pre- and post-operative care that her and her colleagues must meet. Additionally, her organization implemented EPIC Systems as its EMR provider last year and the time it takes to document patient care further decreases the quality of care she can provide patients.
She is no longer a happy nurse, and actually tried to dissuade my sister from majoring in nursing. At the center of her frustration with her company is its inability to treat patients as idiosyncratic. There are aspects of her job that, if not performed adequately, can jeopardize patient lives. However, her company pushes for efficiency and sets limits on the amount of time allocated for intake. When you generalize patients to the extent that her company has, and minimize the time nurses have to gather information about patients, it is inevitable that those nurses will miss something critical.
My mother’s frustrations with her organization have really shaped my perspective of the dental industry. She and many other healthcare professionals I have spoken with are disillusioned by the current state of their industry. The drive for growth and profitability in healthcare has superseded the drive for quality care, and I do not want to see the dental students I have the pleasure of interacting with here face the same disillusionment for their entire careers. It is imperative that the dental community protects the general dentist from becoming marginalized in the same manner as the primary care physician.
My research on the dental industry is driven, primarily, by the desire to help dentists remain clinically autonomous. In order for the dental profession to maintain its clinical autonomy, practitioners need to understand how institutional forces shape industries. In my field, we study institutional isomorphism – that organizations within an institutional environment look the same – because it helps explains how mimetic, coercive, and normative forces influence those organizations. There are currently no coercive (regulatory) forces preventing the DSO model from becoming the de facto dental model in the U.S., and there is very little normative pressure coming from private practice dentists to change that course.
With regards to mimetic forces, you have baby-boomers selling their practices to DSOs because a friend did and got more money than they would have in a private transition, and you have dental students – year after year – going to work for DSOs because they have been told that the high guaranteed salary is the quickest way to pay off student debt. Meanwhile, a few “business savvy” – or opportunistic – dentists are building their own DSOs and acquiring other practices because they see founders of the large DSOs driving twenty-five million dollar classic Ferraris and want in on that kind of wealth. These mimetic forces are shaping the industry, and the confluence of these forces is leading dentistry down a familiar path (i.e. optometry, pharmacy, primary care medicine).
 
Dr. Davis: We continually hear and read the misrepresentations from DSO private equity managers and their hired supporters that they keep at arm’s length from the practice of dentistry. Yet, we know they establish production quotas and bonuses upon employee dentists. Every doctor’s production metric is monitored on a daily basis. Each clinic’s bank account is swept clean, at least two to three times weekly. They determine clinic scheduling, staffing, as well as purchases for dental materials, dental laboratories, and dental equipment. State regulatory dental boards and even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seemingly have bought into these outlandish misrepresentations. (1) What private equity firm, whose sole responsibility is towards its shareholders and not patients, would not logically control every aspect of its business, inclusive of the practice of dentistry? (2) Why do we see so little regulatory enforcement for the unlicensed and unlawful practice of dentistry? Is it a matter of laziness, corruption, or some other factor?
Dr. Cain: The short answer is that private equity (PE) firms routinely leave control of their investments to the top management of those companies, but charge those managers with generating the best possible returns. The pressure of those expected financial returns can drive decision-making by managers of those companies, which is where you would see diffusion of pressure from top managers to the level of the organization at which revenues are generated. In the DSO model, that level is the dentist. To think that PE investments in the practice of dentistry, or the legal structure – where the DSO and the professional corporation that employs the dentists are connected only via a management service agreement (MSA) – keep DSO dentists immune to this pressure for financial returns is naïve. I would venture to guess that most dentists working for a DSO would tell you that they are not told to do certain procedures or pressured based on performance, but the psychology of seeing their production and their office’s production ranked against other associates and offices in the DSO probably provides enough of a catalyst to pressure driven, competitive individuals (generalizing here based on current crops of dental students) to alter treatment plans. That pressure might cause the best-intentioned dentists to compromise their training and ethics in order to climb rankings or achieve desired results (or bonuses). Because continuing education for DSO dentists is provided at corporate headquarters in some companies, treatment plans, labs, and materials used across the company probably begin looking very similar – and profitable – over time.

NY Attorney General says Aspen has to change it’s ways; or did he?

What apparently escaped the NY Attorney General is that the parent company is the actual owner of the dental practices and the "owner dentist” doesn’t own diddly-squat. 

Hey NY AG! The  "Dental Management Companies" hires individual dentists as salaried employees who then pretend to "own" the clinics!  But you know that, right?

In the case of Small Smiles, the original "owner dentists" paid $10.00 per clinic or less. But when we caught on the price went up to a whopping $100. That's a pretty sweet,,, "owning" a business that generates millions of dollars a year, for $100.  Sign me up!

June 2016 New York State Attorney General Settlement Order With Aspen Dental