Recent proposed Delta Dental reimbursement changes and Wisconsin Dental Association members calling for our leadership “to do something” have again brought up the need to remind our members of our obligations regarding antitrust laws.
Antitrust issues are complicated and there are advocates in Congress who are currently trying to amend laws affecting state dental associations which have been in place since the 1930s. A recent synopsis regarding antitrust compliance forwarded to the WDA from the Washington State Dental Association was nearly 1500 words long and still encouraged the reader to seek legal counsel.
Following is a twenty-five words or less statement on what our members need to know:
We can educate members and the public about dentistry and the business of dentistry. We cannot as a group do anything which would restrict competition.
We can as an association or as members of our association organize for change within the legislative arena. We cannot agree to fix prices, boycott certain individuals or groups or even discuss our plans to not be competitive in the eyes of the law.
Why is this a big deal? Other state dental associations have run afoul of antitrust regulations resulting in significant fines. The WDA is committed to following all applicable anti-trust regulations, even as we educate our members and lobby for their benefit.
The state dental associations in CA. MI. andWA. have all instituted legal actions in situations similar to what we now find ourselves in. While antitrust concerns are definitely valid, they should not be the basis for inaction. Communication with the aforementioned states would likely provide guidance for future legal recourse. If our legal counsel feels that the WDA has no recourse in this matter then a second opinion would seem to be appropriate.
Hi Dr. Hart,
Thanks for your comment. The situations in each state are different– for instance, California’s lawsuit was able to proceed because Delta did not properly notify dentists that their fee schedules were being adjusted, which was also the reason behind that suit’s large financial judgment. Michigan and Washington, while also facing similar situations, are basing their claims on their individual state laws, which are different than those of Wisconsin.
You’ll be glad to know that we have been in regular communication with our colleagues in these, and other states, since this situation began and are still exploring all avenues, legal or otherwise, available to the association as well as our members. We are by no means done here, and another communication from WDA to our members will be coming out this week.
Thanks,
Matt
I would like to respond with two comments.
First, I was very suspicious of DDWI when recently they rose to the top of the insurance industry in my area. When I started in my practice over thirty years ago they were known to be uncooperative,narrow minded, and offered poor reimbursements. Recently, they seemed too “generous” with dental reimbursements, almost magnanimous. It is obvious that this was a trap. Price fixing was their goal all along.
Secondly, isn’t funny how insurance companies are willing to reduce reimbursements as if dental fees are arbitrary figures while raising dental premiums is their inherent right? They don’t consider that most dental offices have very limited control over lab and supply costs, taxes, utilities, and wages. If the economics of the dental industry is going to change I feel it is imperative that all factors be considered.
I took my family to a well known restaurant and ordered lobster for dinner. In the menu it listed it at “market price”. When the bill came, I paid what “I” thought was fair. I tried to leave and the manager called the police. I explained to them that ” Delta Dental ” set the precedent and thought they would understand. They weren’t sympathetic.
Good one, Mike. That pretty much sums it up!