An Australian government dental scheme: Doctor-dentist-patient tensions in the triangle

Autonomy of participants is challenged when legislation to provide a public health service is weakly designed and implemented. Background Australia's Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was instigated to provide a government subsidy for private dental treatment for people suffering chronic illness impacting their oral health or vice versa. They were allocated AUD$4250 towards comprehensive treatment over 2 years with their eligibility determined by their general medical doctor. Research A qualitative research study was conducted to explore the experiences from the perspectives of the patient, medical and dental practitioner. One of the research outcomes identified a frequently reported level of discomfort in the patient/doctor/dentist triangle. Doctors and dentists reported feeling forced by patients into positions that compromised their autonomy in obeying the intent (if not the law) of the scheme. Additionally, dentists felt under pressure from doctors and patients to provide subsidized treatment to those eligible. In turn, the patients reported difficulties in gaining access to the scheme and in some cases, experiencing full or partially unmet oral health needs. Reason for Conflict Poor inter-professional communication and lack of understanding about profession-unique patient-driven pressures, ultimately contributed to dissonance. Ill-defined eligibility guidelines rendered the doctor's ability to gate-keep challenging. Outcome of Conflict Inefficient gate-keeping led to exponential increase in referrals, resulting in unprecedented cost blow-outs. Ensuing government-led audits caused political tensions and contributed to the media-induced vilification of dentists. In December 2013, government financing of dental treatment through Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was discontinued, leaving many Australians without a viable alternative. Recommendations There is a need for qualitative research methods to help identify social issues that affect public health policy process. In order to succeed, new health policies should respect, consider and attempt to understand the autonomy of key participants, prior to and throughout