£70 million of taxpayers’ money claimed by NHS dentists for dental treatment was never carried out it has recently been discovered and has led to official investigations.  It is estimated that there were around one million claims incorrectly submitted by dental surgeries in one year alone as a result of dentists’ contracts being susceptible to fraud.

There are strong worries that before new contracts can be introduced, another £150 million could be lost because of these practices.  These issues have caused strong interest in reforming the current contracts in a bid to stop, what has been described as a ‘minority’ of dental practitioners from abusing the current system.  The new contract system came into effect in 2006 in a bid to help improve patient access to dental services after millions of people had issues registering with an NHS dentists.

Currently treatments are grouped in one of three broad bands when it comes to payments, instead of being tied to a particular treatment such as a filling or removing a tooth.  Fears exist that this current grouping of treatments has led to dentists putting in claims for a treatment in a higher pricing band than the actual treatment provided to the patient.  NHS Protect, an agency set up to combat illegal activity across the health service was said to have uncovered shocking levels of fraud across dentistry.

This is a cost that taxpayers should not have to pay and this money could go to better use somewhere else.  Instead this money has been collected by dentists willing to game the confusing system instead of being spent on proper patient care.  The next contract arrangement revisions are not set until early 2014 and without further intervention, it is said just over £146 million could be lost to fraudulent dental practices.

New schemes are being developed and piloted where dentists are to be paid on the quality of care they deliver as opposed to the current NHS system where they are paid on the volume of work they undertake.  This is more in with private dentists who are funded either through private dental insurance or by the patients themselves and could result in better overall care as well as a reduction in bad claims.

Dental patients are having difficulty working out the costs of treatments as they say prices are not clearly displayed or explained to them.  Patients have said that information regarding treatments and costs are not easy to find and they feel there is little transparency in terms of information given.

Research in the Annual Dental Survey that surveyed nearly 12 thousand adults in the UK and 48% of those said that pricing was not clear when they visited the dentist and they were not clearly displayed.  In comparison only 27% of those stated that during dental checkups, they received a written treatment plan from their dentist detailing charges for the service.  Over half of those surveyed had fears that they would not be able to afford dental treatments in the future as costs rise and people are struggling due to the economic climate.

Dentists should be doing more to help patients understand where the money is going and what costs are involved in treatment.  It is important also for patients to ask questions in order to make informed decisions about their dental healthcare plans.  Lack of information around costs could explain why around a third of adults surveyed that they did not think their dentists are good value for money.  Health cash plans and dental insurance plans are a good way for people to budget their healthcare and appointments; however it is clear that more could be done to help ensure that those people have a more clear understanding about the care offered.

NHS working patterns are not providing enough support for patients as they are concerned about breaking from the traditional working patterns throughout the week.  A report by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) pointed out the fact that over a third of hospitals in England are not offering consultations 7 days a week, with consultants having a great deal of freedom when planning their working week.

It was clear from further research in the study that these practices are having a damaging effect on patient healthcare.  It was discovered that patients admitted at the weekend had a lower chance of survival than those during the week; they have a 14 percent higher risk of dying within a month than those admitted during the week.  It was discovered that of the hospitals investigated, a third did not offer consultancy time of at least four hours, 7 days a week.

When consultants are on hand to see patients, the process can be sped up through the added experience compared to other NHS workers and they can have offer the best judgements for patient care.  It was discovered that generally consultants work a one-on, one-off work system and the director of the RCP, Dr Kevin Stewart pointed out that this was boosting weekend mortality rates.

These more traditional working patterns found within the NHS do not match with modern patient needs and have been slow to meet these new requirements.  If consultants working patterns could be changed to working at least two days in a row and conduct two ward rounds per day, the total number of lives saved could be increased.

These kinds of issues are less prevalent in the world of private healthcare where there is greater demand to deliver prompt service and treatments to their patients when needed.  Luckily, PMI providers have more affordable health insurance plans and are a greater reality now for those looking for private care.

Despite the current economic environment it has been uncovered that flexible benefits including things like life insurance and small business health insurance packages are still being offered.  Mercer discovered that these schemes are still being widely offered by organisations for their employees across Europe.

In total the study sampled over five hundred organisations across 12 countries in Europe.  The study by the Employee Benefit Consultancy discovered that of those sampled, over 60% were offering some level of flexible benefits to their employees – of the rest, a large portion were considering this as an option for their workforce.

The top reasons for offering such a package was to remain competitive in an increasingly difficult employment market, whilst improving on retention levels for key members of staff and increasing relations with the overall workforce.  Of those sampled, a large portion believed that the current economic climate did not have an effect on the decision to offer flexible benefit schemes with some even saying that these conditions have accelerated their plans to offer flexible benefits to improve their reputation within the job market.

In the past, flexible benefits programmes were associated with high levels of administration as well as high costs involved in the process.  With advancements in technologies and processes, many of these barriers to obtaining flexible benefits have been reduced making these systems much more accessible for businesses.  Many of the systems in place greatly reduce the costs as well as the administrative functions such a benefits programme requires.

The research by Mercer discovered that of those offering flexible benefit programmes to their employees have either found cost reductions or maintain the same level of expenditure as before implementing such a system.  There seems to be a demand for these schemes in the UK, with a large majority of those sampled in the UK, offering flexible benefits to remain competitive in the employment market.  Both employees and employers see the benefit in offering such a scheme, providing employees what they want with no real extra cost to the employer, greatly helping to improve relations between the two.