logo
America's Dental Health Is in Trouble

America's Dental Health Is in Trouble

Not long ago, Dr. Suzanne Fournier saw a 16-year-old patient with a swollen face and difficulty breathing. Fournier, a dentist who practices at an urban hospital in Louisiana, had to extract six of the teen's teeth; he was eventually intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit because his airways had closed up.
He survived, but Fournier is worried that there will be more children like him across the country who could come close to death because of the state of their oral health. 'I really worry that someone is going to die because they have an abscessed cavity that develops into an infection, and they won't be able to access care,' she says.
In the U.S., 27% of adults don't have dental insurance, according to the most recent State of Oral Health Equity in America by the CareQuest Institute for Oral Health, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of better oral health care. That's about 72 million Americans. By comparison, 9.5% of adults don't have health insurance. And though many children can get dental care through Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), low reimbursement rates mean that many dentists won't accept those insurance plans, leading to dental-care deserts across the country. Only about half of all children on Medicaid used any dental service in a year, according to an analysis by KFF.
Now, dentists say they're worried that a perfect storm of public-policy changes could further worsen oral health across the country. Proposed cuts to Medicaid would mean that fewer people will be able access dental care, as federal government staffing purges target places like the prevention division of oral health at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). What's more, as states including Florida and Utah vote to ban the addition of fluoride to drinking water and other states consider similar bans, dentists say the oral health of children and adults will suffer.
'We are already facing an oral health crisis,' says Melissa Burroughs, director of public policy for CareQuest. 'Medicaid cuts and water fluoridation rollbacks are the two biggest ways in which the oral health crisis is likely to be exacerbated.'
Why dental care is an afterthought
America has long separated dental health from medical health. In most cases, Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older adults, doesn't cover dental care at all. Dental care through Medicaid varies tremendously from state to state, and states are not required to include dental coverage for adults, though they are required to include it for children. People going onto the Affordable Health Care marketplace for health plans can't purchase a dental insurance plan independently unless they also purchase a medical health plan. And subsidies offered to lower-income families on the health marketplace don't apply to dental plans.
Even those people with dental insurance coverage often find that their plans don't cover much outside of a dental cleaning and check-up. About 40% of adults who have health insurance don't get regular dental care, according to one recent survey from the PAN Foundation, a health care advocacy organization.
Not having dental health care can come with major consequences. Tooth decay and gum disease can exacerbate other health conditions and lead to heart disease, low birth weight in pregnancy, and even respiratory disease. Adults who present to emergency departments for tooth pain often end up with opioid prescriptions, which can lead to addiction. If children's teeth hurt, they may have trouble eating, leading to poor nutrition; if they're in pain, they're likely to sleep poorly. The CDC estimates that 34 million school hours are lost each year because of unplanned dental issues.
'You can find lots of studies that find associations between poor dental care and things like pneumonia and diabetes and heart disease,' says Dr. Lisa Simon, an internal medicine specialist who started her career as a dentist and then went to medical school to focus on oral health care. 'But even if you didn't think about any of those things, how important is it to have a central feature in our face look the way we want to, and not live with pain, and be able to take in nutrition?'
Simon practices in Massachusetts, a state with one of the best dental safety nets in the country, and generous Medicaid benefits compared to those in other states. But she still sees people who have ended up in the ICU because of life-threatening sepsis from a tooth infection, patients who can't start chemotherapy because they can't pay to remove their infected teeth, people who won't even let her look into their mouths because they're so ashamed. In Massachusetts, fewer than one third of dentists accept Medicaid, which is close to the national average.
'I have gone down to Haiti nine times, and I have never seen the level of decay that I saw when I worked in Florida,' says Fournier, the Louisiana dentist, who previously practiced in Florida.
She and other dentists worry that looming Medicaid cuts would exacerbate the problem; when state budgets are tight, dental care is often one of the first things to go. Massachusetts, for instance, cut Medicaid coverage for adult dental care in 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession; dental-related visits at a safety-net hospital increased 14% in the two years after the Medicaid cuts.
Fluoride bans are worrying dentists
Fournier recently testified before the Louisiana House of Representatives about Senate Bill 2, which sought to make it more difficult for localities to add fluoride to their drinking water. (In Louisiana, only about 38% of people are served by community water systems that fluoridate their water.)
The bill was voted down in committee, but bills to restrict access to fluoride have been introduced in other states, including North Carolina, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Nebraska, according to CareQuest. Bills to ban the addition of fluoride in public drinking water have already passed in Utah and Florida. Some local counties have already voted in 2025 to ban fluoride independently.
They are likely influenced by the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. He has called fluoride a 'dangerous neurotoxin' and has said he wants the CDC to stop recommending fluoridation. In May, the FDA announced that it was trying to remove ingestible fluoride tablets from the market.
Dentists predict long-term and costly health problems if communities continue to remove fluoride from the water. One recent study published in JAMA Health Forum found that the elimination of fluoride from the public water supply would be associated with a 7.5% increase in tooth decay and cost about $9.8 billion over five years. Places that have taken fluoride out of their water supply have seen an increase in dental problems; in Canada, for instance, Calgary removed fluoride in 2011, saw a significant increase in cavities, and is now reversing course and adding fluoride back in.
Dr. Jeff Otley, a practicing dentist in Florida's panhandle, says he noticed when his region stopped fluoridating its water in 2014. He saw an increase in the number and severity of cavities in kids. The recent ban on fluoridation in Florida is going to affect kids and adults, he says, especially because Florida's Medicaid program offers barely any benefits for adults. 'We are going to have more disease, larger cavities, and some of these kids are going to have to go to the hospital because their cavities are going to be so bad,' he says.
Out-of-reach solutions
Oral health advocates say that in recent years, the country had been making some progress in improving access to dental care. For instance, a bill introduced in the Senate in March would require Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.
And some states have, in the last few years, expanded Medicaid benefits to cover adult dental services. This can end up saving money in the long run; when Colorado chose to expand Medicaid adult dental benefits under the Affordable Care Act, one safety-net provider saw a 22% decrease in tooth extractions, according to CareQuest. When states increase how much dentists can be reimbursed through Medicaid, more dentists sign up as Medicaid providers, which has been shown to increase children's dental visits.
But advocates say they're worried that all of this progress is now going to be reversed, and that oral health in the U.S., especially for children, is going to suffer.
'I think we're at this balancing point where if we can keep things moving forward, there is the real opportunity for millions of people to get dental care,' says Simon, the Boston doctor and dentist. 'But we've seen this before—anytime there's a budget shortfall, dental care is the first thing on the chopping block.'
The irony of this to many dentists is that providing people with preventative care can actually save states money over time. Children on Medicaid who received fluoride treatments saved between $88 and $156 each for their state programs, one study found. Water fluoridation is another preventative policy that saves money: In 2024, the CDC estimated that providing communities with fluoridated water for one year saves $6.5 billion in dental treatment costs and leads to 25% fewer cavities.
But some of these preventative ideas aren't likely to go far, says Amy Niles, the chief mission officer of the Pan Foundation. 'In this country, we don't always embrace the importance and value of preventative care to prevent disease later on,' she says.
Fournier, the Louisiana dentist, is relieved that her testimony and that of other medical professionals helped persuade Louisiana legislators to ditch the fluoride bill. But she still chafes at a health care system that makes it so hard to provide preventative care for oral health.
'Our goal is aligned with RFK Jr.'s, which is to make Americans healthy,' she said in her testimony. But, she says, America doesn't seem interested in waging a war on the No. 1 chronic disease in children: tooth decay.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1
46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

46 State Medical Associations Urge Senate to Reject Medicaid Cuts in H.R. 1

The House Budget Reconciliation bill will cause at least 7.8 million Medicaid enrollees to lose their health care coverage. SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Just days ahead of an expected Senate vote on H.R. 1, 46 state medical associations, as part of Physicians for Medicaid have sent a letter to the United States Senate urging them to reject the dangerous cuts to Medicaid proposed in H.R. 1 that will cause millions of patients to lose coverage and even more to lose access to care - children, pregnant women, seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families. Statewide hospital associations have also weighed in, as proposed cuts impact all providers, including physicians and hospitals. The bill, which includes $200 billion in cuts to the existing and longstanding provider taxes, would have a catastrophic effect on state budgets and the country's entire health care delivery system and would impact 49 state Medicaid programs. Provider taxes have been authorized under federal law, approved by both Republican and Democratic administrations, and affirmed by state legislatures in 49 states for decades. They are a legitimate financing mechanism used by states in partnership with the federal government to fund essential health services and have kept rural hospitals, maternity wards, nursing homes, and physician practices open. The bill also imposes damaging changes to federal student loan programs making it harder for students to pursue medical careers at a time of critical physician shortages. We urge the Senate to pursue more balanced solutions that expand the physician workforce and preserve Medicaid for our patients. "If these provider tax cuts are enacted, it will create significant gaps in State budgets, forcing states to raise taxes, or reduce benefits, coverage, and provider payments. These reductions will lead to even more crowding of emergency departments and as the uncompensated care burdens grow from patients losing coverage, many rural hospitals, nursing homes, and community physician practices will be forced to close to all patients," the letter says. There are three main provisions in H.R. 1 (as passed by the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025) that will drastically limit or eliminate existing provider taxes nationwide. These provisions below apply to all provider taxes, including hospitals, nursing homes, managed care organizations, and other provider categories. Moratorium on New or Increased Provider Taxes (SEC. 44132) – Under the provisions of H.R. 1, none of these taxes could be increased after the passage and enactment of the law nor can any new taxes be adopted by the state Legislatures (there are 19 categories of provider taxes). This provision would freeze taxes and not keep pace with increasing health care costs over time. It is also not equitable between states. Revising Payments for Certain State Directed Payments (SEC. 44133) – Once a provider tax is established, state Medicaid programs can fund supplemental or enhanced payments to providers using a variety of rate methodologies. Under H.R. 1, any future directed payments would be limited to the Medicare payment rate. Medicare physician payment rates are already 33% behind the costs to provide health care. These rates will not keep pace for public hospitals and physician specialists that care for the sickest patients nationwide. Requirements Regarding Waiver of Uniform Tax Requirement for Medicaid Provider Tax (SEC. 44134) – The language in H.R. 1 requires provider taxes in multiple states to uniformly tax hospitals, nursing homes, and managed care organizations within each category of provider tax. The uniformity requirement will be extremely difficult for most states to meet and therefore, it eliminates multiple provider taxes in many states. The HHS Secretary has discretion to allow for a transition period, which is not something upon which states can rely. "These provisions will destabilize state health systems, reduce access to care, and worsen physician shortages. Instead, we encourage you to protect Medicaid – a proven, cost-effective safety net that serves 80 million vulnerable Americans," the letter concluded. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE California Medical Association; Physicians for Medicaid Sign in to access your portfolio

Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts

Forbes

timean hour ago

  • Forbes

Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts

Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.

How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies
How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

How RFK Jr. is quickly changing U.S. health agencies

WASHINGTON — In just a few short months, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has begun to transform U.S. health policy: shrinking staff at health agencies, restructuring the focus of some regulators and researchers, changing Covid vaccine regulations and reshaping the mission of his department to focus more on alternative medicine. The directives are all part of the same issue set that drove a slice of health-conscious, left-leaning Americans to eventually vote for a Republican president whose favorite meal is from McDonald's, Trump and Kennedy catered to a type of voter who has grown distrustful of America's health care establishment — but possibly fomented a new type of distrust in federal health policy along the way. Bernadine Francis, a lifelong Democrat who backed Joe Biden for president in 2020 before supporting Donald Trump in 2024, told NBC News in an interview that she approves of Kennedy's efforts so far, despite his 'hands being tied' by entrenched forces in the administration and in Congress. 'From what I have seen so far with what RFK has been trying to do,' she said, 'I am really, really proud of what he's doing.' Francis is among the voters who left the Democratic Party and voted for Trump because 'nothing else mattered' apart from public health, which they — like Kennedy — felt was going in the wrong direction. Concerns about chemicals in food and toxins in the environment, long championed by Democrats, has become a galvanizing issue to a key portion of Trump's Republican Party, complete with an oversaturation of information that in some cases hasn't been proven. It's wrapped up, as well, in concerns about the Covid vaccine, which was accelerated under Trump, administered under Biden and weaponized by anti-vaccine activists like Kennedy amid lockdowns and firings in the wake of the devastating pandemic. 'We knew in order to get RFK in there so he can help with the situation that we have in the health industry, we knew we had to do this,' said Francis, a retired Washington, D.C., public school administrator, who said she left her 'beloved' career because she had refused the vaccine. 'It seemed to me, as soon as [Biden] became president, the vaccine was mandated, and that was when I lost all hope in the Democrats,' Francis told NBC News, referring to vaccination mandates put in place by the Biden administration for a large portion of the federal workforce during the height of the pandemic. There are not currently any federal Covid vaccine mandates. There have been 1,228,393 confirmed Covid deaths in the United States since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Marty Makary, Kennedy's hand-picked commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a John Hopkins scientist and researcher, told NBC News in an interview that he wants to transform the agency, which he said faced 'corruption' over influence from the pharmaceutical and food industries. 'I mean, you look at the food pyramid, it was not based on what's best for you, it was based on what companies wanted you to buy,' he said, referring to the 1992 and later iterations of official government nutritional guidance. He said there would be 'entirely new nutrition guidance' released later this year, as soon as this summer. He praised the FDA's mission of research and regulation, saying the agency is 'incredibly well-oiled, and we've got the trains running on time.' He also highlighted the 75-page 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report — which focused on ultraprocessed foods and toxins in the environment — as having set 'the agenda for research' at the FDA, HHS and agencies overseeing social safety net programs such as Medicare and food stamps moving forward. (The MAHA report initially cited some studies that didn't exist, a mistake that Kennedy adviser Calley Means said was a 'great disservice' to their mission.) 'I think there's a lot we're going to learn. For example, the microbiome, which gets attention in the MAHA report, needs to be on the map. We don't even talk about it in our medical circles,' Makary said. 'The microbiome, food is medicine, the immune response that happens when chemicals that don't appear in nature go down our GI tract.' Pressed on other areas of the administration, like the Environmental Protection Agency, making decisions that run counter to the pro-regulatory ideas presented in the MAHA report, Makary said he can 'only comment on the FDA' where they are 'committed to Secretary Kennedy's vision.' But Kennedy's public health agenda goes beyond looking at the food supply and chemicals. Recently, Kennedy said in a video posted on X last month that the Covid vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, a change in CDC guidance that skipped the normal public review period. Days later, after critics questioned the decision and raised concerns over a lack of public data behind the move, the administration updated its guidance again, urging parents to consult with their doctors instead. Pressed about the confusion and whether Americans are now trading one side of public distrust in the health system for another, Makary defended Kennedy, who has been criticized for spreading misinformation. 'My experience with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is that he listens. He listens to myself, he listens to Jay Bhattacharya, listens to Dr. Mehmet Oz, he listens to a host of scientists that are giving him guidance,' Makary argued, referring to the director of the National Institutes of Health and the administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, respectively. 'So he may have big questions, but the questions he's asking are the questions most Americans are asking.' Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer oncologist and integrative medicine doctor — a physician who combines conventional treatments with research-based alternative therapies — has tried to help her patients wade through medical misinformation they encounter online and in their social circles. Mussallem has an incredible story of personal survival: While in medical school, she was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and, after conventional therapies like chemo saved her life, was diagnosed with heart failure. After undergoing a heart transplant, Mussallem ran a 26-mile marathon just one year later. 'I learned a lot in medical school, but nothing compared to what I learned being a patient,' said Mussallem, who dedicates, on average, 90 minutes each in one-on-one sessions with her patients. 'This is not about any one political choice. But we know lifestyle matters.' For example, a new study from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that finds eating food that lowers inflammation in the body may help people with advanced colon cancer survive longer. Mussallem's mission, along with her colleagues, is to elevate the modern medicine that saved her life, as well as encouraging her patients to live healthy lifestyles, including regular exercise, minimally processed foods, less screen time, more social connection and better sleep. But politics do get in the way for millions of Americans who are inundated daily with social media influencers and 'nonmedical experts,' as Mussallem puts it, who stoke fear in her patients. 'Patients come in with all these questions, fears,' she said. 'I've heard this many times from patients, that their nervous system is affected by what they're seeing happening in government.' Mussallem acknowledges that 'a lot of individuals out there' have questioned traditional medicine. For her, it isn't one or the other — it's both. 'We have to trust the conventional medicine,' she said. 'With the conventional care that marches right alongside more of an integrative modality to look at the root causes of disease, as well as to help to optimize with lifestyle, is where we need to be.' This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store