Differences in the utilisation of the Australian Chronic Disease Dental Scheme between urban and non-urban areas in Australia — YRD

Differences in the utilisation of the Australian Chronic Disease Dental Scheme between urban and non-urban areas in Australia (672)

Ha Hoang , David Qin , Diana Godwin , Leonard Crocombe 1
  1. University of Tasmania, Deep Bay, TAS, Australia

Objectives: To investigate whether there were differences in numbers and types of services provided under the Australian Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS) across Australian regions and whether the Medicare rebates claimed varied over time and region.

Methods: CDDS data from the period 2008-13 was obtained from the Department of Human Services. This reflected all Medicare item number claims lodged under the CDDS by dental practitioners and processed by Medicare during this period. The data were extracted, exported and analysed in Excel 2010.

Results: The proportion of the total number of services provided was 79% in major cities, 15.4% in inner regional, 5.2% in outer regional and only 0.4% in remote/very remote Australia. The number of services provided per dentist did not vary greatly between major city (1671) areas but was much lower in remote/very remote areas (640). There were differences in the proportion of services provided in major cities compared to remote/very remote regions for periodontics (5% major cities, 0-2% remote/very remote regions), oral surgery (5%, 10-12%), endodontics (4%, 1%) , crown, bridge and implants (6% , 0-2%), and full and partial dentures (14%, 18-21%).

Medicare rebate claims increased by 113% in 2009 and by over 24% in the last three years of the scheme. There was a large increase in claim numbers for all types of services in 2009, except three types of services. The rate of claims gradually decreased towards the end of the scheme. The same trend was observed in all regions except major cities where the claims continued rising in 2012. In remote/very remote areas, there were a small number of claims in 2008, however, the claims increased dramatically in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Conclusion: This study provides insightful information for policy-makers, health professionals and other stake holders on the regional use of the CDDS by illustrating the differences in the scheme’s utilisation between major city and rural/remote areas.