Abstract
Aim
To investigate aspects of reliability and validity of Denplan/Previser Patient Assessment (DEPPA) capitation fee code guidance through a population study and to discuss some of the practicalities of effective capitation funding.
Methods
A form of 'test-re-test' reliability analysis was conducted on the DEPPA database. The fee code spread for the first 10,000 patients assessed using DEPPA (in 2013) was compared with the most recent 10,000 patients assessed (in 2017). The hypothesis was that, if these two populations, on average, have a similar oral health status it would be expected that the fee code spread should remain in a similar proportion for the two populations. Statistical checks were also performed on the database to confirm that the specific construct of Denplan Care fee code guidance was being represented by results delivered by DEPPA.
Results
The percentage of patients assigned by DEPPA into each of the five fee codes (A–E) remained consistent between the 2013 and 2017 groups. Both groups had the same oral health status as measured by the Oral Health Score (OHS) component of DEPPA (average OHS=78 for both groups). Further statistical analysis suggested that the defined concept of Denplan Care fee code guidance was being represented by DEPPA.
Conclusions
Reliable capitation fee banding increases the viability and fairness of this funding system, which in turn facilitates a preventive approach for both patients and dental teams. Patient assessment systems such as DEPPA can provide reliable and valid capitation fee code guidance.
To investigate aspects of reliability and validity of Denplan/Previser Patient Assessment (DEPPA) capitation fee code guidance through a population study and to discuss some of the practicalities of effective capitation funding.
Methods
A form of 'test-re-test' reliability analysis was conducted on the DEPPA database. The fee code spread for the first 10,000 patients assessed using DEPPA (in 2013) was compared with the most recent 10,000 patients assessed (in 2017). The hypothesis was that, if these two populations, on average, have a similar oral health status it would be expected that the fee code spread should remain in a similar proportion for the two populations. Statistical checks were also performed on the database to confirm that the specific construct of Denplan Care fee code guidance was being represented by results delivered by DEPPA.
Results
The percentage of patients assigned by DEPPA into each of the five fee codes (A–E) remained consistent between the 2013 and 2017 groups. Both groups had the same oral health status as measured by the Oral Health Score (OHS) component of DEPPA (average OHS=78 for both groups). Further statistical analysis suggested that the defined concept of Denplan Care fee code guidance was being represented by DEPPA.
Conclusions
Reliable capitation fee banding increases the viability and fairness of this funding system, which in turn facilitates a preventive approach for both patients and dental teams. Patient assessment systems such as DEPPA can provide reliable and valid capitation fee code guidance.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 751–755 |
| Journal | British Dental Journal |
| Volume | 225 |
| Early online date | 12 Oct 2018 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 26 Oct 2018 |