CDA Essentials 2017 • Volume 4 • Issue 2

24 / 48

24 | 2017 | Issue 2
Issues and People
To hear the full
interview with
Dr. Adams, see
Q
Q
Q
Q
not in terms of setting higher standards or
higher quality services, but rather it’s being
viewed in terms of supporting a competitive
market and more consumer choice. There’s a
growing sense that professionals are obstructing
market practices that would benefit the public
more broadly.
Why do you think views about the nature
of public interest have shifted again?
The understanding of public interest varies
across provinces and I think political culture is
very much a part of it. I think there is also a new
public sense of what is right and what is wrong;
these things change over time. To some extent, I
think people are taking high quality services for
granted so the conversation has shifted to focus
on other issues and barriers.
Is the concept of self-regulation different
in Canada compared to other parts of
the world?
In the past, there were some differences in
terms of how self-regulation was structured
although the concepts were pretty similar. But
there is a growing change in that some people
consider Canada the sole country that maintains
professional self-regulation. In Australia and
the UK they’ve been revising self-regulation
to minimize the voice of professionals and
increase government oversight and the voice of
members of the public.
What could changing views of
professional self-regulation mean for the
Canadian dental profession?
Professional regulation and self-regulation
in Canada could shift to be more like it is
developing in the UK and Australia, where
professions sometimes have more accountability
and less autonomy. It could have an impact on
scopes of practice, in that more professionals
could be granted the right to do some tasks
that dentists currently perform. There’s a sense
that maybe professionals have lost some value
with the public and may have less influence with
politicians.
How can the Canadian dental profession
position itself in this new climate so that
the public and the profession are best
served?
It’s important to recognize that our world is
changing rapidly so we can’t assume that just
because things have been a certain way that
they’re going to stay that way. It’s also important
to recognize that some people, including
politicians, are increasingly skeptical about
professions and their claims to serve the public
interest. I think there’s a big role for professions
like dentistry to participate in public discourse on
what it means to uphold the public interest. To
talk about the importance of quality education
and the dangers to the public in opening up
scopes of practice. It’s important for dentists
to engage and even shape these kinds of
conversations moving forward. a
Reference
1.Adams T. Professional self-regulation and the public interest in Canada. Professions & Professionalism. 2016;6(3):1-15.
Conflicting information regarding molar predeter-
mination requirements was published in the article
Navigating the NIHB Program: Dental Care for First Nations
(CDA Essentials, Volume 3, Issue 8, 2016. p. 12-13). The correct sentence in
the “Endodontic Policy” section should read:
Predetermination is still required for third molars at all times.
CDA Essentials apologizes for this error.
Recent changes to the NIHB Program
❘� Predeterminations
Dentistsarenowable to faxpredeterminations
to theDentalPredeterminationCentres.
❘� CrownPolicy
AsofSeptember1,2016:
•TheProgramconsiderscoverageofup to
4crowns inany10-yearperiod (asopposed
to1crownevery3years).
•The frequency forcoverageofcoresand
posts reflects thenewcrownpolicy.
•TheProgramnowconsiderscoverageofa
singleunitcrownonextensively restored
teeth(endodonticallyornon-endodontically
treated)where theexisting toothstructure
canno longersupportadirect restoration.
❘� EndodonticPolicy
Following the lastphaseof theNIHB
EndodonticTrialProject in late2015, the
Programannounced theofficial removalof
thepredetermination requirements for
standard rootcanal treatmentprocedures
onbicuspidsandfirstmolars.
AsofDecember9,2016:
• TheProgramno longer requiresa
predetermination forstandard rootcanal
treatmentproceduresonsecondmolars;
•Secondmolarsmaybeconsidered for
coverage forstandard rootcanal treatment
insituationswhere thefirstmolar is
present.
The frequency limitationof3 rootcanal
treatmentprocedures ina36-monthperiod
remains ineffect forall teeth.
Predetermination isstill required forsecond
and thirdmolarsatall times.
❘� RemovableProsthodonticPolicy
AsofJanuary4,2016:
•TheProgramconsiders requests for
coverage for removableacrylicpartial
dentures,once inany5-yearperiod,
perarch.
Tobeconsidered forcoverage,allproceduresonall teeth
mustmeetcurrentcriteriaandguidelinesof theNIHB
policies.
Erratum