Purpose: Although many oral and maxillofacial surgical (OMS) procedures might seem to be profitable, no current data have analyzed the costs versus benefits of performing office-based OMS procedures. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the costs of performing 6 common office-based OMS procedures compared with the reimbursement rates for those same procedures. Materials and Methods: The present study was a cross-sectional, microcosting survey analyzing the costs of materials used in the outpatient Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The costs incurred were based on dental procedure coding and national statistical databases and not on actual patient interactions. The primary predictor variable was the procedure costs for 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures using 3 types of trays: a simple tray, a surgical tray, and an implant tray. The ancillary materials were listed for as-needed use for each tray. The primary outcome variable was the revenue after expenses per procedure. Descriptive statistics were computed. The net profit or net loss of performing 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures was analyzed by subtracting the cost of performing the procedure from the insurance reimbursement for those procedures. Results: Without the addition of sedation to the procedures, routine extractions had a net loss of $230 to $261, surgical extractions had a net loss of $153 to $242, and incision and drainage procedures had a net loss of $212 to $311. Furthermore, preprosthetic procedures had a net loss to net profit of −$269 to +$140, and pathologic procedures had a net loss to net profit of −$269 to +$326. Only implant procedures yielded a net profit of $847. Conclusions: The results of the present study have demonstrated that not all routine OMS procedures are profitable when performed alone without the inclusion of additional procedures or sedation.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oral Surgery