TABLE 4

Association Between Preventive Dental Visits and Nonpreventive Dental Visits, Expenditures, and Overall Expenditures for Children Aged ≥8 Years: Naive and FE Regression Results

VariableModel1 Preventive Visit2 Preventive Visits≥3 Preventive VisitsPreventive + Restorative Care
ββββ
Nonpreventive dental visitsNaive0.10***0.08***0.07**0.09***
Nonpreventive dental visitsFE−0.22***−0.32***−0.36***−0.36
Nonpreventive dental expendituresNaive15.27***8.77***2.9710.69*
Nonpreventive dental expendituresFE−25.67***−37.95***−46.00***4.85
Medical expenditures (excluding dental)FE89.64§128.18*149.42−79.86
All dental expendituresFE90.94***161.32***245.02***172.34***
All medical expenditures (including dental)FE180.59***289.51***394.44***92.48
  • N = 76 716 child-year observations. The sample includes observations on all Alabama CHIP enrollees aged ≥8 years, with 3 continuous periods of enrollment after initial enrollment, and no nonpreventive dental visits in the first enrollment period. The reference category for preventive visits is “0 preventive visits.” “Preventive + restorative” is a binary indicator for whether restorative claims were filed alongside preventive claims in any visits. Nonpreventive visits were defined as visits having at least 1 dental procedure but excluding all preventive procedures. All expenditures are in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars. All models controlled for FPL category, age, race, gender, chronic condition diagnosis, RUCA, and calendar year. However, in the FE models, time-invariant characteristics, such as gender and race, are automatically subsumed into the FE. All models were run by using Stata version 11 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX).

  • § P < .10; * P < .05; ** P < .01; *** P < .001.