The 83 Percent Question

View Comments (168)
Categories: Practice Management, HR and Accounting;
The 83 Percent Question

What Massachusetts really changed and what dentists should learn from it

Dentists love a good villain story, and dental insurance makes an easy one. Low fees. Frozen annual maximums. Downgrades that make no clinical sense. Phone calls that feel like endurance sports. So when Massachusetts voters passed Question 2, a law requiring dental insurers to spend at least 83% of premiums on patient care, the reaction was predictable: cheers, outrage, skepticism, hope, fear, and about 10 different theories of how insurers would “just get around it anyway.”

Underneath all the noise is a quieter and more useful question for practicing dentists: Did Massachusetts Question 2 actually change the game, or did it just move the goalposts?

To answer that, you have to strip away the emotion and look at how dental insurance really works.

First, a quick reality check. A dental loss ratio is not a moral scorecard. It is an accounting ratio defined by law. What counts as “care” is broader than most dentists assume, and what counts as “administration” is narrower than most expect. Claims include more than checks written to dentists. They can include write-offs, accrual timing, coordination of benefits, and certain quality improvement activities. That is how a plan can report an 80% to 85% loss ratio while holding fees flat for a decade. The math can be real, even if the experience feels awful.

Second, dental insurance is not medical insurance with smaller teeth. Dental premiums are tiny by comparison, often $30 or $40 a month. Annual maximums are capped, usually at levels that have not changed in decades. Once patients hit that cap, the risk stops. That structure alone inflates loss ratios without transferring much real risk. You can have a high loss ratio and still deliver very little value.

That explains why California’s reporting law felt like a dud to many dentists. California required dental plans to report loss ratios, but it did not require a minimum. The numbers came out. Many plans, including large Delta PPO products, showed loss ratios in the 80s. And nothing changed. Reporting without consequences rarely does.

Massachusetts is different. Question 2 did not just require reporting. It imposed a floor. If a carrier does not hit 83%, it has to refund the difference. That single detail matters. It removes one behavior that insurers historically relied on, quietly moving surplus upstream with no obligation to return it to patients.

What it does not do is force insurers to raise fees. That is the part many dentists misunderstand. The law gives insurers three basic levers. They can raise premiums. They can change benefits or network design. Or they can issue rebates. Raising fees is only one option, and not the easiest one. Power in dental insurance does not live in the margin. It lives in contract design.

That is why some dentists are underwhelmed and others are cautiously optimistic. Both reactions are rational.

The underwhelmed dentists point out the real choke points. Annual maximums are still frozen. Non-covered procedure fee controls still exist. Network leasing continues to confuse patients and offices. Downgrades and bundling continue to undermine treatment planning and trust. An insurer can comply with an 83% loss ratio and still dominate dentists.

Cautiously optimistic dentists see something else. Transparency with teeth. Standardized reporting offers something regulators, employers, and even attorneys can actually compare. It’s a rule that makes extreme hoarding harder to hide. A starting point, not an endpoint.

The fight around Question 2 also exposed something uncomfortable inside the profession. Change did not come from a polished committee memo or a quiet negotiation. It came from a dentist willing to spend personal time, energy, and money to force the issue into public view. Organized dentistry eventually supported it, but not before hesitating, negotiating, and worrying about relationships. That tension is not unique to Massachusetts. It exists everywhere dentistry intersects with insurance.

There is also a blind spot dentists should not ignore. ERISA. Self-funded plans sit largely outside state regulation. As pressure increases on fully insured products, employers may migrate toward self-funding. That does not kill reform, but it does redirect it. Any dentist betting their future on a single state law will be disappointed.

So did the law work? It is too early to declare victory or failure. The statute is live. The regulations are still being finalized. Data is starting to come in. Early signals show insurers taking it seriously, adjusting products, and in some cases exiting certain market segments. That alone tells you it is not meaningless.

The more important lesson for dentists is not about 83%. That number was never magical. It was strategic: high enough to apply pressure, low enough to pass. The real lesson is about leverage. Loss ratios are a blunt tool, but they can be a useful one when paired with clearer definitions, limits on accounting games, and parallel reforms that address network leasing, non-covered procedures, and benefit design.

For the dentist in a busy operatory on a Tuesday afternoon, the practical takeaway is simpler. Do not expect one law to fix everything. Do pay attention to how insurers respond. Watch benefit changes more than press releases. Watch contract language more than percentages. And remember that patients do not buy dentistry based on loss ratios. They buy it based on trust, clarity, and how you explain value when insurance falls short.

In the meantime, nothing about this law changes the basics of survival. Run efficient schedules. Present treatment clearly. Stop apologizing for fees. Understand your contracts better than the person on the other end of the phone. And recognize that real reform, when it comes, usually arrives messier and slower than the slogans promised.

Massachusetts did not end the war. It shifted the battlefield. The dentists who do best next will be those who stop fighting the last battle and start learning where the remaining leverage actually sits.

If transparency is only the first step, what do you think the next step should be?

Join the Conversation!

More In Practice Management, HR and Accounting
Cybersecurity Best Practices for your Dental Office - Top 10 Tips Today
Cybersecurity Best Practices for your Dental Office - Top 10...
Dr. Peter Fritz
CE Credits: 1.25
Economic Trends in Dentistry and What They Could Mean for Your Practice
Economic Trends in Dentistry and What They Could Mean for Your...
Mark Greenstein and Timothy Quirt, DDS
CE Credits: 2
Howard Speaks: Lean and Mean Dentistry
Howard Speaks: Lean and Mean Dentistry
by Dr. Howard Farran, DDS, MBA
December 2025
Industry Insights: Growth Strategies
Industry Insights: Growth Strategies
by Lois Banta
November 2025
Dentaltown Magazine
February 2026
Dentaltown Magazine February 2026 Read Current Issue Read Archived Issues
Sponsors
Townie Perks
Townie® Poll
Do you still use film?
  
Related Articles
Doubling Down on Dentistry
Doubling Down on Dentistry
January 2026
How Dentists Can Stay on Schedule and Avoid Burnout
How Dentists Can Stay on Schedule and Avoid Burnout
July 2025
Who Pays for Dental Lab Remakes?
Who Pays for Dental Lab Remakes?
August 2025
Site Menu
Message Boards Magazine Continuing Education Podcasts Pods & Blogs Classifieds Dental News Events Townie® Poll Ebooks Townie Choice Awards
Company Info
Contact Us Advertise With Us Howard Farran DDS, MBA Policies and Agreements
Site Help
The Dentaltown Team, Farran Media Support
Phone: +1-480-445-9710
Email: support@dentaltown.com
©2026 Dentaltown, a division of Farran Media • All Rights Reserved
9633 S. 48th Street Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85044 • Phone:+1-480-598-0001 • Fax:+1-480-598-3450