Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday December 16 2019, @07:36AM   Printer-friendly

In other words, what happens when a population suddenly stops taking fluoride in their drinking water, like Juneau's citizenry did?

Now, thanks to a recent study led by first author and public health researcher Jennifer Meyer from the University of Alaska Anchorage, we've got new insights into the subsequent effects.

In the study, Meyer assessed Medicaid dental claim billing records for two groups of children and adolescents aged 18 or under.

One of these groups represented what the researchers call "optimal" community water fluoridation (CWF) exposure: 853 non-adult patients on behalf of whom Medicaid dental claims were filed in 2003, years before the fluoride cessation began in 2007.

The other group was made up of 1,052 non-adult patients from families who similarly met Medicaid income requirements, and who made the same kind of dental claims almost a decade later, in 2012.

[...] "By taking the fluoride out of the water supply... the trade-off for that is children are going to experience one additional caries procedure per year, at a ballpark (cost) of US$300 more per child," Meyer explained to KTOO News.

Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-happened-when-a-city-in-alaska-took-fluoride-out-of-its-drinking-water

Reference: Jennifer Meyer, Vasileios Margaritis & Aaron Mendelsohn, Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska, BMC Oral Health, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0684-2


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @09:37AM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @09:37AM (#932766)

    Nope. They counted procedures.

    There is no "nope"... why do you keep denying that that they compared prices?

    Data were secured from all Medicaid dental claims records submitted during 2003, three years prior to cessation, and 2012, six years post-cessation, for all Medicaid-eligible children aged 0 to 18 years residing in the 99801 zip code who were examined by a dentist

    [...]

    We manually counted the number of caries-related claims (Level 3 claims) and the total dollar amount charged by the service provider for these restorative treatments. For example, if a patient had a one-surface primary amalgam restoration and a three-surface anterior resin restoration during the study year, then this patient’s experience would be summed as two caries-related procedures, along with the total caries-related costs for these specific procedures.

    [...]

    The mean caries-related treatment cost for the 0- to 18-year-old age cohort was significantly higher in the suboptimal CWF group than that in the optimal CWF group ($593.70 vs. $344.34, p < 0.0001) without adjusting for inflation. According to the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index [47], the inflation rate increased an estimated 24.75% between 2003 and 2012. Therefore, the increase in inflation-adjusted provider service charges in caries treatment costs associated with CWF cessation for the 0- to 18-year-old age group was + 47%, or $161.84.

    And as I said, inflation *in dental expenses* is much higher than CPI. So this entire increase in expenses is illusory. Even according to the official government stats inflatoin was twice as strong as what they assume:

    Between 2003 and 2012: Dental services experienced an average inflation rate of 4.03% per year. This rate of change indicates significant inflation. In other words, dental services costing $334 in the year 2003 would cost $476.63 in 2012 for an equivalent purchase. Compared to the overall inflation rate of 2.49% during this same period, inflation for dental services was higher.

    https://www.in2013dollars.com/Dental-services/price-inflation/2003-to-2012?amount=334 [in2013dollars.com]

    And government stats always understate inflation so they can screw over anyone with an inflation-adjusted pension or social security.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by FatPhil on Monday December 16 2019, @09:45AM (13 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 16 2019, @09:45AM (#932770) Homepage
    Nope, Donny, just plain nope.

    Read the paper. Get someone to read it for you if that's too hard. Notice, right at the start where it should tell you what they're going to be doing, they actually tell you what they're going to be doing! And what they're going to be doing is "A bivariate analysis (Mann-Whitney U test) of the mean number of caries procedures performed per client".
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @10:10AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @10:10AM (#932775)

      So you deny what I quoted above comes from the paper? To be clear, I do not deny that they counted number of fillings, etc. The level of this communication has dropped below zero though, even dumber people than who wrote this paper are apparently reading it and taking it to be important.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Monday December 16 2019, @11:53AM (4 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday December 16 2019, @11:53AM (#932800) Homepage
        I deny what you quoted above comes from the paper.

        I do that because it does not come from the paper.

        See how logic works?
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:01PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:01PM (#932875)

          Wow! This is peak idiocy I've seen on this site. Those quotes come directly from this paper.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @09:37PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @09:37PM (#933018)

            Both of you quoted the paper. You each are suffering from what you accuse the other of.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @11:43PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @11:43PM (#933077)

              Where do you see that?

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:28AM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:28AM (#933224) Homepage
            Ctrl-F in the paper did not find even the first 2 words of your quote, let alone the whole thing.

            Are you confusing the paper for the article?

            My quotes have almost exclusively come from the paper.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday December 16 2019, @02:56PM (6 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday December 16 2019, @02:56PM (#932855)

      What they're not doing is considering the "root cause" of the caries.

      It would seem to be a safe assumption that underlying diet and other factors remained relatively constant during the period studied, however- that rate of one cavity per year might (just might) drop equally dramatically with a dietary change such as elimination of sugar-soft-drinks from the childrens' diet as it does with fluoridation of the municipal water.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:04PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @04:04PM (#932877)

        Sugar doesn't matter so much as pH. I wonder if the fluoridation process affects the pH at all.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Monday December 16 2019, @07:23PM (1 child)

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 16 2019, @07:23PM (#932972) Journal

          pH is important, but is relatively independent. The water is carried in metal pipes, so the pH will be normalized. The fluoride salts that get embedded in the teeth are less sensitive to acid than what they replace.

          That said, I'm not really impressed with the study. It's not long term enough. There is evidence (I'm not sure how good) that excess (whatever that means) fluoride will eventually affect the chances of getting cancer. But you'd need a longitudinal study lasting for at least 30 years to pin that down. (Probably 40 or 50 years would be better.) But that's going to have a lot more effect on medical costs than a few extra cavities.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @11:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16 2019, @11:47PM (#933078)

            No, it isn't independent, the reason sugars are bad for your teeth is because bacteria in your mouth eats it and shits out acids that lower the pH. Sugar on its own does nothing to enamel.

            Good grief, the nonsense in this thread.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:22AM (2 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:22AM (#933223) Homepage
        Absolutely true. One of the many other foibles the US is internationally known for is its obsession with sweet foodstuffs and drinks. However, that goes back decades (and even counting decades, I might run out of fingers). I remember seeing a %sugar in breakfast cereals survey for the UK vs. the US about 25-30 years ago, and your average was higher than out highest even back then. I genuinely don't think there's been significant change upwards in the US in that time literally because you had almost nowhere to expand into. Until you've started just having cotton candy for brekky nowadays.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:48PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:48PM (#933307)

          One of the many other foibles the US is internationally known for

          Meanwhile, the UK is known for their excellent teeth and fine cooking. /s

          The U.S. is chronically guilty of letting the packaged food and many other industries abuse the population, seemingly profits are our king.

          started just having cotton candy for brekky nowadays

          It's pretty ridiculous here, but more often it's disguised as "health bars," or "designer coffees" - things that at first glance you wouldn't expect to be hiding so much high fructose corn syrup. It really is the corn farming lobby (think: Monsanto) that has done the most damage over the past 50 years.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday December 17 2019, @04:29PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday December 17 2019, @04:29PM (#933316) Homepage
            No idea what the UK is legitimately known for nowadays, I left there decades ago for a reason. I'm happy to credit them with their incredible ability to stab themselves in the foot, but it's not as impressive as some other countries' methods of pedal punishment.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves