Participation in the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund policy by dentists in South Carolina's safety net

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesThe Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act appropriated $100 billion to the Provider Relief Fund, allowing for direct payments to health care providers due to COVID‐19. Few studies have evaluated participation in the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), and none have specifically looked at dental providers in the safety net.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, secondary data analysis using a quasi‐experimental cohort design of South Carolina dentists who received PRF payments, comparing those who did and did not participate in the safety net. Safety net practice was operationalized as those participating in Medicaid, and whether they provided care in dental health professional shortage areas, or rural communities.ResultsOf the 628 dental providers in South Carolina who received PRF payments, 34% were identified as Medicaid providers while 66% did not participate in Medicaid; we found no statistical difference between payments to Medicaid versus non‐Medicaid dental providers. Of PRF payments to dental providers participating in South Carolina's Medicaid program, we found no difference between payments to rural and urban providers but did find that practices offering services in dental care shortage areas received less than providers practicing in counties not designated as a shortage area.ConclusionsThe PRF achieved its goal of distributing financial support to providers affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic. But without policy imperatives linked to need‐based allocations or incentives for PRF recipients to serve safety net populations, we may later learn this was a missed opportunity for PRF.