DENTISTS are being caught out by "unfit for purpose" fee regulations, the leader for the profession in Scotland has warned.
David McColl, chair of the British Dental Association’s Scottish Dental Practice Committee, said Mr Taggart's case underlined the huge stress the system could place on practitioners.
READ MORE: Dentist says he was 'put through hell' for five years before case against him dropped
He said: “Dental treatment payments, and the regulations that underpin them, remains unfit for purpose. They are difficult to administer and seems set up to allow practitioners to fail.
“Officials should be providing real clarity and support, not setting up a minefield for dentists attempting to deliver the best possible care for patients under incredibly difficult circumstances.
“There is no place for bullying or threats to recover fees. While the Practioner Services Division (PSD)has made some improvements, further progress is urgently needed. Until then dedicated NHS dentists will keep falling foul of a system that lacks transparency.”
In August 2017, minutes of the Scottish Dental Practice Board - the body which oversees PSD - acknowledge that "prolonged investigation had a negative impact on dental practitioners' health and was detrimental to morale".
They also paint a picture of a service under pressure to meet targets.
In 2017, with Mr Taggart's case dragging on, it was noted that the sums recovered from practitioners for alleged mis-claiming had "slumped".
In November 2017, members were told that PSD's budget "was shrinking at a time of increased workload".
Investigators had been tasked with recovering £260,000 in the 2017/18 financial year, up from the previous £200,000 annual target.
Although PSD - now part of NHS National Services Scotland - can also pursue opticians, pharmacists and GPs, the minutes note that recoveries from dentists are "disproportionate when compared to other practitioner groups".
In 2015/16, recoveries from dentists accounted for half the £1 million recouped.
This may have less to do with 'dodgy dentists' than dodgy guidance, however.
In August 2016, the minutes note that the Statement of Dental Remuneration (SDR) - the regulations covering dental payments - was "very complex and prone to claiming errors".
In Northern Ireland a "plain English" version is credited with having significantly reduced claiming errors and improving relations between dentists and the Northern Irish equivalent of the PSD.
Despite repeated appeals by the British Dental Association (BDA) an equivalent Scottish document is yet to be made available to practitioners.
Mr Taggart's case is not unique. In March 2018, Edinburgh dentist Joanna Adamczak-Gawrychowska was cleared of misclaiming £70,000 after a four-year dispute.
The judgment by Lord Arthurson at the Court of Session described the case against her as "irrational and unfair" and based on a "miniscule sampling" of just 33 patient record cards.
Like Mr Taggart, £48,000 had been clawed back from Ms Adamczak-Gawrychowska by the time she eventually launched legal proceedings.
Her lawyers argued that NHS bodies are only entitled to recover money that it can show has been overpaid, not sums that "may have been overpaid when calculated on the basis of inference, sampling or on an educated guess".
In January this year, a survey of more than 2000 UK dentists by the BDA found that half felt too stressed to cope with the job and nearly one in five had seriously considered suicide.
More than half of practice owners in Scotland have described their morale as 'low or 'very low', with the trade union warning that the pressures on of increasing expenses and regulation is becoming "intolerable" for some dentists.
A spokeswoman for NHS NSS, said: "PSD is responsible for ensuring that public money is paid to dentists only where treatments are provided in accordance with the regulations and payment system which was set by the Scottish Government, in consultation with the British Dental Association.
"PSD carries out post-payment verification following an agreed, transparent protocol and, where required, are lawfully entitled to recover overpayments identified.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here