apparent that this mobility rate must have disadvantages.

Respondent comments chiefly indicated:

1. Difficulties in selection of a dentist.

2. Reluctance of dentists to take on new patients or

to make appointments that would interfere with the

schedules of their regular patients.

3. Dentist requirements for advanced payment, interest

on unpaid bills, or higher fees.

A civilian comment reinforced the military inferences.

"Our family have always gone to this one particular
dentist and have not encountered some of the problems
that other people have. We do know that if one does
not have a regular dentist and requires dental care,
it is nearly impossible to become a "new patient".
The dentists' schedules are just that full."

These disadvantages must be qualified by the consideration that a certain percentage of military families at any given time are located in areas where government-provided-or-subsidized dependent dental care is available. However, this might not be as advantageous as it might appear on the surface. These advantages are diluted when it is considered that not all overseas tours are accompanied and that the time

interval between tours overseas might be the critical time

for dental care.

Although this aspect of dental care was not explored as part
of the survey, some servicemen in their comments complained
of the unavailability of dependent dental care at uniformed
facilities overseas generally, and of orthodontic work in
particular. Others indicated that at the time of reassignment

back to CONUS, work started overseas but not completed had to

be redone by a civilian dentist because of differences in technique.

In the past year, 17% of the military had, on at least one

occasion, utilized a uniform service dental facility for

care of dependents.

gency treatment.

The chief such utilization was for emer-
Another 3 obtained this service as part

of medical or surgical treatment.

Of those surveyed who cared to comment on the use of uniformed facilities by dependents, most indicated that their emergency needs had been taken care of satisfactorily.

But others

contended that although some military facilities make certain
services, for example, full mouth x-rays, available to depen-
dents, the local dentists will not always accept them. As
one Air Force Captain observed:

"The dentists in Tucson, Arizona will not accept x-rays
from the base when they are required. The base will

gladly make full mouth x-rays available to anyone

who requests them.

will accept them.

However, no dentist in Tucson

For some people, the price of

the x-rays exceeds the price of the dental work to
be done. For lower ranking airmen this difference
in cost can actually cause financial difficulty.
I don't know how many areas have this policy but
it is my first encounter."

Many servicemen commented on the need for dental care of pregnant wives. The following is representative of these

comments:

Civilian

My wife is pregnant and needs her teeth worked on
because all the calcium in her body was going to
the baby instead of to her own teeth.
dentistry cost too much and we could not afford
the work that should have been done. The Base
dentist would not help us in this circumstance.
My wife's doctor even encouraged her to get her
teeth fixed, (the doctor was a civilian doctor as
my wife is on Medicare) and the base still wouldn't
help. One of my wife's teeth finally broke and we
got that one tooth taken care of on base. There was
more cavity than tooth material but the dentist still
tried to fill the tooth. My wife still needs dental

care."

37-066 0-70-No. 36

I I. CONSEQUENCES OF DENTAL COST

Discussion to this point has established (1) that a higher proportion of military dependents did not obtain the dental care required, (2) that cost was by far the most important reason given by both military and civilians for not acquiring the dental care their dependents required, and (3) the important relationship of amount and type of care acquired to the income of the sponsor. The aim of the discussion here is to assess the degree of financial hardship entailed by those who did acquire dental care for their dependents in the past year.

Generally, the survey results show that costs per dependent or for specific dental treatment were about the same for both populations. Furthermore, the comparative average ages of military and civilian children are 8 years and 10 years

respectively and half the number of children in both populations are in age group 5 14. However, the cost per mili

tary family is somewhat higher since the average number of military dependents sampled is 3.2 as against 2.9 for their civilian family counterparts. The distribution of total cost for each category of dependent by Grade Group of sponsor appears in Appendix C.

The actual cost associated with providing dental care does not reflect the dental treatment which ideally should have been accomplished but was put off because of financial, considerations.

- 22

As a Navy E-6 remarked:

"The way in which I answered this form would make
it look like my family has perfect teeth. This is

not true. The reason we have, not seen a civilian

dentist is because of the expense it would cost

and which I cannot afford. The work needed for
my wife will cost from $100 to $300 and the work.
on my son's teeth will cost from $50 to $150. I
just don't have this much money laying around and
I do not feel that I should make another loan from

a finance company in order to get this work done."

Although responses were based on subjective evaluations, the degree to which cost for dependent dental care in the past year caused financial hardships for their sponsor appears to be reasonable in light of other findings previously discussed. Further, when the degree of hardship expressed is matched with the number of dependents in the family, the expected response continuum is obtained for both the military and civilian samples. As seen in Table 8 the larger the number of dependents in the family, the more financial hardship verbalized for dental care.

In this regard then, Table 9 shows that 53% of the military felt that dental care for their dependents had caused them some or serious financial hardship as against 33% for the civilian sponsors. This comparative difference is seen in