Governments talk a good game around dentistry, but rarely back it up. The latest non-action around regulatory reform is indicative of this, argues GDPUK founder Dr Tony Jacobs

When ministers talk about healthcare reform, dentistry is frequently mentioned. When government acts, dentistry is often missing.

The latest plans to modernise professional healthcare regulation once again appear to place medicine and nursing at the forefront, with the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council benefiting from long-awaited legislative attention. Dentistry, meanwhile, remains where it has been for years: waiting.

The General Dental Council continues to operate under a legislative framework that many regard as outdated and poorly suited to modern professional regulation. Successive governments have acknowledged the need for reform. However, as well know, those same governments go on to find multiple other more urgent priorities.

This is not simply an administrative issue affecting a regulator. It is another example of a wider pattern in which dentistry receives rhetorical support while being denied practical priority.

A question of political importance

The message matters. Dentists are a major patient-facing workforce. Millions of NHS dental appointments take place every year. Oral health remains a significant component of public health, linked not only to quality of life but also to wider health inequalities and long-term medical outcomes.

Yet when major healthcare regulatory reforms are discussed, dentistry appears once again to occupy a secondary position.

The consequence is increasingly difficult to ignore. Whether the subject is NHS contract reform, workforce planning, prevention policy, access to care, or now professional regulation, dentistry often finds itself addressed later than other parts of healthcare. Sometimes much later.

This pattern creates an impression that dentistry is viewed not as a core element of healthcare delivery, but as a peripheral service whose concerns can be postponed without significant political cost.

That perception is damaging, whether or not ministers intend it.

The cost of standing still

Regulatory frameworks are not an abstract constitutional matter. They shape the daily experience of registrants.

For years, professional organisations have argued that dental regulation requires modernisation to become more proportionate, efficient and responsive. Delays leave practitioners operating within structures that were designed for a different era of practice.

At a time when recruitment and retention are already under pressure, regulatory uncertainty is not a trivial concern.

Young graduates entering the profession want confidence that regulation is fair, contemporary and supports professional development. Experienced clinicians weighing up early retirement, reduced NHS commitment, or departure from the profession are unlikely to be reassured by yet another postponement of reform.

Morale is influenced by many factors, but one recurring theme emerges from discussions across the profession: a feeling that dentistry is often overlooked by those making policy decisions.

Every further delay reinforces that sentiment.

The challenge of dentistry's hybrid identity

Part of the problem may lie in dentistry's unusual position within the healthcare system.

Medicine is overwhelmingly perceived as an NHS service. Nursing is inseparable from the functioning of the NHS. Dentistry occupies a more complex space, operating across NHS and private provision in ways that policymakers do not always seem comfortable addressing.

The danger is that this hybrid model reduces political visibility.

When NHS dentistry struggles, responsibility can be blurred between workforce choices, contract design, market forces and public funding decisions. That complexity allows governments to avoid confronting difficult questions directly.

Yet the reality remains straightforward. Whether treatment is provided under NHS arrangements or privately, dental professionals remain subject to statutory regulation, and patients deserve confidence that regulation is modern, effective and accountable.

Legislative reform should not depend on the funding model through which care is delivered. Perhaps a further column should assess the aspects of the fact the work of the GDC be funded by the very professionals it governs.

Issues of accountability

The deeper issue is one of governance.

Government has repeatedly recognised the need for reform. The profession has repeatedly been told that change is coming. Progress has repeatedly been delayed.

At some point, the question shifts from policy intention to political accountability.

Why does dentistry consistently find itself waiting while reforms elsewhere proceed? What objective criteria justify the continued postponement? And if reform is genuinely necessary, what prevents government from delivering it?

These are reasonable questions. They deserve transparent answers.

Too often, dentistry is discussed as though its challenges exist in isolation from wider health policy. The opposite is true. Regulatory reform, workforce morale, recruitment difficulties and patient access are interconnected parts of the same system.

A government serious about improving healthcare governance cannot continue treating dentistry as an afterthought.

The continued delay to dental regulatory reform may appear technical. In reality, it sends a much broader message about priorities.

And once again, the message received by dentistry is that it can wait.