What this practice
actually paid
to get paid
An Oregon practice on a surcharge program paid an effective rate of 15.57% to process credit cards, 4.6× the 3.37% average across our 500-statement Benchmark Study. See below for the detailed credit card processing statement analysis and summary insights.
This is one statement out of 500.
The Dental Drilldown®: The Benchmark Study analyzed the 500 most recent merchant statements reviewed by Dental Card Services, representing more than $380 million in annualized credit card processing volume. For each one we calculated the effective rate, then compared it against a low-cost interchange cost-plus program. This case study is one practice pulled from that set. If you have not read the study, the figures below put this practice in context.
credit card
processing statements
credit card
processing volume
effective rate
highest
effective rate
Where this practice fell.
Across all 500 statements, 99% had lower effective rates than this practice. Even among the 86 practices on the same surcharge program, 99% had lower effective rates than this practice.
The figures above are the share of practices with a lower effective rate than the practice in this case study. Practice rank is based on effective rate, with No. 1 being the highest.
It comes down to one number.
There is a high degree of variability in how credit card processing statements present their billing programs, rates, and fees, which at times can make analysis, let alone benchmarking, very difficult. The effective rate calculation provides that clarity by rising above the noise, as it is simply the total fees a practice was charged divided by its total credit card processing volume. This is precisely the logic we followed for the 500-statement benchmark. For this practice, it was 15.57%.
$2,424 in annualized savings is bigger than it looks.
These savings are pure profit, so they represent $2,424 in additional practice EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization). What does that mean for your practice? How much dental production would it take to generate a comparable amount, and how much practice value does it create?
And as the practice grows, so do the savings.
The $2,424 is based on today's processing volume, and that volume rarely stands still. Most dental practices grow year over year. Insurance keeps covering a smaller share of each bill, leaving more for the patient to pay. And patients pay by card far more than cash or check, a share that keeps rising. Because the savings are a fixed share of credit card processing volume, all three trends push the annual figure higher. $2,424 is the floor, not the ceiling.
Year 1 is the measured savings of $2,424. Later years are illustrative, assuming annualized credit card processing volume grows about 6% a year from the three trends above. At that pace the annual savings reaches roughly $13,134 by year 30, more than five times where it started.
Invested over a career, those savings can grow past $390,000.
The savings does not have to sit idle. Routed into a tax-deferred plan each year, it compounds well into six figures over a thirty-year career.
What's your number?
This is one statement out of the 500. Your practice has its own rate, and its own number. A savings analysis shows exactly what you pay today and what you would save, in ten minutes or less.
Request your savings analysisThe Top 100 Worst
These hundred are the worst effective rates among the 500 statements in our Benchmark Study. Each week we released a detailed practice case study, working our way down from No. 100 to No. 1.
Every case study is redacted to remove any information that could identify the practice and processor.
This practice was No. 1 — the highest effective rate among the 500 statements in the study. The countdown is complete. We hope you found the Benchmark Study and these one hundred case studies valuable and worthwhile.
Interested in the full Top 100 Worst series?
About the Author
Alex Sadusky is the founder and CEO of Dental Card Services Alliance, LLC, the firm that publishes The Dental Drilldown. He founded the company in 2009 and has spent almost two decades in the dental industry, including leadership positions at Dentsply Sirona, and as co-founder and CEO of TruBlu Dental Management, which he grew into one of the largest platforms for independent dentists in the United States. Under his leadership, Dental Card Services has been the preferred credit card processor for the Academy of General Dentistry's Exclusive Benefits program for more than twelve years. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Fortune Management, the country's largest dental practice management coaching platform. Prior to founding Dental Card Services, Alex worked in venture capital, investment banking, private equity, and management consulting, including at McKinsey & Company. Through The Dental Drilldown, he translates complex financial and operational topics into clear, practical guidance for independent practices.
Study Disclosures and Notes
This case study is based on a single real merchant processing statement reviewed by Dental Card Services Alliance, LLC, one of the 500 most recent statements analyzed in the Benchmark Study, each reporting disclosed credit card processing volume and total fees. Throughout, Effective Rate is defined as total fees divided by total credit card processing volume. The comparison rate reflects the estimated effective rate this practice would have paid on a Dental Card Services low-cost interchange cost-plus program.
The information presented has been redacted to remove any information that could identify the practice or processor. The data is presented purely for educational purposes to illustrate the impact of pricing structures, not to judge or evaluate any individual dental practice or processor.
Production, practice-value, and investment benchmarks and figures are illustrative and assume the identified savings is reallocated to profit. All figures are provided for educational purposes only and do not constitute financial, tax, or investment advice. Savings are estimated as of the date of the analysis, and actual individual results may vary.