Hygiene wages at 13%. The percentage is not the question.

A practice was spending 13% of collections on hygiene wages against a 10% benchmark. At first glance that reads as an overhead problem.

At $2 million in collections, those three points are roughly $60,000 a year. Meaningful. But it is not automatically $60,000 of waste, and treating it that way is how owners end up cutting the wrong thing.

Look at what the hygiene department produces

Hygiene wages have to be read alongside hygiene production and schedule utilization. If the department is consistently full, producing well, and contributing real revenue, a higher wage percentage may be entirely reasonable. If there are frequent openings, cancellations, or paid hours that are not producing, the same 13% points to something very different.

So the first question is not how do we get hygiene wages down. It is how productive is the capacity we are paying for.

Consider two practices, both at 13%. The first has full schedules, strong production per hour, and almost no unused capacity. The second has frequent cancellations, open blocks, and hygienists paid for hours that produce nothing. Their P&Ls show the same percentage. Their economics are not remotely the same, and only one of them has a problem to solve.

The six numbers to read together

When I review a hygiene department, the wage percentage is one of six figures on the page, not the headline:

• Production per hygiene hour. The single most diagnostic number in the department.
• Schedule utilization. What share of paid hours were actually booked and kept.
• Cancellation and no-show rate. Where utilization usually goes to die.
• Total compensation and benefits. Not just wages, or you will understate the real cost.
• Hygiene collections. Production you did not collect is not production.
• Available capacity. Chairs and hours you could fill without hiring anyone.

Together those tell a far clearer story than the wage percentage by itself. A 13% wage line with high production per hour and 95% utilization is a well-run department that happens to pay competitively. A 13% wage line with open blocks every Tuesday is an operations problem wearing a payroll costume.

Why benchmarks need context

Benchmarks give owners a reference point. They flag numbers that deserve attention. They should not become automatic targets.

A practice is not healthier because every expense sits below a benchmark. A higher expense can be right if it supports stronger production, better capacity, or a deliberate strategic decision. A lower expense can still be inefficient if it creates staffing and scheduling problems that cap what the practice can do.

The goal is the right economics, not the lower number

For this practice, 13% against a 10% benchmark was worth about $60,000 a year. The right response was not to cut wages until the percentage read 10%.

The better question was whether the current hygiene structure made economic sense. If the department produces enough to justify the cost, the higher percentage is fine. If the practice is paying for unused capacity or inefficient scheduling, there is room to improve profit without touching anyone's compensation, which is almost always the better outcome for a practice that needs to keep its hygienists.

The benchmark tells you where to look. Your practice's numbers tell you what to do.

Frequently asked questions

Austin Moffat

Founder of DSO CFO, a dental-specialized CFO firm serving practices and DSOs nationwide. Cash flow and profit work, taught in plain language.