Patient Finance for Orthodontic Practices

If a practice is arranging regulated consumer credit — introducing patients to a third-party lender and receiving commission for doing so — it generally needs to be FCA-authorised as a credit broker, or operate as an appointed representative under a lender's or network's principal authorisation. Most UK orthodontic practices offering finance work with a lender such as Chrysalis Finance, Tabeo or Medenta under the lender's own regulatory framework rather than seeking independent FCA authorisation directly. Practices should confirm their specific compliance status with their chosen finance partner rather than assuming coverage, since the requirements differ depending on how the arrangement is structured.

The practice typically pays a subsidy to the lender in exchange for the patient receiving interest-free credit — commonly 3-8% of the treatment value, varying by lender and term length. A 12-month 0% plan usually carries a lower subsidy than a 24-month plan, since the lender's cost of capital and risk exposure increase with term length. Practices generally build this cost into their overall fee structure rather than treating it as a separate loss, so the fee quoted to the patient already reflects the availability of interest-free terms.

While exact figures vary by practice and patient demographic, UK orthodontic practices consistently report meaningfully higher case acceptance rates when finance is presented proactively at the point of quote compared with fee-only presentation, particularly for private treatment in the £2,500-£6,000+ range. The effect is strongest when the monthly instalment figure — not just the total fee — is shown clearly alongside the treatment plan, since patients often assess affordability against a monthly budget rather than a lump sum.

Pre-contract credit information — including the total amount payable, the APR (even if 0%), the number and amount of instalments, and the patient's right to withdraw — must be provided before the credit agreement is signed. The practice must not describe finance as "interest-free" unless that is unconditionally true for the offer being presented, and any representative APR example must reflect terms that are genuinely available to the majority of applicants at that rate. Staff presenting finance need enough training to explain these terms accurately without giving regulated financial advice they are not authorised to provide.

Yes. Finance applications are subject to the lender's own credit and affordability checks, and not every patient will be approved, particularly for higher-value or longer-term plans. Practices should have a fallback conversation ready — a shorter plan, a smaller deposit with a longer balance, or an in-house instalment arrangement — rather than treating finance refusal as the end of the conversation, since a declined application is a common and expected part of the process rather than a rare edge case.

Digital quote tools that generate the finance illustration automatically from the treatment plan and fee reduce the risk of inconsistent presentation between team members — the APR, total payable and instalment schedule are calculated the same way every time rather than depending on an individual coordinator's manual calculation or memory of the current terms. This also creates a clear record of exactly what finance information the patient was shown and when, which is useful both for internal quality control and if a query about the terms presented arises later.