Purpose As a means to identify and quantify oral health interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP), we examined participant‐described medical‐to‐dental (M2D) referral networks and how they function across rurality. Methods We conducted a cross‐sectional survey on the appraisal of IPP referral systems in 2016. Secondarily, we examined if rural health clinics (RHCs) have different experiences with M2D referrals compared to other practice types. Independent variables included geographic and organizational indicators, referral system attributes, and respondent characteristics. Data were coded by Census region and state Medicaid expansion status. Bivariable and multivariable analyses were conducted using SAS. Findings A convenience cohort (n = 559) from 44 states was examined. Nearly, half (48.7%) reported dependable M2D referral systems. In bivariate analysis, all independent variables were significant except for state Medicaid expansion status. In multivariable analysis, Census region retained significance (P = .0093). Organization type and practice issues with no shows/missed appointments continued to have significance (P < .001 and .002, respectively). Accountable care organizations were over 5 times (5.72, P = .001) more likely than RHCs to report dependable M2D referral systems. Federally qualified health clinics were slightly over 3 times more likely than RHCs to report dependable M2D referral (3.04, P < .001). No differences between RHCs and other private practices were observed. Conclusions The importance of IPP continues to be promoted in the current health care environment. Our study demonstrates that, in this motivated study population, M2D referrals can work well, even in rural areas. Organization type, directionality of referral, broken appointment rates, and electronic health information management were all found to significantly impact the respondents’ rating on the dependability of an M2D referral process.