Bill would require Oregon dental laboratories to register with Health Licensing Office and disclose materials

The Senate Committee on Health Care held a public hearing April 22 on House Bill 2,594, a measure that would establish a registration program for dental laboratories operating in Oregon and require material content and point‑of‑origin disclosures to dentists filling work orders.

Representative Hi Pham, a pediatric dentist and sponsor, told the committee the bill would increase transparency about the materials and sources used to make crowns, bridges, dentures and similar restorations. “Patient protections should always come first in medical care,” Pham said, urging an aye vote.

Representative Cyrus Javidy, also a dentist, described practical reasons dentists seek this information, including material durability and aesthetic expectations. Maureen McGee, representing the Oregon Association of Dental Laboratories, told the committee the program is industry‑supported, fee‑supported and modeled on laws adopted in other states. McGee said the policy was first advanced in 2023 and had been included in omnibus proposals in 2024; she said stakeholders worked with the Health Licensing Office on an implementable model.

Eric Thorn, testifying for the National Association of Dental Laboratories, and Carrie Peel, executive director of the Oregon Association of Dental Laboratories, told the committee similar points: registration enhances accountability and has been adopted in multiple states. Peel estimated there are about 60 dental laboratories that service Oregon dentists but said labs are hard to track because many business registrations do not include the word “lab.”

Committee members discussed exemptions included in the bill for in‑house dental‑office labs and educational programs. Staff and witnesses clarified that a laboratory owned and operated by a practicing dentist that does not perform work for outside practices is exempt; larger organizations that operate independent labs that serve outside providers would not be exempt. Witnesses noted that Washington and several other states have adopted similar registration programs.

Representative Pham and Maureen McGee said the bill passed unanimously out of the House committee and received 51 votes in favor on the House floor with 9 members absent, as noted in committee remarks. The public hearing was opened and later closed; no committee vote was recorded during the hearing in this session.

Supporters said the program would be self‑supporting through registration fees and would not, they expect, raise restoration costs for patients based on experience in other states.