Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dental Loss Ratio Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dentists push loss-ratio bill in committee; insurers warn of higher premiums and reduced market participation
Summary
Senate Bill 335 would require dental insurers to meet an 80% dental loss ratio and issue rebates if the ratio is lower; dental associations urged the committee to adopt the measure to improve consumer value, while insurers and national groups warned the law could raise premiums and shrink the market.
A bill requiring transparency and an 80% dental loss ratio generated a contested hearing in the Senate Business and Labor Committee, with dentists calling the change a needed consumer-protection tool and insurers warning of unintended market consequences.
Senator Greg Hertz, the bill sponsor, described Senate Bill 335 as modeled in part on other states’ loss-ratio regimes: insurers would report the share of premium dollars spent on patient care (dental loss ratio), and if that ratio fell below 80% the insurer would pay a rebate to policyholders. “If that’s less than 80%, you owe a rebate,” Hertz told the committee as he walked through the bill text.
Dentists and the Montana Dental Association urged support. Michael Bowman, president of the Montana Dental Association, told the committee patients routinely told him “dental insurance sucks” because premiums go up while annual maximums and coverage remain limited. He and other dental witnesses said the measure is intended to provide transparency, accountability and consumer value; proponents referenced similar steps adopted in Massachusetts and Washington and the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) model.
Opponents included major insurers and trade groups. Amy Grimales, representing Delta Dental, said dental plans are economically different from medical plans and noted that the Affordable Care Act did not include dental loss ratios for a reason. Grimales pointed to independent actuarial work in California suggesting certain loss-ratio mandates could increase premiums in the individual market and warned that Massachusetts saw carriers exit the market after adopting strong loss-ratio rules.
Industry witnesses said reporting and transparency would be useful; opponents asked the committee to pursue a reporting-only approach rather than a statutorily fixed loss-ratio standard. The sponsor and proponents argued that reporting alone had not delivered consumer value and that the 80% threshold aligns with medical loss-ratio norms used elsewhere.
