Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dental and Dental‑Hygienist Compact Draws Split Testimony; Board, Societies Differ on Authority and Exams
Summary
SB 187, a Council of State Governments model compact to permit multistate practice by dentists and dental hygienists, drew mixed testimony; hygienists and national associations support it as a workforce tool, while the New Hampshire Dental Society and several dentists urged caution over exam standards and state board authority.
Sen. Tara Reardon introduced Senate Bill 187, which would enact the dentist and dental‑hygienist interstate compact developed by the Council of State Governments and supported by national organizations including the American Dental Association (ADA) and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA).
Supporters from local dental‑hygiene organizations and hygienists told the committee the compact would ease multistate practice for clinicians who already work near state borders, support military spouse mobility and help address workforce shortages by creating a streamlined pathway for practitioners to work in participating states. Speakers pointed to neighboring Maine (which has enacted the compact) and to legislation filed in Vermont and Massachusetts.
Opponents — notably the New Hampshire Dental Society and several dentists and former board members — urged caution. They expressed concern that the compact’s language allows alternate examinations or an equivalent process to satisfy licensing and that some compact rules could limit state board authority. Opponents argued the compact could reduce the role of independent, hands‑on licensing exams or create a multistate commission with rulemaking powers that could affect state law. Several witnesses recommended careful comparison between competing compact drafts and consultation with the Board of Dental Examiners.
Key questions from committee members focused on (1) whether the compact would preserve state boards’ primary responsibility for public protection, (2) which exam(s) would be acceptable under the compact’s standards and (3) the compact commission’s authority to levy assessments or adopt rules that have effect across member states. Witnesses from the compact’s technical advisory groups said the commission would be limited to implementation rules and that participating states would not cede core regulatory authority.
Ending: The committee heard lengthy, technical testimony from dental and hygiene proponents and opponents and closed the hearing; senators asked to see side‑by‑side comparisons of competing compact texts and to receive clarifying written answers about exam standards and commission fees before taking action.
