Kansas committee hears bill to repeal dentist ‘‘20% presence’’ requirement amid debate over access and oversight

The Kansas Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 31 on an amended Dental Practice Act provision that would repeal a statutory rule requiring dentist owners to be physically present in an office for at least 20% of the time dentistry is performed there.

Proponents said the 20% rule restricts practice expansion, limits access to care and is unique to Kansas; opponents said removing it would risk owner oversight, erode patient trust and would not guarantee more services in underserved or Medicaid populations.

Jenna Moyer, Office of Advisors — Statutes, summarized the bill’s text, saying it would amend multiple sections of the Kansas statutes that govern dentistry. “Section 1 amends K.S.A. 65-1430 … to require a treating dentist to provide a requesting patient with information about the dentist, the dental practice and emergency contact information,” Moyer said. She described changes that would strike the 20% personal‑presence requirement from K.S.A. 65-1435, add a new disciplinary offense for directing substandard care, and bar contracts that prohibit patients from filing complaints with the Kansas Dental Board.

Supporters, including Speaker O’Neil speaking for the Association of Dental Support Organizations, said the rule is an outlier that discourages owners from opening additional practices. “This is the rule that we want to repeal so that we join the other 49 states and not having an unnecessary restriction on the ability of a dentist owner to have more than one practice,” O’Neil said, arguing the change would allow more expansion into areas with unmet need. Dr. Daniel Thomas, a periodontist and former Kansas Dental Board vice president, told the committee the rule has dissuaded practitioners from buying or starting practices and cited personal examples of specialty shortages.

Opponents included Kevin Robertson of the Kansas Dental Association and several practicing dentists who said owner presence preserves quality and community trust. “The 20% rule is unique… but it exists for a reason: to ensure that dentist owners are engaged in providing oversight to employee dentists and the patients they serve,” Robertson told the committee. Dr. Kayla Wilms and Dr. Taylor Merkline, both in private practice, described patients transferring from corporate‑owned practices and reporting delays obtaining records or feeling pressured by nonclinical leadership to accept care plans they did not understand.

Neutral testimony from Tanya Dorf Bruner, executive director of Oral Health Kansas, stressed uncertainty about whether removing the rule would expand care in rural areas or to Medicaid beneficiaries. “There’s really no way to guarantee dental offices would open in underserved communities,” she said, noting some national dental service organizations decline Medicaid patients.

Committee members asked proponents for comparative safety data from other states and sought clarity on whether the bill explicitly mentions dental service organizations (DSOs). Moyer said the bill’s language focuses on statutory changes to the Dental Practice Act and does not specifically name DSOs. Proponents said they would supply supporting attachments and studies to the committee record. Several senators pressed opponents and proponents on whether competition would remedy poor operators and whether travel and time requirements under the 20% rule are practical barriers to expansion.

No committee vote on SB 31 was recorded in the hearing transcript. The hearing closed after extended questions from senators on both sides.

The bill as presented would: strike the 20% owner‑presence subsection of K.S.A. 65-1435; add an offense to K.S.A. 65-1436 for pressuring others to provide care that fails to meet standards; amend K.S.A. 65-1476 to prohibit contract terms that bar filing complaints with the Kansas Dental Board; and require owner and practice information disclosures under K.S.A. 65-1430.

Supporters emphasized workforce and access concerns; opponents emphasized patient protection, local dentist‑patient relationships, and doubts that the change would guarantee services in rural or Medicaid communities. The record contains competing testimony and no formal committee action on the bill in this session’s hearing.