Senate committee hears opposing testimony on bill to change dental complaint process
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers heard testimony on House Bill 1512, which would require the North Dakota State Board of Dental Examiners to route individual complaints to a complaint committee and to provide complainants a copy of the dentist's written response. The board and dental association opposed the changes, citing patient privacy and investigation efficiency.
Representative Don Vegasaw, the House sponsor, introduced House Bill 1512 to the Senate Workforce Development Committee, saying the bill emerged from a constituent's experience with dental treatment and billing that the constituent estimated ultimately could cost "around a hundred thousand dollars." Vegasaw said the original bill contained three changes the constituent sought but that the enacted House version preserved a narrower change: requiring complaints to be referred to the board's complaint committee and giving the complainant a copy of the dentist's response.
The change to require referral to a complaint committee and to provide a complainant a copy of the dentist's written response drew opposition from the North Dakota State Board of Dental Examiners. David Scheible, executive director of the board, told the committee the board already investigates every complaint and uses a triage system that sometimes assigns a single board member rather than convening a committee to speed investigations. "We always investigate every complaint," Scheible said, arguing that changing "may" to "shall" would force committees to be formed for straightforward matters and slow the process.
Scheible also warned the committee that the statutory change requiring the complainant to receive the dentist's response could expose sensitive information. He said complaint files are treated as exempt records while under investigation because they contain patient information, and that exemption is removed only if the board finds discipline is warranted. "Once that individual gets it, we we can't control where it goes," Scheible said, describing a risk that material could be shared publicly and harm patients or staff.
Senators pressed Scheible on possible workarounds. Senator Larson suggested a limited, standardized form for dentists to respond without exposing full patient records; Scheible replied that the response the statute contemplates is often a multi-page defense that includes context and supporting records and that redaction alone would not address the board's concern that practitioners would be less likely to provide full, candid responses if those responses would be circulated to complainants before a determination.
The North Dakota Dental Association's concerns were echoed by William Sherwin, executive director of the (as spoken) Artsakhota Dental Association, who said the bill was "well intentioned" but could be weaponized and lead to more litigation and to dentists and staff "lawyering up," which would complicate investigations and slow the board's work. Sherwin urged a do-not-pass recommendation and said the board's authority is limited to regulating professional licensure rather than resolving civil disputes over costs or outcomes.
Committee members also discussed current timelines. Scheible estimated the board now resolves most complaints within two board meetings (about six months) for straightforward matters and that timelines were longer in the past. He said the board receives "probably only 12 a year" (an approximate figure) and that process changes aimed at efficiency had already been implemented.
No committee vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing. After testimony for and against the measure, the chair closed the hearing and adjourned the committee for the day.
