Dentists urge 'value' reforms; insurers warn SB 335 could raise premiums

Senate Bill 335, carried by Senator Greg Hertz, would require dental insurers to report claims‑paid relative to premiums and provide rebates if the dental loss ratio falls below a statutory threshold (the bill text references an 80% standard). Proponents — dentists and dental‑association advocates — described the measure as a consumer‑protection step to ensure premiums result in patient care rather than administrative or marketing expense.

Michael Bowman, president of the Montana Dental Association, said many patients sign up for dental plans that they later find provide little value. "There is no value," Bowman said in his testimony, arguing for transparency and accountability to ensure patient dollars go toward care. Other proponents told personal stories of patients who purchased dental plans and still paid significant out‑of‑pocket costs.

Opponents included Delta Dental, AHIP/ACLI, Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Amy Grimales, appearing for Delta Dental, and other insurer witnesses argued dental economics differ from medical insurance: dental premiums are small and the administrative cost per claim is higher. They cited studies and state actuarial work indicating mandates like an 80% loss ratio can force premium increases and reduce plan availability; Grimales referenced California and Massachusetts analyses suggesting large premium impacts or provider exits.

Committee members queried whether transparency/reporting alone would address consumer concerns; opponents repeatedly offered reporting or the NCOIL model as alternatives to a mandated loss ratio. The sponsor and dentists said reporting is useful but insufficient; they argued a statutory floor is necessary to ensure value. The committee closed the hearing with proponents requesting a do‑pass recommendation and opponents urging caution and further study.