Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lawmakers Hear Proposal to Protect Patients Who Refuse Routine Dental X‑rays

House Executive Departments and Administration Committee · January 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Representative Mike Drago told the committee HB 1286 would prevent dentists or licensing boards from penalizing clinicians who honor a patient's informed refusal of routine radiographs; he framed the proposal as protecting informed consent and reducing radiation exposure for children and young adults.

Representative Mike Drago opened testimony on House Bill 1286, calling it the "X‑ray Ultimatum Bill" and saying many patients are forced to accept routine dental radiographs to obtain routine cleanings. Drago told the committee he and his family faced repeated demands for X‑rays and framed the bill as a way to preserve patient choice and reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, especially for children and young adults. "Every time you go to the dentist and you're forced an x‑ray, you're denied your informed consent," Drago said.

The bill would limit disciplinary actions by the licensing board against dentists when a patient refuses routine radiographs and proposes liability protections for clinicians who comply with a patient's refusal if the dentist documents the conversation. Drago said the legislation would not prevent necessary diagnostic X‑rays for treatment (for fillings, root canals or other indicated procedures) but would target routine, one‑size‑fits‑all policies requiring X‑rays at every cleaning.

Members probed statutory language (for example, how to define "dental standard of care" and whether a dentist may require a signed waiver), and OPLC staff and committee members discussed options for statutory drafting to avoid conflicts with board authority. Representatives suggested language focusing on established standards of care rather than a categorical prohibition and discussed whether the bill should require a written acknowledgement by the patient.

No vote was taken and committee members asked the sponsor to work with OPLC and the board on drafting to ensure the licensing and standard‑of‑care interactions are clear before executive session.