Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee Advances Bill to Remove 20% In‑Office Presence Requirement for Dentists
Loading...
Summary
An unnamed state Senate committee voted to advance Senate Bill 432, which would remove a requirement that licensed dentists be personally present at their offices at least 20% of the time. Supporters said the change frees small dentists from burdensome rules; opponents warned it could favor dental service organizations and leave rural communities behind.
A state Senate committee voted to advance Senate Bill 432 after a short debate over whether eliminating a statutory "20% rule" would help small, local dentists or primarily benefit larger dental service organizations.
David Weese, the committee reviser, told members the bill would modify KSA 65 14 35 and remove language that currently requires a licensee under the Dental Act to be personally present at an office at least 20 percent of the time that patients are being treated. The bill would also eliminate a related exception that had allowed a licensee to own two dental offices if certain conditions were met.
Senator Thompson moved the bill out of committee favorably. He argued the 20% requirement "doesn't really have any effect at all on small dentists" and described it as "kind of an inhibition to free market forces." Thompson said dentists who provide good care will retain patients regardless of the rule.
Senator Hoelscher registered strong opposition, saying dental service organizations already operate in many states and that removing the requirement is unlikely to benefit rural communities facing "dental deserts," because DSOs tend to locate in higher‑population areas. "So the benefit to the rural areas doesn't seem to exist," he said.
Senator Murphy said he had reviewed the issue and concluded the rule created an "unfair playing field," calling the restriction essentially unconstitutional in his view. Senator Alley said the presence requirement could impose token on‑site obligations—"one day a week to cover"—that provide little patient care while constraining practice arrangements.
The committee decided by voice vote to advance the bill; the hearing record shows oral responses and the chair announced the motion carries. The transcript does not include a roll‑call tally.
The bill will move forward from committee with the committee's favorable recommendation; the transcript does not record further committee scheduling or the next legislative step for the bill.
