Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dental Network Leasing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colorado committee backs opt‑in bill for dental 'network leasing' after competing insurer and provider testimony
Summary
The Health & Human Services Committee gave a favorable recommendation to House Bill 10‑70, which would require affirmative provider consent before insurers can lease a dentist’s contracted network or rates (network leasing). Supporters (dentists, associations) said opt‑in protects patients and small providers; insurers and trade groups warned of administrative burden and urged the NCOIL opt‑out model.
The House Health & Human Services Committee on Feb. 18 advanced House Bill 10‑70 with a favorable recommendation to the Committee of the Whole after several hours of testimony from providers, trade groups and insurers.
Sponsors Representative Hartzak and Representative Brown framed the bill as a provider‑choice and transparency measure. Hartzak said the practice known as network leasing — where a dental carrier leases another plan’s provider network or contracted rates to widen its advertised network — can change patients’ cost expectations without provider consent. “If you're the provider… it should be your choice whether you wish to opt into a program,” Hartzak said.
A panel of dentists and dental organizations testified in support. Dr. Lindsey Compton, a solo dentist in Arvada, described office confusion and delayed notice when her practice was leased and said that uncertainty harms patients and practices. Dr. Jillian Horkin testified her practice wrote off more than $30,000 after lease‑related billing failures; Dr. Jeff Call (Denver Health; ADA trustee) said other states have pursued reforms and cited Oregon’s legislation requiring affirmative consent.
Insurers and trade groups including the Colorado Association of Health Plans, the American Council of Life Insurers and the National Association of Dental Plans testified in opposition. They argued the bill’s affiliate exemption language was too narrow and that the affirmative opt‑in requirement would be administratively burdensome and could reduce access or create operational complexity. Several witnesses urged adoption of the NCOIL transparency model, which they said uses opt‑out language and has been adopted in some states.
Sponsors and supporters replied that an opt‑in model protects small, independent providers and reduces patient confusion. After debate the committee voted to advance HB 10‑70 to the Committee of the Whole; the roll call recorded a favorable recommendation (10‑1 with two excused).
What happens next: The bill moves to the Committee of the Whole for additional consideration. If amended on the floor it will return to committee for further steps.
Representative Brown and Representative Hartzak are listed as sponsors in committee minutes; multiple provider associations testified in favor and insurer trade groups opposed.
