Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dental Practice Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas Senate committee hears competing views on bill to repeal dentists' 20% in‑office rule
Summary
A Senate committee heard mixed testimony on SB432, which would remove a 20% in‑office presence requirement for licensee‑owned satellite dental offices; proponents called the rule unconstitutional and a barrier to expansion, while the Kansas Dental Association warned of patient‑care and small‑business risks.
Donica Short, the office reviser, outlined Senate Bill 432 for a Kansas Senate committee, saying the measure would amend KSA 65-14-35 to eliminate a longstanding requirement that a licensee be personally present in an owned dental office for at least 20% of the time patients are treated. Short told the committee the bill would take effect on July 1, 2026, after publication in the statute book.
Supporters said the 20% rule unnecessarily restricts dentists and impedes access. Mike O'neal of O'neal Consulting, speaking for the Association of Dental Support Organizations, called the provision "outdated and facially unconstitutional" and said, "Kansas is the only state in the country with such a restriction on the right of a dental professional to own additional offices." Dr. Daniel Thomas, a periodontist who chaired an oral‑health task force, said the law evolved from a 50% rule in 1943 to the current 20% standard in 2014 and argued there is "no or little evidence" the rule improves patient care or access. Sam McRoberts, litigation director at the Kansas Justice Institute, told the committee he believes the statute "is unconstitutional" and questioned whether the 20 percent figure is supported by evidence.
Opponents, including the Kansas Dental Association, urged caution. Kevin Robertson, KDA executive director, said the 20% requirement helps connect owner‑dentists to satellite practices and supports oversight of care, and he noted that about 15% of Kansas dentists are affiliated with dental support organizations compared with 16.1% nationally in 2024 data. Adam Lukens, president of the KDA, said members worry repeal would "allow private equity controlled national dental franchisors to expand unchecked" and could harm local small businesses that support dental practices. Dr. Pete Ziegler of Topeka described patient‑care concerns at some corporate practices and said turnover and production incentives in those settings can undermine continuity of care.
Senators pressed both sides on rural impacts. Some committee members asked whether removing the rule would improve services in dental deserts; proponents argued DSOs can help expand rural access and that new dentists face large education debts, while opponents said the underlying problem is a shortage of providers rather than the number of practice locations and pointed to existing carve‑outs in statute designed for sparsely populated counties.
The committee closed the hearing on SB432 without taking a committee vote. The chair then moved on to other bills on the agenda.
