Committee hears mixed testimony on dentist and dental hygienist compact (HB 4935)
Loading...
Summary
Supporters told the House Rules Committee the compact would ease licensure portability and help strained dental safety‑net providers; opponents warned it could lower Michigan standards and raised unanswered questions about discipline reporting and data‑center costs.
The Michigan House Rules Committee heard testimony March 19 on House Bill 49 35, a dentist and dental hygienist interstate compact intended to allow licensed practitioners to practice across member states more easily.
Representative Fairbairn told the committee the compact, backed by the Council of State Governments, the Department of Defense, the American Dental Association and the American Dental Hygienists Association, would create reciprocity, increase workforce mobility and establish a shared interstate verification and disciplinary data system. She said there are "approximately 200,000 licensed dentists and approximately 215,000 licensed dental hygienists in the United States," and said the compact aims to reduce licensure barriers and expand access.
Sandy Sutton, president of the Michigan Dental Hygienist Association, said 12 states already participate and 10 more have pending legislation. "We feel that this is a very common sense bill to bring to our state just to increase our workforce," Sutton said, adding that nearby states could help fill shortages in Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas.
Bryce Fisher, government affairs director for My Community Dental Centers, the state's largest dental safety‑net provider, told the committee his organization operates more than 28 sites serving Medicaid, Medicare and uninsured patients and faces long wait lists. Fisher said the compact would not strip Michigan of regulatory authority: "Lara does retain regulatory authority," he said, and Michigan could still discipline providers who violate state law.
Opposition testimony came from Mark Johnston, a dentist with four decades of experience and past Michigan Dental Association leadership. Johnston said he is not opposed to compacts in general but worried this compact left "a lot of things ... open." He cautioned that differing hands‑on training and continuing‑education requirements among states could mean practitioners entering Michigan under a compact would meet lower standards than currently required in Michigan. Johnston also asked for clarity on the compact's proposed data center and whether the state would bear start‑up or ongoing costs.
Committee members pressed witnesses on operational details. Members noted the compact requires seven states to activate and that proponents said the threshold had been met; witnesses could not provide a specific state cost estimate for participation. The committee also discussed how adverse actions are tracked and which state would prosecute license violations—witnesses said Michigan would retain the ability to pursue adverse actions for conduct occurring in Michigan, but some procedural and financial details about information sharing and the compact's data system remained unresolved.
The committee did not take a vote on the compact during the hearing. The record includes additional organizations that submitted cards but did not speak, including the Michigan Dental Association, Mackinac Center, Michigan Oral Health Coalition and Delta Dental.
The committee moved on to other bills.
