HB0045 enters Maryland into the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Interstate Compact, a multistate licensing agreement intended to make it easier for dentists and dental hygienists licensed in one participating state to practice in other participating states. The bill creates a pathway for eligible licensees to obtain a “compact privilege” to practice across state lines without obtaining a separate full license in each state, while still requiring compliance with the remote state’s scope of practice rules, jurisprudence requirements, fees, and disciplinary authority. It also expressly supports workforce mobility, access to dental care, and relocation for military members and their spouses.
The compact establishes a new interstate commission to administer the agreement, adopt rules, maintain a shared data system, coordinate investigations, and manage adverse-action reporting. Participating states must meet specified licensure, background-check, education, and continuing-development standards, and they must share licensure and disciplinary information. The bill also sets out procedures for rulemaking, enforcement, dispute resolution, state withdrawal, and termination, and it provides that compact rules generally have the force of law in participating states unless they conflict with a state’s scope-of-practice laws.
In Maryland law, the bill would add a new subtitle to the Health Occupations Article and would not take effect unless substantially similar legislation is enacted in seven other states. If that threshold is met, the compact would become effective October 1, 2025. The bill would affect the State Board or other licensing authorities responsible for dentistry and dental hygiene by requiring participation in the compact’s data system, reporting obligations, and background-check framework, and by allowing Maryland to recognize compact privileges for out-of-state licensees from other participating states.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is favorable toward licensure portability and public access to care. The stated purposes emphasize reducing duplicative licensing burdens, addressing workforce shortages, and improving access to qualified providers, especially for military families. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s pro-compact framing.
Potential points of contention are the compact’s impact on state regulatory autonomy and the extent to which interstate rules may supersede conflicting state requirements. The bill preserves remote-state authority over scope of practice and discipline, but it also creates a shared commission with rulemaking power, data-sharing obligations, and enforcement mechanisms that some stakeholders could view as limiting Maryland’s independent control over dental licensure. Questions may also arise about background checks, jurisprudence requirements, fees, and the handling of adverse actions across states.
HB0045 would amend the Health Occupations Article by adding Maryland to the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Interstate Compact framework, thereby creating a new interstate licensing pathway for dentists and dental hygienists. It would require Maryland’s licensing authorities to participate in compact administration, share licensure and disciplinary data, and recognize compact privileges for eligible licensees from other participating states, subject to Maryland’s scope-of-practice and disciplinary laws. The bill also preempts conflicting state laws to the extent necessary to implement the compact and conditions effectiveness on adoption by seven states total.
The bill is presented in strongly supportive terms, with the stated goal of improving access to dental services, reducing duplicative licensing barriers, and helping address workforce shortages. Its provisions also reflect support for military families and professional mobility. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials, but the structure of the compact suggests that any skepticism would likely center on state control and regulatory coordination rather than the underlying goal of expanding access.
The main areas of possible contention are the balance between interstate portability and state regulatory authority, and the administrative burden of joining a multistate compact. Critics could question whether Maryland should give a commission rulemaking and enforcement authority that can affect state licensing practice, even though the bill preserves remote-state scope-of-practice and disciplinary powers. Other likely concerns include mandatory data sharing, criminal background-check implementation, jurisprudence requirements, fees assessed to states and licensees, and the possibility that compact rules could supersede conflicting Maryland requirements.