Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact
HB45 would enter Maryland into the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Interstate Compact, a multistate agreement designed to make it easier for dentists and dental hygienists licensed in one participating state to practice in another participating state through a “compact privilege.” The bill’s stated purpose is to improve access to dental care, reduce duplicative licensing burdens, support workforce mobility, and help address shortages, while preserving each state’s authority to regulate practice within its borders.
To participate, Maryland would have to meet a set of compact requirements, including sharing licensure and disciplinary data, using criminal background checks, accepting specified national examinations and accredited education programs, and maintaining continuing professional development standards. The bill also creates the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact Commission, a joint interstate body with rulemaking, fee-setting, enforcement, and dispute-resolution authority. The compact would apply to both dentists and dental hygienists and includes special provisions for active military members and their spouses.
HB45 would add a new Subtitle 3A to Maryland’s Health Occupations Article and would supersede conflicting state laws to the extent necessary to implement the compact. If enacted and the compact becomes effective, Maryland’s licensing system for dentists and dental hygienists would be tied to interstate data sharing, compact rules, and commission oversight, while Maryland licensees could seek practice privileges in other participating states without obtaining separate full licenses there. The bill also authorizes disciplinary coordination, investigative cooperation, and reporting obligations among participating states, and it conditions Maryland’s participation on substantially similar enactment by seven other states.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or floor sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed positively as a public-access and workforce-mobility initiative, with repeated emphasis on patient safety, regulatory cooperation, and streamlined licensure. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context suggests no documented controversy in the available materials, though the compact structure itself implies a policy preference for interstate licensing coordination.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the commission’s authority, the extent to which commission rules would have force of law in participating states, and the requirement that states share licensure, disciplinary, and investigative information. Other likely issues include the criminal background check mandate, the effect of remote-state jurisprudence requirements, the ability of remote states to impose discipline that affects all compact privileges, and the bill’s preemption of conflicting state law. Some stakeholders may also focus on fees, state sovereignty concerns, and whether the compact could affect existing Maryland licensing standards or disciplinary processes.