HB0373 expands the State Board of Dental Examiners’ oversight and disciplinary authority. It authorizes the Board to conduct unannounced inspections of a dentist’s office, based on a written and signed complaint or a referral from the Commissioner of Labor and Industry, to check compliance with CDC infection-control guidance. The inspection authority is limited to dentists’ offices and excludes offices located in hospitals, related institutions, freestanding medical facilities, and freestanding birthing centers.
The bill also broadens the grounds for discipline for dentists and dental hygienists by updating the infection-control standard from CDC “universal precautions” to CDC “standard precautions” and CDC infection-control guidelines for dental health-care settings. In addition, it adds a new disciplinary ground for dentists who employ, supervise, or use the services of an unlicensed expanded function dental assistant. The measure creates a parallel disciplinary framework for certified expanded function dental assistants, allowing the Board to deny, reprimand, place on probation, suspend, or revoke a certificate for a wide range of misconduct, incompetence, fraud, rule violations, criminal conduct, substance impairment, patient discrimination, noncompliance with Board orders, sexual misconduct, and unprofessional behavior.
In practical terms, the bill amends Maryland’s Health Occupations Article to strengthen enforcement against infection-control violations and unauthorized dental assisting practices. It affects dentists, dental hygienists, expanded function dental assistants, applicants for those credentials, and the Board itself by giving regulators more direct inspection and sanctioning tools. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill received a favorable committee report in the House and was adopted there, suggesting support for stronger patient-safety and professional-standards enforcement. No vote breakdown or committee transcript is provided, so the record does not show organized opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention, based on the bill’s structure, is the expansion of regulatory authority over dental practices and assistants. Potential concerns would likely center on unannounced inspections, the broader infection-control compliance standard, and the new disciplinary exposure for employers and supervisors of expanded function dental assistants. Supporters would likely view these changes as necessary to improve infection control, accountability, and patient protection.
HB0373 amends the Health Occupations Article provisions governing the State Board of Dental Examiners. It changes § 4-205 to expressly allow unannounced inspections for compliance with CDC standard precautions and dental infection-control guidelines, and it revises § 4-315 to expand disciplinary grounds for dentists and dental hygienists. The bill also adds new authority for the Board to discipline certified expanded function dental assistants and applicants, creating a separate set of grounds and sanctions for that credential category. These changes increase the Board’s enforcement powers and broaden the conduct that can trigger denial, reprimand, probation, suspension, or revocation.
The available legislative history indicates a generally supportive or favorable sentiment. The House committee reported the bill favorably, and the House adopted it, which suggests the measure was viewed as a patient-safety and professional-regulation bill rather than a controversial policy change. No recorded votes or transcripts are available here to show dissenting arguments, but the bill’s progress suggests it faced little visible resistance in the materials provided.
The likely areas of contention are the scope and intrusiveness of regulatory oversight. Dentists and dental practices may be concerned about unannounced inspections triggered by complaints or referrals, while licensees may object to the broader infection-control standard and the expanded disciplinary grounds. The new provision making it a disciplinary offense to employ, supervise, or use an unlicensed expanded function dental assistant could also be contested by practices that rely on staffing flexibility. On the other hand, supporters would likely argue that these provisions are needed to protect patients, ensure compliance with infection-control standards, and prevent unauthorized practice.