Amanda Roe Branson — Introduced as the next witness.
Amanda Roe Branson / Bronson — Introduced herself as a licensed denturist in four states and president of the Idaho Denturist Association, and asked the committee to vote no on House Bill 495.
Ms. Bronson — Ms. Bronson argued that denturists are already working with supportive legislators to address DOPL’s financial and participation concerns and improve board solvency rather than dissolve the board. She then defended denturism as a legitimate profession, saying claims that it is unlawful are based on outdated history, and described her family’s multi-generational involvement in the field, including her father’s testimony at the Capitol in 1982. She added that denturism has since gained recognition in multiple states, that some places still label it unlawful only because legislation has not yet passed, and that many dentists, oral surgeons, and prosthodontists respect denturists and their work, pointing to Canada as an example of acceptance.
Ilana Rubel — Asked Ms. Bronson about the claim that dentistry does not view denturism as a legitimate profession.
Ilana Rubel — Asked Ms. Bronson to respond to the American Dental Association's view that denturism is the unqualified and illegal practice of dentistry.
Ilana Rubel — Asked whether denturism is a valid occupation and whether it is illegal practice of dentistry.
Ilana Rubel — Asked whether denturists would accept a licensing fee increase to keep their board.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel is referenced and then speaks in the discussion about adding a licensed denturist to the board, asking Mr. Bernard whether a single denturist seat would be enough representation. A later mention appears to refer to the same member despite a transcript spelling variation, keeping the exchange focused on denturist board representation.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Rubel argued against the proposal, saying it would do the opposite of saving money. He said Medicaid expansion brings in substantial federal dollars, supports jobs and tax revenue, and that the state would lose significant funding—about $120 million—making the proposal a fiscally wrong move.
Robert Van Giffen — Robert Van Giffen introduced himself as the owner of First Class Dentures in Boise and testified in support of denturist licensing. He argued that licensure matters not only for education and professional standards, but also because insurers rely on license numbers when processing claims and may be less willing to pay without them. He also explained that denturists have specialized knowledge of the denture manufacturing process and can better identify where problems occur in fitting. Finally, he cited the Idaho State Dental Association’s position that the Board of Denturistry and the Board of Dentistry should remain separate regulatory entities, implying that consolidation could affect fees and educational requirements.
Mr. Van Giffen — Mr. Van Giffen explained that the denturists association, after learning of a deficit, met and anonymously approved raising its own fees. He also said that counsel at the time, Russ Spencer, discouraged the board from proceeding with the fee increase, according to a board member.
Josh Tanner — Referenced as having asked about how DOPL prevented fee increases.
Josh Westerberg — Identified as one of the board members who had previously told the speaker about the issue.
Mr. Brent Giffin — Testified that fees in Washington and Oregon are higher and argued Idaho is not close to those levels.
Reva Garnett — Reva Garnett, a self-represented current denturistry student, testified against dissolving the denturistry board. She said she is studying through the American Denturist College and believes the profession should remain self-governed. She warned that regulation by a competing board could undermine applications, exams, education, and her ability to obtain licensure and practice independently. She urged a no vote and suggested that alternate structural or financial solutions could address concerns without eliminating the board.
William Harris / Bill Harris — Bill Harris, a licensed denturist from Franklin, Idaho, testified in support of preserving Idaho’s independently regulated denturist profession. He said he grew up in the business, helped gather signatures for the 1982 effort that led Idaho voters to create denturistry and an independent board, and emphasized that the decision was intentional and voter-approved. He argued the current bill is framed as a financial fix but would instead eliminate the board rather than pursue less intrusive solutions, and he raised concern that DOPL both proposed the legislation and would enforce it. He urged the legislature to independently evaluate whether consolidation is truly necessary and described the committee as the last safeguard for voters. In closing, he said denturists simply want to raise their fees, compared Idaho’s approach with Montana’s, and warned that small licensing populations and computerized oversight could create problems.
Elizabeth Criner / Elizabeth Kreiner — Testified on behalf of the Idaho State Dental Association in support of moving denturistry under the State Board of Dentistry.
Elizabeth Criner — Testified in support of moving denturistry under the State Board of Dentistry and outlined reasons for the bill.
Ms. Criner — Ms. Criner responded to a series of questions about the profession’s regulation and board oversight. She explained that the board’s primary responsibility is patient safety rather than managing competition between professions, and that concerns arise when someone practices outside their scope. She further stated that the scope is clearly defined in law and would remain so under DOPL and the State Board. When asked about board composition, she deferred that question to DOPL as the more appropriate source.
Ryan Bernard — Ryan Bernard, the legislative and regulatory affairs chief at DOPL, explained the drafting choice behind the board-member language in the bill. He said the intent was to ensure that someone with actual denturistry practice experience serves on the board, and he described this as addressing the need for appropriate professional representation on the board.
Jeff Cornilles — Representative McCann is cited as having raised concerns about board composition and representation, specifically the possibility that denturists may end up with no seat on the board.
Jeff Cornilles — Referenced as the member who suggested including a licensed denturist or alternate language.
Mr. Bernard — Mr. Bernard responds to questions about the proposed board structure and related regulatory issues. He explains that the board composition was based on proportional representation, notes that the board cannot change denturist scope of practice because it is set in statute, and cites the 2024 merger of the Board of Midwifery into the Board of Nursing as an example of a successful merger. He then addresses fees, stating that denturist renewal fees are currently $750 annually, that the bill sets fee caps, and that any changes would still require rulemaking and legislative approval. He adds that DOPL does not want to raise barriers to entry unnecessarily, but the board would still need about a $225 increase to meet statutory requirements. Finally, he explains that the board has historically operated in the red because of low membership and operating costs.
Megan Egbert — Asks whether other merged boards with competing sectors have worked out well.
Megan Egbert — Representative Egbert said she would support the substitute motion and urged brevity because the discussion was on the floor. She then explained that Medicaid expansion and the traditional Medicaid population are closely intertwined, warning that removing nearly 90,000 people from Medicaid expansion would harm providers and vulnerable patients.
Megan Egbert — Representative Egbert was recorded in the vote sequence, first as voting yes twice in the tally and then as voting no later in the same voting period.
Jaron Crane — Representative Furman opens by joking that he has been quiet, then asks for the current application, licensing, and renewal fees for denturists. He follows up by questioning why the bill does not simply set a specific fee increase if the board is in the red, continuing the discussion of how denturist fees are determined.
Tanya Burgoyne — Asks why the board is operating in the red.
Tanya Burgoyne — Representative Bergoin was mentioned twice in a voting context, first as a no vote and later as a yes vote.
Dori Healey — States support for the substitute motion, though the sentence trails off.
Jeff Ehlers — Indicated support for the substitute motion and requested unanimous consent to withdraw the original motion.
Jeff Ehlers — The chair referenced the motion being withdrawn and the pending motion to send the bill to amending order.
Jeff Ehlers — Was asked to provide closing comments and began by distinguishing license elimination from board consolidation.
Jeff Ehlers — Argued that the bill does not eliminate the license and said dentists opposed eliminating the license last year.
Jeff Ehlers — Said he was open to the motion to send the bill to General Orders and mentioned clarifying the board seat and denturist definition.
Jeff Ehlers — The chair said Representative Ehlers would ensure the bill is amended correctly.
Jeff Ehlers — Made a substitute motion to return RS 33-468 to the sponsor and argued the committee should not move too hastily.
Cornel Rasor — Asked a question to Mr. Bernard.
Cornel Rasor — Asked how long the fee increase would remain in place before returning to a more reasonable amount.
Cornel Rasor — Mr. Bernard responded directly to Representative Kaler's question.
Cornel Rasor — Moved to introduce RS 33-468.
James Holtzclaw — Cited as someone whose view the speaker agrees with.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann said she does not support taking away Medicaid expansion and argued that raw growth figures can be misleading without accounting for inflation and population growth. She cautioned against abruptly removing coverage, noted that the committee needs to fix the chairman’s bill, and said the budget can be balanced while still listening to people on the ground. She referenced prior work on House Bill 345 and work requirements, said some reforms have not yet been tested or implemented, and emphasized the need to cut spending. She concluded by saying she cannot support the RS and will support the substitute motion.
Lori McCann — Representative McCann was recorded during the roll-call vote, first as voting yes and later as voting no.
Ron Taylor — Senator Taylor argued that Medicaid expansion would blow out the state budget, urged support for the bill, and then asked for a roll call vote.
Richard Cheatum — Said the committee could not get the earlier bill out of committee and explained why this bill was brought forward.
Richard Cheatum — Framed the issue as a choice between prioritizing people with disabilities or those without.
Richard Cheatum — Explained that if Medicaid is repealed, people from 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level would qualify for the exchange.
Richard Cheatum — Said he and Representative Rubel differ on whether government subsidizing employment benefits the state long term.
Richard Cheatum — Addressed directly while discussing policy constraints and budget issues.