Jordan Redman — Witness responded to questions from Representative Redman and referenced his nervousness.
Jordan Redman — Agreed there could be a conflict of interest if the professions compete for the same patron.
Jordan Redman — Asked whether direct billing would still be possible under consolidation and whether licensure itself was the issue.
Jordan Redman — Said the testimony clarified the impact of licensure and direct billing.
Jordan Redman — Commented that Idaho generally avoids large professional fees and questioned whether high fees create a barrier to entry for new denturists.
Jordan Redman — Continued the point that high fees may deter new denturists and described it as part of the philosophy behind opposition to fee increases.
Jordan Redman — Referenced as having asked what was bad about being in the dental board.
Jordan Redman — Asked a follow-up question about whether there is a competing-interest concern.
Jordan Redman — Asked whether there is a competing-interest problem if dentists and denturists serve the same patients.
Jordan Redman — Asked the question being answered.
Jordan Redman — Raised concern that rulemaking could restrict denturistry authority and asked to preserve full scope, education, and training.
Jordan Redman — Stated support for sending the bill to General Orders and described the bill as deregulation and board consolidation.
Jordan Redman — Reiterated support for the motion, citing prior nurses-and-midwives experience and saying scope of practice would not be impacted.
Jordan Redman — Identified himself as representing District 3 in Kootenai County and introduced RS 33-468 to repeal Medicaid expansion effective January 1, 2028.
Jordan Redman — Argued that the committee should prioritize the most vulnerable and questioned continuing Medicaid expansion.
Jordan Redman — Argued that Medicaid expansion can discourage wage increases and said the committee must decide its priorities.
Jordan Redman — Representative Wheeler participates in the vote sequence, first voting yes on the substitute motion and later voting no on a subsequent vote.
Dori Healey — Moved to send House Bill 495 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Dori Healey — Stated support for the substitute motion.
Dori Healey — Dori Healey moved to return RS 33-468 to the sponsor and argued the committee should not rush action before completing its assigned cost-saving work. She said the committee needed to identify where cost savings would actually make an impact, warned the proposal was hasty and would negatively affect many Idahoans, and stated she would not support the original motion. A later reference echoed her broader view that the underlying problem was larger than Medicaid expansion.
Dori Healey — Representative Healy is briefly referenced in the debate and then repeatedly called during the roll call vote as the clerk proceeds through the vote.
Angelo Jovinini / Angelo Jovenini / Angelo Jovin — First witness identified himself and said he represents the Idaho Dentures Association as vice president.
Angelo Jovenini — Angelo Jovenini, speaking for the Idaho Dentures Association, testified in opposition to House Bill 495. He said the bill could create conflicts of interest and reduce access to care, and added that denturists are only established in eight states, making the proposal a setback for the profession.
Mr. Giovannini — Mr. Giovannini discussed why he opposes merging the dental and denturist boards. He said he was unaware of dentists who support the merger, explained that Idaho caps licensing fees and that fee-setting issues had been discussed previously, and noted that licensing rules vary by state. He emphasized that merging the boards could create public-health risks by allowing people who are not adequately trained to pass licensing exams and work in the mouth. He contrasted the broad scope of dentists, who perform fillings, cleanings, crowns, bridges, dentures, and surgery, with denturists, who specialize in dentures and partials, and argued that denturists help lower denture costs because they fabricate them at higher volume. He concluded that he would be more comfortable with the proposal if a denturist were included on the board, but warned that the legislation could leave representation stagnant.
Steven Tanner — Representative Tanner asked why the board had been prevented from raising licensing fees and when that restriction occurred, then followed up by asking how long ago it was and how long it would take the board to become financially positive again if it could raise fees.
Steven Tanner — Referenced as having previously asked about how DOPL prevented fee increases.
Steven Tanner — Representative Tanner is called during the roll call vote and responds 'Yes,' indicating support.
David Leavitt — Representative David Leavitt, present at the hearing and associated with drafting a bill, questioned the witness about the scope of practice of denturists compared with dentists and then followed up by asking about the price difference and whether denturists offer a more cost-effective alternative for patients.
David Leavitt — Representative Leavitt asked whether the legislation could be amended to include a denturist or a member from the denturist community on the board.
David Leavitt — Representative David Leavitt raised a quick question to the chair about a prior optometry/ophthalmology issue and whether it had been resolved.
David Leavitt — The transcript says 'Senator Taylor'; this appears to be a transcription error, likely referring to Representative Leavitt or another member, but the exact identity is uncertain.
David Leavitt — Representative Leavitt participates in consecutive roll-call votes, first voting no on the substitute motion and then voting yes on the subsequent motion.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler asked whether denturists offer a more cost-effective option for patients and then followed up by asking whether the industry would be comfortable if the merged board specifically included a denturist member.
Josh Wheeler — Asked Dana Triplett why Idaho’s independent licensure system brought her to the state and praised her dedication to oral health.
Josh Wheeler — Requested unanimous consent to withdraw his original motion and indicated support for the substitute motion.
Gino Gio Finini — Introduced as the next witness; the chair notes the name may be related and that the witness is virtual.
Gino Alan Jovenini — Gino Alan Jovenini introduced himself as a denturist from Eastern Idaho Valley, corrected an earlier reference to dentist, and noted that he has practiced as a denturist for over 12 years before beginning to discuss concerns about the bill.
Kelly Whitehead — Kelly Whitehead is announced as the next in-person witness, but no one comes forward to testify.
Dana Triplett — Dana Triplett introduced herself as an Idaho state intern speaking for herself and explained her path into denturism: while working in Oregon with six dentists, she was repeatedly relied on for denture patients and was encouraged to attend denturist school. She said she moved to Idaho because she wanted a state where her license would be valuable and where the political climate was preferable. She then described changes in the patient population, noting that denture patients are increasingly younger, including people in their 20s and 30s, rather than mostly seniors. Triplett argued that dentists are not trained to make dentures, while denturists are trained to evaluate mouths directly, identify issues such as cancer, and refer patients for biopsy when needed. She cited a current patient whose cancer was caught by a denturist after a general dentist missed it. Finally, she warned that placing denturists under the dental board would reduce them to the level of dental assistants or lab workers, allow non-denturists to fill any board seat, and undermine the profession’s independence; she said she would support an independent board even if it meant paying higher fees and noted she has already paid licensing and testing costs herself.
Ms. Turpin — Ms. Turpin expressed concern that not everyone agrees on the issue and that even securing one seat on the dental board may not be enough. She added that even if the board recommended rules, the committee would still have the authority to approve or reject them.
Amanda Roe Branson — Announced as the next witness to testify.
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 on solutions to improve participation and board solvency, and asked that the board not be dissolved before those efforts can be completed. In response to criticism, she said negative views of denturism are outdated, described her family’s multi-generation history in the profession, noted that her father testified at the Capitol in 1982, and pointed out that denturism has since gained recognition in several states. She added that claims of unlawfulness are outdated because the issue often reflects whether legislation has passed yet, and said many dentists, oral surgeons, and other professionals—especially in Canada—respect denturists and their work.
Mark Harris — Asked about the claim that dentistry does not view denturistry as a legitimate profession.
Mark Harris — Asked Ms. Bronson how she would respond to the American Dental Association's claim that denturistry is unqualified and illegal practice of dentistry.
Mark Harris — Raised the ADA's criticism of denturistry and asked for Ms. Bronson's response.
Mark Harris — Asked whether the witness would accept higher licensing fees to keep the board.
Ms. Roe Bronson — The witness is being addressed and asked to respond to criticism of denturistry.
Robert Van Giffin — Robert Van Giffin, owner of First Class Dentures in Boise, testified about why licensure is important for denturists. He explained that insurance companies rely on license numbers on claims and may be even less willing to pay if licensure is removed. He also argued that denturists bring valuable manufacturing knowledge and hands-on experience distinct from dentists, and said that consolidating oversight would create a conflict of interest.
Mr. Van Giffin — The witness's argument about conflict of interest was acknowledged.