Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow asked the witness what the main tension points are in the bill, noting her interest in understanding the issue and expressing support for the bill. She then continued the line of questioning by asking what those tension points are and how they might be resolved or addressed with assurances, particularly in relation to the denturist concerns.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow participated in the discussion on the substitute motion, briefly explaining that she was conflicted but leaning toward passing the bill while respecting the opposing concerns. She noted points such as dentists being able to make dentures, board representation, and existing rulemaking oversight. Other speakers responded by echoing her concerns and acknowledging the difficult issue. The segment then moved directly into the roll call vote, where Wintrow was called and recorded as voting no.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow questions the bill’s proposed work requirements and the rush to implement them before federal guidance is clear. She presses on why the state should move ahead now, why the bill uses a three-month look-back period instead of one month, and what administrative complications or wasted resources could result if federal requirements differ. The discussion remains focused on timing, administrative burden, and whether early implementation is justified.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow questioned Whitlock about the financial, administrative, and health implications of using a three-month versus one-month look-back period, especially for rural hospitals and eligibility processing. She then argued that three months of documentation is not significantly harder than one month, but that a longer look-back would create unnecessary red tape, increase administrative errors, and risk wrongly dropping people from Medicaid expansion. Wintrow moved to send House Bill 913 to the 14th order for a one-month look-back amendment, contending that a shorter period would better protect health outcomes, avoid undermining the voter-approved expansion, and reduce future costs for hospitals and insurers.
Carl Bjerke — Moved to accept the March 5, 2026 minutes.
Carl Bjerke — Senator Carl Bjerke seconded the substitute motion and later was recorded as voting aye on the matter.
Amanda Roe Bronson — Amanda Roe Bronson is introduced as the first witness and then identifies herself as the president of the Idaho Denturists Association, a practicing denturist, and an instructor at the American Denturist College.
Robert Van Giffen — Robert Van Giffen is introduced as the next witness and then testifies as a Boise business owner and co-owner of First-Class Dentures with his wife, who has been a denturist for nearly 20 years. He speaks in opposition to House Bill 935, arguing that the bill still allows a direct competitor to influence denturists' regulation.
Elizabeth Kreiner — Elizabeth Kreiner testified in support of House Bill 935 on behalf of the Idaho State Dental Association. In response to questioning, she said her client had spoken directly with the parties involved, noted that there were tensions when the law was first passed in the 1980s, and explained that today many members collaborate with denturists and refer patients back and forth.
Heidi Van Giffen — Heidi Van Giffen is introduced and then testifies that she is a licensed denturist in Idaho and Oregon, has practiced for nearly 20 years, owns and operates First Class Dentures in Boise, and urges the committee to vote no on House Bill 935.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippy questions the witness about how denturists and dentists compete, whether they perform overlapping work, and how the bill would affect market competition. He presses on whether dentists have a broader scope, whether mandatory referrals or other limits would create barriers to the market, and whether the witness’s main concern is an imbalance of power that could give dentists too much influence.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy responded to the debate on the substitute motion by saying he was torn but saw merit in the concerns raised, noting that annual rule review provides a way to address problems if they arise. He ultimately said he would support the substitute motion because the issue needs to be solvable, thanked everyone who testified, and was later recorded as voting aye.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Shippey was called on to make a motion and then moved to send House Bill 913 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Ms. Ben Griffin / Giffin — The witness is addressed by name, though the transcript appears to mangle the surname.
Ms. Van Giffen — Explains that denturists are independent practitioners and says dentists may view them as taking patients.
Ms. Van Giffen — Ms. Van Giffen explained that Montana has created a board seat for a licensed denturist, but that seat is often outvoted by dentists and others. She emphasized that the licensed denturist’s vote on the board is important, especially for matters involving licensure and education.
Ms. Van Giffin — Ms. Van Giffin confirmed that the concern is that outside influence could be used to limit denturists’ scope of practice and add licensing hurdles so work is directed to others instead of denturists. She also clarified that a denturist’s scope of practice is primarily creating dentures and partials for patients.
Angelo Giovanni — Introduced as the next witness to testify.
Angelo Jovenini — Angelo Jovenini introduced himself and explained the denturist profession, describing denturists as specialists in making, fitting, and repairing removable prosthetic dentures while noting that dentists can also make dentures. He then argued that if the legislation moves forward, denturists should have more seats on the board and more say over denture-related issues, emphasizing that denturists do not view dentists as adversaries. He ended by restating his name for the committee.
Mr. Gianvini — Explained that the board is in the red because of low numbers.
Amanda Rowe — Identified as the witness's partner and president who had previously addressed the issue.
Annalisa Talmont — Annalisa Talmont was introduced and then testified that she is Angelo's intern for the state. She said the dentists changed their position on the bill without notifying the denturists, and she continued describing her perspective and background, including attending American Denture's College.
Mark Harris — Senator Mark Harris is mentioned in the course of committee action on House Bill 935: he seconded the motion to hold the bill in committee and was later called during the roll call vote, within the same procedural discussion.
Mark Harris — Identified as seconding the substitute motion.
Camille Blaylock — Moved to hold House Bill 935 in committee.
Camille Blaylock — Explained her motion to hold the bill, citing concerns from board members and hoping for a compromise next year.
Camille Blaylock — Recorded as voting no.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Camille Blaylock asks whether current Medicaid recipients will be notified before the new work requirement takes effect, whether they will be informed about the three-month look-back process, and what the administrative cost and workload will be for the department in implementing that look-back.
Camille Blaylock — Asked whether work requirements are checked continuously or only at enrollment.
Camille Blaylock — Asked whether compliance with work requirements is checked continuously or only at initial enrollment.
Camille Blaylock — Sought clarification that the review is every six months, not monthly.
Camille Blaylock — Asked a question about the motion.
Camille Blaylock — Was asked whether she had a comment before the vote.
Brian Lenney — Brian Lenney first offered a substitute motion and then moved to send House Bill 935 to the floor with a due pass recommendation. He later asked that a roll call vote be taken, and his name was called during that vote as part of the same procedural action.
Mark Hand — Introduced as the first online witness to testify.
Mark Han — Mark Han testified on his own behalf as a social worker and expressed support for the bill. He argued that the bill is not punitive but instead encourages responsibility, productivity, and better stewardship of public funds. He said it would help him guide clients toward common-sense goals and improved well-being, described it as a good starting point and a useful guardrail, and concluded by urging support for the bill and offering to answer questions.
Marc Han / Mark Han — Continued testimony in support of the bill, arguing it encourages responsibility and self-sufficiency.
Brian Whitlock — Brian Whitlock, president of the Idaho Hospital Association, testified in support of the bill but raised concerns about the proposed three-month look-back period. He argued that the provision could overburden the department, legislators, and providers, and that patients who do not qualify for Medicaid would become uninsured and create uncompensated care. He suggested shortening the look-back to one month and formally asked that the bill be sent to amending order to make that change. He concluded by noting that another witness could better address the timeline and cost details.
Mr. Whitlock — Mr. Whitlock is referenced multiple times during a continuous discussion about the proposed look-back period and the process being considered. He is first asked to elaborate on the impacts of the look-back period, then asked to hold a process-related question, and later cited as having previously explained the process and associated considerations.
Mr. Whitlock — Cited as having testified that affected people would go to the emergency room.
Hillary Matlock — Hillary Matlock was introduced as the next testifier, then identified herself as being with Idaho Voices for Children. She testified that the proposed three-month look-back would not address the underlying issue and would add administrative costs, emphasizing that reducing processing time would be a better way to save money.
Ms. Matlock — Ms. Matlock explains that the department needs additional time to understand the guidance and its nuances, and that the bill should be amended to shorten the timeframe from three months to one month.
Nicholas Kleinworth — Nicholas Kleinworth identifies himself as representing the Paragon Health Institute and begins his testimony.
Julie VanOrden — Julie VanOrden, serving as chair, opened the Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting and was subsequently addressed by speakers as Madam Chair/Chairman during the committee’s opening exchanges.
Julie VanOrden — The speaker referenced Senator Lakey's point about annual rule review.
Julie VanOrden — Called during the roll call vote.
Julie VanOrden — Addressed as Madam Chair.
Julie VanOrden — Chair Julie VanOrden is invited to close the discussion and then gives her closing remarks, clarifying the debate between a three-month and one-month look-back and expressing support for the three-month option as better for permanency and employment.
Melissa Wintrow — Moved to approve the March 4, 2026 minutes.