Bill Description: House Bill 495 would shift regulatory control of denturists from the independent Board of Denturitry to the Idaho State Board of Dentistry.
NOTE: House Bill 123 (+2), introduced during the 2025 legislative session, proposed repealing occupational licensing requirements for denturists.
Rating: +1
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 495 would repeal and replace Chapter 33, Title 54, Idaho Code, and make several other changes to Idaho code to shift regulatory control of denturists from the independent Board of Denturitry to the Idaho State Board of Dentistry.
(+1)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
Under current Idaho law, denturists are governed and licensed by an independent 5-member board that includes 3 denturists. This means 60% of board members are part of the profession.
House Bill 495 eliminates this board and expands the Idaho State Board of Dentistry from 8 to 9 members, with one being required to “be experienced in the making, fitting, constructing, altering, reproducing, or repairing of prosthetics.” With this change, denturists will be governed by a board where only one of the nine members (11%) is part of the profession.
While this board consolidation could net a small cost savings, we should acknowledge the unaddressed issue of the American Dental Association’s longstanding opposition to independent denturists and numerous legal fights across the country due to the regulatory capture of state dental boards.
It should be noted here that the stated purpose of licensing denturists in Idaho, given in 1982, was to “promote competence and excellence in the providing of prosthetic dental appliances and services related thereto to the public at reasonable costs.”
The 1982 law, called the “freedom of choice in dentures act,” was part of a national movement to provide consumers with an option for obtaining dentures outside of what was at the time an effective monopoly controlled by dentists and their governing bodies.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
The bill’s fiscal note estimates that shuttering the Board of Denturitry would save the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses $33,600 annually in operating expenditures. It further says the “costs associated with rule integration and system updates” are expected to be “absorbed within existing resources.”
(+1)
