HCS HB 400 -- DENTAL CARVE-OUT ACT

SPONSOR:  Yates

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Insurance
Policy by a vote of 14 to 2.

This substitute establishes the Dental Carve-Out Act of 2005 and
requires the Division of Medical Services in the Department of
Social Services to maintain and implement a process for managing
dental benefits for public assistance recipients.  The division
must contract with a single-source, private entity to provide
dental program management services in coordination with the
division.  The division is allowed to place coverage limits on
dental services and must establish a statewide uniform dental
program administered by a single, private entity.  The private
entity cannot discriminate against any dentist willing to meet
the terms and conditions of the program.  The division, however,
may not require a dentist to alter a patient's previously
authorized course of treatment unless warranted by the patient's
condition.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Cost on General Revenue Fund of $106,363
in FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008.  No impact on Other State Funds
in FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that access to adequate dental care
in Missouri is extremely difficult, and the current billing
system is archaic and extremely inadequate.  The bill will
provide a single-program administrator to deal with dental
providers.  With a single payer contracting with the state, there
will be one large panel of providers all receiving reimbursements
from the same entity, under the same guidelines, and using the
same reimbursement rate.  This would eliminate costs,
streamlining the system and helping to increase the number of
participating providers.

Testifying for the bill were Representatives Yates and Moore;
Gary Mandernach; Missouri Dental Association; Kevin Wallace; and
Doral Dental USA.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that dental carve-out
without an increase in fees could be a problem.  The objective of
the carve-out program is to increase access to dental care by
increasing dental participation.  It is questionable that this
would be achieved without additional money.

Testifying against the bill was Bridgeport Dental Services.

Marc Webb, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
93rd General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated August 25, 2005 at 1:19 pm