Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: FTC staff supports bill loosening supervision of Georgia dental hygienists, (Feb 1, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A Georgia House Bill intended to expand the settings where dental hygienists may work without direct supervision of a dentist would likely enhance competition in the provision of preventive dental care services and would benefit Georgia consumers, the staffs of the FTC Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Economics, and Bureau of Competition have concluded. The staffs sent a letter to the Georgia State Senate on January 29, responding to an invitation for comments on the proposed legislation.

Current, proposed legislation. Currently, Georgia requires that dental hygienists work under the direct supervision of a licensed dentist, which is typically the highest supervision level that states impose. Under a “direct supervision” standard, a licensed dentist must be in the dental office or treatment facility, personally diagnose the condition to be treated, personally authorize the procedures, remain in the dental office or treatment facility while the procedures are being performed by the dental hygienist, and examine the patient before dismissal.

Under House Bill 684, however, Georgia would allow dental hygienists to provide care without direct supervision at “approved safety-net settings, including nonprofit clinics, health care facilities, long-term care facilities, and school based programs; or at other facilities or settings approved by the board.” The bill would also allow dental hygienists to provide dental screenings in any setting without direct supervision.

Competitive impact. The staffs noted that the current laws and regulations that require hygienists to work under the direct supervision of dentists, in order to provide preventive services, constituted a significant barrier to the use of dental hygienists outside of dentist offices and in dental shortage areas. The proposed changes in House Bill 684, however, take a step toward reducing that barrier to preventive oral care. In particular, the staffs concluded that: (1) by increasing the availability of hygienists’ services outside of dentist offices, the number of suppliers of preventive dental care can increase; (2) the initiative could consequently promote greater competition in the provision of oral health services; (3) greater competition may subsequently enhance access to affordable preventive services, mitigate the negative consequences of dentist shortages, and facilitate the development of innovative models for delivering care; and (4) the increased access to dental hygienists could be especially effective in improving access to dental services in Georgia’s underserved areas.

News: Antitrust FederalTradeCommissionNews