Maryland 2024 Regular Session

Maryland Senate Bill SB335

Introduced
1/12/24  
Refer
1/12/24  
Report Pass
4/5/24  
Engrossed
4/5/24  

Caption

Health Occupations - Private Dental Offices - Infection Control

Impact

If enacted, Senate Bill 335 will significantly reshape the operation and management standards for private dental offices in Maryland. By introducing structured regulatory measures for infection control and mandating the appointment of supervising dentists, the bill aims to improve patient safety and enhance public health standards within dental practices. This transformation could foster a more consistent application of infection control protocols across dental offices, potentially leading to better health outcomes for patients.

Summary

Senate Bill 335 addresses health occupations, specifically focusing on private dental offices and their infection control practices. The bill requires that each private dental office owner appoints a licensed dentist as a supervising dentist responsible for all infection control activities. This supervisory role includes ensuring adherence to relevant guidelines, such as those set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it mandates the registration of supervising dentists with the State Board of Dental Examiners. Additionally, the bill imposes a limit on the number of private dental offices each supervising dentist can manage, which is capped at three offices within close proximity to facilitate adequate oversight.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding Senate Bill 335 seems to lean towards a positive reception, especially among health professionals who view the bill as necessary for improving safety standards in dental healthcare. However, some stakeholders might express reservations over the additional regulatory burdens it places on dental practices, considering possible challenges in compliance and operational flexibility for dental office owners. Overall, there is a sense of agreement on the importance of infection control, albeit with varying opinions on the best approach.

Contention

Despite the overall support, notable points of contention may arise regarding the specific requirements for supervision and the limitation on the number of offices a supervising dentist can oversee. Some argue that the cap may hinder the ability of dentists to manage multiple practices effectively, especially in underserved areas. Furthermore, there could be debates on the appropriateness of the registration fees to be charged by the Board for supervising dentists, with concerns about whether these costs could be a financial burden to small practice owners.

Companion Bills

MD HB499

Crossfiled Health Occupations - Private Dental Offices - Infection Control

Similar Bills

OK HB2051

Practice of medicine; creating the Supervised Physicians Act; limiting scope of supervised practice; directing specified Boards to promulgate certain rules; requiring collaborative practice arrangements; creating certain exemptions; effective date.

CA AB1421

Supervised release: revocation.

CA AB1758

Board of Behavioral Sciences: marriage and family therapists: clinical social workers: professional clinical counselors: supervision of applicants for licensure via videoconferencing.

CA AB1827

Criminal procedure: high-risk parolees.

WV HB2257

Relating to extended supervision for certain drug offenders

WV SB260

Mandating extended supervision for defendants convicted of stalking and related felonious acts

CA SB194

Probation: revocation: new period.

CA SB1024

Healing arts: Board of Behavioral Sciences: licensees and registrants.