Editorial: Don’t relax our dental standards

Wednesday, May 9, 2001 | 9:16 a.m.

Acontroversial bill has been approved by the state Senate that would allow out-of-state dentists to practice in Nevada for two years without first having passed Nevada's dental exam. Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, said she introduced Senate Bill 133 in an effort to increase the number of dentists here, noting the shortage that exists. There are only about four dentists for every 10,000 residents in Southern Nevada, Titus said.

Getting more dentists in Southern Nevada should be a priority, but allowing dentists to practice here without first meeting Nevada's tough licensing requirements would be a mistake. The legislation also contains a worrisome provision that would allow experienced dental hygienists a temporary license without taking an exam. As anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time in a dentist's chair knows, dental hygienists play a critically important role in this care, so it doesn't make much sense to give them a provisionary license, too.

Titus, in defending her bill, also mentions the difficulty facing dentists who may want to practice here. For instance, as Titus told Sun reporter Emily Richmond, dentists seeking licenses actually must travel to California to take a board exam. The applicants also have to bring several of their own patients to serve as witnesses. This process is time-consuming and costly, creating a barrier to the entry of new dentists here, Titus argues. But if the licensing board is establishing unreasonable requirements, then the Legislature should specifically direct the licensing board to make changes so that board exams aren't unnecessarily onerous.

Regarding the level of care, there has been controversy as to whether Southern Nevada dentists are adequately caring for patients whose families are receiving government insurance. "A lot of children in our Head Start programs wind up going to the emergency room because their teeth have never been looked at," Titus said. The lack of care for indigent patients -- whether it's dental or medical -- definitely is an issue that has to be addressed, but gutting the licensing requirements for dentists isn't the answer.

Today the Assembly Commerce Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on SB133. The Assembly should reject the legislation. It makes no sense to weaken licensing requirements, a safeguard the state uses to ferret out incompetent dentists who may try to set up practice here.