HOUSE BILL NO. 121 "An Act relating to patients' rights under a health care insurance plan or contract providing coverage for dental care, and prohibiting certain practices by health care insurers relating to dental care." Representative Con Bunde, Sponsor spoke in support of HB 121. He noted that the legislation no longer prohibits insurers from reimbursing a covered person at a different rate because of the person's choice of dentist. He observed that the legislation was introduced to aid dentists to serve their patients effectively. He maintained that the House Labor and Commerce Committee version is supported by the parties impacted by the legislation. The legislation supports consumers by allowing them the right to receive full information regarding their care options without fearing adverse actions from insurance companies. The bill also allows patients to take civil action against health care insurers to enforce their rights and requires a dental treatment plan review or utilization review to be conducted by a dentist. PATTI SWENSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE provided information on the legislation. She noted that the legislation was amended in the House Labor and Commerce Committee on page 2, line 8 - 13 to allow individuals to use a dentist outside of the dental preferred provider organization. The language was added to satisfy union opposition to the bill. In response to a question by Representative Phillips, Ms. Swenson stated that the legislation would apply anywhere there is a dental preferred provider organization. Representative J. Davies asked for more information regarding arbitration. Ms. Swenson explained that insurance companies have a formal system of arbitration. The arbitration is to be a final agreement. If the parties do not agree a civil action can take place. Representative Bunde added that the arbitrator's decision is the end of the process. Patients can go on to sue. Representative J. Davies expressed concern that there be a time limit to the arbitration. He asked if arbitrators must act in a specified time period. Ms. Swenson did not know if a time limit exists, but stressed that it would cost the insurance company to continue the arbitration. DAVID LOGAN, DENTIST, JUNEAU spoke in support of the legislation as an advocate for patients. He pointed out that dentists do not receive an economic benefit from the legislation. Each company has a different arbitration plan. Most plans do not have a time specification. He pointed out that patients would have rights with the Insurance Commission to expedite the process. Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 121 (L&C) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 121 (L&C) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Community and Economic Development and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Administration, both published on 4/14/00.