Summary#
B26-0873, the Dental Hygienist Licensing Amendment Act of 2026, would amend the District of Columbia Health Occupations Revision Act of 1985. Its stated goal is to create a route for internationally educated dentists to become licensed dental hygienists in the District; the bill is introduced and is not law.
- The bill adds a qualification route for someone licensed to practice dentistry in a jurisdiction outside the United States.
- The Board of Dentistry would continue to assess whether an applicant meets the licensing qualifications.
- The Mayor would have authority to decide whether that jurisdiction’s dental-licensing requirements conform with the District’s dental-hygiene training requirements.
- The sponsor’s introduction says the change is intended to help address a shortage of dental hygienists and improve access to preventive care. Those are goals, not guaranteed results.
What it means for you#
- Dentists licensed outside the United States: You could use this new qualification route to seek a District dental-hygiene license. The bill does not make a license automatic.
- Board of Dentistry and Mayor: The Board would assess applicants’ qualifications. The Mayor would have authority to assess whether a jurisdiction’s licensing requirements conform with District training requirements.
- Dental patients and practices: The bill could expand the pool of people eligible to seek a license. It does not require practices to hire them or guarantee more appointments or care.
- Current dental hygienists: The bill does not directly change existing licenses or set new rules for their practice.
Money#
No cost information is in the available material.
- The bill refers to a fiscal impact statement in a committee report, but that report and its estimate were not supplied.
- The bill does not set a fee, fine, or appropriation in the text provided.
What is unclear#
- The District Health Occupations Revision Act is not supplied, so current licensing requirements and how the new route would interact with them could not be verified. The sponsor’s introduction says there is currently no such pathway.
- The bill does not clearly say whether a favorable determination by the Mayor is required before an applicant can use the new route.
- It does not specify how the Mayor would assess a jurisdiction, what evidence would be considered, or whether there would be a public process or review.
- It does not say whether an applicant’s foreign dentistry license must be current or in good standing.
- The bill does not set application steps, decision timelines, or an appeal process.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that it would let people already licensed as dentists elsewhere seek work in dental hygiene without requiring the bill to create a separate training program.
- The sponsor’s introduction says the District has a shortage of dental hygienists and that limited staffing can delay care. A broader route to licensure could help practices find staff.
- Giving the Mayor authority to assess whether another jurisdiction’s licensing requirements conform with District training requirements could help connect the new route to local training standards.
Case against#
- The bill does not spell out how the Mayor would assess foreign licensing requirements, which could leave applicants unsure about how decisions will be made.
- It is unclear whether the Mayor’s finding is a condition of eligibility or how the finding would affect an applicant’s case.
- The bill does not describe an individual assessment of an applicant’s training or clinical skills. Whether other current licensing requirements provide such checks could not be verified without the Act.
- Any increase in available hygienists, or improvement in access to care, is uncertain; the bill does not require hiring or establish a service program.