#United States #Washington #Supreme Court #Antitrust #Dental Boards

Ongoing Antitrust Concerns in State Dental Boards

A recent report from the Pacific Legal Foundation has surfaced alarming findings regarding the structure and operational integrity of state dental licensing boards in the United States. Following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (2015), which stated that state professional licensing boards dominated by industry insiders are not inherently shielded from federal antitrust laws, little has changed in practice. Despite a decade having passed since this pivotal decision, these boards continue to function in a manner that raises significant concerns about competition suppression.

The Supreme Court found that such boards, which are often composed primarily of active market participants, can engage in anti-competitive practices. However, the report indicates that approximately 85 percent of seats on these dental boards across the nation are still occupied by licensed dental professionals. This composition poses a challenge to the principles of free enterprise and draws attention to the pervasive influence of industry affiliations on regulatory bodies.

Key Findings of the Report

In examining the degree of control industry insiders maintain over these boards, the report identifies several crucial trends:

1. Lack of Legislative Reform: Notably, not a single state has enacted laws aimed at lessening the hold of active market participants on dental boards. The status quo persists, further embedding anti-competitive behavior.

2. Increased Industry Representation: On the contrary, states such as Georgia, Michigan, and North Dakota have increased the number of industry members on their boards. In a worrying trend, Texas has reduced public representation, consolidating the grip of market participants on the board structures.

3. Governance Controlled by Associations: In eight states, dental boards are required to select members exclusively from lists provided by dental associations. This stipulation ensures a tight course of control and oversight by industry affiliates over board nominations, reinforcing an environment resistant to third-party influence.

Joshua Polk, an attorney from Pacific Legal Foundation, emphasizes the dire implications of continued inaction: “Failing to reform state licensing boards is not just bad policy; it exposes these boards to serious legal risk.” Polk argues that by disregarding the Supreme Court's ruling, states are perpetuating practices that contradict the spirit of competition and market regulation.

Call to Action

The report serves as a damning indictment of the current state of dental board governance and issues a clarion call for legislative and judicial intervention. It urges lawmakers, regulators, and the judicial system to take heed of the Supreme Court’s ruling and to push for greater transparency and fairness in the licensing process.

Without prompt action, the fundamental values of regulatory accountability and competition in the dental industry will likely remain jeopardized. The Pacific Legal Foundation’s report, titled "Guardians or Gatekeepers? Industry Capture of Dental Boards 10 Years after NC Dental," paints a stark picture of the challenges remaining in the effort for a more equitable licensing environment.

Conclusion

As the conversation surrounding antitrust laws continues to evolve, this report confronts both lawmakers and the public with an imperative: recognize the existing influences that hinder fair competition and take steps to mitigate them. For advocates of economic liberty, this presents an opportunity to demand the accountability that has been so long overlooked. The time for reform is now, as the future of the dental profession—and the consumers it serves—hangs in the balance.