[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6287778,"mediaKeyId","2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7","parentId",2546862,"title","Bill to let dentists jointly negotiate with insurers draws legal objections and calls for AG oversight","audioSeconds",3796,"startMs",5816000,"endMs",9612000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7&start=5816&end=9612","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7/thumbnail_5816000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6287778/North-Dakota/Bill-to-let-dentists-jointly-negotiate-with-insurers-draws-legal-objections-and-calls-for-AG-oversight","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287778-be06686582bfade733c15ce099238778/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065662&Signature=YkISoSXlIvBgk3a24UYXVl-xsUV8jESdsjZrDJbhROJkXPN4T97PqP8I6zsC9JcmExn~7USKflyne~1JeP3DKUJRMEweLdUhEzbguxk-k~9t5bZKLJi3dbo6h1gNdG4SziVXuAI-XgG7Wip6pS2dSAv6rIe-7xwtZLLM1Mz0pbduI6oKwvC2JQVUNlJrU1lG2N7OOpY-eCk-hM753629kX3WquWbjN4pgizXz~bpIGvIqadjZGhIWao-sc9KV7QaGLOx3z8poipXuy~oSeYpQLAXLVm6ILmv5vS~IqAaxjtqEQElTRDzlYOHV8LCUlsRgqztNtyUiebgAUFUdG8ILQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-11T00:00:00Z","article","A bill that would authorize limited joint negotiations by dental providers and insurers drew sharp legal concern at a House Industry, Business and Labor hearing on Thursday, with proponents calling the measure a novel way to address bargaining imbalances and opponents warning it could trigger antitrust exposure unless the state provides active supervision.

Sponsor\u000027s aim
Sen. Jose Castaneda described Senate Bill 23‑75 as an attempt to give dental providers a mechanism to negotiate contract terms that are effectively nonnegotiable today because of antitrust rules and market concentration. \"Too often, dental providers do not have the ability nor the opportunity to negotiate with insurance companies to work out a mutual agreement,\" Castaneda said, describing the proposed process as voluntary and intended to avoid heavy‑handed statutory mandates.

Proponents\u000027 case
Will Sherwin, executive director of the North Dakota Dental Association, told the committee the state\u000027s market is highly concentrated: two insurers account for roughly 98% of the market, and most dental offices account for 1–2% or less. He said dentists currently have little leverage and that the bill seeks a supervised process where representatives of providers and carriers could negotiate administrative and, in limited circumstance, fee‑related terms.

Legal and administrative objections
Peril Grossman, representing the American Council of Life Insurers, urged a \"do not pass,\" saying no other state currently permits competing dentists to jointly bargain fees and fee‑related contract terms; he said similar laws in New Jersey and Texas lapsed years ago and that the state action antitrust immunity doctrine is narrowly construed.

Ellen Alm, director of the Attorney General\u000027s Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division, told the committee the bill\u000027s conduct is by its nature anti‑competitive and that a valid immunity requires a clearly articulated state policy and active state supervision. Alm recommended the attorney general, not the Office of Administrative Hearings, provide the oversight because the AG\u000027s office has antitrust expertise and enforcement authority.

Practical questions and changes sought
Opponents and neutral advisers criticized the bill\u000027s drafting: they said the role of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) was unclear, that OAH would be asked to promulgate rules and arbitrate contested factual issues without the investigative role a supervising agency normally provides. Peril Grossman and others also expressed concern that the bill\u000027s language could be read as authorizing fee‑setting or other price coordination without sufficient supervision.

Proponents said they were working with the attorney general\u000027s office on amendments, and Sherwin said the association would pay for the mediation/arbitration process if required. The Dental Board and the insurance commissioner\u000027s staff were part of discussions on amendments.

Status
The committee took testimony and closed the hearing; members did not vote on the bill during the session recorded in the transcript and sought further drafting to clarify oversight, scope of permitted negotiations, and cost allocation.

Ending
The attorney general\u000027s representative urged that any immunity be narrowly drawn and actively supervised by the AG\u000027s office; proponents said they would work with the AG and stakeholders to address antitrust concerns before the bill moves forward.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Industry, Business and Labor Tuesday, Mar 11, 2025 8:40 AM - 11:52 AM","oneSentenceSummary","A proposed bill to let two or more independent dental providers jointly negotiate with dental insurers drew skeptical legal testimony Thursday that the measure could trigger antitrust liability unless the state provides clear policy direction and active supervision.","taxTitle","Industry, Business and Labor, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28894,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287788,"Committee advances bill to bar brewers from mandating ecommerce platforms, clarify successor-brewer rules",1656,304000,1960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7&start=304&end=1960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7/thumbnail_304000.jpg","/articles/6287788/North-Dakota/Committee-advances-bill-to-bar-brewers-from-mandating-ecommerce-platforms-clarify-successor-brewer-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287788-0af5684f883a428fc7ecf251cfb32764/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065662&Signature=SNWfWct29obt31gKnNQFF4OWhiwrvzJqTShdMCDq1b1NWHq1b0vduedFJ-oKvPcLk-Frrk~uevCVeRX4zyIAO4e3Va4cmwZxL5ZqXkapwQfHo5CCQgydvrG0BHCJ2l4CyiB-~4HSK512yxY1Nd98lCHgVs2tKRWBULTwQBqarVEMzbpv-in8LPMtmiDJqtaYTCrILr4HXYq4wPNRJLbWYNJ3IoAgyXcoPVKbTKPJf-lTYTLOPXT4vHtxHdO07I7riYrJUgjiDjiVVjLt2RRja7ckNYEmIN3geoHgJt3hNQQygWuezhhEkIWSVAMq03R5nQu7L7e6L0dDypb77gFtWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee on Thursday voted to advance Senate Bill 21‑36, a measure supporters say will strengthen wholesaler independence in North Dakota\u000027s three‑tier alcohol distribution system and close a loophole that some private equity buyers have used to avoid successor‑brewer obligations.

The bill\u000027s prime sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Jerry Klein, told the committee he was introducing the measure on behalf of the North Dakota Beer Distributors Association to address “a couple of issues that are cropping up across the country.” The bill was amended before the committee vote and passed on a voice and later roll call vote.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill preserves wholesalers\u000027 ability to choose the business‑to‑business ecommerce platform that best serves their retail customers, and it prevents purchasers of breweries from dodging state successor‑brewer rules by claiming they are not \u000022brewers.\u000022 Backers said the change protects long‑standing distribution relationships that wholesalers have built with brands over decades.

Wholesalers\u000027 case and the ecommerce provision
Denis Patheroff, a lobbyist for the GA Group representing the North Dakota Beer Distributors Association, told the committee wholesalers are being pressured by manufacturers to adopt or avoid particular ecommerce platforms that let retailers browse catalogs and place orders. \"Mandating or prohibiting the use of a specific platform undermines wholesaler independence,\" Patheroff said. He added wholesalers can be caught between manufacturers that require different platforms or threaten termination.

Hunter Jerome, general manager of Jerome Distributing and president of the North Dakota Beer Wholesalers Association, told the committee the industry operates under the three‑tier system established after repeal of national Prohibition: \"wholesaler, brewer, retailer\" are separate tiers under the 21st Amendment structure, and ecommerce tools are increasingly part of wholesaler operations. Jerome said about one‑third of North Dakota wholesalers use a brewer‑sponsored platform, one‑third use a third‑party platform and one‑third use no ecommerce platform.

The bill\u000027s ecommerce language, as amended, states that a brewer may not \"require a wholesaler to use or prohibit a wholesaler from using a business‑to‑business electronic commerce platform,\" language supporters said preserves choice and protects smaller wholesalers and craft‑brand distribution.

Successor‑brewer change
Patheroff and Jerome also described episodes in other states where private‑equity buyers purchased a brewing company and asserted they were not \"brewers\" for purposes of successor‑brewer statutes, then terminated distribution contracts. The bill removes wording that could be read to apply only to a buyer that is a brewer and instead says the purchaser of a brewer shall be obligated to the existing terms and contracts in effect on the date of purchase.

Support and opposition
Anheuser‑Busch filed written support and the committee heard testimony from an attorney who said the company supported the bill as amended. The North Dakota Brewers Guild (craft brewers) also supported the bill, saying it protects local brands and the distributors that serve them.

Vote and next steps
The committee adopted an amendment by voice vote and later approved a motion to pass the bill as amended on a roll call; the committee then discussed who would carry the bill to the House floor. Representative Brown volunteered to carry the bill.

Asked for details, supporters supplied economic figures: Patheroff told the committee North Dakota\u000027s 16 family‑owned distributors employ more than 500 people, pay about $32 million in annual wages and contribute roughly $1 million annually to charities and local events.

Ending
Senators and witnesses said the changes align North Dakota with similar statutory language used in other Midwestern states and aim to prevent a disruption of long‑standing distribution relationships if breweries change ownership.

","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee on Thursday voted to advance Senate Bill 21‑36, a measure supporters say will strengthen wholesaler independence in North Dakota\u000027s three‑tier alcohol distribution system and close a loophole that some private equity buyers have used to avoid successor‑brewer obligations.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287774,"Committee adopts amendment to bar insurers from stopping patients paying for denied dental services; requires upfront disclosure",934,10190000,11124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7&start=10190&end=11124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7/thumbnail_10190000.jpg","/articles/6287774/North-Dakota/Committee-adopts-amendment-to-bar-insurers-from-stopping-patients-paying-for-denied-dental-services-requires-upfront-disclosure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287774-cf64ee70312a5de7e1731b38b5d7510d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065662&Signature=ZwnXzeY4dEgD7engFlo09U2oKGTYl0tKm1Dfb5ArgrqlGW2jY~CVHxJF5Fq-lNrOsc3E6wy7hwoJJOD39gECGrLcMTxL72EC0SVkZ8MoxfgTRv67ca66v0XiEG0N1j~qxFJLQEsLHuUcdnatS8PDwZi4S0tXlUs9s5O-~UGhD9VXwjjDlPrQq1Vewm5uVxO8M19k2EVvH9TJbpIwtV-~yzhWu-pvKa5V3AB~0jrh6bk5jraegs1HJpG0Gi9mqfW8gUJR-xPcRC5WIVus-2uEsrOQZaZgNRBSZ~hNGBxezRIXsbvbZmFQTz6N5SEWqHAVS34EmwZq2tPgDb0eQi8n1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee on Thursday amended and approved a measure intended to prevent insurance providers from using preferred‑provider agreements to block patients from obtaining or paying for dental services that a plan refuses to cover.

What the amendment does
The committee adopted language that prohibits a preferred‑provider arrangement from restricting a covered person from receiving or paying for additional dental care services that were denied by the covered person\u000027s dental plan. The committee then approved a further amendment requiring that if a dentist intends to charge more than the contracted provider rate for services denied by the insurer, the dentist must disclose that fact to the patient prior to beginning care.

Sponsor explanation and intent
Representative Koppelman, who led work on the amendment, said the measure is aimed at preserving patient access to care when a carrier denies coverage or a patient exceeds plan limits. \"We don't want an insurer to be able to stop a dentist from providing care or force a patient to forgo care,\" Koppelman said. The initial Senate language had been broader, and committee members said the amendment clarified scope and preserved continuity of care.

Support and concerns
Several committee members and practitioners expressed concern about subsection 4, which would have required dentists to accept their contracted rate for uncovered services. Representative Ruby proposed — and members adopted — an amendment that instead requires transparent, written disclosure to the patient before care begins if the dentist intends to charge more than the insurer's contracted in‑network rate for the denied service.

Vote and carry
The committee approved the amended bill on a roll call vote and Representative Ruby volunteered to carry the measure to the House floor.

Ending
Supporters said the change protects patients who want to pay out of pocket for services a plan denies and preserves dentists\u000027 ability to set fees when they disclose those fees in advance. The committee left open the possibility of further technical edits before floor action.

","The committee amended and advanced Senate Bill 23‑77 to prohibit preferred‑provider arrangements from preventing a patient from receiving or paying for dental services their plan denied. The panel added an amendment requiring dentists to disclose to patients before care if they will charge more than the contracted in‑network rate for services not",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6287783,"Panel backs change to ease recording of deeds that use earlier \"meets and bounds\" legal descriptions",2239,3011000,5250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7&start=3011&end=5250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2546862-050b42e7ee31b9c094a010b11117a1f7/thumbnail_3011000.jpg","/articles/6287783/North-Dakota/Panel-backs-change-to-ease-recording-of-deeds-that-use-earlier-meets-and-bounds-legal-descriptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6287783-93d147c852d150d26172f075185be47a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065662&Signature=GrogBerLj4tCjO1CLLDPN1HSZ72AM8hhjsXNcdKKxdL6eQSHPY9b8rS57XP6erv8u~2t2ToLA7oNmtH~-prke4Ph3NpLn9o~J4IbQeQ6ZlHO4ojfpE7nrf-cxeBsPXCFjZiSz7KogPy6C4lB9x0Z09CzOkFwJ4bvsE4PGoIw1~1HojYFLAJCeuA53T9qWCxxpFfvcJuXx8CI7GCQRiXTkN01jwsCy1HDdH7KKs6u4ih4y1RVtyAC4OATrh5BnBn8z7kJqYFqsnps02wGqjK6I~sMPl67aBGhW14hk86boysOeyMoFCt0~aMkxsKcpvQF47XhJku8oTJNN8BkQPNvxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Industry, Business and Labor Committee advanced a bill intended to reduce multi‑week or multi‑month delays when county recorders reject deeds that repeat an earlier \"meets and bounds\" legal description.

Title agents and land‑title professionals told the committee that a common closing scenario places buyers at risk when money is exchanged but a deed is rejected and the county requires a certificate of survey or a plat before it will accept recording.

Why it matters: Witnesses said rejected deeds create a gap between the closing and recording that can expose buyers to liens that are recorded against the seller in the interim, including new mortgages, tax liens, construction liens or other encumbrances.

What the bill does
Senate Bill 23‑56, as amended, directs county recorders not to reject a deed for recording when the same \"meets and bounds\" legal description was used in a prior recorded conveyance and the property appears in tax records. Proponents said the change preserves the recorder\u000027s broader authority under North Dakota Century Code chapter 57 to require platting where necessary, but prevents routine rejections that force a buyer to pay for a survey at closing.

Real‑world examples and costs
Nick Hacker of the North Dakota Land Title Association described a case in which a deed that used the same legal description as an earlier recorded deed was rejected; resolving the rejection required a certificate of survey that cost about $3,200 and delayed the closing roughly two months. Hacker said the title company ultimately paid survey costs in that instance and that this type of rejection occurs differently across counties and happens \"a couple hundred times a year.\"

Paula Bachmeier, a long‑time abstract/title practitioner, described transactions in which a deed was rejected after money had been disbursed and the seller died, forcing probate and causing failed transactions and loss of funds for buyers.

Support and neutral testimony
Supporters included the North Dakota Land Title Association, the North Dakota Bankers Association and the state bar\u000027s real property section. Blaine Johnson, chair of the State Bar Association\u000027s real property section, said the bill focuses on the recording gap between closing and recording rather than on title searches conducted earlier in the closing process.

The North Dakota State Board of Dental Examiners and others provided unrelated neutral testimony on other bills during the hearing; county recorders had been involved in drafting amendments to narrow the language and avoid unintended consequences, witnesses said.

Vote and next steps
The committee voted to pass the bill as amended on a roll call. Representative Volmer agreed to carry the bill to the House floor.

Ending
Supporters told the committee the bill balances the county\u000027s authority to require plats when necessary with routine recording needs, reducing costs and delays for ordinary residential and rural conveyances.

","The committee advanced Senate Bill 23‑56 after testimony from title companies and county recorders about repeated rejections of deeds that use the same \"meets and bounds\" legal description as prior recorded instruments. Proponents said the change will reduce closing delays, unnecessary surveys and added costs.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to let dentists jointly negotiate with insurers draws legal objections and calls for AG oversight

Committee advances bill to bar brewers from mandating ecommerce platforms, clarify successor-brewer rules

Committee adopts amendment to bar insurers from stopping patients paying for denied dental services; requires upfront disclosure

Panel backs change to ease recording of deeds that use earlier "meets and bounds" legal descriptions