Delegate Heather Bagnell told the Health and Government Operations Committee that House Bill 265 would expand Maryland's Dental Care loan-repayment program to allow part‑time dentists and dental hygienists to qualify for loan-repayment assistance and would ask the Maryland Insurance Administration to study whether insurers are using online credentialing platforms.

Supporters — including CEOs of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and dental‑access coalitions — said the change would help recruiting for safety‑net providers that frequently rely on part‑time clinicians for flexibility (childcare, physical demands of procedures, or to extend careers). Witnesses argued part‑time eligibility is a standard feature of many clinician loan‑repayment programs and would expand the pool of available providers for Medicaid adults and other underserved patients.

Key testimony and points raised:
- Sponsor's intent: Delegate Bagnell said HB 265 expands the pool of eligible applicants but does not add to the program's funding; the bill allows the Office of Student Financial Assistance, in collaboration with the Maryland Department of Health, to prorate awards for part‑time participants.
- Safety‑net employers: FQHC leaders (Maryland Community Health System, CCI Health Services) said part‑time loan repayment is a critical recruitment tool and would create a more robust applicant pool for clinics serving Medicaid and uninsured patients. They described situations where two part‑time hygienists cover three full‑time positions and where full‑time compensation offers in private practice outpace safety‑net wages.
- Study of credentialing: Supporters asked the Maryland Insurance Administration to study insurers' use of online credentialing platforms, citing delays caused by inconsistent or manual credentialing practices.

Opposition and concerns: The Maryland State Dental Association and affiliated oral-surgery and hospital groups urged an unfavorable report or changes, citing limited program funding and program design priorities. Opposition witnesses said:
- Current funding levels are small relative to workforce needs (witnesses cited roughly 17 dentists currently in the program and noted dozens of applicants; stakeholders said only a small number of awards were made in recent rounds).
- Opening eligibility to part‑time providers risks diluting scarce funds that the opponents argued should prioritize full‑time clinicians who they say are more likely to establish permanent community ties.
- Several opponents argued that, as written, the bill may still include limited‑license holders (internationally trained dentists) and urged careful statutory drafting.

The committee heard both favorable and unfavorable panels and asked the sponsor and agencies to continue discussions on study language and program design. No formal committee action occurred during the hearing.

Provenance: Testimony for HB 265 began when the committee called the panel (block starting at 3422.03) and the sponsor's primary remarks began at 3479.93; the hearing included multiple supportive and opposing witnesses and concluded after later panels (closing remarks near 6366.92).