SB813 rewrites parts of Maryland's Insurance Article to change how dentists are treated in assignment-of-benefits situations and how insurers and dental plan organizations must handle reimbursements to nonpreferred dentists. The bill inserts dentists into existing definitions and insurance sections that previously focused on physicians and requires new disclosure and documentation steps when a dentist seeks payment via an enrollee’s or insured’s assignment of benefits.
For providers and payors this is an operational bill: it alters claims flows, adds a required disclosure step before treatment by nonpreferred dentists, and directs the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to provide standardized forms. Compliance, billing, and provider network teams will need to update agreements, notices, and claims processes to match the new statutory mechanics.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds dentists explicitly to the Insurance Article’s provider definitions and to the assignment-of-benefits prohibition, so insurers and dental plan organizations may not bar an insured or enrollee from assigning benefits to a dentist. It requires nonpreferred dentists who seek an assignment to give pre‑service disclosures and to submit a Commissioner‑developed disclosure form to document the assignment. The statute also lists narrow circumstances in which an insurer or dental plan organization may refuse to directly reimburse a nonpreferred dentist.
Who It Affects
Nonpreferred and participating dentists licensed in Maryland, health insurers and dental plan organizations operating in Maryland, employer and individual enrollees covered by state‑regulated plans, and the Maryland Insurance Administration (which must draft required forms). Third‑party administrators and billing services will handle most operational changes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts payment routing options—making assignment of benefits a firmer channel for dentists to seek insurer payments—while preserving limited defenses for payors. It increases transparency (cost estimates, balance‑billing warnings, payment breakdowns) before care, which alters patient counseling and consent. For plans and payors, expect new administrative rules, potential increases in direct reimbursements to out‑of‑network dentists, and more documentation to process.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB813 modifies Maryland’s Insurance Article in three ways: it expands the statutory definition of “provider” to explicitly include dentists and creates a parallel definition of “similarly licensed provider” for dental services; it amends the assignment‑of‑benefits and reimbursement rules in the insurer statute to cover dentists; and it creates a new, parallel statutory section that applies the same assignment and disclosure framework to regulated dental plan organizations.
Under the amended insurer provision, a payor (insurer) may not prohibit an insured from assigning benefits to a dentist nor refuse to directly reimburse a nonpreferred dentist solely on that basis. When an insured receives payment because no assignment was provided, the insurer must send the insured a detailed statement identifying the claim, the amount the insurer paid, the amount the insured is responsible for, and a statement that the insured should use the payment to pay the provider if the provider has not been paid.
A nonpreferred dentist who wants payment under an assignment must give the insured pre‑service disclosures—the dentist’s nonpreferred status, the possibility of charges for noncovered services, potential balance billing for covered services, a cost estimate, payment terms, and whether interest will apply—and must submit a disclosure form the Commissioner prepares to document the assignment.The new dental plan organization section mirrors these rules for dental plans, with the same list of required pre‑service disclosures and the same requirement that dentists submit the Commissioner’s form. Both insurer and dental plan sections enumerate narrow exceptions where the payor may refuse to directly reimburse the dentist: late notice of an assignment, withdrawal of the assignment before payment, and the enrollee/insured having already paid the full amount at time of service; the insurer provision also lists an “inadvertent administrative error” exception.
The bill assigns the Maryland Insurance Commissioner the task of developing the disclosure/assignment forms and takes effect January 1, 2027.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends the Insurance Article definitions so that “provider” expressly includes dentists and creates a “similarly licensed provider” definition for dentists who perform the same or similar dental services (changes to Section 14‑201).
Section 14‑205.3 is extended to cover dentists: insurers may not bar an assignment of benefits to a dentist or refuse direct reimbursement to a nonpreferred dentist, and insurers must provide an itemized payment notice to insureds when the insured—not the provider—receives payment.
The statute requires nonpreferred dentists seeking an assignment to give pre‑service disclosures (nonpreferred status, possible noncovered charges, potential balance billing, cost estimate, payment terms, interest) and to submit a Commissioner‑developed disclosure form to document the assignment.
The bill creates a new Section 14‑410.1 imposing the same assignment, disclosure, and documentation requirements on regulated dental plan organizations, with similar but not identical exceptions allowing refusal to reimburse.
The Insurance Commissioner must develop the disclosure/assignment forms, and the law’s effective date is January 1, 2027.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds dentists to the provider and similarly licensed provider definitions
The amendment explicitly lists dentists as providers under the Insurance Article and creates a parallel test for “similarly licensed provider” that applies to dental services: a dentist licensed in Maryland who performs the same or similar dental services or a group dental practice composed of Maryland‑licensed dentists performing the same or similar services. Practically, this pulls dentists formally into statutory rules that previously referenced only physicians or generic providers, so protections and duties that hinge on the 'provider' label now expressly cover dentists.
Extends insurer assignment‑of‑benefits and reimbursement rules to dentists
This section prevents insurers from forbidding assignment of benefits to dentists and from refusing direct reimbursement to nonpreferred dentists when an assignment exists. It requires insurers to send insureds a specific payment breakdown if the insurer paid the insured directly. It further obligates nonpreferred dentists seeking assignment to give a set list of pre‑service disclosures and to file a Commissioner‑issued form documenting the assignment. The section also lists four narrow exceptions (late notice, inadvertent administrative error, insured withdrawal of assignment, and insured already paid in full) that allow an insurer to decline direct reimbursement.
Parallel rules for dental plan organizations
The new section applies the same assignment and disclosure framework to dental plan organizations governed under Maryland insurance law: they may not block assignment or refuse direct reimbursement outright, must furnish the same payment breakdown to enrollees when an enrollee—not the dentist—receives payment, and must accept the Commissioner’s assignment documentation form. The listed refusal exceptions are slightly narrower than the insurer statute (no express 'inadvertent administrative error' carve‑out), which could affect claims-handling differences between health insurers and dental plans.
Commissioner forms and effective date
Both the insurer and dental plan provisions require the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to develop the disclosure and assignment forms used to document required notices and assignments. The bill sets its effective date as January 1, 2027, giving the Insurance Administration and regulated entities a limited window to revise forms, update claim and remittance systems, and train staff on new pre‑service disclosure and assignment processing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Nonpreferred dentists: Gain a clearer, statutorily protected route to receive insurer or dental plan payments via assignment of benefits and can document assignments using Commissioner templates, improving potential cash flow and collection certainty.
- Patients/enrollees seeking care from out‑of‑network dentists: Receive mandatory pre‑service disclosures (estimate, balance‑billing warning, payment terms) that improve informed consent about cost exposure before treatment.
- Independent dental practices that assign claims: Acquire a standardized documentation process for assignments that billing and collections teams can adopt, reducing ad hoc paperwork and disputes about whether an assignment exists.
Who Bears the Cost
- Insurers and dental plan organizations: Must change claims processing and remittance workflows, accept and validate assignment documentation, and possibly increase direct reimbursements to nonpreferred dentists, plus update provider agreements and IT systems.
- Maryland Insurance Administration: Responsible for drafting and publishing the disclosure/assignment forms and may face increased administrative workload and inquiries during implementation and after the effective date.
- Employers and self‑funded ERISA plans (indirectly): Although state law targets regulated insurers and dental plan organizations, administrators and vendors that also support self‑funded plans will need to handle parallel disclosure and assignment practices in the market; there may be coordination costs or carve‑outs depending on ERISA status.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute tries to balance two legitimate aims—giving dentists a reliable mechanism to collect payments via assignment of benefits and protecting insurers/dental plans from untimely, duplicate, or fraudulent claims—but it leaves unresolved how to authenticate and adjudicate contested assignments and creates different exceptions for insurers versus dental plan organizations, producing operational and legal friction without a clean enforcement framework.
The bill narrows practical friction but leaves open several implementation questions. It requires the Commissioner to design forms but does not set deadlines, required data fields beyond the enumerated disclosures, authentication standards for assignment documents, or a process for resolving disputes when a payor contests the validity or timeliness of an assignment.
That ambiguity will affect how strictly payors must accept electronic or third‑party billing assignments and how vendors should encode the assignment flow in claims systems.
A second tension concerns scope and preemption: SB813 applies to insurers and dental plan organizations regulated under Maryland law; it does not address ERISA‑governed self‑funded plans, which may be exempt. That creates a two‑tiered marketplace where assignment and disclosure rules vary by funding source.
Finally, the bill allows limited carve‑outs for insurers (including an “inadvertent administrative error” exception) but not identically in the dental plan section, opening the door for inconsistent outcomes between medical insurers and dental plans and potential arbitrage in how payors process late or corrected payments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.