The Dental and Optometric Care Access Act of 2025 (DOC Access Act) inserts a new section into Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act that changes how limited‑scope dental and vision plans, and broader group or individual health plans, deal with dental and optometric providers. The bill lets doctors of optometry and dentistry who participate in a plan charge enrollees for items or services that the plan does not ‘‘cover’’—up to the provider’s usual and customary amount—and forbids plans from restricting the laboratory or supplier those providers may use.
The statute also narrows certain consumer protections and pushes enforcement responsibility to states: the Secretary of HHS must annually ask each state whether it will enforce the new rules, and a provider can elect to opt its plan out of some of the federal protections. The net effect is a provider‑friendly federal floor that preserves state primacy where conflict exists and creates immediate regulatory and compliance questions for plans, state regulators, and employers who sponsor coverage.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds section 2719B, permitting participating optometrists and dentists to charge enrollees for items or services the plan is not obligated to reimburse (up to the provider’s usual and customary charge), prohibits plans from restricting provider choice of labs/suppliers, and requires state notification and response on enforcement. It also limits provider charging for dental cleanings to the contracted network fee and allows providers to opt plans out of some requirements.
Who It Affects
Participating dentists, dental surgeons, dental entities, and optometrists, as well as health and limited‑scope vision/dental insurers, employers sponsoring group plans, and state insurance regulators. Independent dental and ophthalmic labs and suppliers are directly affected by the prohibition on plan‑imposed restrictions.
Why It Matters
The measure shifts negotiating leverage toward providers, creates a federal minimum protecting provider autonomy, and invites patchwork enforcement by states. Compliance officers, payers, and benefits lawyers need to reassess network contracts, payment policies, and state enforcement exposure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill adds a new federal rule that applies to group and individual health coverage, including limited‑scope dental and vision plans. Under that rule, a participating dentist or optometrist may charge an enrolled patient for items or services that the plan does not have a binding obligation to pay—so long as the provider’s charge does not exceed the usual and customary rate they charge uninsured patients.
The statute defines ‘‘covered services’’ narrowly for this purpose: an item counts as covered only if the plan is required to pay an amount that is both reasonable and more than nominal. That framing creates a material line between services the plan must pay for and services where providers may balance‑bill enrollees.
The Act also protects provider autonomy within networks. Plans may not restrict or limit the laboratory, source, or supplier that a participating dental or optometric provider chooses when furnishing items or services; the provider can pick labs and suppliers even if the plan has preferred vendors.
For limited‑scope dental/vision plans, contract extensions longer than two years must be accepted by the provider for each extension, preventing unilateral rolling renewals without provider consent. Separately, the Act treats dental cleaning differently: providers may only charge the contracted network fee for cleanings, including when a cleaning would exceed an enrollee’s annual plan maximum.On compliance and enforcement, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must annually notify each state of its authority to enforce the new rules and request confirmation whether the state will do so; non‑response within 90 days or an explicit refusal is treated as a failure to substantially enforce, which triggers federal enforcement backstops under existing statute.
The bill also gives individual providers or employing entities a regulatory opt‑out: they can elect to exempt plans from certain provisions (the charging and lab‑choice rules) for specific plan years. Finally, the text adds a conforming amendment and an express clause reserving exclusive application to state law where state standards conflict with these federal amendments, which preserves state primacy in many circumstances.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes participating doctors of dental surgery, dental medicine, and optometry to charge enrollees for items or services that a plan does not ‘‘cover,’’ up to the provider’s usual and customary charge.
Providers may only bill the contracted network fee for any dental cleaning, even if that cleaning would otherwise exceed an enrollee’s annual plan maximum.
Plans are prohibited from restricting or limiting the laboratory, source, or supplier a participating dental or optometric provider may choose for materials or services.
The Secretary must notify each state annually and treat a state that declines to enforce—or fails to respond within 90 days—as not substantially enforcing the new rules.
A provider or employing entity can elect to exclude its plan from the charging and lab‑choice requirements for specified plan years, but that election cannot be used to avoid the rule on contract duration for limited‑scope plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Provider billing for non‑covered items; definition of covered services
This subsection allows a participating dentist or optometrist to charge an enrollee for items or services ‘‘not covered’’ by the plan, capped at the provider’s usual and customary amount for non‑enrollees. Practically, that authorizes balance billing where an item falls outside the plan’s reimbursement obligation. The provision ties the concept of coverage to whether the plan is obligated to pay an amount that is ‘‘reasonable and is not nominal or de minimis,’’ which creates a fact‑intensive test plans, providers, and regulators will need to apply when deciding whether a service is covered.
Dental cleaning exception — limited to contracted fee
This paragraph carves out dental cleanings: participating dentists may not balance‑bill for cleanings and must accept the contracted network fee even if the cleaning would push the patient past an annual maximum. That creates a single‑service limitation on provider billing power designed to preserve an element of out‑of‑pocket predictability for a common preventive procedure.
Term extensions for limited‑scope dental/vision plan agreements
The statute bars plans that offer limited‑scope dental or vision benefits from extending provider participation agreements beyond two years without the provider’s explicit acceptance of each extension. Agreements may be extended for unlimited terms only if the provider gives prior acceptance for each extension. This shifts leverage in contracting by preventing plans from auto‑renewing multi‑year arrangements without affirmative provider consent.
Prohibition on plan restrictions for laboratory and supplier choice
This clause forbids plans from directly or indirectly limiting the laboratory or supplier a participating dentist or optometrist may select when delivering services or materials. For providers, that protects clinical and business decisions; for plans, it removes a common cost‑control tool and may undermine negotiated discounts with preferred vendors.
State notification and enforcement posture
The Secretary must annually notify each state of its authority to enforce the new requirements under existing enforcement provisions and request confirmation on whether the state will take on enforcement. If a state declines or fails to respond within 90 days, the Secretary treats the state as not substantially enforcing the provisions, which matters because other federal enforcement mechanisms (under section 2723) depend on that finding. The provision creates an affirmative administrative step that links federal backstops to state behavior.
Provider election to exclude and interaction with state law
Providers or employing entities can elect to have the charging and lab‑choice requirements not apply to a plan for a specified plan year (and renew through subsequent elections), though this election cannot be used to sidestep the rule on contract duration for limited‑scope plans. The bill also contains a conforming amendment to section 2722(c)(1) and an express statement that state law controlling insurance and limited‑scope plan standards has exclusive application where it conflicts with these amendments, effectively preserving a significant role for state regulation and creating potential preemption or coordination questions.
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
- Participating dentists and dental practices — The bill lets them balance‑bill for non‑covered items up to their usual charges, preserves their ability to choose labs and suppliers, and prevents multi‑year auto‑renewals without their consent, improving negotiating leverage and revenue clarity.
- Participating optometrists and optometry clinics — They gain the same ability to bill enrollees for services outside plan obligations and the freedom to select external labs/suppliers, which can protect clinical decisions and supplier relationships.
- Independent dental and vision laboratories and suppliers — Because plans may not force providers to use preferred vendors, independent labs can retain or grow business from providers who choose them.
- States that opt to enforce the new rules — States that confirm enforcement maintain regulatory control and can shape how the bill applies locally, preserving influence over marketplace outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health insurers and limited‑scope plan issuers — Plans lose a common tool for controlling costs (preferred lab networks), face potential increases in out‑of‑network charges, and must revise provider agreement templates and claims/payment workflows.
- Employers and other plan sponsors — Increased plan costs or administrative complexity could raise premiums or plan administration expenses, and sponsors will need to update vendor contracts and communication materials.
- Patients/enrollees — While access to care for non‑covered services may increase, enrollees bear the direct risk of out‑of‑pocket charges when services fall outside the plan’s binding obligations; the protection for cleanings is narrow and limited to that service.
- State insurance departments — States face the operational burden of deciding whether to enforce, responding to Secretary notifications, and handling disputes and complaints if they choose to take on enforcement duties.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill advances provider autonomy—letting participating dentists and optometrists charge for non‑covered care and pick their suppliers—at the expense of predictable, uniform consumer financial protections and plan cost‑management tools; resolving that trade‑off forces a choice between broad provider flexibility and stable, standardized protections and rates for enrollees.
The bill creates practical ambiguities that regulators, plans, and courts will need to resolve. The key definitional hinge—whether a plan is ‘‘obligated to pay an amount that is reasonable and is not nominal or de minimis’’—is subjective and will generate disputes over which services are ‘‘covered’’ for the purpose of permitting provider billing.
That standard invites litigation or policy guidance on what counts as ‘‘reasonable’’ and how contractual limitations (like frequency caps or annual maximums) interact with the right to collect from enrollees.
Parallel implementation challenges arise from the dual federal‑state architecture embedded in the text. The statute directs the Secretary to solicit state enforcement decisions, yet also preserves the exclusive application of state law where it conflicts with the federal amendments.
That combination can produce uneven enforcement: some states may affirmatively enforce the federal rule, others may assert stricter state protections that override it, and still others may decline enforcement, triggering federal backstops. The provider election to exclude a plan from certain requirements further fragments consumer protections on a plan‑by‑plan or provider‑by‑provider basis.
Finally, the prohibition on plan control over lab choice undercuts a key mechanism many issuers use to capture savings, which may translate into higher unit costs or higher premiums unless plans find alternative cost controls.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.