2013 legislative report

AzDA eliminated an unfair tax, protected clinical judgment, and shielded dentists from harmful pricing mandates

During the 2013 legislative session, AzDA secured tax relief for orthodontic practices, strengthened protections against corporate interference and retaliation, improved Dental Board complaint rules, and prevented direct-pay pricing mandates from applying to dentists.

Tax relief Clinical independence Complaint reform Practice protection
2 major AzDA-supported bills signed into law
$36,000 in disputed orthodontic appliance taxes erased
6 years statute of limitations established for BODEX complaints
100% dentist exemption preserved from direct-pay posting rules
Featured financial protection

After a Chandler orthodontist was assessed more than $36,000 in back taxes on clear aligners, AzDA acted quickly to clarify that orthodontic appliances dispensed by dentists are not retail sales subject to state or municipal transaction privilege taxes.

State tax exemption Local tax exemption Retroactive protection Future audits prevented
Tax relief

Orthodontic devices removed from retail taxation

HB2259 prevented Arizona and its municipalities from treating orthodontic appliances dispensed by dentists as taxable retail transactions.

Signed into law
HB2259

Orthodontic appliance tax exemption

Signed April 17, 2013
Practice and patient impact

Dentists no longer faced state or local retail taxes when dispensing clear aligners or other orthodontic appliances as part of patient treatment.

Statewide exemption

Orthodontic devices dispensed by dentists were excluded from Arizona's retail tax classification.

Local protection

Cities and other municipalities were prohibited from imposing their own transaction taxes on those appliances.

All appliances covered

The exemption applied broadly to orthodontic appliances, including clear aligners.

Retroactive relief

The law applied retroactively, eliminating the Chandler orthodontist's disputed assessment of more than $36,000.

Why AzDA acted

AzDA recognized that the city's interpretation could spread to other orthodontists and municipalities, creating substantial new tax exposure across the state.

Clinical independence

Protecting dentists from corporate interference and retaliation

HB2513 gave the Dental Board meaningful enforcement authority when a registered business entity interfered with a dentist's clinical judgment.

Signed into law
HB2513

Clinical judgment, retaliation, and Dental Board reform

Signed into law
Practice impact

Employed dentists gained a formal process for challenging interference with clinical decisions and protection against retaliatory employment actions.

Clinical judgment protected

The law replaced the broader phrase "professional judgment" with the more precise term "clinical judgment".

Written notice process

A dentist may notify the registered business entity in writing when corporate direction interferes with clinical care.

Required response

The business entity must provide a written response within 10 days.

Retaliation prohibited

The entity may not take adverse employment action against a licensee for using the statutory protection.

Board authority

The legislation corrected an oversight by granting BODEX authority to sanction registered business entities for improper interference.

Complaint deadline

A six-year statute of limitations was established for Dental Board complaints, aligning with record-retention requirements.

Complaint reform
  • Most BODEX complaints must be initiated within six years.
  • The time limit corresponds to the period during which dental records generally must be maintained.
  • The limitation does not apply to medical malpractice cases.
Retired license reform
  • Removed the requirement that a dentist be at least 65 years old to obtain a retired license.
  • Qualified retired licensees may continue volunteering at charitable clinics.
  • Allows earlier-career retirees to serve vulnerable patients.
Defensive advocacy

Dentists protected from direct-pay pricing mandates

AzDA opposed legislation requiring healthcare practices to publicly post prices for their most commonly performed procedures and helped preserve an exemption for dental practices.

Dentists exempt
SB1115 / HB2045

Direct-pay procedure pricing mandate

Dental exemption preserved
Why did AzDA oppose it

A mandated list price for common procedures could mislead patients because the actual treatment and cost depend on the patient's examination, diagnosis, and clinical presentation.

Problems identified by AzDA

  • Public price posting could create antitrust concerns.
  • Patients might mistake an incomplete posted figure for the final cost of treatment.
  • Small practices could be placed at a disadvantage compared with large organizations that operate with lower overhead.
  • The mandate could interfere with treatment-specific clinical and financial discussions.
Legislative outcome
  • AzDA joined a coalition seeking a gubernatorial veto.
  • Governor Brewer vetoed SB1115.
  • Modified provisions were later added to HB2045.
  • The final law did not apply to dental practices.
Practical result

Although a reduced version of the pricing requirement became law for other healthcare providers, dentists remained exempt from the mandate.

Direct value for Arizona dentists

2013 delivered financial relief, stronger clinical protections, and regulatory certainty

AzDA responded to real threats facing individual practices and converted them into statewide protections benefiting dentists, dental teams, and patients across Arizona.

Learn more about advocacy Join or renew with AzDA