Who created the record and what kind of record it is.
Evidence behind DenQAI · register v2026.07.15
See what each source supports—and what it cannot prove.
Search by topic, place, issuer, or claim. Every record states the claim, scope, exclusions, source kind, support relationship, authority, commercial-interest treatment, review date, and reviewer. A current public source can still be the wrong source for a specific address, entity, patient group, contract, or transaction.
How to read a source record
Source present does not mean decision proven.
Start with “what this supports” and “what it does not prove.” Then check how the source relates to this exact claim, what authority it carries, where and when it applies, and who must recheck it.
Whether the source directly, partially, or only contextually supports this claim.
Binding law, official guidance, professional guidance, research, experience, and opinion are not interchangeable.
Source date, reviewed-on date, effective period, and next-review date remain separate.
Registered claims85
Required identifiersClaim ID + source ID
Stale behaviorDue and overdue states remain visible
85 of 85 records shown
Trade or commercial publication · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateState individual, corporate, and sales-tax screening
The linked secondary state series is a screening input, not row-level primary-source verification or a dentist’s final owner or practice tax burden.
What this source supports
Secondary published statewide top-rate screening series
What it does not prove
Row-level primary-source provenance except separately registered corrections; brackets, local tax, gross receipts, minimum tax, conformity, classification, deductions, credits, exact address, and taxpayer facts
Where it applies
United States; state-specific. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Dental CPA or state-and-local tax specialist
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateNew Hampshire Business Profits Tax and Business Enterprise Tax classification
New Hampshire’s 7.5% Business Profits Tax applies to taxable business profits; the separate Business Enterprise Tax uses an alternative enterprise-value tax base.
What this source supports
Classification and published headline rates for BPT and BET
What it does not prove
Taxpayer nexus, thresholds, base computation, credits, apportionment, filing, and qualified tax advice
Where it applies
New Hampshire. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
New Hampshire state-and-local tax specialist
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateTennessee franchise and excise tax classification
Tennessee’s 6.5% excise tax applies to Tennessee taxable income; the separate franchise tax uses net worth or real and tangible property as described by the Department of Revenue.
What this source supports
Classification and published headline rates for franchise and excise taxes
What it does not prove
Taxpayer nexus, base computation, exemptions, credits, apportionment, filing, and qualified tax advice
Where it applies
Tennessee. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Tennessee state-and-local tax specialist
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateState population and one-year change
Vintage 2025 population estimates support statewide scale and direction, not local dental demand.
What this source supports
State population and annual change
What it does not prove
County, tract, drive-time, migration composition, insurance, utilization, and dental demand
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Professional association · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateProfessionally active dentists by state
Professionally active dentist counts do not establish local clinical FTE or patient-segment access.
What this source supports
State professionally active dentist supply
What it does not prove
Local FTE, scope, payer access, new-patient status, and site capacity
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Dental workforce researcher
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateState household income
State real median household income is economic context; local ACS estimates and margins of error are needed for a trade area.
What this source supports
State real median household income
What it does not prove
Local income distribution, insurance, household composition, and sampling error
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateState pass-through entity tax status
PTET availability does not establish a benefit for a particular owner or entity.
What this source supports
Availability and high-level state treatment
What it does not prove
Eligibility, rate, credit, add-back, residency, entity, payment, revocability, and multi-state facts
Where it applies
United States; state-specific. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Dental CPA or state-and-local tax specialist
Professional association · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateDentist workforce and rural supply
National and state workforce supply identifies access questions but cannot replace a local capacity census.
What this source supports
National, state, and rural workforce context
What it does not prove
Local provider days, general scope, payer access, openings, and demand
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Dental workforce researcher
Professional association · Directly supports · Verified
Within review datePrivate-practice ownership trend
Private-practice ownership fell from 84.7% in 2005 to 72.5% in 2023; the series does not identify one cause.
What this source supports
National dentist ownership trend
What it does not prove
Causation, practice survival, quality, buyer outcomes, or local opportunity
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Professional association · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateDSO affiliation trend
DSO affiliation reached 16.1% in 2024; affiliation is not proof of beneficial ownership, local control, or concentration.
What this source supports
National DSO affiliation trend
What it does not prove
Beneficial ownership, control rights, local concentration, clinical policy, or outcomes
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateDentist busyness, waits, and staffing
The Q1 2026 ADA panel describes national respondent conditions, not a local demand or labor forecast.
What this source supports
National panel conditions
What it does not prove
Local demand, staffing success, wait time, collections, and nonresponse bias
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateNPI and address limitations
An NPI helps identify a possible person or site but does not prove licensure, credentialing, plan enrollment, or current clinical activity.
What this source supports
NPI purpose and provider-supplied record limitations
What it does not prove
Licensure, credentialing, payer participation, current FTE, ownership, and quality
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateDental shortage designation
Dental HPSA scoring measures access and resource-allocation factors, not commercial practice viability.
What this source supports
Shortage designation method
What it does not prove
Visit completion, payer mix, staffing, collections, target capacity, and investment viability
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Dental workforce researcher
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateLocal employer establishments and payroll
County Business Patterns supports local employer context but does not identify every dentist or prove clinical capacity.
What this source supports
Employer establishments, employment, and payroll
What it does not prove
Nonemployers, provider identity, clinical FTE, payer access, and demand
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Government agency · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateDental staffing wages by geography
OEWS area wages are benchmarks, not an offer-acceptance or vacancy-duration forecast.
What this source supports
Occupational wage estimates
What it does not prove
Benefits, hours, commute, recruiting duration, offer acceptance, and role design
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Workforce analyst
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateCompetitive-research boundary
Public market research is different from exchanging nonpublic prices, wages, future strategy, or other competitively sensitive information.
What this source supports
Federal competition guidance
What it does not prove
State law, fact-specific legal advice, privilege, and protected information
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Antitrust counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateMedicaid dental benefits, fees, and utilization
State FFS baskets and public utilization measures are screening context, not a code quote or managed-care contract forecast.
What this source supports
State FFS fee baskets, benefits, and utilization
What it does not prove
Managed-care contracts, exact codes, amendments, denials, and practice-specific collections
Where it applies
United States; state-specific. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Dental Medicaid specialist
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateMedicaid clean-claim timing
Federal clean-claim timing does not predict service-to-cash timing for a particular office.
What this source supports
State-agency payment of clean practitioner claims
What it does not prove
Incomplete claims, prior authorization, managed care, rework, recoupment, and service-to-cash delay
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Healthcare counsel or Medicaid specialist
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether a Medicaid beneficiary may be billed for a missed appointment
CMS states that Medicaid payment-in-full rules prohibit billing beneficiaries for missed appointments because no service was delivered. The current state program and managed-care contract still require confirmation.
What this source supports
Federal Medicaid payment-in-full boundary for missed appointments
What it does not prove
State implementation, managed-care contract terms, access interventions, commercial-plan rules, Medicare policy, or legal advice
Where it applies
United States; Medicaid. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified Medicaid specialist and healthcare counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review datePayer fee-schedule negotiation
Public negotiation guidance cannot replace the executed agreement, product, amendment, and state law.
What this source supports
General payer negotiation method
What it does not prove
Executed terms, leased networks, products, state law, and practice-specific fees
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Dental payer specialist and counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateDental-practice broker compensation
ADA reports a general broker-fee convention; the actual engagement and representation control.
What this source supports
General seller-side cost context
What it does not prove
Actual fee base, duties, licensing, dual agency, conflicts, and transaction facts
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Transaction counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review datePractice-sale valuation and buyer records
No public rule of thumb substitutes for target-specific valuation and buyer affordability analysis.
What this source supports
General valuation education
What it does not prove
Target records, buyer-specific cash flow, tax, financing, clinical transfer, and formal valuation opinion
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified valuator and dental CPA
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateLender comparison
A lender proposal or approval is not an appraisal, fiduciary recommendation, or proof the buyer case is safe.
What this source supports
General lender-shopping guidance
What it does not prove
Approval, underwriting, valuation, conflicts, disclosure authorization, and buyer risk tolerance
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Independent dental lender or finance advisor
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateBusiness-purpose financial privacy scope
Regulation P excludes business-purpose financial services from its consumer scope; other law, policy, contract, consent, and facts may still apply.
What this source supports
Federal Regulation P scope
What it does not prove
Other privacy law, confidentiality, contract, consent, policy, and remedies
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Banking or privacy counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateBank third-party relationship risk
Supervisory third-party guidance does not decide whether a specific borrower disclosure was authorized or harmful.
What this source supports
Bank risk-management expectations
What it does not prove
Specific disclosure authorization, confidentiality, private rights, causation, and damages
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Banking counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateBusiness-sale tax allocation
Applicable asset acquisitions generally use the residual method and Form 8594; actual entity and transaction facts control.
What this source supports
Federal asset-sale allocation overview
What it does not prove
Entity, purchase agreement, state tax, elections, basis, recapture, goodwill, and owner facts
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Transaction tax advisor
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateCurrent SBA loan origination policy
The current SOP and lender interpretation control; a summary cannot become a permanent lending rule.
What this source supports
SBA loan-program operating policy
What it does not prove
Lender overlays, eligibility determination, underwriting, later notices, and transaction facts
Where it applies
United States. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
SBA lender and counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review datePractice closure and records
A vacated dental suite does not erase patient-record, notice, retention, privacy, security, waste, lease, or state-law duties.
What this source supports
General closure responsibilities
What it does not prove
State-specific records, notices, ownership, privacy, environmental, lease, and abandonment law
Where it applies
United States; state-specific. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Dental counsel and privacy officer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHIPAA cloud services
A BAA and risk management remain necessary where applicable; product privacy marketing is not a substitute.
What this source supports
HIPAA cloud-service obligations
What it does not prove
Product configuration, state privacy law, actual BAA, security controls, and user conduct
Where it applies
United States. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Healthcare privacy counsel
Vendor or standard setter · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 23 daysOpenAI model selection
Choose capabilities through task-specific evaluation; do not treat a temporary model label as a permanent DenQAI recommendation.
What this source supports
Capability and evaluation method
What it does not prove
Task accuracy, privacy, retention, BAA status, cost, latency, and future availability
Where it applies
Provider documentation. Method only.
Who should recheck it
AI workflow reviewer
Vendor or standard setter · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 23 daysAnthropic model selection
Provider descriptions guide testing but do not establish fitness, privacy, or accuracy for a DenQAI decision.
What this source supports
Provider capability catalog
What it does not prove
Task accuracy, privacy, retention, contractual terms, and future availability
Where it applies
Provider documentation. Method only.
Who should recheck it
AI workflow reviewer
Vendor or standard setter · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 23 daysGoogle model selection
Large context and multimodal input do not remove retrieval, citation, extraction, or calculation validation requirements.
What this source supports
Provider capability catalog
What it does not prove
Task accuracy, privacy, retention, contractual terms, and future availability
Where it applies
Provider documentation. Method only.
Who should recheck it
AI workflow reviewer
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateMinnesota dental-practice authority
Minnesota dental-practice and professional-firm questions require the Dentistry chapter and Professional Firms Act to be read with the actual entity, contracts, and control rights.
What this source supports
Dental licensure, professional entities, practice duties, and source trail
What it does not prove
Legal opinion, beneficial ownership, management control, contract validity, and transaction-specific conclusions
Where it applies
Minnesota. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Minnesota dental counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateSouth Dakota dental-practice authority
South Dakota identifies separate dental-practice, dental-corporation, administrative-rule, and radiation-control authorities that must be reconciled for the proposed entity and site.
What this source supports
Official source trail for dental law, corporations, rules, and radiation controls
What it does not prove
Entity qualification, beneficial ownership, management control, contract validity, and legal opinion
Where it applies
South Dakota. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
South Dakota dental counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 15 daysTennessee active-practice ownership
A Tennessee state audit describes T.C.A. § 63-5-121 as requiring an active dental practice to be owned by a Tennessee-licensed dentist; the current statute and proposed control structure must be rechecked before reliance.
What this source supports
Official source trail for the licensed-dentist ownership question
What it does not prove
Current-law opinion, DSO/MSO legality, beneficial ownership, management control, and contract conclusions
Where it applies
Tennessee. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Tennessee dental counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateOregon dental-practice authority
Oregon dental-practice questions begin with ORS chapters 679 and 680 and OAR chapter 818, but the Legislature warns that the 2025 ORS edition does not include later session changes.
What this source supports
Dental statutes, rules, licensure, and current-law source trail
What it does not prove
Current-law legal opinion, entity qualification, contract validity, and transaction-specific conclusions
Where it applies
Oregon. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Oregon dental counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review datePennsylvania dental-practice authority
Pennsylvania dental-practice and restricted-professional-company questions require the Board’s Dental Law and regulations, entity filings, and proposed control documents to be reconciled.
What this source supports
Dental licensure, professional-entity, and practice-rule source trail
What it does not prove
Legal opinion, beneficial ownership, management control, contract validity, and transaction-specific conclusions
Where it applies
Pennsylvania. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Pennsylvania dental counsel
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review datePennsylvania healthcare-practitioner noncompete scope
Pennsylvania Act 74’s defined healthcare-practitioner list does not name dentists; a dentist should not assume the Act supplies a dentist-specific noncompete rule.
What this source supports
Whether dentists appear in Act 74’s defined practitioner list
What it does not prove
Enforceability under other law, sale-of-business terms, facts, remedies, and legal opinion
Where it applies
Pennsylvania. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Pennsylvania employment and dental counsel
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhen an owner case series can meet the federal research and human-subject definitions
A systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge can be research; interaction with living individuals or use of identifiable private information can make it human-subjects research.
What this source supports
Federal definitions and general applicability framework
What it does not prove
Project-specific determination, exemption, IRB jurisdiction, state law, institutional policy, HIPAA, consent waiver, and legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; federal scope. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified independent human-subjects or research-governance reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether a public decision chart can approve or exempt the pilot
OHRP decision charts are general aids and do not replace the full regulations or a project-specific determination.
What this source supports
Research, human-subject, exemption, IRB, and consent decision sequence
What it does not prove
Binding project determination, legal advice, state law, institutional coverage, HIPAA, and publication ethics
Where it applies
United States; federal scope. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified independent human-subjects or research-governance reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether calling the case series product improvement avoids research review
An activity can have an improvement purpose and also a research purpose; the label does not resolve whether 45 C.F.R. Part 46 may apply.
What this source supports
Research-purpose and quality-improvement distinction
What it does not prove
Project-specific determination, exemption, institutional coverage, state law, HIPAA, and legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; federal scope. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified independent human-subjects or research-governance reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether removing names is enough to de-identify health information
HIPAA provides Expert Determination and Safe Harbor pathways for de-identification; removing names alone does not establish that information is de-identified.
What this source supports
HIPAA de-identification concepts, methods, and re-identification risk
What it does not prove
Certification of a DenQAI file, non-HIPAA privacy law, state law, contractual duties, security adequacy, and legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA-covered contexts. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified privacy counsel and de-identification reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether owner authorization alone clears patient PHI for a research case series
HIPAA establishes specific conditions for covered entities to use or disclose PHI for research; an owner’s participation does not authorize disclosure of patient information.
What this source supports
Research uses and disclosures of PHI by covered entities
What it does not prove
Authorization drafting, waiver eligibility, covered-entity status, state law, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, contractual duties, and legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA-covered contexts. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified health-privacy counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateEthical principles for a voluntary owner case series
Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice provide the ethical framework for consent, risk-benefit review, and fair participant selection.
What this source supports
Respect for persons, beneficence, justice, consent, risk-benefit assessment, and subject selection
What it does not prove
Project approval, legal compliance, institutional policy, consent-form approval, privacy adequacy, and research-method validity
Where it applies
United States; ethical framework. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified independent human-subjects or research-ethics reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHow a future persistent workspace should organize cybersecurity outcomes
NIST CSF 2.0 organizes cybersecurity outcomes across Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover; using the framework does not certify a product or prescribe one implementation.
What this source supports
High-level cybersecurity risk-management outcomes
What it does not prove
Product certification, legal compliance, control implementation, threat model, penetration test, vendor review, and project-specific acceptance
Where it applies
United States; voluntary cross-sector framework. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified security architect and independent application-security reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHow a future workspace should frame privacy risk
The NIST Privacy Framework is a voluntary tool for identifying and managing privacy risk; it does not determine DenQAI's legal obligations or certify a data practice.
What this source supports
Privacy-risk identification, assessment, prioritization, and communication
What it does not prove
Legal advice, regulatory applicability, consent, product certification, privacy notice approval, and data-protection adequacy
Where it applies
United States; voluntary cross-sector framework. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified privacy counsel and privacy-risk practitioner
Vendor or standard setter · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHow technical application-security requirements should be specified and verified
OWASP ASVS provides a basis for testing web-application technical security controls and a requirements list for secure development; linking to it is not evidence that DenQAI has passed verification.
What this source supports
Web-application security requirements and verification coverage
What it does not prove
Certification, completed verification, infrastructure adequacy, privacy compliance, legal compliance, and project-specific risk acceptance
Where it applies
International open application-security standard. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Independent application-security reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy a future workflow involving ePHI would require a separate legal and security determination
The HIPAA Security Rule establishes administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for ePHI maintained or transmitted by regulated entities; a public local-file tool cannot determine whether a future DenQAI role or workflow is regulated.
What this source supports
Administrative, physical, and technical safeguards for ePHI in regulated entities
What it does not prove
Covered-entity or business-associate determination, legal advice, contract terms, state law, proposed rules, product compliance, and risk-analysis sufficiency
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA-regulated contexts. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified health-privacy counsel and security reviewer
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether states must publish Medicaid fee-for-service fee schedules
42 C.F.R. § 447.203 requires public, current Medicaid fee-for-service fee-schedule publication; the rule does not itself raise rates or make dental part of every required Medicare comparative analysis.
What this source supports
Public Medicaid fee-for-service fee-schedule availability, organization, effective date, and update timing
What it does not prove
Rate adequacy, managed-care contracts, dental-specific Medicare comparison, claim payment, patient access, and practice collections
Where it applies
United States; state Medicaid fee-for-service programs. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Medicaid specialist and healthcare counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateMassachusetts dental loss-ratio requirements and reporting
Massachusetts applies an 83% minimum dental loss ratio to covered insured dental plans and publishes carrier financial statement reports; those aggregates do not establish a local fee or access effect.
What this source supports
Minimum ratio, covered insured plans, reporting, and official carrier observations
What it does not prove
Self-funded plan reach, exact network fees, contracting conduct, administrative burden, causal access effects, and practice economics
Where it applies
Massachusetts; covered insured dental benefit plans. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Massachusetts insurance counsel, actuary, and dental payer specialist
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 23 daysWhether the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact currently issues privileges
The compact has reached activation status and thirteen states had enacted it as of May 13, 2026, but the official compact site states that compact privileges are not yet being issued.
What this source supports
Enactment count, activation status, and privilege-issuance status
What it does not prove
Individual eligibility, state scope, processing time, payer credentialing, hiring, relocation, retention, and clinical capacity
Where it applies
Compact-enacting states. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
State licensure counsel and workforce analyst
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHow NHSC loan repayment could affect dental recruitment at an approved site
NHSC loan repayment is a clinician benefit exchanged for qualifying service; site approval, shortage-area, access, sliding-fee, Medicaid/CHIP, data, and compliance conditions must be tested separately from the award.
What this source supports
Dental site requirements, clinician service condition, sliding-fee and payer obligations, and current program structure
What it does not prove
Automatic site approval, guaranteed award, owner revenue, permanent wage subsidy, accepted offer, post-obligation retention, and practice viability
Where it applies
United States; NHSC-approved sites. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
NHSC program specialist, dental operations reviewer, and counsel
Statute or regulation · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateMinnesota employment noncompete and sale-of-business boundary
Minnesota makes covered employment covenants not to compete void and unenforceable while preserving defined sale-of-business and dissolution exceptions; other restrictions remain separate.
What this source supports
Covered employment noncompetes, independent-contractor definition, sale and dissolution exceptions, and choice-of-law protection
What it does not prove
Contract opinion, nonsolicitation, confidentiality, trade secrets, patient choice, transaction reasonableness, other states, and causal workforce effects
Where it applies
Minnesota. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Minnesota employment and transaction counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhich federal Medicaid dental measures support policy outcome tracking in 2026
CMS publishes 2026 specifications for dental measures including oral evaluation during pregnancy and non-traumatic dental-condition emergency visits; a measure change does not identify its cause.
What this source supports
Published 2026 dental measure definitions and technical considerations
What it does not prove
Causal attribution, complete adult dental access, local practice capacity, owner viability, coding completeness, and comparison design
Where it applies
United States; Medicaid and CHIP Core Sets. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Medicaid quality-measure specialist and research-method reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy a before-and-after change alone is weak evidence of policy effect
Evaluation design must match the question; causal claims require a defensible counterfactual, and comparison-group credibility and measurement design limit the inference.
What this source supports
Evaluation questions, design choices, comparison groups, time-series logic, and inference limits
What it does not prove
A completed DenQAI evaluation design, statistical specification, domain validation, legal review, and causal approval
Where it applies
Evaluation-method guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified evaluation-method and domain reviewer
Trade or commercial publication · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether specialized dental-practice brokerage existed before the current DSO era
A regional dental-practice brokerage’s commercial history states that it was founded in 1988; this establishes a company self-description, not national broker counts, market share, or independent verification of every historical detail.
What this source supports
Commercial evidence that one specialized dental brokerage reports operating since 1988
What it does not prove
Independent historical audit, national broker count, industry revenue, transaction share, quality, compensation, DSO ties, and causal effect
Where it applies
United States; commercial self-description. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Research editor and dental-industry historian
Trade or commercial publication · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether a national dental-practice broker alliance existed before the current DSO era
A member firm’s commercial history states that American Dental Sales was formed in 1995; this establishes a commercial self-description of an alliance, not its national transaction share or current governance.
What this source supports
Commercial evidence that a dental-practice broker alliance reports formation in 1995
What it does not prove
Independent historical audit, member count over time, market share, fees, transaction quality, DSO relationships, and causal effect
Where it applies
United States; commercial self-description. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Research editor and dental-industry historian
Peer-reviewed research · Directly supports · Verified
Within review dateHow private-equity affiliation among dentists changed from 2015 through 2021
Peer-reviewed research found that the percentage of dentists affiliated with private equity increased from 6.6% in 2015 to 12.8% in 2021; affiliation does not establish the result, ownership rights, or clinical conduct of a particular organization.
What this source supports
Dentist and practice affiliation with identified private-equity ownership during the study period
What it does not prove
Post-2021 prevalence, complete transaction census, broker causation, organization-specific control, quality, price, treatment, and owner outcomes
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Health-services researcher and research editor
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether documented private-equity dental transactions accelerated after 2015
The ADA’s summary of peer-reviewed research reports fewer than 20 documented PE dental transactions annually through 2015, followed by 62 in 2019, 46 in 2020, and 96 in 2021; the source does not claim a complete national transaction census.
What this source supports
Documented transaction counts summarized by the ADA
What it does not prove
Complete market volume, transaction value, broker participation, undetected acquisitions, post-2021 transactions, and causal effect
Where it applies
United States. Comparable with limits.
Who should recheck it
Research editor and transaction-data reviewer
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether philosophy-of-care matching was recognized as part of dental succession
The ADA described a 2019 transition service that matched dentists on practice and philosophy-of-care characteristics; the announcement verifies the service design, not its later success or current availability.
What this source supports
Association announcement documenting a philosophy-of-care matching design
What it does not prove
Program outcomes, current availability, prevalence of poor matches, buyer quality, sale price, and causal effect
Where it applies
United States; pilot launch locations. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Research editor
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether DOJ’s older healthcare antitrust policy statements remain in force
The Department of Justice withdrew three older healthcare antitrust policy statements on February 3, 2023 and stated that case-by-case enforcement better fits current healthcare markets.
What this source supports
Status of the three named DOJ healthcare enforcement policy statements
What it does not prove
Fact-specific legality, state law, advisory opinion, network approval, information-exchange approval, and current enforcement prediction
Where it applies
United States; federal antitrust enforcement. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Specialized antitrust counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether the FTC’s 1996 and 2011 healthcare enforcement policy statements remain in force
The Federal Trade Commission withdrew the 1996 and 2011 healthcare antitrust policy statements on July 14, 2023 and said healthcare conduct would be evaluated case by case under general antitrust principles.
What this source supports
Status of the named FTC healthcare enforcement policy statements
What it does not prove
Fact-specific legality, state law, advisory opinion, network approval, information-exchange approval, and current enforcement prediction
Where it applies
United States; federal antitrust enforcement. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Specialized antitrust counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether the 2000 Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors remain current agency guidance
The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice withdrew the 2000 competitor-collaboration guidelines on December 11, 2024 and stated that collaboration analysis would rely on applicable statutes and case law.
What this source supports
Status of the withdrawn 2000 federal agency guidelines
What it does not prove
Fact-specific legality, state law, advisory opinion, current enforcement prediction, approval of an information exchange, purchasing group, payer activity, or other collaboration
Where it applies
United States; federal antitrust enforcement. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Specialized antitrust counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhat the 2026 federal business-collaboration inquiry establishes
The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice opened a public inquiry on February 23, 2026 about potential updated business-collaboration guidance and later extended the comment deadline to May 21, 2026; the inquiry itself is not final guidance, a safe harbor, an advisory opinion, or approval of a particular structure.
What this source supports
Existence and stated purpose of the public inquiry
What it does not prove
Final agency guidance, a legal safe harbor, fact-specific legality, state law, approval of a purchasing group, information exchange, payer activity, or other collaboration
Where it applies
United States; federal antitrust enforcement. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Specialized antitrust counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateHow medical-device recall and early-alert records should inform purchasing review
FDA publishes medical-device recall information and early alerts that can inform a current product review; absence from a listed record does not establish product identity, authenticity, suitability, safety, or freedom from future action.
What this source supports
Official recall and early-alert information
What it does not prove
Product approval, clearance, authorization, authenticity, clinical suitability, quality assurance, lot status, distributor authorization, complaint resolution, or professional clinical judgment
Where it applies
United States; medical-device safety communications. Target-specific only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified clinical and regulatory reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether FDA establishment registration or a registration certificate proves device approval
FDA explains that registration of a medical-device establishment and an FDA registration certificate do not denote approval, clearance, authorization, or endorsement of a device or facility.
What this source supports
Meaning and limitations of establishment registration and registration certificates
What it does not prove
Device classification, approval, clearance, authorization, listing status, authenticity, distributor authority, clinical suitability, or legal conclusion for a particular product
Where it applies
United States; medical-device regulation. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified clinical and regulatory reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy accessibility must be tested during dental site and plan review
The U.S. Access Board guide explains current DOJ and DOT ADA Standards for accessible routes, entrances, doors, parking, toilet rooms, clear floor space, and other elements; the guide must be used with the complete standards, and state and local requirements remain separate.
What this source supports
Federal accessibility design guide and the need to use it with the complete standards
What it does not prove
Site-specific compliance opinion, state and local codes, lease allocation, professional liability, permit approval, existing-condition determination, and construction acceptance
Where it applies
United States; federal accessibility standards. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Licensed local architect, accessibility specialist, code reviewer, and counsel as applicable
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy infection prevention belongs in facility programming and opening readiness
CDC describes its dental infection-prevention summary as basic expectations for safe care in dental settings and includes administrative, environmental, instrument, supply, and Standard Precaution considerations that should inform workflow and readiness review.
What this source supports
Basic dental infection-prevention expectations and checklist categories
What it does not prove
Site-specific compliance, product instructions, sterilizer validation, OSHA duties, state rules, water-quality program, exposure-control plan, clinical policy approval, and opening authorization
Where it applies
United States; dental infection-prevention guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified dental infection-prevention reviewer, owner dentist, and governing authorities as applicable
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy instrument reprocessing is modeled as trained, protected dental-practice work
CDC explains that dental instrument reprocessing requires multiple correctly sequenced steps and recommends assigning reprocessing responsibilities to dental health care personnel trained in the required steps and appropriate PPE; DenQAI therefore keeps active work, equipment cycles, monitoring, release, storage, and backup coverage visible rather than treating reprocessing as spare cleaning labor.
What this source supports
General dental reprocessing sequence, trained responsibility, PPE, monitoring, records, and protected storage
What it does not prove
A site-specific protocol, product instructions, sterilizer validation, state or local record requirements, OSHA compliance conclusion, equipment capacity guarantee, clinical authorization, or staffing ratio
Where it applies
United States; dental infection-prevention guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified dental infection-prevention reviewer, owner dentist, equipment manufacturer or service professional, and governing authorities as applicable
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy the staffing and training plan keeps worker-safety duties outside an efficiency calculation
OSHA's dentistry overview identifies bloodborne pathogens, hazard communication, ionizing radiation, ergonomics, and other workplace hazards relevant to dental settings, while 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030 establishes bloodborne-pathogens requirements for covered occupational exposure; DenQAI therefore flags employer policy, training, PPE, exposure-control, and professional-review needs without presenting a compliance conclusion.
What this source supports
General dental workplace-hazard categories and the existence of bloodborne-pathogens requirements for covered occupational exposure
What it does not prove
Applicability conclusion, state-plan rule, office-specific exposure determination, legal advice, written exposure-control plan, training program approval, incident response, or compliance certification
Where it applies
United States; federal occupational safety, subject to applicability and state-plan review. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified workplace-safety professional, employer, infection-prevention reviewer, and counsel as applicable
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhich categories belong in a dental claim-rejection and prevention review
ADA claims resources identify common denial, submission-error, cost-containment, coordination-of-benefits, contract, EOB, electronic-submission, and appeal issues; DenQAI uses those categories as a review taxonomy, not as payer-specific adjudication rules.
What this source supports
General dental claim-rejection, prevention, contract, and appeal categories
What it does not prove
Current CDT interpretation, patient-specific coding, clinical documentation sufficiency, payer product rules, contract rights, state law, appeal deadline, payment guarantee, or legal conclusion
Where it applies
United States; dental-benefit guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified dental coding or payer reviewer, owner dentist, and counsel as applicable
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy denial appeals require the reason, deadline, and supporting record
ADA appeal guidance recommends exhausting reasonable resolution paths and supplying appropriate supporting material; DenQAI therefore keeps appealability, deadline, evidence, owner, result, and prevention change visible rather than treating every denial as collectible cash.
What this source supports
General dental appeal preparation and supporting-material discipline
What it does not prove
Appeal right, deadline, correct recipient, clinical sufficiency, coverage, payment outcome, contract interpretation, state or federal remedy, and legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; dental-benefit guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer or coding reviewer, owner dentist, and counsel as applicable
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether preauthorization establishes that a plan will pay
HealthCare.gov states that preauthorization is not a promise that a health plan will cover the cost; DenQAI therefore presents benefit estimates and advance determinations as dated communication evidence rather than guarantees of dental payment.
What this source supports
General distinction between preauthorization and a payment promise
What it does not prove
Dental-product terms, eligibility, exact benefits, predetermination, contract duties, estimate accuracy, patient responsibility, state law, collection authority, or payment outcome
Where it applies
United States; federal consumer explanation. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer reviewer, counsel, and practice communication owner
Vendor or standard setter · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy a public workbench must not store payment-card data
The PCI Security Standards Council publishes security standards for payment account data; DenQAI therefore excludes card data and payment credentials from its public operating workbench and routes actual payment workflows to the practice’s provider, acquirer, and qualified reviewers.
What this source supports
Reason to exclude payment-account data from the public tool and require a governed payment environment
What it does not prove
PCI scope determination, compliance validation, merchant obligations, tokenization adequacy, state law, patient authorization, refund law, charge rights, processor terms, or security certification
Where it applies
Payment-card ecosystem; implementation-specific. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Payment provider or acquirer, qualified security reviewer, and counsel as applicable
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy an associate agreement label does not by itself determine federal worker classification
The IRS directs businesses to examine behavioral control, financial control, and the parties’ relationship when distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor; DenQAI therefore does not infer classification from a contract label or compensation percentage.
What this source supports
Federal IRS classification factors and the need to evaluate the complete relationship
What it does not prove
A classification conclusion, wage-law analysis, state tests, professional-entity law, benefits, payroll treatment, contract drafting, or enforcement prediction
Where it applies
United States; federal employment-tax classification. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified employment counsel and tax advisor in the applicable jurisdiction
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhat an NPI establishes—and what still requires payer-specific confirmation before an associate starts
CMS describes the NPI as the standard unique identifier used in covered transactions; an NPI does not by itself establish enrollment, participation, an effective date, the correct entity and location relationship, or claim configuration for a particular payer product.
What this source supports
NPI purpose in covered transactions and the boundary between identification and payer readiness
What it does not prove
Licensure, malpractice coverage, DEA requirements, payer enrollment, participation, fee schedule, roster, billing/rendering setup, effective date, or payment outcome
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA administrative simplification. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer-enrollment reviewer, counsel, and practice billing owner
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 24 daysWhether the amended 2024 federal Negative Option Rule remains in effect
The amended 2024 Negative Option Rule was vacated by the Eighth Circuit on July 8, 2025; the Federal Trade Commission opened a new advance notice of proposed rulemaking in March 2026. The new proceeding is not a final rule.
What this source supports
Federal status of the vacated 2024 amendment and the existence of the 2026 rulemaking inquiry
What it does not prove
State automatic-renewal law, contract obligations, fact-specific consumer-protection analysis, final outcome of the rulemaking, or legal advice
Where it applies
United States; federal consumer-protection rulemaking. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified consumer-protection counsel
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 24 daysWhether the 2024 federal independent-contractor rule is a timeless current test
The U.S. Department of Labor proposed in February 2026 to rescind and replace its 2024 independent-contractor rule and states that it is not applying the 2024 rule in investigations. Classification still requires current federal and state review of the actual relationship.
What this source supports
Status of the federal rulemaking and the need to avoid a timeless federal test
What it does not prove
Final-rule outcome, state-law tests, tax classification, professional-entity law, benefits, payroll treatment, contract drafting, or a classification conclusion
Where it applies
United States; federal wage-and-hour classification. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified employment counsel and tax adviser in the applicable jurisdiction
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Review due in 24 daysWhether proposed HIPAA Security Rule changes are current binding requirements
HHS continues to describe the cybersecurity changes as a proposed rule and states that the current HIPAA Security Rule remains in effect while rulemaking continues.
What this source supports
Status distinction between the current Security Rule and proposed enhancements
What it does not prove
Applicability to a particular entity or workflow, final-rule timing, compliance design, business-associate status, state law, contract duties, or security certification
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA Security Rule. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified HIPAA privacy and security counsel and security reviewer
Government agency · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhat an NPI establishes in a payer transition
CMS describes the NPI as a unique 10-digit identifier used for health care providers in HIPAA standard transactions and states that it does not carry information such as geographic location or specialty; DenQAI therefore does not treat an NPI as payer credentialing, contracting, enrollment, participation, effective-date, or payment evidence.
What this source supports
NPI purpose, format, persistence, and information boundary
What it does not prove
Licensure, credentialing, contracting, payer enrollment, network participation, billing permission, effective date, fee schedule, or payment outcome
Where it applies
United States; HIPAA administrative simplification. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer-enrollment reviewer and counsel as applicable
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhat the ADA credentialing service establishes—and what it does not
ADA explains that its credentialing service helps dentists share credential information with authorized participating plans and distinguishes profile completion and attestation from the plans' downstream actions; DenQAI therefore tracks credentialing profile status separately from a contract, payer enrollment, effective date, directory listing, claim configuration, and first paid claim.
What this source supports
Credentialing profile preparation, attestation, plan authorization, and service-use boundaries
What it does not prove
A particular payer's approval, contract, enrollment, participation, effective date, processing time, fee terms, claim acceptance, or payment
Where it applies
United States; dental credentialing-service guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer-enrollment reviewer and practice credentialing owner
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy payer participation agreements require document-level review
ADA states that a signed participating-provider agreement creates legally binding promises and urges dentists to review the contract carefully and consult counsel; DenQAI therefore separates contract terms, policies, amendment rights, network path, notices, and remedies from credentialing or payer-brand assumptions.
What this source supports
General binding-contract and review principles for participating-provider agreements
What it does not prove
Interpretation of a particular agreement, state law, enforceability, amendment validity, termination right, remedy, network status, or legal opinion
Where it applies
United States; general dental payer-contract education. Method only.
Who should recheck it
State-licensed contract counsel and qualified dental payer reviewer
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy the visible payer or administrator may not identify the pricing network
ADA's network-leasing guide explains that a dental network may be made available to another insurer or third-party administrator; DenQAI therefore maps payer, administrator, product, network source, applicable agreement, fee source, notice, and opt-out or termination questions separately.
What this source supports
General network-leasing mechanism and need to trace the applicable relationship
What it does not prove
A particular network relationship, applicable fee schedule, notice sufficiency, opt-out right, state-law protection, contract interpretation, or legal conclusion
Where it applies
United States; general dental network-leasing education. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified dental payer reviewer and state-licensed counsel
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhy eligibility verification does not close the payment question
ADA explains that payer eligibility information can be incomplete or corrected retroactively and recommends documenting the verification interaction; DenQAI therefore keeps eligibility evidence, service period, claim adjudication, later payment event, cash mechanism, and dispute path separate.
What this source supports
Eligibility-information limitations and the value of dated documentation
What it does not prove
Final eligibility, coverage, authorization, patient liability, repayment duty, offset right, appeal right, contract interpretation, or legal conclusion
Where it applies
United States; dental eligibility and payment guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified payer reviewer, billing owner, and counsel as applicable
Professional association · Directly supports · Partially verified
Within review dateWhether preauthorization and predetermination are interchangeable or guarantee payment
ADA explains that dental preauthorization and predetermination can be distinct processes and that estimated benefits may still depend on eligibility and remaining benefits at the time of service; DenQAI therefore labels the processes separately and never presents either as a payment guarantee.
What this source supports
General distinction between preauthorization and predetermination and payment limitations
What it does not prove
A particular plan's terminology, authorization requirement, benefit, eligibility, patient responsibility, payment outcome, contract duty, or state-law conclusion
Where it applies
United States; general dental benefit guidance. Method only.
Who should recheck it
Qualified dental payer reviewer, patient-communication owner, and counsel as applicable
Advanced state-profile source index
These records support state-specific source trails. “Checked” is not a legal opinion or a substitute for rechecking current law, program terms, and the actual owner structure.
MN-LAW-319B · MN
Minnesota Professional Firms Act
Minnesota Revisor of Statutes
- Effective period
- Current codified chapter when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Professional-firm authority, ownership, governance, and regulation
MN-MDH-DENTAL-HPSA · MN
Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas
Minnesota Department of Health
- Effective period
- Current designations when accessed
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Shortage designation and program-use context
MN-MDH-LOAN-FORGIVENESS · MN
Minnesota health-care loan forgiveness programs
Minnesota Department of Health
- Effective period
- 2026 program cycle
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Program categories and high-need service framework
SD-LAW-47-12 · SD
Dental corporations
South Dakota Legislature
- Effective period
- Current codified chapter when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Dental-corporation ownership, control, organization, and professional responsibility
SD-DOH-RAP · SD
Recruitment Assistance Program
South Dakota Department of Health
- Effective period
- Program page updated July 1, 2026
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Dentist eligibility, service term, incentive, community contribution, and need assessment
TN-BOARD-DENTISTRY · TN
Tennessee Board of Dentistry
Tennessee Department of Health
- Effective period
- Board page updated July 14, 2026
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Board authority, licensure, laws, rules, applications, and practice standards
TN-RURAL-DENTAL-LRP · TN
Dental Loan Repayment Program
Tennessee Department of Health State Office of Rural Health
- Effective period
- Current program page when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Purpose, target settings, shortage-area service, and program contact
OR-OHA-HCMO-DENTAL · OR
Specialty Dental Brands transaction review
Oregon Health Authority Health Care Market Oversight
- Effective period
- 2022 transaction report with later public follow-up
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Illustration of dentist-owned clinical entity and nonclinical DSO relationship; not a rule for every practice
OR-LAW-653-295 · OR
ORS 653.295 noncompetition agreements
Oregon Legislature
- Effective period
- 2025 ORS edition; later session changes require separate check
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- General employment noncompetition conditions and exclusions
OR-ORS-CURRENCY-NOTICE · OR
Oregon Revised Statutes currency notice
Oregon Legislature
- Effective period
- Notice current July 2026
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Warns that 2025 codification excludes 2025 special-session and 2026 regular-session changes
OR-OHA-HCPIP · OR
Health Care Provider Incentive Program
Oregon Health Authority
- Effective period
- Rules revised effective July 1, 2026
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Program structure, underserved-service purpose, and 2026 rule update
OR-ORH-DENTAL-LRP · OR
Oregon Health Care Provider Loan Repayment
Oregon Office of Rural Health at OHSU
- Effective period
- 2026 application cycles
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Eligible provider and site types, service terms, award method, and deadlines
PA-CODE-DENTISTRY · PA
49 Pa. Code Chapter 33
Pennsylvania Code
- Effective period
- Current compiled regulations when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Dentistry Board regulations
PA-CODE-RPC · PA
Restricted professional company rules
Pennsylvania Code
- Effective period
- Current compiled rules when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Restricted professional company definitions including dentistry
PA-DOH-LRP · PA
Primary Care Loan Repayment Program
Pennsylvania Department of Health
- Effective period
- Current program page when checked
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Eligible disciplines, service framework, and published award limits
PA-DOH-ORAL-WORKFORCE · PA
Oral health workforce
Pennsylvania Department of Health
- Effective period
- Includes 2025 workforce survey resources
- Checked
- 2026-07-23
- Scope
- Workforce distribution, provider types, and state workforce reports
When a review date has passed
Overdue means recheck—not automatically false.
Keep the old effective period visible until a replacement source is reviewed.
Statewide facts may need a state notice, county record, city rule, contract, or target file.
Preserve the old claim ID, add the superseding source, and state what decision changed.
Tax, legal, clinical, payer, lending, privacy, and valuation claims require the appropriate human reviewer.