WA Proposal Scrutinizes Deep Sedation Procedures at Dental Offices

New bill would mandate separate professionals to monitor sedation during dental procedures

Feb. 2, 2026 at 8:07pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A proposal in the Washington state legislature would elevate industry regulations and guidelines to state law when it comes to all deep sedation procedures in dental offices. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Holy, would require a separate professional to monitor the patient while the dentist performs the procedure, a practice not commonly seen in dental offices but standard in surgical wards.

Why it matters

The proposal aims to improve safety standards and potentially prevent deaths related to deep sedation in dental offices, but opponents argue it's an unnecessary response to rare incidents that would drastically increase patient costs and delay access to care.

The details

Senate Bill 6138 would mandate a "multi-provider system" whenever deep sedation is administered in a dental office. Deep sedation refers to a state in which a patient can breathe on their own but is on the verge of unconsciousness. Under current law, a dentist can perform deep sedations as long as they have the training and hold the required permits. The new proposal would prohibit a dentist from performing the sedations while also doing the dental procedure, requiring those responsibilities to be handled by a separate individual.

  • The public hearing on SB 6138 was held on January 23, 2026.
  • Lawmakers are scheduled to have a broader debate on the bill in the Health and Long Term Care Committee on Tuesday, February 3, 2026.

The players

Sen. Jeff Holy

The Republican senator from Cheney, Washington who introduced SB 6138 following three recent dental office deaths, arguing that current practices lack the safety standards found in surgical wards.

Jacob Ewing

A staff member for the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee who testified on the details of the multi-provider system proposed in SB 6138.

Kevin Van De Wege

A representative of the Washington Association of Nurse Anesthesiology who testified in support of Holy's proposal, arguing that providing deep sedation while doing the procedure is "unheard of in surgical wards, yet it's commonly performed in dental offices across the state every day".

Beirne

A representative of organizations representing oral surgeons and dentists who opposed the bill, arguing that existing regulations already provide adequate safeguards.

Dr. Abhishake Banda

A representative of the Washington State Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery who testified that making sweeping changes over rare cases would create widespread impacts.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The bill defines a multi-provider system as a system where the dentist performing the dental procedure and the person who is sedating and monitoring the patient are two distinct individuals with separate tasks.”

— Jacob Ewing, Staff member, Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee (fox13seattle.com)

“Providing deep sedation while doing the procedure is unheard of in surgical wards, yet it's commonly performed in dental offices across the state every day, it brings great liability to the provider and danger to the patient.”

— Kevin Van De Wege, Washington Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (fox13seattle.com)

“The reason that the change in the RCW is not necessary is because the current dental anesthesia regulations require a multi-provider team of three health care providers to administer deep sedation or general anesthesia in the dental office.”

— Beirne (fox13seattle.com)

“This bill would abruptly dismantle an already safe evidence based system of care, deaths in Oral Surgery offices are exceedingly rare with literature showing far lower fatality rates than the industry standards.”

— Dr. Abhishake Banda, Washington State Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (fox13seattle.com)

What’s next

Lawmakers are scheduled to do a broader debate on the SB 6138 in the Health and Long Term Care Committee on Tuesday, February 3, 2026.

The takeaway

This proposal highlights the ongoing debate around balancing patient safety with access to affordable dental care. While supporters argue the changes could prevent rare but tragic incidents, opponents contend the mandate is an unnecessary overreaction that would significantly burden dental offices and patients.