[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6560299,"mediaKeyId","3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1","parentId",3389276,"title","Dental Board backs major changes to infection-control training, approves large provider fees and alters online-course limits","audioSeconds",1148,"startMs",2422000,"endMs",3570000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1&start=2422&end=3570","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1/thumbnail_2422000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6560299/California/Dental-Board-backs-major-changes-to-infection-control-training-approves-large-provider-fees-and-alters-online-course-limits","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560299-c97790df6b610a003376c5ac3da116c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137737&Signature=P66hjIn8nJogd6iODkI6~6eAl5n44lqxffW1PkupWDXkE9vms7GaTIK4gYLO49j6wdFBrMI2IWYryGfYH2r2lbjTasEH6ocnAMhkgxPsh-yWrdLPqZHEpwEyATD~I2bykPK3afCDQq0xWCnCud~HeYReoXj~mvpsry4eSsN0iZOGqyyCG1au1cF8seTEn5ZlRp0Bv6Wqsf2-s7qO1bviE7BmAWMuSLdA2PAlqfWuM7ExlqH9m7a3bry9hXeodecDyYw8fE3VnG7e9jecnxQcaS4WZa~a0O-FCu-Nz9NPETJ2W-ZXQm6~s9N8O9JDOYHShqcfb82OgNUztJzVFJOlMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Respiratory Care Board of California","date","2025-05-15T00:00:00Z","article","The Dental Board of California approved a package of changes on May 15 that would raise application fees for board approval of several new dental-assisting courses, set a 90-day period for new unlicensed dental assistants to complete an infection-control course, and remove a committee-inserted limit on use of online-only infection-control courses for licensure pathways.

Board staff proposed the changes as part of Assembly Bill 873 and related cleanups. Tina Valerie, chief of licensure and program compliance, told the board staff “have been conducting standard and complaint driven reevaluations of programs and courses and have found major compliance issues with the majority,” and that an existing $300 application fee “does not cover staff costs.” Valerie’s presentation summarized site-visit findings and a fiscal analysis that led staff to request much larger provider fees for the board’s review and approval work.

Why it matters: the board said the higher fees are intended to cover the staff time required to review applications for new courses the Legislature has added or revised — most notably interim therapeutic restoration (ITR), radiographic decision making (RDM) and a newly codified infection-control course — and to support enforcement and site visits. The moves also affect how unlicensed dental assistants may be trained and the pathway for assistants to become registered dental assistants (RDA, RDAEF) or to obtain permits such as DSA (dental sedation assistant).

Key board actions and outcomes
- The board asked the Legislature to add new statutory fee amounts for course-approval applications and voted to request that those fee changes be added to AB 873 (board action to request $7,330 for ITR/RDM/radiation-safety course approvals and $3,830 for infection-control course approvals). The board approved that approach and asked staff to seek placement of the language in AB 873 for legislative consideration.

- The board voted to amend Business and Professions Code section 17.50 so that unlicensed dental assistants would have 90 days after hire to complete the infection-control course rather than requiring completion prior to any potential exposure. The board adopted the 90-day timeframe after public testimony from dental groups and provider associations noting limited course availability in some areas.

- The board removed a committee-added provision (new subdivision G in BPC 17.55 as printed in AB 873) that would have limited use of an electronic infection-control course without an in-person clinical component to unlicensed dental assistants only. With the board’s vote to remove that subdivision, applicants for RDA, RDAEF or for dental-assisting permits could rely on an electronic infection-control course that lacks a clinical-instruction component, subject to other statutory or regulatory requirements.

- Finally, the board voted to “support if amended” AB 873 with the additional statutory changes staff requested (fees and the other items the board previously asked the author to include) and authorized the executive committee to work with the bill author and to change the board’s position if the requested amendments are adopted.

What the board heard: provider groups and dental associations offered mixed views. Melody Randolph of the Alliance cautioned that large fee increases for course providers could be passed to students and urged care about access and cost. Bruce Witcher of the California Dental Association urged flexibility on timing and supported maintaining protections for hands-on training where patient safety demanded it. Pam Congdon (California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) and other specialty groups urged standardized, supervised lab environments for preclinical training.

Board staff and counsel noted the distinction between provider application fees (the board’s proposal) and student tuition: the board’s requested fee increases are for a provider’s application to obtain or renew board approval of a course, not a per‑student tuition rate — however staff acknowledged student costs could rise indirectly.

Implementation notes and next steps: the board requested that staff pursue statutory language for AB 873 (fees and the other board proposals), continue stakeholder meetings and return with updates. The executive committee was authorized to negotiate and update the board’s formal position if the bill is amended as the board requested.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the transcript and were present at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Dental Board of California Meeting - May 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Dental Board of California approved a package of changes on May 15 that would raise application fees for board approval of several new dental-assistant courses, set a 90-day period for new unlicensed dental assistants to complete an infection-control course, and remove a committee-inserted limit on use of online-only infection-control courses for licensure pathways.","taxTitle","Respiratory Care Board of California, Boards and Commissions, Executive, California","taxId",76751,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6560283,"Board approves technical legislative cleanups: removes portfolio-pathway fee and restores an RDAEF duty",837,197000,1034000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1&start=197&end=1034","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1/thumbnail_197000.jpg","/articles/6560283/California/Board-approves-technical-legislative-cleanups-removes-portfolio-pathway-fee-and-restores-an-RDAEF-duty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560283-6553f326b536b148eebd58f62ff0534e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137737&Signature=Zz6gOttbXc0VJrq9WP~qPekU9877pTPLOFCoiw-q2zxLc2q~puhmU0rdtp01Y-XrnE6IBwxD~DG2p-ACUz1UfPaWVXkql8w~X9b2sdUi2AB-zAsu5xe8BvV7~EHF5-G37kQCSd6jcbu0lPAO6PzRmj1Qx~JKFnZWp~CsKrwO7DZQar3CJTsdSIuOjbv5oGYAId2hCP3pgjthXmjQ61A6kdomSxxLG8EkLgtotiIz3lNvnD520JxIzr0FtHaeHSWBtRHxR7T9Ugo6~BZLTT1brDwb39e5N59AE~YqDXeFvvrYSBz2Pnp7ViC9CvAmrCMi4oOsS8USb49nZv~AHBlHkg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dental Board approved two legislative cleanups on May 15: a submission to remove a licensure fee linked to a repealed “portfolio” pathway and a legislative proposal to amend the authorized duties and education requirements for registered dental assistants in extended functions (RDAEFs).

Brent Nelson, legislative and regulatory specialist, summarized the portfolio-pathway cleanup. Prior to Jan. 1, 2025, the portfolio examination under BPC §16.32 subdivision C1A/B provided a pathway for dentist licensure; the provision was struck in the Board’s sunset bill and related language renumbered. Nelson said the board’s proposed amendment to BPC §17.24(a) would remove the now‑repealed portfolio‑pathway fee from statute. The board voted to approve the proposal for submission to the Legislature.

Separately, staff presented a proposal to amend BPC §§17.53 and 17.53.5 dealing with RDAEF duties and education requirements. Tina Valerie and staff noted that SB 1453 (effective Jan. 1, 2025) had changed allowable duties and possibly removed a specialized duty — polishing and contouring existing amalgam restorations — that staff believe should remain listed due to its specialized training requirements. Staff proposed reinserting that duty into §17.53.5 and updating §17.53 so licensees who obtained an RDAEF prior to Jan. 1, 2010 would need to take board-approved coursework covering the updated duties. The board voted to submit the legislative proposal and its attachment to the Legislature.

The board characterized both actions as technical “cleanup” legislation to align statutory text with the post‑sunset statutory structure and to ensure education requirements match the renumbered and revised list of duties. Both proposals were approved for submission to the California State Legislature; roll calls were recorded in the meeting minutes.

Speakers quoted or referenced are drawn directly from the board presentation and roll call recorded in the official transcript and meeting minutes.","The board voted to submit two technical legislative proposals: to remove a dentist-licensure fee tied to a repealed portfolio pathway and to amend Business and Professions Code to restore polishing and contouring of existing amalgam restorations as an allowable RDAEF duty and to update education requirements for earlier-licensees.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6560287,"Board staff recommend shifting dental-assisting program approval to accrediting agencies after widespread compliance problems",355,438000,793000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1&start=438&end=793","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1/thumbnail_438000.jpg","/articles/6560287/California/Board-staff-recommend-shifting-dental-assisting-program-approval-to-accrediting-agencies-after-widespread-compliance-problems","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560287-45257799ec435a4276a4ee9acf0655c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137737&Signature=NRIejnIgC~jb7RmWwXak-ETpBkvWLAZLboZXqQX1rNkcgEDeB0mTnct8yyEaRO3vcG4P0rY0fIjPiuXn8I8Y1M9Wg~umuKYyKazBBflicruoZEM4CFKNkiNId-Cad7lnwiE1sEq8F29nxnEVqEcUw3FUfsqX~nuOyMGZprqzIzW4-6kjVFLxWbNP5fP5KUqJVvVVO3agiqGKKVrEplZeBYuzpK~Ji4FVV78Hh4wIFR5uuvuW87TNUmJVYCy1GFcoFu5AYbMbYwr0PjJ7FySbrChDgpn8Fe6PxqmiFzNAGyE38QzpP9G9mdgYYq4kWpNAipT5hLABwMQJr5XTHuPh3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board staff reported extensive compliance failures among dental-assisting educational programs and courses and proposed shifting approval and oversight to accrediting bodies that routinely review educational programs.

Tina Valerie, chief of licensure and program compliance, said staff have “found major compliance issues with the majority” of programs after doing standard and complaint-driven reevaluations. Valerie listed problems including programs offering far fewer clinical hours than regulatory minimums (regulation requires 265 clinical hours), incomplete student records, missing or superficial performance evaluations, lack of documented sequencing for infection-control instruction, problems with sterilization and use of extramural clinical sites, and inadequate supervised clinical instruction.

Board staff said they had conducted four RDA program site visits in the past year; the board is responsible for reevaluating RDA programs every seven years and has many other program and course providers under its oversight. Valerie reported that of 21 program reevaluations completed over the past year, 12 had their approval withdrawn, three were granted continued approval, and six reported closure; the four RDA programs reevaluated had all had approval withdrawn.

Because the current $300 course-application fee does not cover staff costs for reviewing new course applications (as discussed later under AB 873), staff proposed moving approval of dental-assisting educational programs and courses to an accrediting body and returning to a working group and stakeholder meetings to explore options. The board’s Dental Assisting Council had discussed the issue the prior day and the full board accepted the item as informational and asked staff to continue stakeholder engagement.

Clarifying details recorded during the presentation included:
- Regulation minimum clinical hours for RDA programs: 265 hours; staff found programs requiring as few as 98, 170, 180 and 240 clinical hours.
- Site-review workload: 4 RDA site visits conducted in the past year; 92 RDA programs on the seven-year reevaluation cycle; 903 other program/course providers requiring oversight.
- Recent reevaluations: 21 reevaluations completed in the past year; 12 approvals withdrawn, 3 continued approval, 6 closures; all 4 RDA re-evaluations led to withdrawn approval.

The board did not take a formal vote to change approval authority at this meeting; instead, members supported returning the issue to a working group and continuing stakeholder discussions. Staff will report back with stakeholder input and proposed next steps.

Speakers quoted are drawn from the meeting transcript and include board staff and members who commented during the agenda item.","Staff told the board that reviews of dental-assisting programs found major compliance failures and proposed moving approval and oversight of programs and courses to recognized accrediting bodies; the board received the report and agreed to further stakeholder work.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6560294,"Dental Board takes positions on a slate of bills, backs AI transparency and Medi-Cal fluoride coverage",7583,1371000,8954000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1&start=1371&end=8954","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3389276-9f8f716ca698d422135b4920698f4bc1/thumbnail_1371000.jpg","/articles/6560294/California/Dental-Board-takes-positions-on-a-slate-of-bills-backs-AI-transparency-and-Medi-Cal-fluoride-coverage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6560294-0541839ab0ce7a5713d29e052bfd9399/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137737&Signature=SDhmSqQ16Cjy1mVoZrJ4urzgSf~mnf5EZTIpJmopI8j-DigqRiM6adAsWhSLEMTxEvctAf9SnJ1CMx9uQumO-b5Ly-SU5TdnRBzAge1DRwugDeixGjFGXqGKrj1ZVCytC8XlcvYyRBhca0agO250OJ18NMXdN0GrWAGjhpbS5t86h7N5gDjlgGLnYnp5NYIrSJv6LikTJKl0u5GSecRW6uh9rhhVlIXEVgNT-jn3pEyPrdYqwWGgM86sEDtpzjD2uc7E792cMLs023cLLwtiAlMn68R6fdUfdwgAUMRGkacmLsR9VBl-YImJBHJ-cMifEWqZbDZOeGKg7oM1KZWlfw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dental Board of California on May 15 took positions and cast votes on multiple bills affecting licensing, practice and education. Several measures drew detailed discussion and the board instructed staff and the executive committee to seek clarifying amendments where implementation or fiscal questions remained.

Notable outcomes included: the board voted to oppose unless amended on AB 485 (unsatisfied-judgments licensing restrictions), AB 742 (prioritizing licensure for descendants of American slavery) and AB 1307 (a three-year permit pilot for dentists from Mexico), citing implementation, clarity and fiscal concerns and authorizing the executive committee to negotiate amendments. The board voted to support AB 489 (prohibiting false claims of licensure via AI/generative tools) after members said public protection requires clarity. The board supported AB 350 (requiring fluoride varnish coverage under Medi-Cal for children) and backed SB 470 to extend Bagley-Keene teleconferencing provisions through 2030. Other bills were placed in a watch posture, including AB 667 (interpreter rules), AB 1434 (health-care workforce data collection), SB 351 (private equity in health facilities) and SB 641 (state-of-emergency fee waivers).

Votes at a glance (motion language condensed)
- AB 485 (unsatisfied-judgment license denials): Oppose unless amended; authorized executive committee to seek clarifying amendments and change position to watch if amendments resolve concerns.
- AB 489 (artificial intelligence; false-impression prohibitions): Support.
- AB 667 (interpreters on licensing exams): Watch (monitoring; board removed healing-arts boards by amendment; board requested monitoring to ensure language not reinserted).
- AB 742 (prioritizing descendants of American slavery for licensing): Oppose unless amended (implementation, fiscal, constitutional clarity concerns).
- AB 873 (infection-control and course fees): Board made multiple votes (see separate article): approved fee-request approach and 90-day timeframe; removed subdivision G; supported bill if amended to include board proposals; authorized executive committee to act.
- AB 966 (foreign dental schools / accreditation): Oppose unless amended (concerns about indefinitely maintaining board approval without oversight/audits; staff recommended stronger implementation language).
- AB 1307 (Mexico dentist pilot permit): Oppose unless amended; authorized executive committee to negotiate; staff raised implementation and fiscal concerns.
- AB 350 (fluoride varnish Medicaid coverage): Support.
- SB 470 (teleconferencing / Bagley-Keene extension): Support.
- SB 351 (private equity / hedge funds in health facilities): Watch (enforcement workload concerns).
- SB 641 (state-of-emergency fee waivers): Watch (potential revenue/fiscal impact unclear and requires system work with DCA).
- SB 861 (committee omnibus): Oppose unless amended to remove reinstatement of DCA director approval of board executive-officer appointment (BPC §16.16.5); board asked that the reinstatement be removed from omnibus bill.

Why it matters: several measures would change how the board administers licensing and programs or would create new reporting, oversight or fiscal duties for the agency. Board counsel and staff repeatedly flagged implementation and fiscal-readiness concerns and asked the board to either oppose or seek amendments to resolve them. Where amendments could resolve concerns, the board delegated authority to its executive committee to negotiate with authors and change the board’s position if satisfactory language is adopted.

What the board directed staff to do: pursue amendments for bills listed as “oppose unless amended,” engage bill authors’ offices (via the executive committee when authorized), and report back to the full board with any substantive changes before formal position changes are posted.

Speakers who presented bills or key staff summaries included Brent Nelson, legislative and regulatory specialist; board counsel Tara Welch; and staff lead Robert David. Public commenters represented the California Dental Association, the Alliance, Calamus, and other stakeholder organizations.","At its May 15 meeting the board voted positions on numerous bills: adopting 'oppose unless amended' on several implementation-sensitive measures, supporting limits on AI impersonation, endorsing Medi-Cal fluoride coverage and directing its executive committee to negotiate with authors where needed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Dental Board backs major changes to infection-control training, approves large provider fees and alters online-course limits

Board approves technical legislative cleanups: removes portfolio-pathway fee and restores an RDAEF duty

Board staff recommend shifting dental-assisting program approval to accrediting agencies after widespread compliance problems

Dental Board takes positions on a slate of bills, backs AI transparency and Medi-Cal fluoride coverage