[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,76,88,99],{"_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",6546670,"mediaKeyId","3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33","parentId",3585964,"title","Council backs changes to AB 873: larger course fees, 30‑day infection‑control deadline and limited change to electronic course use","audioSeconds",1709,"startMs",4421000,"endMs",6130000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33&start=4421&end=6130","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33/thumbnail_4421000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6546670/California/Council-backs-changes-to-AB-873-larger-course-fees-30day-infectioncontrol-deadline-and-limited-change-to-electronic-course-use","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546670-9ca785e530227a9a141a19c8303a7ebc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138023&Signature=YIhSsCJWTCeccSS8jbwRcZcxvFxbNNK413O6bs6ZbTJA3cwFSoVtcYfSSOjb4aQ5TPJFtD09hrXO2XsHDlnAvLVydZEJLc55sGyDL40qe-z2vPZrrrVp4vQiUOJpS999sP-1kOTfJ19Sd3quL6Hz90CpINNhMCFUIp3HtEKO~hPrxFX9Wvhb5H8j0SVQKkDfKoVs-a~dhhgadYZoiSXSH1NhYXj-4-QYOH7VOyyOgl1aZ8YXAcrXcGrZy8ylCbiP4Qe2Q3ATWXVAbMxU9T3nANZpKInS5cn44h~LE2crZcAdhvifjoSJiQQGhR4VQljvSxEEjPKnlBWH04WrEfa2oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Respiratory Care Board of California","date","2025-05-20T14:43:03.663Z","article","On May 14, 2025 the Dental Assisting Council voted to recommend the Board of California seek amendments to Assembly Bill 873 that would set specific statutory fees for review of certain stand‑alone dental assistant courses and adjust the infection control course timeframe.

Board staff presented a cost analysis showing that the $300 per‑course cap in the currently drafted bill would not cover the board’s estimated workload to review and perform site visits for some courses. Legislative specialist Brian Nelson said an analysis indicated implementation costs per course of roughly $7,300 for interim therapeutic restoration (ITR) and radiographic decision making (RDM) courses and roughly $3,830 for the infection‑control course; staff recommended setting fees at those levels in statute to avoid regulatory delays.

The council also debated changes to Business and Professions Code Section 17 50(C), which governs the timeframe to complete the board’s infection control course. The California Dental Association (CDA) proposed a 90‑day limit; the Dental Assisting Alliance and multiple dentists urged shorter timeframes or immediate training to protect patients. After public comment and council discussion, the motion the council approved would request the legislature amend AB 873 to: revise BPC §17.50(C) to require completion of the infection control course within 30 days of employment; set course review fees in BPC §17.25 at $7,330 for ITR/RDM/radiation safety and $3,830 for the infection control course; and leave in place the bill’s 17.55 subdivision G (which limits the purely electronic infection control course to unlicensed dental assistants and requires hands‑on clinical instruction for RDA/RDAEF licensure or permits).

Supporters of the council motion said a 30‑day deadline better protects patients and enforces consistent onboarding. Opponents, including the CDA and other commenters, said 30 days would be infeasible for many rural offices and community programs given limited local course availability; some speakers urged keeping 90 days while improving course availability and online options. Public commenters also urged careful consideration of whether site visits are required for each course review because travel and site inspections drive much of the estimated fee cost.

The council recorded votes on the motion. During the roll call, Epps Robbins, Fowler, Gerlach and Miyazaki voted yes; Olagi and Smith voted no. The motion passed.

Board staff noted that statutory changes setting fees will still require regulatory steps and that the board may need to revisit application fee amounts for other course types. The approved recommendation will be forwarded to the Board for possible legislative advocacy on AB 873.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Dental Board of California Dental Assisting Council Meeting - May 14, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On May 14, 2025, the Dental Assisting Council voted to recommend legislative amendments to AB 873 to set higher course review fees and to require completion of the board’s infection‑control course within 30 days of employment.","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},6546661,"Council advances updated infection‑control regulations and asks Dental Hygiene Board for concurrence",383,7374000,7757000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33&start=7374&end=7757","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33/thumbnail_7374000.jpg","/articles/6546661/California/Council-advances-updated-infectioncontrol-regulations-and-asks-Dental-Hygiene-Board-for-concurrence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546661-58397f935fe0c6ea50f680feb2f2f6a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138023&Signature=XhDxMZqnRYxAvouNAPP12G9QSa3ZEOBeoP5xAnlYKYL9-y06uLlcjJJljIFPOxUdEYXYZKUOmP0IO56lkep-uqI7Mp5wYzi5ZfShBLl4K57dMXKQqkZDoL1J5CZp5VZkDJ9IH6DODxzSPJeudlKVf-gZfC5v2bwbk83PeWkZZCX~at4-nmdPSOAOrZks4G4LpfNdKohRQEZ~1-jwxyTaGtIYQEGXa2EXS5N9hOcXetQPscLhY4pSme16ghTcXT4UK6SKZPSo-aIwZDPN2ZFtDIwNWyKuqq0Bzp0izRqAAp3fPuelw65yeFPxT181n6t0XKXdqj5dEidpCQh-C2f2LA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dental Assisting Council voted on May 14, 2025, to recommend the Board approve proposed regulatory text updating California Code of Regulations, Title 16, section 1005 (minimum standards of infection control) and to submit the package to the Dental Hygiene Board of California and the Department of Consumer Affairs for review.

Board staff and the Dental Hygiene Board worked with a multi‑stakeholder working group to revise infection‑control regulation language that staff described as the most important regulation the board will update given public safety concerns. The proposed package incorporates detailed updates on personal protective equipment, sterilization and monitoring practices, dental unit waterline management, and training documentation.

Several stakeholders who spoke during public comment supported moving the package forward to begin the public comment/regulatory process but requested specific wording clarifications. Requests included: removing an option that requires only washing protective eyewear with soap and water instead of cleaning+disinfecting; ensuring consistency in wording about cleaning, disinfecting and sterilizing utility gloves; clarifying internal vs. external sterilization indicators so reviewers do not interpret the rule to require duplicate indicators; changing a provision to flush dental unit water lines before (not after) each patient; and adding a reasonable periodic review schedule (stakeholders suggested every two years rather than annual review).

Regulations counsel advised the council to move the text forward because the formal 45‑day public comment period will allow stakeholders to submit written edits and staff can reconcile them with the Dental Hygiene Board during the rulemaking timeline. The council approved a motion (Option 1) to recommend the regulatory text in attachment 2 and to authorize staff to submit the package, make non‑substantial changes during the process and take necessary steps to initiate rulemaking if no adverse comments are received.

The motion passed on roll call. Board staff said they will accept written suggested edits during the public comment period, resolve technical wording with the Dental Hygiene Board and regulatory counsel, and incorporate appropriate non‑substantial changes before hearing and adoption steps.","The Dental Assisting Council voted May 14, 2025, to forward an updated infection‑control regulatory package (CCR Title 16 §1005) to the Dental Board and request concurrence from the Dental Hygiene Board of California, opening the formal rulemaking process.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6546665,"Council recommends reinstating amalgam polishing and clarifying RDAEF duties for licensure",0,7378000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33&start=7378&end=7378","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33/thumbnail_7378000.jpg","/articles/6546665/California/Council-recommends-reinstating-amalgam-polishing-and-clarifying-RDAEF-duties-for-licensure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546665-8621084da2a346aa283fe2b5e033684d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138023&Signature=kEviBCzvJomCTNXzTaO5a6TpBuHr2RJWH1T-R8SwzsC-jA0EGhe7cMjs0Qr2qlZhQtuCHlo0Kt0NK9iq4W8CjC4VEbowy6rdjNm-24UhtKILqycIBZkQKAUbzzbe4JYxn9vD2m19GpDjnL8U72XjGBTx~38erdDBDEwk2sW4p8BsKLTvler~9tXgPoApVItJp~u8WaWRamkaJppITilyDsjeWqYPRYdoy-a7e9Cy30d63nyAWsr~gg4Th1cQHbN9FkV3rECF71spz6YROMFZ5vv3wE-x5FXhjnUIjpzclPU3e845cyNA9841ZmThyyuSlsVma~J98oku7LUk6H205g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dental Assisting Council voted May 14, 2025, to recommend that the Dental Board of California pursue legislation to amend Business and Professions Code Sections 17.53 and 17.53.5 to reinstate “polish and contour existing amalgam restorations” among allowable RDAEF duties and to update course requirements for RDAEF licenses issued prior to Jan. 1, 2010.

Tina Valery, chief of the dental assisting unit, told the council staff believe the removal of amalgam polishing from the RDAEF duties list in the 2025 statutory changes was likely inadvertent and that the duty is a specialized procedure that merits explicit inclusion. Staff also asked that the older statutory cross‑reference for RDAEF education be updated to reflect renumbered duties added by SB 1453 earlier this year so that licensees who obtained RDAEF status before 2010 have a clear path to meet the current course requirements.

Council member discussion focused on reducing ambiguity in allowable duties so practitioners and employers do not have to “read between the lines.” Members said restoring explicit language reduces gray areas about what RDAs and RDAEFs may perform.

The council voted to recommend the board submit the legislative proposal in the meeting materials (attachment 1) to the Legislature. The roll call recorded Epps Robbins, Fowler, Gerlach and others voting yes; one member voted to abstain and the motion passed.

Board staff will forward the recommended language to the Board and the Legislature as part of the board’s legislative package.","The council voted to recommend legislation to amend Business and Professions Code sections governing registered dental assistant in extended functions (RDAEF) duties, adding back polish and contour of existing amalgam restorations and updating educational requirements for earlier licensees.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6546675,"Dental Assisting Council to send program‑approval proposal back to working group after stakeholder concerns",1358,1218000,2576000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33&start=1218&end=2576","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3585964-6c9588b1cc1f54a190f75de4d79bae33/thumbnail_1218000.jpg","/articles/6546675/California/Dental-Assisting-Council-to-send-programapproval-proposal-back-to-working-group-after-stakeholder-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546675-ed6e6d507675c4c52cc8f467f59395a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138023&Signature=ZV0-6fJWGekAPTq1W~4NuwiQmQKTfeGsWfZTFpPpoJCh3KYBJ-U47-Ya9zaDv-dY4~9-ilQDrFAqo5zS6Vu4VtwxmZkIiZfYMu5SR4-bpkB3xz24H2uKlUMK8Rjjs1BxpdGkPFMgJgpLVTFKxjjJFXMu~H01ehjGkfYnG9Ef5jDLYC3OvnU~kwh7pvEj3keLCqMS8EIlImCkZ4diFjOvuYSbb4gAeKXSB7ORk8DG2PQ9WmXhccibva24PXqLZRJ8p2yZqN13-zCubJgqbj3Tw4A-0c0MxVhG36Xt9m-cNsAIPnUEAote5OAXg0MBi7K6~oTl44au9OGBykGR6nUcdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Dental Assisting Council of the Dental Board of California voted on May 14, 2025, to return a staff legislative proposal that would move approval of registered dental assistant (RDA) educational programs and stand‑alone dental assisting courses to recognized accrediting agencies back to the existing working group for further stakeholder discussion.

Board staff told the council that they have found widespread compliance problems in program reviews and reevaluations, including programs that reported far fewer than the 265 required clinical instruction hours, missing student records and evaluation documentation, and programs that ceased operations during reevaluation. Tina Valery, Chief of Dental Assisting Licensing and Program Compliance, told the council that of 21 reevaluations completed recently, 12 resulted in withdrawal of approval and several others closed or received continued approval.

Council members and stakeholders said they shared the goal of ensuring education quality but raised concerns that requiring accreditation by bodies such as the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE), Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC/WSCUC), or Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) would be costly and could eliminate many existing programs. Council member Kara Miyazaki warned that CODA accreditation is rigorous and expensive, and that some community colleges and smaller programs would struggle to meet the costs and administrative requirements. Representatives of the Dental Assisting Alliance and the California Dental Association said they were willing to participate in additional working‑group meetings but emphasized the need to avoid a large loss of training capacity that could worsen access to care.

Board staff proposed statutory language to treat board approval as equivalent to accreditation by a Department of Education‑recognized accreditor and to permit DANB (Dental Assisting National Board) exam results to satisfy some board course requirements; staff also proposed a delayed effective date of Jan. 1, 2029, to allow programs time to obtain accreditation. Stakeholders pointed out that DANB written exams have limited or no clinical skills components and that many programs cannot afford the initial and ongoing costs of accreditation (one stakeholder estimated initial CODA application costs around $20,000 and total costs far higher).

After discussion, council members and staff agreed to: (1) return the proposal to the working group, (2) hold additional stakeholder meetings, and (3) develop revised legislative language for the council to review at a future meeting. Board staff said they will use listserv notices to solicit stakeholder participation and aim to present refined language to the council at the August meeting, with more substantive package language expected later in the year.

The council did not adopt the staff draft as proposed; instead it directed further work by the existing two‑member working group and outreach to interested stakeholders so the council and staff can develop legislative proposals that balance education quality, consumer protection and access to the dental workforce.

Stakeholders who commented at the meeting included Melody Randolph and Sherry Becker (Dental Assisting Alliance), Tuca Zokai and Bruce Witcher (California Dental Association), and representatives of community programs; several speakers urged a careful, incremental approach to avoid program closures and loss of training capacity.

Looking ahead, the working group will continue to convene stakeholder meetings and produce alternative legislative or regulatory options for the council’s review. Board staff said the group will examine possible hybrid approaches such as expanded oversight standards, differentiated pathways, and fee or grant support for accreditation transitions.","The council agreed to return a legislative proposal that would shift dental assisting program and course approvals to recognized accrediting agencies to a working group for additional stakeholder meetings and research, after members and stakeholders raised concerns about cost, access and feasibility.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council backs changes to AB 873: larger course fees, 30‑day infection‑control deadline and limited change to electronic course use

Council advances updated infection‑control regulations and asks Dental Hygiene Board for concurrence

Council recommends reinstating amalgam polishing and clarifying RDAEF duties for licensure

Dental Assisting Council to send program‑approval proposal back to working group after stakeholder concerns