Dental assisting council backs higher review fees, cuts infection-control grace period to 30 days

The Dental Assisting Council recommended that the Dental Board of California ask the Legislature to amend AB 873 to set higher application-review fees for three newly authorized dental assistant courses and to require unlicensed dental assistants to complete the board’s infection‑control course within 30 days of first exposure to infectious material.

The council’s action also asked the board to set a $7,330 fee for review of interim therapeutic restoration (ITR), radiographic decision making (RDM) and radiation‑safety courses, and a $3,830 fee for review of the infection‑control course. Council members voted to retain current draft language in Business and Professions Code Section 17.55 that limits use of the fully electronic infection‑control course for unlicensed assistants (Subdivision G), while licensed RDA and RDAEF pathways would continue to require any clinical instruction specified by statute or regulation.

Why it matters: Board staff told the council that the $300 cap in the current AB 873 draft would not cover the full cost of thorough course reviews, site visits and staff time. The higher fees are intended to cover travel and staff workload for program evaluations and recurring reevaluations; staff estimates cited by the council put per‑course review costs in the mid‑thousands. Council members and public stakeholders said higher fees are significant but necessary to sustain meaningful oversight.

What the council heard: Board legislative staff explained the fiscal analysis behind the proposed fees and the difference between virtual and in‑person review requirements. Tina Valerri, the board’s chief of dental assisting and licensing and program compliance, described recurring problems found in program reevaluations: insufficient clinical hours (regulation requires a minimum of 265 hours), missing evaluation forms, poor student records, inconsistent sequencing of instruction, and inadequate documentation of instructor‑to‑student ratios. Board staff reported that 21 reevaluations completed in the last year resulted in 12 program approvals being withdrawn, three receiving continued approval and six closures.

Stakeholders and public commenters stressed competing priorities. Representatives of the Dental Assisting Alliance and the California Dental Association said they would participate in working groups but warned that requiring accreditation by bodies such as CODA (Commission on Dental Accreditation) would be unaffordable for many programs (CODA initial costs were cited as roughly $20,000 just to apply, with larger total start‑up costs). Melody Randolph of the Dental Assisting Alliance and other educators told the council many programs are in rural or underserved areas and that an all‑online infection‑control course without hands‑on instruction could leave gaps in practical skills. Bruce Witcher, who said he is a practicing dentist and active with CDA, urged caution and recommended the council review whether a site visit is required for every course type.

On the deadline for infection‑control training, several dentists and society representatives urged keeping the requirement tight for patient safety; the alliance suggested 30 days, CDA suggested up to 90 days in some cases, and the Dental Hygiene Board’s executive officer testified the board opposed relaxing the requirement to allow 90 days without infection‑control training. Several council members sided with 30 days, noting the risk of untrained staff working with patients immediately.

Council action and vote: Councilmember Miyazaki made the motion to recommend the board pursue amendments to AB 873 to (1) change the infection‑control deadline in BPC 17.50(c) from 90 days to 30 days; (2) set course fees in BPC 17.25 so that ITR/RDM/radiation safety reviews are $7,330 and the infection‑control course review is $3,830; and (3) leave BPC 17.55 Subdivision G in place (i.e., retain the current limitation on who may use the fully electronic infection‑control course for licensure/permits). The motion was seconded by Councilmember Epps Robbins. On roll call the council recorded yes votes from Epps Robbins, Fowler, Gerlach, Lorraine and Miyazaki; O'Lagi (Olagi) and Smith voted no. The motion passed.

What happens next: The council directed staff to submit the recommended amendments to the board for its consideration and potential action. Board staff emphasized the legislative language and the fee figures would go to the bill sponsor and to the Legislature for approval; updates to regulatory fee schedules would follow as needed.

Ending: Stakeholders and council members agreed to continue discussions in stakeholder meetings and the working group as the bill moves forward so that the board can refine language on clinical components, proctoring options and fee structure in response to implementation concerns.