Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foreign Dental Schools Approval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opposes bill that would indefinitely preserve approvals for some foreign dental schools unless amended
Summary
After debate, the board adopted an ‘oppose unless amended’ position on Assembly Bill 966, which would allow foreign dental schools that applied for CODA/CODA‑type accreditation to remain board‑approved until denied by the accreditor; staff warned this could reduce consumer protections and delay audits.
The Dental Board of California on May 15 voted to oppose Assembly Bill 966 unless the bill is amended to address implementation, oversight and consumer‑protection issues related to foreign dental schools.
Board staff warned the measure would allow a foreign dental school that had applied for international accreditation to retain board approval until the accreditor issued a denial and the school exhausted any appeals. That, staff said, could allow a program to remain board‑approved for many years without regular board audit or oversight.
“Board staff believe this bill would require significant statutory and regulatory changes and staff time,” said Brent Nelson, legislative and regulatory specialist. Staff also warned the bill could reduce consumer protections if schools operate for a prolonged period without board review; the board has not audited some foreign programs in many years.
At the meeting, some board members and public commenters asked for a narrower approach. Board member comments included requests to set an explicit deadline or to clarify what “maintain approval” would mean in practice. Public commenters urged balancing access to care against quality and oversight: some argued that graduates of approved foreign programs provide care in underserved communities, while others warned that long gaps between audits pose patient‑safety concerns.
The board adopted an ‘oppose unless amended’ position that asks for clarifications and implementation safeguards; members asked that the item be agendized again for fuller public discussion at future meetings to allow more stakeholder input.
Why it matters: The bill affects whether graduates of certain foreign dental programs remain eligible for California licensure and how the board oversees those programs. Staff said the measure, as written, could create multi‑year periods where the board lacks authority or opportunities to audit educational compliance.
Next steps: Staff will communicate requested amendments to the bill author and the board will schedule further discussion and public input in upcoming meetings.
