Dental Board backs amended infection-control bill after weekslong debate over fees, virtual courses and hands-on training

The Dental Board of California on May 15 voted to support a set of amendments to Assembly Bill 873 that would (1) increase provider application fees to cover board costs, (2) allow newly hired unlicensed dental assistants up to 90 days to complete an eight‑hour infection‑control course, and (3) remove a provision that would have barred the use of electronic infection‑control courses for licensure applicants.

Board staff and outside groups told members the bill is intended to fix implementation problems created by earlier reforms and to set fees at levels that cover the board’s workload. The board approved multiple, separate motions that together authorize staff to ask the bill author to include the board’s proposals and to allow the executive committee to change the board’s position if the requested amendments are adopted.

The board’s action followed extended public comment and internal debate about three distinct issues in the bill: who pays to review and reapprove new courses, how quickly a newly hired unlicensed assistant must complete infection‑control training, and whether an online infection‑control course without a clinic‑based component should qualify people applying for RDA or other permits.

“The fee that is charged by the board does not cover staff costs,” said Brent Nelson, legislative and regulatory specialist, summarizing staff analysis that the board would need to set provider application fees much higher than the current $300 to break even. Nelson told the board his office estimated that application reviews for the new interim therapeutic restoration (ITR), radiographic decision making (RDM) and radiation‑safety courses would require provider fees in the range of $7,330 per course and that infection‑control course approvals would require about $3,830 per application to cover board staff workload.

Board members approved a motion that directs staff to seek statutory language amending Business and Professions Code section 17.25 to set the higher provider fees and to request an increase in the statutory cap the board can later set by regulation; the motion passed without recorded dissent.

On timing, the board voted to support the bill’s 90‑day window for an unlicensed dental assistant to complete the infection‑control course rather than a shorter 30‑day period. The 90‑day position reflected concerns from member dentists and course providers about access, course availability and the logistics of hiring and training new staff. “The reality is it currently doesn't exist and this has been inaccessible for so many providers that want to hire,” said Tuca Okai of the California Dental Association in public comment, urging the board to keep a 90‑day allowance.

The final, contested element was a provision added in committee—Subdivision G of Business and Professions Code section 17.55—that would have limited the use of an electronic infection‑control course without in‑person clinical instruction to unlicensed dental assistants and disallowed use of such a course for applicants seeking RDA, RDAEF or other permits. After debate and public comment from organizations on both sides, the board voted to remove Subdivision G from the bill, clearing the way for the same approved infection‑control course (if approved by the board) to be used both by unlicensed assistants and by licensure applicants.

Supporters of keeping a hands‑on requirement said it preserves consistent training for people who will perform patient care. “Removing Subdivision G would set a precedent that you are allowing two different educational experiences for the same license,” said Melody Randolph of the Alliance during public comment. Opponents said a single approved course should meet stated competencies whether delivered online or in person, and noted the course currently is not widely available in an online format.

Board members directed staff to submit the board’s proposed statutory changes to the bill author and to seek the additional sections the board had requested in prior meetings. If the author accepts the board’s amendments, the board authorized the executive committee to change the board’s position to support. No formal regulatory or curricular standards were adopted at today’s meeting; staff will return with draft language as the bill moves through the Legislature.

Why it matters: The board’s decisions affect how dental assistants are trained and who may be authorized to perform infection‑control tasks in patient care settings. The changes would shift costs for course approvals from the state to course providers and could raise market prices for approved courses. The board’s actions also set policy on whether virtual training without an in‑person clinical lab can satisfy the training requirement for licensure pathways.

Board actions: Multiple motions were passed. Staff were instructed to seek amendments to Business and Professions Code sections 17.25 and 17.55 to (a) set higher course‑approval fees for providers (ITR/RDM/radiation safety: $7,330; infection control: $3,830), (b) keep a 90‑day deadline for unlicensed assistants to complete infection‑control training, and (c) remove Subdivision G (which would have restricted online‑only infection‑control courses for licensure applicants). The board authorized the executive committee to work with the bill author and, if the requested amendments are made, to change the board’s position accordingly.

What’s next: Staff will draft the statutory language requested by the board and pursue it with the bill author. The board will revisit any implementing regulations or course standards if the Legislature enacts the changes.