Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ab 873 Course Fees Infection Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council backs changes to AB 873: larger course fees, 30‑day infection‑control deadline and limited change to electronic course use
Summary
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.
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.
