Dental Board backs major changes to infection-control training, approves large provider fees and alters online-course limits

The Dental Board of California approved a package of changes on May 15 that would raise application fees for board approval of several new dental-assisting courses, set a 90-day period for new unlicensed dental assistants to complete an infection-control course, and remove a committee-inserted limit on use of online-only infection-control courses for licensure pathways.

Board staff proposed the changes as part of Assembly Bill 873 and related cleanups. Tina Valerie, chief of licensure and program compliance, told the board staff “have been conducting standard and complaint driven reevaluations of programs and courses and have found major compliance issues with the majority,” and that an existing $300 application fee “does not cover staff costs.” Valerie’s presentation summarized site-visit findings and a fiscal analysis that led staff to request much larger provider fees for the board’s review and approval work.

Why it matters: the board said the higher fees are intended to cover the staff time required to review applications for new courses the Legislature has added or revised — most notably interim therapeutic restoration (ITR), radiographic decision making (RDM) and a newly codified infection-control course — and to support enforcement and site visits. The moves also affect how unlicensed dental assistants may be trained and the pathway for assistants to become registered dental assistants (RDA, RDAEF) or to obtain permits such as DSA (dental sedation assistant).

Key board actions and outcomes - The board asked the Legislature to add new statutory fee amounts for course-approval applications and voted to request that those fee changes be added to AB 873 (board action to request $7,330 for ITR/RDM/radiation-safety course approvals and $3,830 for infection-control course approvals). The board approved that approach and asked staff to seek placement of the language in AB 873 for legislative consideration.

- The board voted to amend Business and Professions Code section 17.50 so that unlicensed dental assistants would have 90 days after hire to complete the infection-control course rather than requiring completion prior to any potential exposure. The board adopted the 90-day timeframe after public testimony from dental groups and provider associations noting limited course availability in some areas.

- The board removed a committee-added provision (new subdivision G in BPC 17.55 as printed in AB 873) that would have limited use of an electronic infection-control course without an in-person clinical component to unlicensed dental assistants only. With the board’s vote to remove that subdivision, applicants for RDA, RDAEF or for dental-assisting permits could rely on an electronic infection-control course that lacks a clinical-instruction component, subject to other statutory or regulatory requirements.

- Finally, the board voted to “support if amended” AB 873 with the additional statutory changes staff requested (fees and the other items the board previously asked the author to include) and authorized the executive committee to work with the bill author and to change the board’s position if the requested amendments are adopted.

What the board heard: provider groups and dental associations offered mixed views. Melody Randolph of the Alliance cautioned that large fee increases for course providers could be passed to students and urged care about access and cost. Bruce Witcher of the California Dental Association urged flexibility on timing and supported maintaining protections for hands-on training where patient safety demanded it. Pam Congdon (California Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) and other specialty groups urged standardized, supervised lab environments for preclinical training.

Board staff and counsel noted the distinction between provider application fees (the board’s proposal) and student tuition: the board’s requested fee increases are for a provider’s application to obtain or renew board approval of a course, not a per‑student tuition rate — however staff acknowledged student costs could rise indirectly.

Implementation notes and next steps: the board requested that staff pursue statutory language for AB 873 (fees and the other board proposals), continue stakeholder meetings and return with updates. The executive committee was authorized to negotiate and update the board’s formal position if the bill is amended as the board requested.

Speakers quoted in this article are identified in the transcript and were present at the meeting.