Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Continuing Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Continuing-education committee adopts CE-provider fee, denies RDA jurisprudence mandate and orders staff to draft an RDA attestation
Summary
The Continuing Education Review Committee approved a $100 fee for applicants seeking board-approved continuing-education provider status, removed one inactive provider from the approved list, and voted against a proposed rule that would have required registered dental assistants to complete two hours of jurisprudence CE. The committee asked staff
At its Feb. 20 meeting the Continuing Education Review Committee adopted a $100 fee for applicants seeking board-approved CE course-provider status (22 TAC 102.1) and approved removal of a provider that staff could not contact.
Miss Studdard told the committee the fee was included in the November 2024 proposed rule package and that no public comments had been received on the fee. The committee voted to adopt the $100 provider application fee.
The committee also considered a proposed amendment to 22 TAC 114.12 that would have required registered dental assistants (RDAs) to complete two hours of jurisprudence continuing education as part of their biannual 12-hour CE cycle. The committee heard public comment from Rhonda Lane, a leader with an assisting association, who opposed the change on the grounds that it would raise the cost and time burden for RDAs and could exacerbate workforce shortages. Mr. David Mintz, representing the Texas Academy of General Dentistry, also urged caution and highlighted concerns about accountability for any attestation-based credit.
After discussion the committee voted to deny the proposed RDA jurisprudence mandate. Instead, the committee directed staff to draft an attestation mechanism for inclusion on the RDA renewal process (agency staff will return with proposed attestation language and technical options for committee consideration). The committee also removed Dental Risk Solutions LLC from the agency’s CE-approved provider list after staff reported notices to the provider were returned as undeliverable.
The committee’s votes on the fee and the removal of an inactive CE provider were recorded as passing unanimously; the proposed change to RDA jurisprudence was denied.
