BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Hearing Date:May 2, 2011 |Bill No:SB |
| |540 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Curren D. Price, Jr., Chair
Bill No: SB 540Author:Price
As Amended:April 25, 2011 Fiscal:Yes
SUBJECT: Dentistry.
SUMMARY: Extends the sunset date of the Dental Board of California to
January 1, 2018, and makes other programmatic changes.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Dental Board of California (DBC) to license and
regulate the practice of dentistry.
2) Specifies that the DBC shall consist of eight practicing dentists,
one registered dental hygienist, one registered dental assistant,
and four public members. States that this provision shall remain
in effect only until January 1, 2012, and after that date, is
repealed unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before
January 1, 2012, deletes or extends that date. (Business &
Professions Code (BPC) § 1601.1)
3) Provides that every board within the Department of Consumer
Affairs, as specified, shall initiate the process of adopting
regulations on or before January 1, 1999, to require its
licentiates, as defined, to provide notice to their clients or
customers that the practitioner is licensed by this state. (BPC §
138)
4) States that for purposes of advertising, a dentist may not hold
himself or herself out as a specialist, as specified, unless the
dentist satisfies specific specialization requirements. (BPC §
651(h)(5)(A)(i) et seq)
SB 540
Page 2
5) Allows DBC to issue a probationary license to an applicant for
licensure as a dentist or dental auxiliary. Allows the DBC to
require a licensee, as a term or condition of issuing a
probationary license, to comply with certain requirements, as
specified. (BPC § 1628.7)
6) Requires licensees of the DBC to fulfill continuing education
requirements.
7) Specifies the intent of the Legislature to seek ways and means to
identify and rehabilitate licenciates whose competency may be
impaired due to abuse of dangerous drugs or alcohol, so that
licentiate so afflicted may be treated and returned to the practice
of dentistry in a manner which will not endanger the public health
and safety. (BPC § 1695)
8) Requires the DBC to establish criteria for the acceptance denial or
termination of licentiates in a diversion program. States that
licentiates shall sign an agreement of understanding that
withdrawal or termination from the diversion program at a time when
a diversion evaluation committee determines the licentiate presents
a threat to the public's health and safety shall result in the
utilization of the DBC of diversion treatment records in
disciplinary or criminal proceedings. (BPC § 1695.5)
9) States that the amount of fees that relate to the licensing and
permitting of dental assistants shall be established by DBC
resolution. (BPC § 1725)
10)Finds and declares that dental assistants provide a dental care
services that is vital to good health. It is the intent of the
Legislature that the DBC create and implement an effective forum
where dental assistant services and regulatory oversight of dental
assistants can be heard and discussed in full and where all matters
relating to dental assistants in this state can be discussed, as
specified.
11)Establishes the Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program of 2002 to
provide loan repayment assistance to dentists who commit to a
minimum of three years of services in a dentally underserved area,
as defined. (BPC § 1970 et.seq.)
This bill:
1) Deletes existing law requirements relating to advertising by a
dentist of specialization or accreditation in a specialty area of
SB 540
Page 3
practice unless certain requirements are met.
2) Extends the sunset date of the DBC comprised of eight practicing
dentists, one registered dental hygienist, one registered dental
assistant and five public members to January 1, 2016.
3) Establishes, on and after January 1, 2016, a DBC which shall
consist of eight practicing dentists and seven public members.
States that this provision shall remain in effect only until
January 1, 2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later
enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or
extends that date. States that this repeal renders the DBC subject
to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature.
States that members of the DBC shall be appointed for a term of
four years, and that the Governor appoints the 8 dentists and five
of the public members, and the Senate Rules Committee and the
Speaker of the Assembly each appoint a public member.
4) States that on and after January 1, 2016, all members of the DBC,
except the public members, shall have been actively and legally
engaged in the practice of dentistry, as specified. Provides that
the public members shall not be licentiates of the DBC or any other
board, as specified.
5) Requires the DBC, by January 1, 2013, to comply with existing
statute that requires boards within DCA, including the DBC, to
adopt regulations to require licensees to provide notice to clients
or customers that the licensee is licensed by the state. Requires
the notice to include a provision indicating that the DBC is the
entity that regulates dentists and provide the telephone number and
Internet address of the DBC. States that the DBC should require
the notice to be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to
public view.
6) Extends the sunset date of the appointment of the executive officer
to January 1, 2018.
7) Requires the DBC to adopt written guidelines on how to make
probation assignments, and to ensure that probationary and
evaluation reports are conducted consistently and regularly.
8) Requires the DBC to ensure that the law and ethics examination
reflect current law and regulations, and to ensure that the
examinations are randomized.
9) Provides that if requested by the Legislature through the Joint
SB 540
Page 4
Legislative Audit Committee in 2012, the Bureau of State Audits
shall conduct a thorough performance audit of the DBC's diversion
program to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the
program, and make recommendations regarding the continuation of the
program and any changes or reforms required to ensure that
licensees participating in the program are appropriately monitored
and that the public is protected from licensees who are impaired
due to alcohol or drug abuse or mental or physical illness.
Requires this audit to be paid for with moneys from the State
Dentistry Fund.
10)Deletes existing law provision requiring a licentiate to sign an
agreement of understanding that the withdrawal or termination from
the diversion program at a time when a diversion evaluation
committee determines the licentiate presents a threat to the
public's health and safety shall result in the utilization by the
DBC of diversion treatment records in disciplinary or criminal
proceedings.
11)Requires that if a licentiate withdraws or is terminated from the
diversion program for failure to comply or is determined to be a
threat to the public or their own health and safety, all diversion
records for that licentiate shall be provided to the DBC's
enforcement program and may be used in any disciplinary proceeding.
States that if a licentiate in a diversion program tests positive
for any banned substance, the board's diversion program manager
shall immediately notify the DBC's enforcement program and provide
the documentation evidencing the positive test result to the
enforcement program. Provides that this documentation may be used
in a disciplinary proceeding.
12)Deletes the requirement that dental assisting fees that relate to
licensing and permitting be established by DBC resolution and
instead requires these fees to be established by regulation.
13)Deletes existing intent language for the DBC to create and
implement an effective forum for dental assisting matters, as
specified.
14)Creates a Dental Assisting Council (Council) of the DBC, which
shall consider all matters relating to dental assistants in this
state, including matters that relate to standards for approval of
dental assisting educational programs and courses, and make
appropriate recommendations to the DBC, as specified.
15)Requires that members of the Council to be appointed by the DBC
SB 540
Page 5
president, and shall consist of two members of DBC, and five
members who are either registered dental assistants or registered
dental assistants in extended functions. Requires the Council to
meet in conjunction with other DBC Committees, and at other times
as deemed necessary.
16)Provides that the Council members shall serve a term of four years,
except that, of the initial appointments of the nonboard members,
one of the members shall serve a term of one year, two members
shall serve a term of two years, and two members shall serve a term
of three years.
17)Requires the Council to be the sole entity of the DBC that will
provide recommendations on dental assisting matters.
18)Extends the California Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program of 2002
until all the moneys in the account are expended.
19)Makes other technical, non-substantive, and conforming changes.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. The Author is the Sponsor of this measure. According to
the Author, in 2011, this Committee conducted oversight hearings to
review 7 boards: the Board of Registered Nursing, the Board of
Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians, the Dental Board of
California, the Board of Accountancy, the Contractors State License
Board, the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and
Geologists, the California Architects Board (and the Landscape
Architects Committee). The Committee also reviewed the Athletic
Commission and the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau and conducted
oversight hearings of the Department of Real Estate and the Office
of Real Estate Appraisers. The Committee began its review of these
licensing agencies in March and conducted three days of hearings.
This bill, and the accompanying sunset bills, is intended to
implement legislative changes as recommended in the Committee's
Background/Issue Papers for all of the agencies reviewed by the
Committee this year.
This bill is one of the seven "sunset bills" authored by the Chair of
this Committee. According to the Author, this bill is necessary to
extend the sunset date of the DBC and continue the regulation of
dentists and other dental practitioners in California and continue
SB 540
Page 6
with the DBC's mission to protect the public. Additionally, the
Author points out that there is a need to increase the public
membership within the DBC to assure the public that the
professions' interests do not outweigh what is in the best interest
of the public. Additionally, there is a need to ensure the
programs administered by the DBC, including its Diversion Program,
continue to protect the public while rehabilitating licensees.
2. Background. The DBC was created by the California Legislature in
1885, and was originally established to regulate dentists. Today,
the DBC is responsible for regulating the practice of approximately
71,000 licensed dental health professionals in California,
including 35,500 dentists, 34,300 registered dental assistants
(RDAs), and 1,300 registered dental assistants in extended
functions (RDAEFs). In addition, DBC is responsible for setting
the duties and functions of approximately 50,000 unlicensed dental
assistants. The Dental Practice Act provides that the
"Ýp]rotection of the public shall be the highest priority of the
Dental Board of California in exercising its licensing, regulatory
and disciplinary functions. Whenever the protection of the public
is inconsistent with other interests sought to be promoted, the
protection of the public shall be paramount." DBC implements
regulatory programs and performs a variety of functions to protect
consumers. These programs and activities include setting licensure
requirements for dentists, and dental assistants, including
examination requirements, issue and renew licenses, issue special
permits, monitor probationer dentists and RDAs and manage a
Diversion Program for dentists and RDAs whose practice may be
impaired due to chemical dependency or mental illness. DBC is
composed of 14 members; 8 practicing dentists, 2 dental auxiliaries
(RDH and RDA), and 4 public members. The 8 licensed dentists, the
registered dental hygienist, the RDA, and 2 public members are
appointed by the Governor. The Speaker of the Assembly and the
Senate Rules Committee each get a public member appointment.
According to DBC, public membership is 29% of the Board's
composition.
Existing law allows the Legislature to conduct policy review of
regulatory boards within DCA. This review includes an evaluation
of a board's regulatory programs, including staffing, enforcement,
budgetary, examination, and practice issues to ensure that consumer
protection remains the priority of these boards. This year, the
DBC was reviewed by this Committee and an oversight hearing was
held on March 14, 2011. As part of this hearing, Committee staff
prepared an extensive background paper detailing various issues and
recommendations for the DBC.
SB 540
Page 7
3. Former Sunset Review of the DBC. DBC was last reviewed by the
former Joint Legislative Sunset Review Committee (JLSRC) in 2002.
At that time, the JLSRC issued five recommendations. Additionally,
prior to this last review, SB 26 (Figueroa), Chapter 615, Statutes
of 2001 required the Director of the DCA to appoint an Enforcement
Monitor (Monitor) to evaluate DBC's disciplinary system and
procedures with specific focus on the quality and consistency of
complaint processing and investigation, timeframes needed for
complaint handling and investigation, complaint backlogs, and other
related managerial, organizational, and operational problems,
issues, and concerns. The Monitor submitted his initial report to
the Legislature in 2002, and made 40 specific recommendations for
improvements. In this initial report, the Monitor indicated that
there are numerous significant inconsistencies in the way
complaints are processed and investigated, it was taking much too
long to resolve or investigate complaints, and as a result of staff
turnover and the state's hiring freeze, backlogs have begun to
accumulate. On October 1, 2010, DBC submitted its required Sunset
Report to this Committee. In this report, DBC described actions it
has taken since its last sunset review and to address the
recommendations of the Monitor. The following are some of the
changes and enhancements that DBC had undertaken:
Augmentation of enforcement unit staff and restructuring of
its Complaint Unit has allowed DBC to respond to consumer
complaints in a timely manner and has reduced the processing
times of complaints.
In response to concerns raised that DBC is unable to
administer an adequate amount of examinations, DBC sponsored AB
1524 (Hayashi), Chapter 446, Statutes of 2010 which repeals the
previous clinical and written examination administered by DBC and
replaced it with a portfolio examination of an applicant's
competence to practice dentistry to be administered while the
applicant is enrolled in a dental school program.
DBC converted limited term peace officer positions to
permanent full time positions.
New licensure, examination and permit requirements were
established.
To address issues raised by the Monitor on the lack of a case
tracking system, DBC will be one of the Boards that will benefit
from a new, integrated, enterprise-wide enforcement and licensing
system, called BreEZe that will support applicant tracking,
SB 540
Page 8
licensing, renewal, enforcement, monitoring, cashiering, and data
management. According to DCA, BreEZe will replace the existing
CAS, ATS, and multiple "workaround" systems with an integrated
system for use by all DCA organizations. The BreEZe project was
approved by the Office of the State Chief Information Officer
(OCIO) in November 2009, and the Request For Proposal (RFP) for a
solution vendor is currently under development.
To address the need for tracking investigative case activity,
in 2003, DBC tested a version of the Investigation Activity
Reporting (IAR) program used by the Medical Board of California
(MBC). According to DBC, although this demonstration version of
MBC's database was intended to provide a method for managers to
track casework on all cases, the system was not established in
protocol and was only used sporadically. DBC's enforcement
program has partnered with the MBC to utilize MBC's newest
version of the IAR to track casework. This format is intended to
provide information for cost recovery purposes and allow managers
to better track staff performance and productivity. Transition
to the new IAR was anticipated to be completed by the end of
2010.
The Expert Reviewer rate was increased from $75 to $100.
However, DBC indicates it continues to struggle to recruit
experts.
Effective August 1, 2010, a new consumer survey procedure has
been adopted.
The Disciplinary Guidelines of DBC were revised and approved
by the Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2010. The
regulations became effective January 13, 2011.
DBC's regulatory authority and responsibility was extended to
all dental assisting functions. The duties and functions of
unlicensed dental assistants, RDAs, RDAEFs, Dental Sedation
Assistants, and Orthodontic Assistants were revised in statute.
The Board updated its dental assisting educational
requirements relating to RDA programs, infection control courses,
Orthodontic Assistant Permit Courses, Dental Sedation Assistant
Courses, and RDAEF programs, and is moving forward with
finalizing the rulemaking process.
The DBC updated the regulations for the minimum standards for
infection control applicable to all DBC licensees and is moving
SB 540
Page 9
forward with finalizing the rulemaking process.
1. This Measure Includes the Following Statutory Changes as Identified
by This Committee During Its Oversight Hearings of March, 2011:
a) Increases Public Membership of the DBC. DBC's current
composition of
8 professionals and 4 public members may not be in the best
interest of consumer protection. DBC currently has 14 members: 8
dentists, 1 RDA, 1 RDH and 4 public members. The 8 licensed
dentists, 1 RDH, 1 RDA, and 2 public members are appointed by the
Governor. The Senate Rules Committee and the Speaker of the
Assembly each get 1 public member appointment. According to DBC,
public membership is 29% of DBC's composition. Generally, a
public member majority for occupational regulatory boards or
greater representation of the public where current board
membership is heavily weighted in favor of the profession is
preferred for consumer protection. Since any regulatory
program's (including DBC) primary purpose is to protect the
public, increasing the public's representation on DBC assures the
public that the professions' interests do not outweigh what is in
the best interest of the public. Requiring closer parity between
public and professional members is also consistent with both this
Committee's and the DCA's recommendations regarding other boards
that have undergone sunset review over the past 8 years.
Additionally, all other health related consumer boards have no
more than a simple majority of professional members or a public
majority. This bill, effective January 1, 2012, would increase
the membership of the DBC to 15 by adding one public member.
Effective January 1, 2016, the registered dental hygienist and
registered dental assistant would be replaced by public members,
changing the composition of the DBC to 8 dentists and 7 public
members.
b) Deletes Existing Law Requirements on Advertising of Specialty
Education and Accreditation Requirements for Specialized Areas of
Dentistry. Existing law prohibits a dentist from holding himself
or herself out as a specialist, or advertising in a specialty
recognition by an accredited organization, unless the
practitioner completed specialty education programs approved by
the American Dental Association, as specified. Additionally,
existing law prohibits a dentist from representing or advertising
himself or herself as accredited in a specialty area of practice
unless the dentist is a member of, or credentialed by, an
accredited organization recognized by DBC as a bona fide
organization for an area of dental practice. This law was
SB 540
Page 10
recently the subject of litigation in the case of Potts v.
Hamilton, 334 F.Supp.2d 1206, and was ruled by a federal court as
an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. According
to the DBC, to prevent future litigation in this area and to
mitigate costs associated with the Potts litigation (over $1.1
million), DBC is recommending that Section 651(h)(5)(A)(i)
through 651(h)(5)(A)(iii) of the B&P Code be deleted from
statute. DBC does not believe this is an area in which DBC needs
to be involved.
c) Requires Dentist to Post a Notice Accessible to Patients to
Indicate that Dentists are Regulated by DBC. Section 138 of the
Business & Professions Code requires that DCA board and bureaus,
including healing arts boards such as DBC, initiate the process
of adopting regulations on or before June 30, 1999, to require
its licentiates, to provide notice to their clients or customers
that the practitioner is licensed by this state. A board is
exempt from the requirement to adopt regulations if the board has
in place, in statute or regulation, a requirement that provides
for consumer notice of a practitioner's status as a licensee of
this state. The purpose of this statute is to inform consumers
the appropriate regulatory body that regulates a particular
licensee or practitioner. Recently, the MBC promulgated
regulations pursuant to Section 138 to require physicians and
surgeons to inform their patients that they are licensed by the
MBC, and includes the board's contact information. In the same
manner, DBC should implement Section 138 and adopt regulations to
require dentists to inform their patients that they are licensed
by the Board.
d) Requires Written Guidelines for Probation Assignments.
Probation cases within DBC are assigned to inspectors or
investigators after taking into consideration the variety of
circumstances necessitating probation, combined with the known
behavior of certain licensees. RDAs are generally assigned to
inspectors, and difficult or questionable probation subjects are
assigned to sworn investigative staff. According to a recent
Enforcement Assessment of the DBC, there are no written
guidelines on how to make probation assignments, and that
probationary reports and evaluation reports have not been
conducted with regularity.
e) Ensures that the Law and Ethics Examination for Dentists
Reflects Current Law and Regulation. As part of the licensure
process, a dentist must pass a California Law and Ethics
examination that is developed and administered by DBC. DBC
SB 540
Page 11
contracts with the DCA's Office of Professional Examination
Services (OPES) for its examination development services.
According to DBC, in FY 2006/2007 and 2007/2008, the pass rate
for the Dental Law and Ethics examination was 96%, and for fiscal
years 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, the pass rate increased to 98%.
This pass rate is extremely high. To ensure that examination
questions reflect current law and regulations, DBC should require
that OPES randomize (scramble) California law and ethics
examinations for dentists.
f) Requires an Audit of DBC's Diversion Program. DBC administers
a Diversion Program intended to identify and rehabilitate
dentists whose competence may be impaired due to abuse of
dangerous drugs or alcohol, so that licentiates may be treated
and returned to the practice of dentistry in a manner that will
not endanger the public health and safety. Entry into the
diversion program may be through self-referral but most
participants enter the diversion program because they are under
investigation by DBC and were referred by a program manager.
Since 1983, the clinical management of the diversion program has
been done by MAXIMUS, Inc. MAXIMUS provides the following
services: medical advisors, compliance monitors, case managers,
urine testing system, reporting, and record maintenance. In 2007
and 2008, this Committee held informational hearings on the
Physician Diversion Program (PDP) after an audit of MBC's
diversion program revealed that the MBC's program was not
sufficiently protecting the public. Although the MBC voted
unanimously to end the PDP on June 30, 2008, this Committee
recognized the need to strengthen the diversion programs of
boards that continue to administer them. As such, in 2008, SB
1441 (Ridley-Thomas, Chapter 548, Statutes of 2008) became law
and required the DCA to establish a Substance Abuse Coordination
Committee (SACC) to adopt uniform guidelines on sixteen specific
standards that would apply to substance abusing health care
licensees, regardless of whether a board has a diversion program.
The intent of SB 1441 was to establish common and uniform
standards to govern the different health care licensing boards'
diversion programs so as to maintain public confidence that these
programs are truly monitoring and rehabilitating substance
abusing licensees. In 2010, MAXIMUS was audited by the DCA and
it was indicated that they were complying with all of the
requirements of their contract; however, Committee staff had
serious concerns about the completeness of this audit and the
serious deficiencies which may still exist with this program.
This came to light when it was found that MAXIMUS was recently
testing those participants in the health boards' Diversion
SB 540
Page 12
Programs and using inexact standards (i.e., participants were
tested at a higher standard and tested negative when they should
have been tested at a lower standard and may have potentially
tested positive). The DCA took immediate steps to rectify this
problem, but it still raises questions about the effectiveness
and efficiency of MAXIMUS and those diversion programs which rely
on this contractor. The DBC's Diversion Program has never been
audited in its entirety since its inception. The intent of this
audit is to assure that the Diversion Program is appropriately
monitoring and treating participants, and determine whether it is
effective in preventing further substance abuse, and ensure that
the uniform standards that were adopted pursuant to SB 1441 are
being implemented.
g) Requires all Diversion Records to be Provided to the DBC's
Enforcement Program if a Licentiate Withdraws, is Terminated from
the Diversion Program for Failure to Comply, or is Determined to
be a Threat. Section 1698 of the Dental Practice Act specifies
that except where the licentiate presents a threat to the
public's health and safety, all DBC and diversion evaluation
committee records and records of proceedings pertaining to the
treatment of a licentiate in a diversion program is kept
confidential and are not subject to discovery or subpoena.
According to DBC, current law does not allow DBC's diversion
program to notify its own enforcement program when a licensee
participating in diversion is not in substantial compliance.
The diversion program can only provide the name of the terminated
licensee and not any specifics as to why the individual was
terminated from the program. This notification, DBC argues, is
necessary as the information obtained in the diversion program
could be used for subsequent disciplinary action by DBC.
h) Requires Licensing and Permitting Fees of Dental Assistants to
be Established by Regulation. Current law allows the DBC to
increase the fees for RDAs by board resolution. However, most
licensing fees, including those of dentists, are generally
increased through regulation, if the increase is within the
statutory maximum.
i) Establishes a Dental Assisting Council Provide Recommendations
on Dental Assisting Matters. Current law states legislative
intent for the DBC to create and implement an effective forum
where dental assistant services and regulatory oversight of
dental assistants can be heard and discussed in full and where
all matters relating to dental assistants can be discussed,
including matters related to licensure and renewal, duties,
SB 540
Page 13
standards or conduct and enforcement. In 2009, DBC established
two groups to deal with dental assisting issues: The Dental
Assisting Committee (DAC) composed of DBC members and chaired by
the RDA appointee to DBC; and the Dental Assisting Forum (DAF),
composed of RDAs and RDAEFs. The DAC meets at every board
meeting and the DAF held short meetings in January and April
2010, and met again in January 2011. Advocates for dental
assistants have indicated to Committee staff that many items that
DAF members have requested be included on agendas but have been
removed, requests that meetings be held in conjunction with DBC
so that there can be open lines of communication and establish
greater efficiency have been denied, and dental assisting issues
are placed on the agenda for DBC's DAC, instead of on the DAF
agenda. Additionally, it is unclear what is the DBC's policy for
referring issues to the DAF and DAC, how recommendations are
referred from the DAF and DAC to DBC and what kind of discretion
DBC has over deciding dental assisting issues; how often are
issues referred to DAF and DAC and how often are they taken up by
DBC, and how often are DAF and DAC recommendations accepted.
Essentially, the establishment of two groups to deal with dental
assisting issues has resulted in very inefficient and ineffective
process. It is also unclear why DBC established a bifurcated
process for hearing dental assisting issues.
j) Extend the Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program. The
California Dental Corps Loan Repayment Program, administered by
DBC, was created in 2002 (AB 982, Chapter 1131, Statutes of 2002)
to increase the number of dentists who practice in historically
underserved areas by providing grants to help pay for the high
cost of attending dental school. DBC selects participants to
practice in underserved areas, in practice settings with a
majority of underserved patients, and gives priority
consideration to applicants who are best suited to the cultural
and linguistic needs of those populations and meet other related
criteria. After each consecutive year of service completed,
participants will receive money for loan repayment ($25,000 for
the 1st year, $35,000 for the 2nd year, and $45,000 for the 3rd
year) for up to three years. The law states each participant may
receive no more than $105,000 over three years. The program was
extended until July 1, 2012 and authorized DBC to distribute
funds remaining in the account. However, due to limited
participation, DBC points out that the program should be extended
until DBC distributes all the remaining money in the fund.
aa) Extends the Sunset Date of the DBC. The health and
safety of consumers are protected by a well-regulated dental
SB 540
Page 14
profession. DBC should be continued with a six-year extension of
its sunset date so that this Committee may review it once again.
2. Related Legislation. Other sunset review bills to be presented
before the Senate Business and Professions Committee include:
a) SB 538 which deals with the Board of Registered Nursing
b) SB 539 which deals with the Board of Vocational Nurses and
Psychiatric Technicians.
c) SB 541 which deal with the DCA and the contracting for
expert consultants by the boards.
d) SB 542 which deals with California Board of Accountancy
and the Professional Fiduciaries Bureau.
e) SB 543 which deals with the California Architects Board ,
Contractors State License Board, Landscape Architects Technical
Committee, Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors,
and Geologists, State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind, State
Athletic Commission.
f) SB 706 which deals with the Department of Real Estate and
the Office of Real Estate Appraisers.
3. Arguments in Support. The Dental Assisting Alliance (Alliance)
states that it supports replacing the Dental Assisting Forum with a
Dental Assisting Council that meets in conjunction with other Board
committees, and establishes the Council as the sole entity making
dental assisting recommendations to the DBC. As a result, the
Alliance points out, dental assisting matters will be much more
efficiently and effectively integrated into the DBC's
deliberations. The Alliance states that it also supports requiring
dental assisting fees to be set by regulation rather than DBC
resolution, so that the fee levels will be fully scrutinized during
a regulatory process. The Alliance only supports these provisions.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support: None on file as of April 27, 2011
Opposition: None on file as of April 27, 2011
Consultant:Rosielyn Pulmano
SB 540
Page 15