subscribe to the blog

Receive email updates from the WSDA Blog.

Friday
Feb032012

2012 Dental Action Day Photos

Thursday
Feb022012

Dental Practitioner Bill Passes Senate Health Committee


This afternoon, the Senate Health Committee voted SSB 6126 out of committee with amendments. This means that the Senate version of the “dental practitioner” legislation moves out of committee and can potentially be considered by the full Senate. The following amendments were added to the bill:

  • Language requiring that a dentist be available for “instant communication via video conferencing during treatment if needed.”
  • Requires that practice plan contracts be “made available to the public upon request” and available “at the practice of the dental practitioner or the dental hygiene practitioner and provided to patients of the practitioner's practice upon request.”
  • The following section was added to the bill: “The American Dental Association and the Washington State Dental Association are encouraged to consult with stakeholders, including dentists, dental hygienists, and patient advocates, to study programs in the state that use volunteer dentists and oral surgeons to provide specialty care dental services, including tooth extractions and root canals, to low-income adults and children. This study should include an investigation into expansion of volunteer specialty care dental services into underserved areas in the state and methods to finance these programs. In order to provide the legislature time to review the work of the American Dental Association and the Washington State Dental Association, the results of this study should be reported to the legislature by January 1, 2013.”

Before passing the bill, members of the committee expressed a desire to continue to refine the scope of practice of the practitioners and other aspects of the legislation. A complete copy of the amended bill can be found here.

HB 2226, the House companion bill of SB 6126, died in the House Health Committee earlier this week.
The WSDA continues to oppose SSB 6126 because it fractures the dental home, increases patient risk, and is not an economically viable model. More information about our opposition can be found here. With the help of our grassroots dentists, we will continue to fight against this legislation. Grassroots dentists will receive more information early next week about how they can help.


Please contact bracken@wsda.org with any questions.

Tuesday
Jan312012

Concerns about HB 2226/SB 6126 Raised in Recent KUOW Story

Last Thursday, KUOW in Seattle ran a story about the prospects of a new mid-level dental practitioner in Washington State. You can find it here. We appreciate KUOW giving WSDA the opportunity to explain our position, but there were two inaccurate statements that we need to clarify.

1.    New bills’ scope of practice – The story includes this information about the proposed practitioner’s scope of practice:

The proposed legislation would add a mid–level provider to today's dental team. The new therapist would be like a nurse practitioner is to a doctor.

Dr. Ray Dailey: "They're called DHAT. Dental Health Aid Therapist. And what they are trained to do is they spend two years of intensive training to do nothing more but minor dental work. They will do fillings, simple extractions.”

Nurse practitioners do not do surgical procedures. HB 2226 and SB 6126 would allow dental therapists to do more than minor dental work – it would allow them to do surgical procedures including pulpotomies (root canals on primary teeth), drilling for cavity preparation, and extractions . These procedures are irreversible and could be performed by an individual with a GED, an unspecific amount of training, and no competency testing. There is no precedent for this midlevel practitioner anywhere else.

2. New bills’ amount of supervision – The story also suggests the proposal would create mid-level practitioners who are supervised by dentists. Dr. Dailey explains how he saw the DHAT function in Alaska -- working under the on-site supervision of a dentist:

"Up in Bethel, Alaska, I had a chance to go up there to see DHATs in action working in a dental clinic and it was great. You had your hygienist providing cleanings and taking care of the gums. You had DHATs doing lots of these fillings. Just one after another. Then you had the dentist doing root canals or doing complex restorations, or providing that upper–tier stuff which is what a dentist gets training for."

But HB 2226 and SB 6126 would allow the mid-level dental practitioner to perform procedures without the on-site supervision of a dentist. Under the bill’s structure, a clinic could be staffed entirely by mid-level dental practitioners, without a dentist on site to help handle complications that might arise during surgical procedures. This fractured model of providing care is one of the main reasons that WSDA opposes the bill.

For a complete explanation of why WSDA opposes the bill, click here.

Wednesday
Jan252012

Summary of WDS Bylaw Changes

Provided by Concerned Dentists of Washington State

On November 11, the WDS member dentists overwhelmingly passed a set of bylaw changes to WDS.  Under Article X, Section 1 of the bylaws, the Independent Directors have to approve amendments to certain bylaw provisions.  On December 15, WDS sent a color-coded sheet to summarize those changes accepted by the independent Directors and those that were rejected.  This is a summary of those changes which are now included as WDS bylaws.  CDWS board members are now arranging a meeting with the WDS board to discuss further revisions.

1.    Membership meetings.  Changes APPROVED .  Membership meetings will now play a more prominent role in the WDS governance.  The meetings will occur at a location near the WDS headquarters large enough to accommodate 25% of the member dentists.  Notice of the meeting, with an agenda, must be mailed to all member dentists in advance and cannot be buried in a different publication.

2.    Actions by members.  Changes APPROVED.  Members may physically attend the meeting and cast a vote or designate a full or limited proxy to vote on the member’s behalf.  Formerly, proxy voting was not permitted, and as a practical matter, there were not physical meetings.  Mail-in ballots or action without a meeting is no longer permitted; for those members unable to attend, they can cast a proxy instead of a mail-in ballot.   The key is that the former practice of membership decisions without a meeting for deliberation and debate are no longer permitted.

3.    Popular election of member directors.  Changes REJECTED.  Candidates for member directors are still chosen by a governance and nominating committee of the board rather than nominated from amongst the members.

4.    Independent director superpowers.  Changes REJECTED.  The nomination, election, and removal of Independent Directors is reserved for the Independent Directors, not the entire board.  CDWS believes this conflicts with Washington state law, specifically RCW 24.03.115.  Nevertheless, the effort to reserve these decisions to the entire board (which is still controlled by the Independent Directors) was rejected.

5.    Committee appointments.  Changes MOSTLY APPROVED.  Formerly, board committee members were usually appointed by the chair of the board in consultation with the CEO.  Now the committee appointments are made by the entire board, with the exception of the Independent Directors on the Provider Compensation Committee.

6.    Amendment to bylaws.  Changes PARTIALLY APPROVED.  Bylaw changes now require 2/3 member vote at a meeting rather than the mail-in ballots formerly used by WDS management.   Certain bylaw changes required the approval of Independent Directors.  This section was deleted by the members, but the amendment was rejected by the Independent Directors even though it was not one of the sections subject to Independent Director approval.

7.    Information.  Changes APPROVED.  WDS must send a copy of its audited financial statements to its members no later than 7 months after the close of the year.  It must include a general discussion about the state of the market and the profession, and provide an analysis of the compensation and incentives it provides to its executives the way public companies do.