View this email in your browser [ [link removed] ] .

American Dental Education Association


Volume 3, No. 7, July 11, 2023

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden’s Student Loan Debt Relief Program
 
The U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued two rulings in cases that challenged the Biden administration’s student loan debt relief program.
 
In the first case, Biden v. Nebraska [ [link removed] ] , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Biden’s student debt relief program overreached the administration’s authority and as such was unconstitutional. The decision was a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, in favor of six states—Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina—that objected to Biden’s student loan debt relief program.
 
Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted in his opinion that while the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) does allow the administration to “waive or modify” student loans, under the law which the program was established, it does not give the administration the authority to make as extensive and drastic changes as it did. The number of changes made by the administration, according to the Court, represented an “exhaustive rewriting of the statute.” Justice Roberts wrote, "[t]he secretary’s plan has ‘modified’ the cited provisions only in the same sense that the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility – it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely,” The “secretary” being referred to was U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona.
 
The Court invoked the “major questions” doctrine when analyzing the case. The “major questions” doctrine is a legal principle that gives judges broad discretion to invalidate executive agency actions of “vast economic and political significance” unless Congress clearly authorized them in legislation. Because of the extensive changes the program would have implemented without the proper statutory authority and because of the significance economic impact of the program without Congressional appropriations, the Court determined that the program was not valid.
 
In the second case, U.S. Department of Education v. Brown [ [link removed] ] , the Court vacated and remanded the case to the lower court, which effectively dismissed the case. The Court unanimously held the respondents Maya Brown and Alexander Taylor did not have the proper standing to bring forth the case. They did not have proper standing because any harm that may have suffered can not be tied to the student loan debt forgiveness program, according to the opinion. Though the Court remanded that case, given that Biden’s student loan debt relief program was invalidated by the Biden v. Nebraska case, the case can no longer be pursued at the lower court level.

Biden Offers Loan Relief Response to the Supreme Court’s Student Loan Debt Relief Decision
 
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (the Court) decision in the Biden v. Nebraska [ [link removed] ] case, the Biden administration has taken a three-pronged approach to address student loan debt forgiveness and to provide assistance to students needing help with their student loan payments.
 
Immediately after the Court’s decision, the Biden administration announced their “Plan B” to provide an alternative path for student loan debt relief. Their alternative plan is to initiate a rulemaking process that would use the Higher Education Act as the authority through which the administration would makes changes relating to the modification, waiver or compromise of federal student loans. No proposed rule or details regarding specifics of what the proposal would look like was released by the administration. Because this would impact Title IV federal funding to schools, the rulemaking will have to take the form of a negotiated rulemaking [ [link removed] ] , which will likely take at least one year to finalize. “Plan B” is the first prong of their approach.
 
The administration established [ [link removed] ] , as the second prong of its approach, a 12-month “on-ramp” to repayment program, running from Oct. 1, 2023, to Sept. 30, 2024, so that financially vulnerable borrowers who miss monthly payments during this period are not considered delinquent, reported to credit bureaus, placed in default or referred to debt collection agencies. This “on ramp” to repayment program is a temporary program that borrowers can request from their student loan servicers. The administration stressed that this is not another payment pause, since interest on student loans will start to accrue on Sept. 1, 2023, and repayment will restart on Oct. 1, 2023. Rather, those participating in the “on ramp” program will essentially be in a type of forbearance as interest will be accruing on their loans during the 12 month “on ramp” period.
 
The third and final prong of the Biden administration’s approach is a new income-driven repayment program which replaces the REPAYE repayment program. The new program, Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) [ [link removed] ] plan, would cut down the amount that borrowers have to pay on their monthly undergraduate student loan payments by half—from 10% of their discretionary income to 5%. Borrowers who have undergraduate and graduate loans will pay a weighted average of between 5% and 10% of their income based upon the original principal balances of their loans. The plan would also rework the formula used to determine what counts as discretionary funds. Lowering the monthly percentage owed and changing how discretionary funds are determined saves borrowers money on a monthly basis. Additionally, the new program would exempt the lowest-income borrowers from paying monthly minimums, stop unpaid monthly interest from accruing and allow debts to be forgiven sooner—between 10 and 20 years after the loans were taken out.

Oregon Sends Bill to Governor to Create Advisory Committee to Study Dental Assistant Workforce Shortage
 
The Oregon State Legislature will send a bill to Gov. Tina Kotek (D) that requires the Oregon Board of Dentistry to convene an Advisory Committee to study the dental assistant workforce shortage and to review the requirements for dental assistant certification in other states. The majority of the Committee members are required to have experience as dental assistants, and the Committee is required to provide advice to the Board on a quarterly basis.
 
The bill also clarifies the state Dental Board’s authority to require applicants for certification as dental assistants to pass a written examination, including examinations for any type of expanded function dental assistants. Under the bill, if an examination is required, it must be approved by the Board and administered by a dental education program that meets specified criteria. The examinations must also be offered in English, Spanish and Vietnamese, and the Board is also prohibited from requiring an applicant to complete more than one written examination for certification as that type of dental assistant.

Maine Makes Changes to Dental Therapists’ Practice Agreements and Scope of Practice for Dental Hygienists
 
On June 22, Gov. Janet Mills (D) signed legislation [ [link removed] ] that made several changes for dental therapists and dental hygienists who practice in the state. The new law made the following changes:
 
 • It allows dental therapists to practice under the general supervision of a licensed dentist instead of direct supervision.
 • The level of supervision from direct to general was changed for dental hygienists who hold a local anesthesia practice authority.
 • A definition for the term “dental hygiene diagnosis" was created. Under the law, the term means “the identification of an existing oral health problem that a dental hygienist is qualified and licensed to treat.”
 • The supervision required for dental hygienists, independent practice dental hygienists and public health dental hygienists to administer local anesthesia was changed from direct to general supervision.
 • Multiple scope of practice procedures were amended to be consistent with current practices of dental hygienists, including the practice authorities governing independent practice dental hygienists, public health dental hygienists and dental therapists.
 • All individuals licensed by the Board of Dental Practice are required to be certified in basic life support instead of cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

ADEA Advocacy in Action
This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.
 
Issues and Resources
 • Register here [ [link removed] ] for a live ADEA web event on Friday July 14 from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm entitled “The Supreme Court and Race in Admissions: Dissecting the Court’s Rulings in SFFA v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC and Evaluating the Policy Implications for Enrollment Professionals.”
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on teledentistry
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
 • ADEA policy brief [ [link removed] ] regarding overprescription of antibiotics
 • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click here [ [link removed] ] .

Key Federal Issues [ [link removed] ]

ADEA U.S. Interactive Legislative and Regulatory Tracking Map [ [link removed] ]

Key State Issues [ [link removed] ]

The ADEA Advocate [ [link removed] ] is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.
 
©2023
American Dental Education Association
655 K Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-289-7201
Website: www.adea.org [ [link removed] ]

twitter
[[link removed]]


Unsubscribe
[link removed]

Subscribe
[link removed][0]&p_colname=p_last_nm&p_varname=p_val_arr[1]&p_colname=p_alias&p_varname=p_val_arr[2]&p_colname=p_login_id&p_varname=p_val_arr[3]&p_colname=p_passwd&p_context=NEWSLETTER&p_success_url=censsaindprofile.section_update%3Fp_profile_ty%3DINDIVIDUAL_PROFILE%26p_skip_confirm_fl%3DY%26p_section_nm%3DNewsletters%26p_format%3D110%26p_msg_txt%3D%26p_cust_id%3D%26p_referrer%3D

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA
ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer
 
Bridgette DeHart, J.D.
ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy
 
Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.
ADEA Director of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Zachary Fessler
ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations
 
Contact Us:
[email protected] [ [link removed] ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]