|
Arizona Sends Oral Preventive Assistant Bill to Governor
The Arizona Senate has passed a bill that would create a new oral health professional
in the state, known as an Oral Preventive Assistant (OPA). Under the bill, a dental
assistant who has completed additional training and meets specified requirements
would be permitted to remove plaque, calculus and stains with scalers or sonic
or ultrasonic scaling devices on patients who have first received a periodontal
evaluation by a dentist or dental hygienist.
In
order to meet the training requirements to become an OPA, a dental assistant must:
- Complete a board-approved, OPA
training course that includes at least 120 hours of didactic and clinical instruction
with patients and that is provided by a qualifying institution;
- Hold a current certification in cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
-
Hold a board-approved certification
for both coronal polishing and radiography; and
- Either hold a current national board certification in
dental assisting or have successfully completed a dental assisting educational
program accredited by a state or national organization that accredits dental programs.
Additional limitations for OPAs under the bill include:
-
An OPA would be limited to
practicing only on periodontally healthy patients or patients with localized mild gingivitis.
- An OPA would be prohibited from
using any air polishing technology or device or practice on patients who have
been treated for periodontal disease, have generalized recession, are medically
compromised or are under sedation.
-
An OPA would only be permitted to practice in under the direct supervision of a dentist or dental hygienist.
The bill will be sent to Governor Katie Hobbs (D) for consideration.
|
DEI Ban Heads to Desk of Ohio Governor
The Ohio Legislature has voted to send legislation that would ban diversity, equity and inclusion
(DEI) initiatives at institutions of higher education to the desk of Governor
Mike DeWine (R). If enacted, the bill would ban:
-
Any orientation or training course regarding DEI, unless the institution submits
a written request for an exception;
-
The continuation of existing or establishment of new DEI offices or departments;
-
Using DEI in job descriptions;
-
Contracting with consultants
or third parties whose role is to promote admissions, hiring or promotion on the
basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression;
-
The establishment of
any new institutional scholarships that use DEI and, if DEI requirements cannot
be eliminated from an existing institutional scholarship, prohibits accepting
additional funds to operate those scholarships; or
- Replacing an orientation, training, office or position
designated for DEI with one under a different designation that serves the same
or similar purposes, or that uses the same or similar means.
Institutions would also be required to declare and affirm that they will not:
-
Endorse or oppose any
controversial beliefs or policies, except on matters that directly impact the
institution’s funding or mission of discovery, improvement or dissemination of knowledge;
-
Influence or require
students, faculty or administrators to endorse or express a given ideology, political
stance or view of a social policy;
-
Require a student to endorse or express a given ideology, political stance or view
to obtain an undergraduate or post-graduate degree;
- Use political and ideological litmus tests in any hiring,
promotion and admissions decisions, including diversity statements and other requirements
that applicants describe commitment to any ideology, principle, concept or formulation
that requires commitment to a controversial belief or policy; Influence or require
students, faculty or administrators to endorse or express a given ideology or
political stance in any hiring, promotion or admissions process or decision;
-
Use a diversity statement
or any other assessment of an applicant’s political or ideological views in
any hiring, promotions or admissions process or decision; or
-
Influence or require students, faculty or administrators to endorse or express
a given ideology or political stance in any process or decision regulating conditions of work or study.
Institutions would also be required to comply, to the extent
possible, with the bill’s prohibitions while retaining eligibility for a research
grant and to seek an exception from the Chancellor if compliance while retaining grant eligibility is not possible.
Each state institution of higher education would be responsible for responding
to complaints from any student, student group or faculty member about an alleged
violation of the prohibitions and requirements. If an institution fails to comply,
the General Assembly may withhold or reduce any state operating subsidy payments,
state capital improvement funds or other state appropriation.
Governor DeWine has indicated he will likely sign the bill. Similar laws have been passed in other states.
|
 |
|
Utah Bans the Addition of Fluoride to Community Water Systems
Utah Governor Spencer Cox (R) has signed legislation that prohibits the state’s public water
systems from adding fluoride to drinking water. The ban will become take effect
on May 7, and after the state’s Division of Professional Licensing establishes
guidelines, pharmacists will be permitted to prescribe fluoride.
Supporters of removing fluoride from community water have argued
that fluoridation poses potential health risks and that individuals—not the
government—should decide whether to consume fluoride. Among the health concerns
that have been asserted are worries about neurological effects on fetuses and
young children. These concerns are largely based on findings from a review paper that found a possible link between lower IQ scores
in children and high levels of fluoride in drinking water. The review relied on
studies that were conducted in countries that have community water fluoridation
levels that are significantly higher than those recommended for community water
in the United States. A recent study conducted in Australia, where community water
fluoridation levels are closer to those find in the United States, found “consistent
evidence that early childhood exposure to fluoride does not have effects on cognitive neurodevelopment.”
Opponents, including dentists and public health experts, warn
that banning fluoride could have serious consequences, particularly for low-income
communities with limited access to dental care. They argue that fluoridation has
been instrumental in reducing tooth decay for decades and emphasize that Utah
law requires any decision to add or remove fluoride from public water systems
to be made through a vote of the people, not legislative action.
For more resources about fluoride, please refer to ADEA’s community water fluoridation webpage.
| | |
| | | |
