View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 1, No. 66, June 16, 2020

ADEA Advocacy in Action

This is a new feature that will appear 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.

 

Lost Clinic Revenue—Provider Relief Fund

May 1 – Joint with the Partnership for Medicaid on fund reimbursement for Medicaid providers.

April 30 – Joint with ADHA on availability of reimbursement from Fund.

 

Other COVID Issues

May 28 – Joint with the American Council on Education regarding liability protection shields.

May 18 – Joint with ADA and AADR in support of funding COVID-19 research.

 

Dental School COVID Related Capital Needs

June 1 – ADEA to Sen. Lamar Alexander regarding reopening guidelines

May 13 – ADEA letter to and (D-NJ) about infrastructure improvements and modernization funds for dental schools,

 

2019 Graduate Licensure

April 9 – ADEA to National Governors Association.

 

For a full list of ADEA Letters and Policy Memos, click .
States Sue Department of Education Over New Title IX Regulations

 

Several states’ attorneys general have filed in federal courts challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) new Title IX regulations. The would create significant changes in the way institutions of higher education would be required to handle sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints.

 

Seventeen states and Washington, DC, have jointly filed a in the District Court of the District of Columbia, while New York has filed a in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit filed by multiple states and Washington, DC, complains that the regulation “improperly narrows the definition of sexual harassment under Title IX,” and would also require students to “endure repeated and escalating levels of harassment.” The lawsuit filed by New York lists among its complaints that the regulations violate the Administrative Procedures Act by:

  • Imposing burdensome procedural requirements;
  • Being contrary to law, because it unduly narrows the scope of protections afforded to students under Title IX;
  • Being arbitrary and capricious because ED fails to explain the Department’s departure from previous policy and does not adequately consider the harm it will cause to students, institutions and the general public; and
  • Failing to observe procedures required by law, as certain provisions were not included in the proposed rule and were issued without adequate notice to the public.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed a lawsuit challenging the regulations on behalf of sexual harassment and assault victims’ advocacy groups.
California Bill Would Require Due Process for Fired or Disciplined Dental and Medical Interns

 

A passed by the California State Assembly on June 10 would require higher education employers to grant dental and medical interns and residents the opportunity to challenge a termination of employment or disciplinary action. Under the bill, a challenge brought by an intern or resident would be heard by an impartial third party who has the power to review the employer’s action and provide a full remedy for termination or discipline without just cause. The legislation would not apply to a termination of employment or disciplinary action based on academic or clinical matters.

 

According to the , the legislation “provides minimum rights in matters regarding termination of employment and discipline for a group of employees that currently are not afforded employment rights.”

 

The University of California is on the record in opposition to the bill, claiming it would infringe upon the academic decision-making ability of practitioners charged with training interns and residents.

 

The bill will now be sent to the state Senate for consideration.
ED Releases Interim Final Rule Regarding DACA Students Emergency Aid Grant Eligibility

 

The Department of Education (ED) released its unofficial regarding student eligibility for emergency student financial aid grants, which were established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Since the release of $6 billion in emergency grants, there has been confusion surrounding whether Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students were eligible to receive the grants.

 

Previously, ED that DACA students were not eligible because the funds were being disbursed in accordance with the Title IV regulations of the Higher Education Act. Title IV regulations prohibit noncitizens from receiving federal student financial aid. However, two weeks ago, ED posted a on its website noting its guidance, released in conjunction with the funding, “does not have the effect of law” as it relates to the disbursement of funds under the CARES Act. The new interim final regulations that were released June 11 bar noncitizens from receiving emergency student grants by clearly aligning student eligibility with Title IV eligibility.

 

ED hopes that the “helps erase any uncertainty some institutions have expressed” regarding student eligibility for the CARES Act’s emergency student financial aid grants.

 

The official interim final rule is slated to be published in the Federal Register in the near future. The public will have 30 days to submit comments on the rule.

CMS Supports Continued Use of Telehealth Post-pandemic

 

In a recent , Seema Verma, Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), affirmed the Trump administration’s support for permanent expansion of telehealth benefits beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Though it will take congressional action for the telehealth expansions to be permanent, Verma noted that CMS is exploring ways to continue its support of telehealth through its regulatory jurisdiction.

 

In March, CMS for those in the Medicare program. The inclusion of telehealth visits expanded access to health care providers for many vulnerable populations, including the elderly, those with disabilities and those in rural areas. Having access to telehealth visits helps decrease the number of people in emergency rooms. It also provides access to care for those seeking non-COVID-19-related provider visits.

 

While CMS did increase reimbursement for telehealth appointments, the increase is only temporary and done in conjunction with the public health emergency declared by the Department of Health and Human Services. Verma signaled that a re-examination of CMS’s telehealth reimbursement is needed. Currently, CMS reimburses providers the same amount for virtual visits as for in-person visits. Verma believes that “there are some potential savings for the system that do occur by having a telehealth visit,” and because of this a re-examination of current telehealth reimbursements is warranted.

 

The administration also supports allowing telehealth visits to continue across state lines on a permanent basis. However, the federal government does not have jurisdiction over a state’s permanent licensing practices; only states have jurisdiction over the permanent licensing practices within their own borders.

 

The 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.

 

©2020

American Dental Education Association

655 K Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

202-289-7201,

 

twitter
Unsubscribe

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

 

Brian Robinson

ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations

 

Higher Logic