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

American Dental Education Association
[link removed]

Volume 1, No. 39, November 20, 2019

Washington Voters Reject Affirmative Action
 
On Sept. 5, voters in Washington State narrowly rejected a referendum [ [link removed] ] that would have allowed the state to restore affirmative action for state government contracting, public employment and public education. Washington is one of eight states [ [link removed] ] that has banned affirmative action. According to at least one examination of college enrollment data, the effects of the bans [ [link removed] ] have been mixed, but some states have witnessed declining enrollment of black and Hispanic students at flagship universities when compared to the states’ overall population of black and Hispanic college-aged students. Some attribute the widening gap to these affirmative action bans.
 
While this referendum was confined to Washington, Democratic leaders in California [ [link removed] ] may be looking to overturn their state ban in the near future.

Ohio House Passes Increased Regulation of Mobile Dental Facilities
 
On Sept. 7, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a bill [ [link removed] ] that requires operators of mobile dental facilities (MDF) to provide patients with information regarding their care. Specifically, the bill requires operators of a MDF to provide patients:
 • A list of services provided,
 • Recommendations for further care,
 • The name of the individual who arranged care for the patient,
 • A phone number for the mobile facility that can be used in case of emergency,
 • A notice that the facility must provide patients access to their dental records and
 • Instructions for accessing those records or requesting a transfer.

The legislation also requires licensed dentists who operate MDFs to comply with new notification requirements to the Ohio State Dental Board. Under the bill, operators of a MDF would be required as part of their biennial registration to inform the State Dental Board that they operate a MDF, as well as any change in the address, phone number or operating status of the facility. The bill also authorizes the State Dental Board to take disciplinary action for failure to comply with any of the notification requirements.
 
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Scott Lipps (R), stated [ [link removed] ] that the bill would allow “medical records of an MDF patient to transfer to a dental office so that those MDF patients can receive more effective and efficient follow-up services.” Those records currently do not follow patients, and may result in unnecessarily repeating evaluation services that could lead to additional costs to patients, Lipps said.
 
The bill has been sent to the Ohio Senate and referred to the Health, Human Services and Medicaid Committee.

U.S. Supreme Court Reviews DACA Case
 
On Nov. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California case. Three appeals courts have ruled against the Trump administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program grants work permits and deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children. The status lasts for two years and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.
 
Opponents to the Trump administration’s decision to end the program argued that the decision was “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore unlawful. They note that the administration did not properly consider the reliance of DACA recipients—as well as businesses, educational institutions, cities and municipalities—on the program’s continuation, nor had the administration considered the adverse impact ending the program would have on those who relied on it.
 
ADEA was among the 210 educational associations submitting amicus briefs in support of the DACA program. Additionally, 66 health care organizations, three labor unions, six military organizations, 145 major businesses as well as many cities and municipalities submitted briefs in support of the program.
 
Pointing to memorandums explaining their rationale for the decision to end the DACA program, the Trump administration argued that their decision was not “arbitrary and capricious,” but was well thought out. The attorney for the administration went on to note that, “DACA was always meant to be a temporary stopgap measure that could be rescinded at any time, which is why it was only granted in two-year increments. So, I don’t think anybody could have reasonably assumed that DACA was going to remain in effect in perpetuity.”
 
Court watchers noted that based on the questions asked by the Justices, the Supreme Court appears ready to end the DACA Program [ [link removed] ] . A final decision is expected next year.

U. S. Appeals Court Hears Challenge to H-1 B Holder Spouses’ Work Permits
 
On Nov. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled [ [link removed] ] on one of two issues in the case of Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In its ruling, the Court sided with the Save Jobs USA coalition, reversing a lower court ruling that said the group had no standing in the case and, therefore, could not contest the 2015 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulation allowing H-4 holders—many of whom are spouses of H-1B holders—to work in the United States.
 
The Court disagreed with the lower court’s ruling and asserted that the former technology workers have proven that H-1B holders compete against them for jobs and that letting H-1B holder spouses work under the H-4 visa program’s employment authorization increases that competition because if their spouses couldn’t work, some H-1B holders would leave the United States.
 
Though the Court determined that the Save Jobs USA coalition could file a lawsuit against DHS, the Court did not rule on the substantive issue of whether the regulation was lawful. Instead, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court to address that substantive issue. The Court also noted that given DHS’ promise to rescind the regulation in the Spring 2020, there is a strong likelihood that the issue will be mooted.
 
Currently, the rule remains in effect until further notice.

ADEA State Calendar [ [link removed] ]

ADEA Washington Calendar [ [link removed] ]

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

Key Federal Issues [ [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.
 
©2019
American Dental Education Association
655 K Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
202-289-7201, adea.org [ [link removed] ]

twitter
[link removed]

Subscribe
[link removed]

Unsubscribe
[link removed]

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA
ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer
 
Bridgette DeHart, J.D.
ADEA Director of Federal Relations
 
Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.
ADEA Director of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Brian Robinson
ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations
 
Ambika R. Srivastava, M.P.H.
ADEA/Sunstar Americas, Inc./Jack Bresch Legislative Intern
 
[email protected] [ mailto:[email protected]?subject=State%20Update%3A%20 ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]