View this email .
American Dental Education Association

Volume 1, No. 39, November 20, 2019

Washington Voters Reject Affirmative Action

 

On Sept. 5, voters in Washington State narrowly that would have allowed the state to restore affirmative action for state government contracting, public employment and public education. Washington is one of that has banned affirmative action. According to at least one examination of college enrollment data, the 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 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 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), 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, . 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 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.

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.

 

©2019

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

 

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

 

Higher Logic