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

American Dental Education Association

Volume 2, No. 73, October 25, 2022

Groups Challenge Biden’s Student Debt Relief Plan in Court
 
Courts from the lower federal district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court have thawed efforts to eliminate the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan.
 
The Federal District Court of Eastern Missouri rejected efforts to overturn the federal student loan debt relief program. Several cases have been filed against the program. However, State of Nebraska et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. et al. [ [link removed] ] , filed in the Eastern Missouri District Court by the Republican Attorneys General of six states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina), was the most prominent case thought to have the best chance to successfully challenge the program.
 
The Attorneys General sought an injunction against the program to prevent it from canceling federal student loan balances. They had a two-pronged argument. First, the Biden administration overreached its executive authority by canceling student loans under the auspices of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 [ [link removed] ] (HEROES Act), a law created to give the president authority to cancel or modify student loans after natural disasters or national emergencies. The Attorneys General argue that the law was meant to address emergencies such as terrorist acts, and the current public health emergency cited by the Biden administration as the basis for the student loan cancelations does not qualify as an emergency under the HEROES Act. Second, MOHELA, Missouri’s student loan servicer which is part of its state government, could see a drop in revenue caused by borrowers consolidating and transferring their federally guaranteed student loans back to the federal government. Thereby causing the state harm due to the potential drop in revenue.
 
In an attempt to weaken the case, the Biden administration said it would exclude loans held by private lenders, such as Missouri’s loan servicer, from the student loan debt relief program.
 
The case was argued on Oct. 12. Last week, the judge ruled [ [link removed] ] against the Attorneys General. Though the court did not rule on whether the Biden administration’s reliance on the HEROES Act was overreach, the court rejected their request for an injunction. The judge ruled that the Attorneys General “had not suffered injuries of the sort that gave them standing to sue.” Specifically, “Missouri has not met its burden to show that it can rely on harms allegedly suffered by MOHELA,” and thus had no sufficient grounds to bring the case.
 
The states appealed the decision, and Friday evening, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the stay while it considers a motion from the states to block the program. The stay ordered the Biden administration not to act on the program while it considers the appeal. The Biden administration continues to encourage people to apply for the program because the stay did not halt the acceptance of applications, it only prevents the program from actually moving forward with cancelling the loans.
 
In another case, the Brown Country Tax Payer Association (BCTPA), a group based in Wisconsin working to bring information and awareness to issues that affect tax policy or impose regulatory burdens, filed a lawsuit [ [link removed] ] against the Biden administration. They asserted that the student loan debt relief program violates the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers between Congress and the Executive branch and breaches the 5th Amendment’s equal protection doctrine by expressly stating that the program’s purpose is to advance “racial equity.” BCTPA also requested a temporary injunction blocking the program’s implementation. The lower court dismissed the case [ [link removed] Brown County Taxpayers Association v. President Joseph R Biden Jr et al.pdf ] due to lack of standing and subsequently denied the injunction due to BCTPA’s inability to prove harm.
 
Both the case and the injunction were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeals court chose not to intervene in the injunction denial. The case, however, is pending review.
 
BCTPA then appealed the injunction’s denial to the U.S. Supreme Court on an emergency basis. The appeal was based on the assertion that the student loan debt relief program was an overreach of executive power. Associate Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett denied [ [link removed] ] the appeal with no comment and without a referral to the full court.

Rhode Island Board of Examiners in Dentistry Proposes Rules for Teledentistry and Changes to Public Health Dental Hygienists
 
On Oct. 4, The Rhode Island Board of Examiners in Dentistry published proposed rule changes [ [link removed] ] that would create rules for teledentistry and make changes to rules governing public health dental hygienists (PHDH).
 
Highlights of the proposed rules for teledentistry include:
 • Creation of definitions for the terms “teledentistry”, “distant site”, “originating site” and “teledentistry provider”.
 • A requirement for all teledentistry providers to establish a provider-patient relationship that includes documentation of informed consent to treatment.
 • A requirement for a dentist to evaluate patients who receive treatment via teledentistry and a requirement for dentists to create a diagnosis and treatment plan.
 • A requirement for dentists to refer patients to appropriate follow-up care when necessary.
 • Allowing a treating dentist to use teledentistry to delegate duties to dental auxiliary personnel, within their applicable scopes of practice and under the appropriate level of dentist supervision according to applicable law.
 • Allowing a PHDH with a written collaborative agreement to perform preventive services and capture specified health care information. Any health care information collected must be uploaded to a secure, cloud-based storage system for the purpose of review and completion of an examination, diagnosis and treatment plan by the collaborating dentist.
 • Allowing a PHDH the therapeutic management of a cavitated lesion via interim therapeutic restoration or a caries arresting medicament to be performed by a PHDH in collaboration with a dentist via teledentistry.

In addition to the teledentistry changes for PHDH noted above, several additional changes were proposed to the rules governing PHDH, including:
 • Changing requirements for individuals who hold an out-of-state license as a PHDH or another dental hygiene license, and who are applying to become a PHDH in Rhode Island. The proposed regulation requires applicants to hold an active public health dental hygiene license in another state for at least three years or provide substantial documentation to prove they meet initial training requirements for licensure.
 • Out-of-state applicants must also provide substantial documentation of employment as a PHDH during the previous three years.
 • Clarifying that it is a PHDH’s sole responsibility to maintain documentation of continuing education and that a PHDH is required to maintain this documentation for at least five years.

PSLF Temporary Waiver Ends Oct. 31
 
Until Oct. 31, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) will allow borrowers to receive credit toward loan forgiveness under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program for loan payments that otherwise would not qualify towards the number of payments needed to earn forgiveness.
 
Information about the waiver can be found on ED’s website [ [link removed] ] . ED’s website also contains extensive Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and a number to call for assistance if questions are not addressed in the FAQ.
 
Information about the waiver can also be found on ADEA’s website [ [link removed] ] .

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
 • ADEA memo [ [link removed] ] regarding vaccines at the state level
 • 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] ] .

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.
 
©2022
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
 
Brian Robinson
ADEA Program Manager for Advocacy and Government Relations
 
Contact Us:
[email protected] [ [link removed] ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]