Kenneth E. Lange, DDS

A recent opinion piece by member Dr. Jay Hislop generated significant controversy and misunderstanding. The section of the article dealing specifically with AB 1116 (Keeley) is central to the concerns that have been expressed. Outlined below are the factors involved which culminated in the passage of AB 1116. Following that, CDA was an active proponent of the legislation. I remain convinced it is in the best interest of California's dentists and consumers.

The California State Legislature first addressed this subject almost thirty years ago because of a perceived shortage of U.S. trained dentists to serve the state's growing population. The Legislature directed that State Board of Dental Examiners to establish a procedure to license dentists who were not educated in U.S. accredited dental schools. In response, the State Board adopted regulations in providing for a restorative technique examination, or bench test to evaluate the competency of foreign-trained dentists seeking a California license.

Over subsequent years, the California Dental Association and a coalition of foreign-trained dentists became increasingly concerned about the efficacy of the restorative technique examination. The object of AB 1116, in part, is to raise the licensing standards for foreign-trained applicants.

During consideration of the provisions of AB 1116, the CDA leadership and Council on Legislation solicited input from membership through numerous articles in the UPDATE and JOURNAL regarding provisions of the proposed legislation and the importance of establishing uniform educational and clinical standards to obtain a California license.

The statement in the commentary that the Board of Dental Examiners "floods" the professional market with practitioners of limited skills and experience" is incorrect. Many of the foreign-trained dentists applying for license in California have exceptional training and considerable professional experience. This statement has been construed as an insult to foreign-trained members of the coalition, CDA members themselves, who conscientiously sought to correct the inequity in the state licensing procedures, as well a all foreign-trained dentists licensed currently, and applicants who qualify in the future.

The provision of AB 1116 which seems to have created the most controversy permits foreign-trained dentists to append the DDS designation to their names. After considerable deliberation, the Council on Legislation and Executive Committee concluded that its focus must be on assuring comprehensive and uniform educational and clinical training rather than debate over title. Moreover, concern about the inference of a dentist's skill and education by the designation is eliminated by the elevated standards established by AB 1116.

I am in complete agreement with CDA's position to support AB 1116 establishing uniform educational and clinical standards for all California dental license applicants. If anyone has a question about the CDA position on this issue, I suggest they review these comments again in Brian Blomster's in-depth article in the July 1997 CDA Journal.