Dental hygienists: registered dental hygienist in alternative practice: scope of practice.
Impact
If enacted, SB 653 would significantly alter existing state laws by enabling registered dental hygienists, particularly those in alternative practice, to function in specific clinics or professional corporations without being direct employees. The bill permits these hygienists to supply essential preventive services in settings that often lack immediate dental care, including residences of homebound individuals, schools, and health professional shortage areas. Additionally, the legislation aims to encourage better dental health practices and awareness in communities that might not otherwise receive consistent dental care.
Summary
Senate Bill 653, introduced by Senator Chang, focuses on the roles and responsibilities of registered dental hygienists, particularly those practicing in alternative settings. The legislation modifies existing laws under the Dental Practice Act to expand the scope of practice for registered dental hygienists, allowing them to operate more independently. Notably, the bill permits these professionals to deliver fluoride varnish without the direct supervision of a dentist and to provide dental hygiene preventive services at non-profit events and public health programs. This shift is expected to enhance access to dental care in underserved areas.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 653 appears mixed but largely positive among proponents in the dental community. Supporters view the bill as a progressive step towards improving public health outcomes by facilitating greater access to care, particularly in underserved populations. However, there may be some apprehension regarding the implications of less supervision, with certain stakeholders expressing concerns about the adequacy of training and the potential for oversight issues in these expanded roles.
Contention
Notable points of contention include the balance between increased autonomy for dental hygienists and the traditional supervisory roles held by dentists. Some critics argue that removing the general supervision requirement for specific procedures, such as interim therapeutic tooth restorations, may compromise patient safety and the quality of care. While supporters tout the benefits for patient access and efficiency, the discussions signal a broader debate about the trust placed in alternative practice models within the healthcare system.
Relating to the improvement of oral health care access through the regulation of dental hygiene practitioners, dental hygienists, and dentists in this state.
Relating to the improvement of oral health care access through the regulation of dental hygiene practitioners, dental hygienists, and dentists in this state.