REVISE MEMBERSHIP OF DENTISTRY BOARD

First Analysis (9-23-98)

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

Under the Public Health Code, a licensed dentist who has advanced training beyond that required for initial licensure and who has demonstrated competency through an examination can be certified in the specialty field of prosthodontics, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, or oral pathology. Until March of 1996, when its powers and duties were transferred to the director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services by Executive Order Number 1996-2, the Dental Specialty Field Task Force advised the Michigan Board of Dentistry in matters relating to dental specialties. In 1997, the Michigan Board of Dentistry voted to change the examination process for certification in dental specialties. Some people feel that members of the board may not be qualified to evaluate specialty examinations, especially since, depending on the makeup of the board at any given time, none of the seven dentists appointed to the board may have a dental specialty certification. It has been recommended by members within the dental profession to revise the membership of the board to include at least two dentists with a specialty certification.

THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:

Currently, the Michigan Board of Dentistry is composed of seven dentists, two dental hygienists, two dental assistants, and two public members. The bill would amend the Public Health Code to increase the voting membership of the board from 13 members to 15 members, to include two dentists who have been issued a health profession specialty certification under the code (such as in prosthodontics, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthodontics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, and oral pathology), and to specify that of the seven dentists on the board, one or more could have a health profession specialty certification issued under the code. A dentist currently on the board at the time of the bill's effective date could serve out his or her term. The board meeting dates and times would have to be concurred in by a vote of 18 (increased from 10) members. Further, the bill would delete obsolete provisions.

MCL 333.16621

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

Fiscal information is not available.

ARGUMENTS:

For:

The bill would rectify a situation created when Executive Order No. 1996-2 transferred all duties and powers of the Dental Specialty Field Task Force to the director of the Department of Consumer and Industry Services. The task force served an important role in advising the Michigan Board of Dentistry in matters relating to specialty certification. In the time since the task force was abolished, the board voted to change the examination process for specialty certification, even though some people felt that the board may not have been qualified to evaluate the specialty examinations. The bill would help in the future by requiring that at least two of the members appointed to the board hold a specialty certification. In this way, the expertise that was lost by way of the dissolution of the task force would be restored.

Response:

The bill currently would require more votes to concur on board meeting dates and times than the board would have members. The bill should be amended accordingly.

POSITIONS:

The Michigan Association of Orthodontists submitted testimony in support of the bill. (9-22-98)

Analyst: S. Stutzky

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.