Foreign Trained Dentist-READ THIS-Important Info on deadline ext. CAL bench Exam

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
DBC first said that the RT exam has to end at certain time for sure. Then they proposed that they would only take those who have finished NBDE 1 and 2 by the end of 2003 or 2004, and then let these people take RT exams for up to 4 times. They speculate that by doing so, RT exam will last until around 2008....

I kind of agree with Senator Kevin Murray on one point. IF RT EXAM HAS TO SEE SUNSET( with a replacement system well established) , we can't keep on pushing the deadlines for people entering the exam pool to accomodate those who are postponing and postponing all the time( or failing and failing) because they are never ready for taking NBDE 1 and 2....

thank you
 
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_1451-1500/ab_1467_cfa_20030717_092623_sen_comm.html

the article explains the position of the pro and con parties. We should concentrate on the con party's argument in our future lobbying.

There are couple points (opponent's side) that trouble me
1) reason to cancel the RTE exam is because of the high RTE and licensing failure rate
- this really puzzles me ... since only those pass can practice, why would the failure rate even matter?

But I think this is a losing battle. The RTE will sunset.

2) CDB does not have enough man power, examiners and sites to administer the RTE. They plan to cut back from 3 exams/year to 2 exams/year, thereby accomodating only 500 examinees/year. They want the language to provide at least two RTE attempts remove from the current bill.

- the life of many foreign dentists rests on the inaptitude of CDB!! Those problems can easily be addressed by a higher examination fees. A higher fee is minor compared to the cost of exam preparation, and insignificant to a 2 years dental program.

There are several things that I worry. First is the timing .... even if the bill pass the senate it has to go back to the assembly because of the amendments. There may not be enough time for the bill to be send to the governor, who may or may not be Gray Davis. The senate may also choose not to act instead of voting. The chance of death by technicality has greatly increased.

Second is even if the RTE is extended, there is a good chance that an examinee is given only one shot. That is not fair. Anything can happen in an exam. Furthermore we may have to wait for a looooong time before even that the first shot. Many lives are on hold 🙁

I think we should push for CDB to put more resources into the RTE.

Another thing I propose will probably irritate a lot of people here. I believe the California residency (or US citizen/PR, or at least not someone here on tourist visa) should be a RTE application criteria . The limited RTE resource will better serve those with an intention to practice in California.

- tengu

p.s. can anybody compile a lobbying list?
 
Tengu, I know what you mean on the last part of your article...that california residents should have priority. I can't agree more....

BUT BUT BUT, PLEASE DO NOT SAY SOME FOREIGN DENTISTS COME WITH TOURIST VISA....and stuff like that to the law makers....you only endanger those who actually really need this bill. Law makers only make the differences of Foreign dentists or non foreign dentists, they don't give a damn about the good ones and bad ones, justified ones or non justified ones. One slight negative impression ruins the whole group... you should just focus on the urgent need of california residents to become licensed and their immediate aid to the community....that is good enough....

otherwise, the same thing on 07/14 will happen again

Thank you
 
My friends hearing date is 18th august in sacramanto.....
 
Any body having latest news....
 
Well, is there any more news?
From the people who were present in the last hearing, I would like to know if there is anything else we can do to make sure this bill passes with out further delay!!
 
As far as I know...the bill won't be passed since it requires the signatures of Gray Davis....And you know what Gray Davis is busy with....He's busy with saving his own tale....But I hope DBC can come up with some resolution that satisfies both parties...Please if you have any other information on this matter post it...
 
Hmm...

It doesn't matter who signs it--Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Gary Coleman. As long as he is the governor 🙂 Anyway,
if Davis wants to win support from the dental community, then he knows what to do with the bill when it passes. So I wouldn't be as pessimistic as you are.

By the way, the next hearing's Monday, right? Can anyone post the details like time and venue? I am planning to attend. State capitol is a only a few miles from where I live.

Thanks.

Ivorinedust
 
I agree with you Ivorinedust.... I will try to be optimistic...

Also, if Gray Davis wants to win my vote and the votes of my family and the Dental Community he will sign the Legislature as soon as possible.

Is there a web site where we can send Gray Davis an email to explain him the situation??
 
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2003

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
FIGUEROA, Chair
1:30 p.m. - Room 112
Phone: (916) 445-3435

A.B. No. 1467 Negrete McLeod. Dentists: licensure requirements.

Well gentleman Bill has to signed by Gray Davis only because it has to become law on or Before 15th september 2003..Otherwise
Bill is no longer valid after this assembly session...

you can watch it live at the internet also...Good Luck for the fellows who are going on 19 th August to Sacramanto.....
 
hi ,
thanks for the info ,
can u let us know which website we should visit to get the live info of this session ??
 
Could tomorrow's meeting be can be viewed on cable tv? Check out http://www.calchannel.com/carriage.htm for schedule and more information. I am not sure if tomorrow's proceedings would be telecast live , but it is worth a try.

Internet audio stream coverage *might* be available on this site:
http://www.sen.ca.gov/htbin/testbin/noframe_raudio

Anick, please add to this information if you have more.

Thanks.

Ivorinedust
 
I am new to this forum, but I have been following it closely all along. My wife is a foreign trained dentist from Colombia, has passed both National Boards and has not yet taken the bench test, and she had hoped to gain licensure through that process.

I will be attending the Senate Business and Professions Committee hearing tomorrow and presenting testimony. I plan to provide written testimony whether or not I am able to give oral testimony. I will suggest that the following changes to the bill be made:

(1) That the Dental Board of California be directed to conduct no less than 3 bench tests per calendar year. If you go to their website you will see that they have canceled the pending December test date.

(2) That in order to ensure that both physical facilities and staff for the grading of the exams is adequate to conduct no less than 3 exams per year, the examination fee portion of the test fee be raised to $2,500 per examination attempt. This would raise the amount of funds collected per exam from $62,500 to $625,000. That additional funding would virtually assure that the Dental Board could induce one of the 5 Dental Schools in California to make their facilities available for the examination as well as be more than adequate funding for examination graders and proctors to supervise the examination.

(3) That the proposed limitations regarding when a candidate must have passed the National Boards and graduated from Dental School be extended beyond the currently proposed dates.

(4) I will also present data about some of the recently licensed dentists that my wife and I know who obtained their license through the bench test process. Two of those licensees are currently teaching at UCSF and UOP. Other recent licensees are in fact serving underserved populations that would not otherwise be recieving adequate dental care.

(5) I will assert that the high failure rate for examinees taking the bench test has no bearing upon the clinical skills of the examinees but rather is a reflection of the test methodology itself. According to the staff of the Dental Board, the failure rate for examinees taking the test for the first time is about 60%. It appears from testimony offered at the last hearing that the Dental Board is using statisitics from exam results to support the sunsetting of this law, insinuating that the bench tests yields inferior dental practitioners.

If anyone who is following this forum has an opinion about the fees for taking the test, please post them tonight and I may modify my suggested fee increase. My sense is that the cost of sitting for the examination pales in comparison to the cost of attending a US Dental school or lost income from waiting for more than a year to take the bench test. I will be at the hearing room early and would welcome the opportunity to talk with any of you forum members who will be attending. My name is Scott and I am 6' 2" tall and I have a graying red beard. I encourage anyone who has a stake in the outcome of this issue, and who is physically able, to attend the hearing.
 
Originally posted by Dentisthusband
(5) I will assert that the high failure rate for examinees taking the bench test has no bearing upon the clinical skills of the examinees but rather is a reflection of the test methodology itself. According to the staff of the Dental Board, the failure rate for examinees taking the test for the first time is about 60%. It appears from testimony offered at the last hearing that the Dental Board is using statisitics from exam results to support the sunsetting of this law, insinuating that the bench tests yields inferior dental practitioners.

Hi, Dentisthusband,

Where did you quote the info from? What do you mean about this? Is the failure rate too high or too low? Do you mean the dental board intentionally lowers the passing rate to show most of the examinees are not qualified?
BTW, as I remember, I saw from somewhere that the bench test passing rate for the first time examinees is just 15% and the overall passing rate is under 50%.
Click to expand...
 
Hello dh2,

I went to the office of the Dental Board and met with a member of the staff and discussed the passage rates in general terms in March or April of this year. I was told by the staff person that only 40% of the examinees that were taking the test for the first time achieved a passing score. I also heard anecdotal information from examinees who took the test last May that the passage rate must have been dramatically lower for that exam.

The official record from the last public hearing includes the folowing excerpt:

"Because of concerns that the exam was not a satisfactory method of assuring equivalent education, training and competency, in part based upon the very high failure rate both on the RT exam and the California licensing exam that is taken following passage of the RT exam, AB 1116 was enacted in 1997 to revise the licensure requirements for foreign trained dental school graduates."

I don't think the Dental Board is attempting to incorrectly report the results of the examinees, but I do think that there is a large degree of subjective evaluation in the grading of the test. I also think that the Dental Board members would all prefer that there were no RT exam from this day forward and that attitude invariably lowers the chances for a passing score. I will speak to this point tomorrow but I will refrain from calling the Dental Board names.
 
Hi dentisthusband,

(3) That the proposed limitations regarding when a candidate must have passed the National Boards and graduated from Dental School be extended beyond the currently proposed dates.



what are the proposed limitation dates set by the DBC. I am not aware of them, can you please let me know.
Also I have passed part 1 and 2 national boards, and I tried applying to the DBC for the aug 2003 exams, but my application was sent back. Do I make through there set dates.

please let me know.
 
Hope the hearing turns out well . Good Luck to all of you. Iam keeping my fingers crossed too.
 
Hi Cali,

The Dental Board has suggested in previous testimony that the deadline for passage of both National Boards I and II be moved up to Dec. 31, 2003. There is also discussion about when you may have graduated from the foreign dental school and the possibility of stipulating the latest date that you would have graduated. For example, a provison may be added that you must have graduated no later than December 31, 2004. However the date of passage of the National Boards would take precedence over such a requirement.

It would seem that you have made it under the wire of those two requirements and like my wife, you must only wait for the extension of the law and an opportunity to sit for the bench test. Good luck.

Scott
 
Thanks scott (Dentisthusband) for the information. Please keep us all update of such an important hearing tomorrow. I wish I could be present tomorrow for it, but its just now possible for me.


Good luck to all of you, who are for the extension of the RT exam. God bless everyone.

And everyone try getting some sleep tonight.
 
hi ,
is anyone able to hear the proceedings in the link mentioned by ivoryinedust ??? am unable to .
 
I am able to hear senate Floor but not the room no 112... anyone know how to hear this??😕 +pissed+ I did send email to webmaster also but nothing..... waiting for latest update from who ever managed to attend the hearing... Till then..keep fingers cross......
 
Hello everyone:

I just came home from state capitol. There was nothing going on in rm 112. Hmm...did I get the time and venue right? There was a hearing in rm 113 but that pertains to "contractor's license", not foreign dentist licensure.

I wasn't so sure about getting audio feed from the website I posted. But then again, there was nothing posted on the door of room 112 at 1:30, so you might hear a different assembly/senate meeting.

I am waiting from others who might have come home from the Capitol...

Ivorinedust
 
hi ivorinedust,
looks like there is really something wrong.
the link below http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/schedules/files.htp shows us the daily senate file where our bill AB no:1467 is listed.

it would be great if anyone else knowing more on the session can post furthur details and update the information.
thanks.
 
Hello everyone,

I just retruned from a very disappointing and wasted trip to Sacramento. The Business and Professions Committee did not consider AB 1467 today and there is currently no date set for its reconsideration. The reason was pure politics as the Republicans held all bills hostage under procedural rules. It had nothing to do with the particular merits of this bill. I met with Andrew Martinez who is the legislative aide for Assemblymember Gloria Negrete-McLeod, who was the original sponsor of the bill. If you have additional comments or questions after eading this post you can write directly to Mr. Martinez at [email protected]

I learned that Assemblymember Negrete-McLeod and other members of the Assembly and Senate do support the bill. There are several variations being debated and considered by various groups. The bottom line though is that the Dental Board does not like the very idea of a bench test exam and they will do whatever they can to put a permanent end to it. Further, this bill must make its way out of the Business and Professions Committee and one of the members of that committee, Senator Sam Aanestad is an Oral Surgeon. I learned that one of the reasons that the last public hearing went so badly was that Senator Aanestad is not at all in favor of the bench test and made a special effort to make the dental candidates who spoke, look as foolish as possible.

I suggest that the only way to get any kind of bill passed is to begin a concerted and ongoing lobbying effort to the members of the Business and Professions Committee. If anyone interested would like to review the testimony that I prepared for today's hearing then write me at [email protected].

Scott
 
So where does that leave us now?
Does that mean the bill can die just because of politics?!
sounds absurd ......only in California!
 
This is indeed disconcerting. Those politicians do not care about other people ..... argh ... can't describe how disguisted I am 🙁

Let's have some grass root action. Who are the politicians holding up the bills? (btw I am not aware of any hot potato issues that warrant such tactics). Perhaps we should target them. Let's hope they set another date for the hearing but time is running out.

Even if Sacramento doesn't get it's act together not all hope is lost. They can re-introduce the bill next year .... but for us ... that means another year lost!!

- tengu
 
I just sent an email to Mr. Martinez at [email protected] asking how we can help. I hope others in the forum will do the same.

Many times I see people in this forum take but not give back. Let's get rid of this immigrant mentality!! If everybody wait for others to do the work than nothing will be done. This is our chance for a last push. Even if the bill dies at least we can say we tried our best.

- tengu
 
Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) is an oral and maxillofacial surgeon who was elected to the California State Legislature in 1998 to represent the 3rd Assembly District. In 2002, Aanestad was elected to the California State Senate. Dr. Aanestad and his wife, Susan, have lived in the 3rd Assembly District since 1980 and have three grown children.

Dr. Aanestad has practiced oral and maxillofacial surgery full-time in Grass Valley, and has served as the Vice-Chief of Surgery at Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital. He served three terms on the California Dental Association Council on Legislation, three years as their chairman, and he served two terms as president of the Butte-Sierra District Dental Society. He is also a member of the California and American Dental Associations.

[ snip ]

Senator Aanestad received both his Bachelor of Arts and Doctor of Dental Surgery degrees from the University of California at Los Angeles. He then did a four-year Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery residency at Highland Hospital in Oakland. Dr. Aanestad received a Master in Public Administration degree from Golden Gate University in 1991. He was honored by the UCLA School of Dentistry as their "Alumnus of the Year" in November 1998.

In the California State Senate, Dr. Aanestad's top priority is to serve the needs of the 4th Senate District, which includes Butte, Colusa, DelNorte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba counties.
 
Count me in.

Ivorinedust

--------------------------------------
"Apolonia, relieve me of my toothache!"
 
hey count me in too

what really furstrates me is that they r treating us as if we have got the degrree from our respective countries just by ..luck nad not hard work......and i feel like doingis asking Dr. Aanestad to pay of our tution.......then i think he will realise how much money it takes to go to school again .... we have gone thor''' it once i really do not see the need to go tro the whole process again .......
lets hope for the best
 
hi ,
just now mailed to MR .martinez . lets hope things work out & RTE gets extended .
 
You may directly e-mail me at the following address:

[email protected].

If you have further questions or concerns that you wish to directly relay to my staff, please use the contact numbers below:

State Capitol, Room 3056 200 Providence Mine, Ste. 108 Chico: (530) 895-6088
Sacramento, CA 95814 Nevada City, CA 95959 Colusa: (530) 458-4161
Phone: (916) 445-3353 Phone: (530) 470-1846 Redding: (530) 225-3142

Let us all call this senator and realize him the facts that a dental student goes thru....
 
Originally posted by Anick
You may directly e-mail me at the following address:

[email protected].

If you have further questions or concerns that you wish to directly relay to my staff, please use the contact numbers below:

State Capitol, Room 3056 200 Providence Mine, Ste. 108 Chico: (530) 895-6088
Sacramento, CA 95814 Nevada City, CA 95959 Colusa: (530) 458-4161
Phone: (916) 445-3353 Phone: (530) 470-1846 Redding: (530) 225-3142

Let us all call this senator and realize him the facts that a dental student goes thru....
Click to expand...

For a moment there I thought you yourself were a senator.:laugh: 😀 😉
 
As it stands at this moment, AB 1467 will be heard by the Senate Business and Professions Committee at the adjournment of Senate Floor session tomorrow morning. Our office has agreed to take the following amendments:

AB 1467, as proposed to be amended would: (1) extend the sunset date for administering the RT exam to December 31, 2008; (2) terminate the qualification period for any new applicants for the RT exam at the end of this year, December 31, 2003; (3) retain the current rules regarding the number of permitted four attempts to pass the RT exam; (4) require that all RT exam applications must be mailed and specify the date by which all applications must be postmarked or received by the Board; (5) provide that failure to appear when scheduled for a particular exam without good cause will be treated as a failure of that particular exam; and, (6) extend the time period in which those who pass the RT exam may take the subsequent California dental licensing exam.

We believe that this amendment will allow the measure to pass out of the Senate and to continue its journey to the Governor's desk.

******************
good news for those who are already qualified to take the RT exam. Bad news to those otherwise.

- tengu

p.s. how about pushing for 3 RT exams/year and increasing the RT exam fees to pay for it.
 
I sent another email to Martinez.

-----------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Martinez,

Thank you for the reply. Good news for those who are
already qualified for the RT examination.

I have an additional amendment suggestion:
- increase the number of RT exam to 3 times a year,
and increase the registration fee to pay for it.

By comparison the licensing exam is offered 8 times a
year.

One of the major complain of California Dental Board
about the RT exam is the lack of resources to
adminstrate the test. This can be solved by
increasing the fee to cover the cost. The examinees
benefit by having more exam slots available. Even if
the fee is increased by 4-5 times, it is still a
minute expense compare to the rest.

Right now many lives are on hold
waiting for an open RT exam slot. The average waiting
time is at least a year. So even two attempts will
take two years.
 
Hi All,

Based upon what Mr. Martinez told me whenI was in Sacramento I did not think that the issue would come before the committee so soon. I spoke to Mr. Martinez about the testing fee and urged him to raise it tenfold to $2,500 which would yield $625,000 in revenue per test. He was concerned on two points. The first was the fear that cash starved legislators might misappropriate the money to the general fund and two that even if the fee were higher the state has a general hiring freeze due to the budget. He thought that the Governor might be opposed to a fee increase.

I urge all who read this to write to Mr. Martinez and to request that 3 or 4 exams per year be administered and that any and all fee increases that are necessary to achieve 3 or 4 exams per year be charged. Tell him that you would prefer the risk of misappropriation to waitng for 2 or more years to sit for the exam. I believe that it would be a serious political mistake for the legislature to misappropriate the funds anyway since it would have an impact upon the testing all you potential applicants would make a lot of noise about it. You need for there to be an adequate fee to induce the Board to conduct the maximum number of tests possible. It totally unfair (racist?) to conduct 8 clinical exams and only 2 RT exams. The fee needs to be high enough to pay rent to the University that hosts it and to hire temporary consultants (not permanent employees) to grade the exam.

Send you desires to the members of the Committee as well.

Scott
 
$2,500 dollars for taking an exam?????????????????????

are you out of your mind? there is no way an one- day exam can be that much.....we are not only a bunch of poor foreign dentists who are fooled around by these people, but become their money pot....

this fee you propose is absolutely outrageous
 
hi again ,
got the same email from mr.martinez. anyways very nice of him to mail us back immediately .
i just have a doubt , if anyone could help me clear it !!!!!

(1) extend the sunset date for administering the RT exam to December 31, 2008; (2) terminate the qualification period for any new applicants for the RT exam at the end of this year, December 31, 2003;

does this mean that the candidate should have passed both part ! & 2 by december 31 2003 ??
what if some is planning to give part 2 in december ?? does that mean the person wont be qualified as he would be getting his results only by jan r so ??
 
Originally posted by sadanand
does this mean that the candidate should have passed both part ! & 2 by december 31 2003 ??
Click to expand...
It seems so.

what if some is planning to give part 2 in december ?? does that mean the person wont be qualified as he would be getting his results only by jan r so ??
Click to expand...
I will say the time of the exam, not the date you receive the result (which is not registered so they have no way of knowing when you get the result).

just my 2 kopeks

- tengu
 
I would say its logical to give the computer based part II instead of written ...as the result comes in 2/3 weeks instead of 2 months....This might help in fulfilling the board qualifications.
 
Guys you can make it through computer easier. You chose the day and place to take it. I took my NDB II by computer Jun 2-3/2003 and I got my scores in my hand opening the envelope from the ADA the next Monday 09 of Jun 2003. May be I was lucky, but is going to be better, just yourself taknig the test any day. Try it...
 
Hello to Everyone,

I just spoke to Andrew Martinez on the phone and the bill passed out of the Senate Business and Professions Committee today. However, next week the measure must pass through the Appropriations Committee and then be approved by the full Senate and then be returned to the lower hosue for concurrence since it has been amended in the Senate. Then the measure must be signed by the Governor on or before Sept. 12 (not sure of the exact date) in order to become law. Andy told me that he believes the Governor will support the bill.

The unfortunate part of all of this is that the bill, as amended, requires that all candidates must have passed both National Boards on or before Dec. 31, 2003. Senator Aanestad clarified the bill in that a candidate can take the 2nd Board late in the year and has until April of 2004 to apply for the exam, which gives you time to get the results from the ADA. The law extends the RT exam until 2008 and you still get 4 attempts to pass. However, as of this date, the Dental Board of California intends to only conduct 2 exams per year. So due to the current backlog of people who have already applied for the exam, it may be 2 years before some candidates get their first chance to sit for the exam.

There was no direction from the Senate about what the fee for the exam should be so the Board is free to set the price for taking the exam at whatever amount they choose. There is also no statutory limit on the number of exams that the Board can conduct per year. So, after this law is finally passed and signed by the Governor, we are all free to lobby the Board to conduct more exams. That is all I know right now. Good luck to all who took the RT exam today and to all who will be taking the 2nd Board in the near future. It may all work out in the end for most of you.

Scott
 
Thanks for the latest info. One hurdle down, four more to go.

Originally posted by Dentisthusband
Senator Aanestad clarified the bill in that a candidate can take the 2nd Board late in the year and has until April of 2004 to apply for the exam
Click to expand...
I don't quite understand what you say. Do you mean that all qualified must apply for the RT before April 2004?

- tengu
 
I think he means a candidate can take the NBDE2 before the end of this year and wait for the result until Apr. 2004 to apply for the next RT.
 
Sorry for the poor wording tengu. Andy told me that if you have already passed both Boards then you will probably be required to apply for the exam this year in order to eligible to take the exam. If you have not yet passed the 2nd Board, then you will have until the end of 2003 pass the Board, and you will be required to apply for the exam prior to the end of April 2004. For example, my wife has passed both Boards but has not yet applied for the RT exam because she did not have the results in time to apply for the August exam date. I don't think the Dental Board will accept her application for the RT exam until the law becomes effective. I'm sure that if the bill becomes law, there will be ample notice of the requirements for application procedures on their website. One part of the bill that I failed to mention was that the Dental Board convinced the legislature to write into the bill that the only way you will be allowed to apply is by mail. I hope that clarifies it.

Scott
 
Hello

What is a Appropriations Commitee ?
Do you have contact email addresses of the members of this
commitee? We all should send them an email to approve the bill.

Also we should send similar emails to Senate members and then
Lower house members.

Let us write simple emails to these members to support the bill AB1467. Make it very clear in the email that you want to support the bill. Also please do not include some unnecessary details in an email which will make them confused.

Here is the list of all california senators
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/sen-addresses.html

and lower house(assembly) members of California.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/asm-addresses.html

Sanjiv
 
Hello Dentisthusband,
You seem to be having very good knowledge about everything. So can you please clarify one thing for me. The bill stated that the applicant must pass part 1 and 2 by the end of this year. Is that correct?
Also I have sent my application for the aug exam(this was my first time application) but they sent it back saying that, "we are not accepting new applicants". My worries are that, the bill may not be only for those whose applications have been accepted. Please let me know if I qulify or not? I have passed my part 2 in June 2003.


Thanks to everyone, who are giving in all the feedback, otherwise I wouldnt be knowing anything. Thanks all for the support.
 
Hi Cali_dds and Sanjiv,

I am certainly not an expert on all of this, its just that I had the time to go to Sacramento this week and see how things work there. I also went to an official meeting of the Dental Board of California in March of this year. Everything you see on this forum is really just guesswork until the law becomes final. However since Andy's office was the primary sponsor of the bill, they have the best information about how things might finally be approved. Cali, you will be able to register for the exam if the law is accepted in the form that it was approved in the Bus. and Prf. Committee. You will have plenty of advance notice by following this forum and checking the Dental Board website at dbc.ca.gov from time to time.

It is interesting that the official meeting of the DBC in November in LA will establish the fee schedule and administration of examinations for the coming year. (See their meeting schedule by clicking on the news and information tab.) So it would be a good idea to send your requests regarding those issues to the DBC in advance of that meeting.

Sanjiv, the Appropriations Committee is the most powerful legislative body in Sacramento because it has oversight responsibilty over all financial matters that come before the legislature. The Committee has the power to kill any bill that comes before the legislature by simply choosing to not fund the bill. AB 1467 was originally coded a non-fiscal issue, but Andy told me today that this was in error and the bill does in fact have a financial impact because there is a cost to administering the exams, even if the cost is fully funded by the fees charged to sit for the exam. So Appropriations gets to either approve or reject the bill. You can and should send an e-mail to the members of Appropriations in support of approval of the bill. You are correct in your advice to not send unnecessary details. Just make your messages short and to the point. For example;

Dear Senator please pass AB 1467, as currently amended. This bill provides that qualified foreign trained Dentists may obtain licensure in California through a rigorous special examination administered by the Dental Board of California. Dentists who obtain their license through this method have most often choosen to practice in areas where there is a substantial underserved population that might not otherwise receive quality dental care. This bill benefits all Californians by ensuring that more citizens will have access to quality dental care. Please pass the bill and send it the Governor for approval as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Sanjiv (future dentist of California)

Good luck to all of you who may benefit from this bill, and most importantly good lobbying

Scott
 
Oops Sanjiv,

I just saw that I misspelled chosen as choosen. Please don't make the same mistake. Also it might not be a good idea to end correspondence with cute phrases like (future Dentist of California)

Scott
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Going through direct equivalency exams and then securing a work permit as foreign trained dentist
Replies
1
Views
2K
WildWing
WildWing
Inspiredmd
Bench test prep International dentist
Replies
2
Views
4K
Fatima tu zahra
F
prosthesis5820
Need information on bench test
Replies
2
Views
3K
prosthesis5820
prosthesis5820
itsgonnabeok12
give me some advice please! international dentist doing AEGD, which specialty to decide on?
Replies
1
Views
1K
R95M
R
G
Job after DDS as a foreign-trained dentist
Replies
1
Views
3K
sausy77
S
Top