The Dental Hygiene Board of California on Nov. 8 reaffirmed proposed statutory changes that staff will now seek a legislative sponsor to carry in 2026.

Executive Officer Anthony Lum reviewed four categories of statutory proposals previously drafted for an earlier session and not sponsored in 2025: (a) permitting dental hygiene students to participate in sponsored health events to increase access to care (proposed BPC §19.15.1), (b) requiring RDHAPs to report working locations as part of license-renewal statistics so the board can map where RDHAPs practice (proposed amendment to BPC §19.26.3), (c) updating statutory language to accept the United States Department of Education’s revised accreditation nomenclature for institutional vs. programmatic accrediting agencies in BPC §19.41, and (d) adding authority to post board enforcement actions on the board’s website and creating a process for executive‑officer administrative citation removal (proposed BPC §19.61.5 and separate EO citation removal language suggested as a new §19.50.1).

Lum illustrated the EO citation-removal concept with an enforcement example: a licensee who initially failed a continuing education audit later produced certificates showing compliance, but a citation remained on the licensee’s record with no administrative mechanism to remove it. "What this new proposed language would do is allow the authority from me if a licensee were to show proof after an appeals process that they are actually in compliance, then I can go ahead and remove that administrative citation," he said.

Committee and board members asked clarifying questions about where and how work-location data would be captured and whether striking older reporting timelines (such as a 30-day requirement) would hinder tracking non-practicing licensees. Lum said the work-location reporting would be collected at renewal to create a more accurate statistical picture than relying on residential addresses. Members also recommended small drafting/grammar changes to ensure the statutory text mirrors existing statute formatting where appropriate.

The committee moved and the full board voted to reaffirm the proposed statutory drafts and to direct staff to pursue sponsored legislation for 2026; the board also asked staff to split the executive-officer citation-removal provision into a distinct statutory section (suggested 19.50.1).

Why it matters: If sponsored and enacted, the proposals would change what the board can require during renewal and how it communicates enforcement actions to the public and could create an administrative pathway for removing citations that are later shown to be technically compliant.

What’s next: Staff will seek an author and sponsor for the draft language for the 2026 legislative cycle and will return with updates; drafting clarifications requested by members will be incorporated before outreach to potential authors.