OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 32 • Anything that the Assistant Attorney General will be providing as an Exhibit • Expert Report • Written statements taken by the investigators for witnesses who are going to be testifying at the hearing Ms. Bockbrader explained that statements are about the only thing that is currently not provided that the defense would probably like to have. She clarified that this was not the original complaint but rather the information from a subsequent interview. Ms. Bockbrader stated that investigative reports, correspondence between the investigators and the Assistant Attorney General or the Complainant are considered by all the regulatory boards as confidential. She stated that goes back to the fact that the Board is the accuser. HEARING EXAMINERS Dr. Armstrong moved on to the language regarding hearing examiners. A brief discussion resulted in the Board supporting the former Board position in this regard. GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINE Dr. Armstrong went on to discuss the issues regarding grounds for discipline. He commented that the Vice-Chair of the Committee tried to pin down two (2) of the representatives as to what types of crimes should be included or should be grounds for discipline. He stated that the Vice-Chair expressed his reservations as to allowing the Bill to go forward without any such information/clarification. Dr. Wynn concurred in that the biggest problem would be in pinning down those crimes that are not directly related to the practice of dentistry. However, she stated that the reality is that there are cases such as a dentist who is selling swampland to his patient. She stated that while the selling of the swampland is not directly related to the practice of dentistry, the use of their patient database in determining who to sell the swampland to is the issue. Ms. Naber commented that once you list crimes and then the crime is not on that “laundry list” then that could cause the Board problems down the road. Further discussion resulted in the Board agreeing to oppose this language. DENTIST/DENTAL HYGIENIST RENEWAL Continuing on, Dr. Armstrong directed the Board members to page 12 regarding renewal. Dr. Leffler commented that if they are going to give the dentist a six (6) month extension to renew then there should be a hefty fine implemented. Comments regarding the fine as set forth in the Bill were deemed to be punitive. Additionally, Board
OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 33 members were concerned about the language allowing the licensee to renew six (6) months after the renewal deadline. Ms. Franks asked whether those licensees who are permitted to renew six months after the renewal deadline would be permitted to include continuing education from that extended six month period. Ms. Bockbrader stated that she was unsure due to the way the language is written as to whether the licensee would be permitted to use the additional time to obtain continuing education. Dr. Wallace stated that he felt that they were two (2) separate issues in that the Board could implement discipline based on insufficient continuing education separate from implementing fines for late renewal. Dr. Leffler asked Dr. Armstrong if they were going to pursue eliminating the language regarding “listing the date, location, sponsor, subject matter, and hours completed of the programs.” for reporting of compliance with the continuing education requirement at the time of renewal. Ms. Staley and Ms. Naber questioned whether the fine for late renewal for the dental hygienist should be the same as that of the dentist. They questioned whether the fee should be proportionate to the licensing fee. Ms. Wynn stated that the cost should remain the same due to the fact that it was going to cost the Board the same amount to process a reinstatement for either type of license. Dr. Kaye stated that one other issue that was brought up was that if the dentist did not renew his license in a timely manner, would the dental hygienist working under his supervision be putting themselves at risk for discipline for practicing for an unlicensed dentist. Further discussion resulted in the consensus that the licensee should only be permitted to continue practicing for an additional three (3) months, not five (5) after the renewal deadline, before the penalties would be implemented. QUALITY INTERVENTION PROGRAM (QUIP) Dr. Wallace commented that the new language now allows for the Board to choose whether to implement the Quality Intervention Program. It was decided that the Board is not in opposition to the changes to the language on the QUIP. DOUBLE JEOPARDY Ms. Bockbrader asked for clarification of the new language in SubHB 215 on lines 707 through 713. Discussion resulted in the Board members agreeing that the language was ambiguous as written but that it was language that could be ultimately worked with for the purposes of enforcement.
Page 1 and 2: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 33: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 37: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?