Some notable boards are not on this list, because they do not meet the Dental Examiners requirements. For example, the State Board of Technical Professions regulates a variety of professions including engineering, architecture, and landscape. While, the board has members involved in all of those professions, no single profession represents a majority of the board. So while four members of the board are engineers, they make up only a portion of the thirteen-member board. Therefore, this type of combined board is likely not problematic under Dental Examiners. Similarly, the Board of Adult Care Home Administrators has a requirement that a majority of the board cannot be adult care home administrators, and so boards, like this, without a
…show more content…
Much of the discussion and lawsuits related to Dental Examiners occurred during the summer, while many state legislatures were on summer recess and so thus far there has been little state action. A few states, though, have begun to respond to the decision, and we can see several approaches to the issue. These actions range from legislation to executive orders. So far three states have taken concrete action to address the issue: Iowa, Oklahoma, and Alabama. What are the takeaways from these various reform attempts? All of reforms presented by state governments focus on increasing supervision for the state boards. So far no states have attempted to change board compositions. States have also largely relied upon executive action, and not legislation. It is unclear if this is due to a preference for executive action on this issue, or instead because the legislative process has not yet had enough time to address Dental …show more content…
The first action was an executive order issued by Governor Robert Bentley on June 23rd, 2015. The executive order cited a lack of legislative action to Dental Examiners as the basis for the order. The executive order focused on increasing supervision for state boards. It established a voluntary program that state boards, controlled by active market participants, could join so they can comply with antitrust laws, and thus receive state action immunity. To do so, the order established the Alabama Office of Regulatory Oversight of Boards and Commissions (the Office), which a new secretary position manages. The Office is in charge of “review[ing] actions and/or rules submitted” by participating entities. The Secretary is also given the power to modify or rescind rules or other actions for participating entities. The Alabama program has two major takeaways, 1) the creation of a new review office, and 2) the voluntary nature of the program so that boards can choose to opt into the
Much of the discussion and lawsuits related to Dental Examiners occurred during the summer, while many state legislatures were on summer recess and so thus far there has been little state action. A few states, though, have begun to respond to the decision, and we can see several approaches to the issue. These actions range from legislation to executive orders. So far three states have taken concrete action to address the issue: Iowa, Oklahoma, and Alabama. What are the takeaways from these various reform attempts? All of reforms presented by state governments focus on increasing supervision for the state boards. So far no states have attempted to change board compositions. States have also largely relied upon executive action, and not legislation. It is unclear if this is due to a preference for executive action on this issue, or instead because the legislative process has not yet had enough time to address Dental …show more content…
The first action was an executive order issued by Governor Robert Bentley on June 23rd, 2015. The executive order cited a lack of legislative action to Dental Examiners as the basis for the order. The executive order focused on increasing supervision for state boards. It established a voluntary program that state boards, controlled by active market participants, could join so they can comply with antitrust laws, and thus receive state action immunity. To do so, the order established the Alabama Office of Regulatory Oversight of Boards and Commissions (the Office), which a new secretary position manages. The Office is in charge of “review[ing] actions and/or rules submitted” by participating entities. The Secretary is also given the power to modify or rescind rules or other actions for participating entities. The Alabama program has two major takeaways, 1) the creation of a new review office, and 2) the voluntary nature of the program so that boards can choose to opt into the