AB 2625, as drafted, is a findings-only section that sets out the Legislature’s view of California’s dentist shortage, racial and geographic maldistribution, and the state’s prior practice of approving certain foreign dental schools. The text recounts the Dental Board of California’s earlier program to evaluate and approve foreign dental schools, names the two institutions the board approved, and summarizes the practical contribution of their graduates to underserved communities.
The findings also explain the effect of Chapter 865 (AB 1519, 2019), which removed the board’s authority to approve additional foreign dental schools and required existing board‑approved schools to obtain accreditation from the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) by January 1, 2024. The bill documents how CODA’s international review process and COVID-era travel restrictions have delayed that pathway, and it frames these procedural bottlenecks as part of the explanation for California’s workforce problems.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2625 collects legislative findings: the state faces a worsening dentist shortage and distributional disparities; the Dental Board previously evaluated and approved foreign dental schools; AB 1519 curtailed that authority and required CODA accreditation; CODA’s international process has been slow and disrupted. The section provides historical context and figures but contains no policy directives or operative requirements in the text provided.
Who It Affects
The findings are directly relevant to the Dental Board of California, foreign dental schools that have sought or hold board approval, California‑licensed dentists who graduated from foreign programs, and communities—particularly rural and low‑income urban areas—served by those practitioners. Accreditation bodies and state workforce planners are also implicated by the documented delays and policy constraints.
Why It Matters
These findings surface the administrative and accreditation obstacles that intersect with workforce shortages and racial underrepresentation in dentistry. For regulators, educators, and safety‑net clinics, the bill frames an argument that existing accreditation and statutory rules contribute to supply bottlenecks—information that will shape any future statutory changes or regulatory responses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2625 does not change law in the text provided; it compiles an extensive set of findings explaining why the Legislature is concerned about dental access in California. It starts by documenting the scale and geography of the problem—millions of residents lacking routine dental care, large portions of the state designated as dental health professional shortage areas, and an aging dentist workforce—and connects those facts to racial and socioeconomic disparities in access.
The bill recounts the state’s prior approach to foreign dental education: in 1998 the Legislature authorized the Dental Board to evaluate and, where appropriate, approve foreign dental schools using expert reviews of curriculum, faculty, and facilities. That process led to board approval of two foreign programs (La Salle University in Mexico and Moldova University), whose alumni have gone on to pass California licensing exams and practice in underserved communities.
The findings supply concrete examples of where those graduates practice and the role they play in care delivery.AB 2625 then turns to the change created by AB 1519 (2019): it removed the board’s authority to approve new foreign schools and mandated that existing board‑approved schools secure CODA accreditation by a statutory deadline. The bill details how CODA’s international accreditation timeline has historically been measured in years—sometimes more than a decade—and how pandemic-related travel restrictions further delayed reviews.
The findings identify these procedural and timing issues as contributing factors to the state’s dental workforce constraints, and they surface the tensions between upholding accreditation standards and maintaining an adequate provider supply.Although the section is framed as rationale for intervention, the text supplied is limited to findings and historical summary. It therefore functions as a record of perceived problems—workforce shortage, racial underrepresentation among dentists, high education costs, visa fee impacts, and accreditation bottlenecks—without setting out specific statutory remedies or enforcement mechanisms in the excerpt provided.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The findings state roughly 3 million Californians lack access to routine dental services and that more than 2.7 million live in dental health professional shortage areas.
The Dental Board of California previously approved two foreign dental schools: University of De La Salle Bajío (La Salle University) in Mexico (approved 2004) and State University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Nicolae Testemitanu” in Moldova (approved 2016).
Approximately 900 graduates from those two board‑approved foreign schools have passed California licensure exams and are practicing in the state, including in communities such as Yuba City, Madera, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Los Angeles.
Chapter 865 (AB 1519, 2019) eliminated the board’s authority to approve additional foreign dental schools and required existing board‑approved schools to obtain CODA accreditation by January 1, 2024.
CODA’s international accreditation process has been slow: CODA’s first international approval (King Abdulaziz University) took ~12 years and it approved a second international program in 2024 after ~17 years; CODA paused international reviews during COVID‑era travel restrictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope of the dentist shortage and contributing factors
These subsections quantify the shortage—millions without routine care, a large share in shortage areas, and an aging workforce—and identify drivers: high cost of dental education, rising student debt, and reduced ability of graduates to serve underserved areas. For compliance and workforce planners, this is the bill’s problem statement: it links economic barriers (education cost, debt) and demographic realities (dentist age, low Medicaid participation) to access outcomes in specific regions.
Disparities and population impact
This block documents racial, ethnic, and geographic disparities—low shares of Latino and Black dentists relative to population, higher disease prevalence in rural areas, and low Medi‑Cal participation among dentists. The text frames cultural competency and demographic representation as material to access, which matters for any policy that aims to expand or reconfigure the workforce: measures that increase provider numbers without addressing representativeness may fail to close access gaps.
History of the board’s foreign‑school approval program and outcomes
These subsections describe the 1998 program authorizing the Dental Board to evaluate foreign dental schools and summarize the board’s evaluation criteria (curriculum, faculty, facilities) and resultant approvals. It also reports outcomes—about 900 graduates from the two approved schools passed California exams and many practice in underserved communities—providing empirical grounding to the claim that state‑level approvals had a measurable effect on workforce distribution.
AB 1519’s constraint and CODA’s role
This portion recounts how AB 1519 stripped the board’s authority to approve additional foreign schools and required CODA accreditation for continued status, with a backstop deadline. It then lays out how CODA’s international accreditation activities stalled—first because CODA didn’t conduct international reviews for a time and later because of COVID travel restrictions—leaving schools in limbo. For regulators and schools, the practical implication is a mismatch between state statutory deadlines and the capacity/timeline of the national accrediting body.
CODA’s historical timeline for international approvals
These subsections give concrete examples of CODA’s long international review timelines—first international approval in 2019 after roughly 12 years, second in 2024 after roughly 17 years—underscoring the point that CODA’s process can be protracted. That history is presented as evidence that relying solely on CODA accreditation as the gate for foreign‑trained dentists injects substantial delay into any plan to expand the workforce via international programs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Underserved communities and rural counties — the findings argue that graduates of board‑approved foreign schools have practiced in these areas and therefore such pathways can expand access where shortages are worst.
- Foreign dental graduates and applicants — the documented history validates the practical licensing pathway some graduates have used to enter California practice and frames the accreditation issue as an obstacle to future cohorts.
- State workforce planners and health policy analysts — the bill compiles data and a policy narrative tying accreditation and statutory rules to supply constraints, which helps inform program design or legislative fixes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign dental schools seeking approval or accreditation — they face long, costly CODA processes, appeals (as with La Salle), and uncertainty created by statutory deadlines and travel restrictions.
- Dental Board of California — although the text praises past board approvals, AB 1519's removal of board authority and the potential need to reengage with accreditation issues would require administrative attention, legal review, and potential redesign of evaluation protocols.
- Safety‑net clinics and Medi‑Cal programs — persistent workforce bottlenecks and low dentist participation in Medi‑Cal raise program costs and limit service delivery, effectively shifting more emergency and uncompensated care onto these providers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: accelerate the supply of dentists to serve underserved Californians, which may require state‑level approvals or temporary pathways, or insist on a slower, uniform national accreditation route to preserve consistent education and patient‑safety standards—each path advances access but risks compromising either timeliness or comparative quality assurance.
The bill excerpt is exclusively findings: it catalogs problems, past actions, and procedural hurdles but does not prescribe a remedy in the provided text. That matters because findings can justify many different responses—reinstating board authority, creating a temporary state credentialing pathway, funding CODA reviews, or expanding loan‑repayment programs—and the evidence presented supports multiple, sometimes incompatible, solutions.
A deeper implementation challenge documented here is the mismatch between state statutory timelines and the practical capacity of an external accreditor (CODA). Requiring CODA accreditation as a gatekeeper aligns state practice with a national standard but imports multi‑year timelines and dependency on an external actor whose international capacity has historically been limited.
Conversely, restoring or retaining state approval authority raises questions about equivalency standards, consumer protection, and interjurisdictional recognition of education quality. The findings draw attention to both sides but do not resolve how California should balance speed of workforce expansion against consistent, nationally recognized standards.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.