Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic explains how ADEA and other associations are priming the applicant pipeline for schools of the health professions in anticipation of the demographic challenges that lie ahead.

“What keeps you awake at night?”

That was the question posed at a retreat of the Federation of Associations of Schools of the Health Professions (FASHP), which I attended last month with the heads of 12 of our sister associations. As we went around the room, the answer most frequently voiced was: “The future applicant pipeline.”

Across the health professions, we’ve seen a general flattening or decline in program applicants as the “echo boom” of the millennial generation ebbs and Generation Z takes its place. Although this rising cohort of young people is large enough to sustain the health care workforce for some time to come, if we don’t prepare now to compete for new entrants to our professions, we could experience a post-millennial bust.

According to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, U.S. college enrollments have been declining since 2012, and high school graduation rates have begun to stagnate. The impact of these trends on health professions programs is inevitable, and it is already visible today. Just ask Lucinda Maine, Ph.D., RPh, my counterpart at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), who calls herself “the canary in the coal mine.” In 2015, a couple of AACP member institutions failed to fill every seat in their incoming classes, and in 2016 it became clear that this was not an anomaly but the start of a trend.

It’s easy to see why pharmacy has been the first profession to bear the brunt of coming demographic changes, especially given recent economic shifts. As our community witnessed the opening of 13 dental schools since 1997, pharmacy saw far greater expansion—from 82 schools in 2002 to 139 schools today—and a lot of existing schools opened branch campuses. The dramatic growth seemed to make sense when the media was buzzing with stories of a national pharmacist shortage, but the recession changed those calculations.

“You had people who had been working part time who increased to full time in order to retain benefits,” Lucinda says. “You had people who had stepped out of the workplace who came back in. We’re not looking at a law school or an MBA situation by any stretch of the imagination. Our graduates are still getting pretty darn good jobs. They just may not be able to stay in some of the metropolitan areas that are attractive to young professionals.”

The contraction of opportunities in pharmacy, combined with the addition of thousands of first-year slots and a decline in the population of young adults seeking professional education, have added up to a significant challenge—one many of us could face in the years ahead.

In the early 2000s, veterinary medicine experienced shortages across all sectors, and schools increased capacity to meet that shortage. While rural shortages persist, there has been an excess capacity of veterinarians since the recession, especially in companion animal services in the suburbs. Despite these trends, veterinary medicine has been fortunate.

“Our applicant pool has been steady for the last five years, and we’ve seen an increase of 5% in the most recent cycle,” Andrew Maccabe, D.V.M., Chief Executive Officer of the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, told me when we spoke recently.

Nevertheless, Andy is concerned about what the future holds. Veterinary medicine grads have a debt-to-income ratio of 2:1, the highest among all the health professions. Although veterinarians maintain very low default rates, financial advisors recommend a debt-to-income ratio no higher than 1.4:1 for graduates of professional programs. Both Lucinda and Andy expressed concern that the need for this level of borrowing might discourage applications from the minority and low-income students our communities already struggle to recruit.

“We’re in significant danger of exhausting the diversity in the application pool pipeline,” Andy says. In response, his association is working with a consultant to develop a national recruitment strategy that will have a strong emphasis on recruiting under-represented students.

Turning to our world, the volume of applications to dental schools and dental hygiene programs has held steady in recent years despite significant growth in our educational capacity. Dental schools and dental hygiene programs have enjoyed a robust applicant pool in part thanks to ADEA’s investment in recruitment to the dental professions. Starting with our decision in 2006 to host ExploreHealthCareers.org (EHC), the number one online destination for people seeking information on careers in the health professions, we have used the Internet to full advantage. Our GoDental® website inspires, informs and guides those interested in a dental or dental hygiene career, and since 2012 we have hosted virtual fairs for dental predoctoral students to extend the reach of our annual in-person gatherings.

Keeping these web-based efforts up-to-date is essential but can be technically challenging. With this in mind, we decided last year to transfer ownership of EHC to Liaison International, a leader in the higher education application service industry with a deep commitment to building the pipeline for the health professions. Liaison has relaunched the site and will make it more responsive to the millions of people who look to it for advice about careers in the health professions.

Our efforts to broaden the applicant pool also continue to pay off as evidenced by a 2014 report from Urban Universities for HEALTH. Dental schools showed an outstanding commitment to diversity, with 93% of them reporting that their admissions committees used holistic review.

We also continue to feed the pipeline for predoctoral programs through our stewardship of the Summer Health Professions Education Program (SHPEP), which thrives thanks to generous support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Designed to ensure that people from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds can prepare for the rigor of health professions programs, SHPEP broke new ground last year with the inclusion of six additional health professions alongside dentistry and medicine.

While celebrating these successes, we should not rest on our laurels. Applications to dental school have been flat in recent years, and demographic trends tell us we are heading for a potential downturn unless we take preventive action. Centralized application services (CASs) play a critical role in supporting ADEA’s institutional members and the long-term sustainability of the Association. That’s why ADEA took part in a CAS summit to discuss pipeline issues and established an ADEA CAS Working Group last fall to analyze trends.

To start, the group is establishing a platform for data-informed decision-making related to ADEA’s four application services. This should give us a better handle on who is applying to our programs, who is matriculating, and how this may have changed over time. The group will also look at demographic and higher education trends that can inform our recruitment and marketing efforts.

Historically, the trends in other health professions have been leading indicators for dentistry, signs we ignore at our peril. A decline in the applicant pool has consequences for our institutional members and implications for our Association as well. Students are the lifeblood of the educational enterprise, and while we strive mightily to keep educational costs in check (see the November 2016 Charting Progress), we cannot thrive if our class sizes shrink precipitously.

“As an organization, you just have to watch for that and be glad that you grew your reserves when the times were really good,” Lucinda says. She told me AACP is a “rock-solid” organization, both operationally and financially, but emphasized that every once in a while, organizations have to stop and recalibrate.

I couldn’t agree more. As members of Generation Z begin entering our halls, the time is right to reflect on how we are recruiting to the dental professions and what more needs to be done. I’m glad we have a team in place that is doing just that.


Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic talks with others in the dental community about how the new Congress and the Trump Administration might “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. 

Like most Americans who woke on Nov. 9 ill-prepared for the political earthquake that rocked the nation, health policy observers have been scrambling to determine how a Trump Administration will affect health policy in general and oral health specifically. The situation remains extremely fluid, but it’s undeniable that the health policy landscape is about to shift dramatically.

As Julie Frantsve-Hawley, RDH, Ph.D., Executive Director of the American Association of Public Health Dentistry (AAPHD), put it, “It’s sort of a wait and see.”

Three weeks after the election, the President-elect made two appointments that offered some clues as to what may lie ahead. While the ACA—considered by many to be President Obama’s signature achievement—may not be dismantled entirely, it is sure to be shaken up and stripped down in the years ahead, and ultimately rewritten to reflect a more limited government role.

Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services is Representative Tom Price (R-GA), who currently chairs the House Budget Committee. Rep. Price has been trying to repeal the ACA since 2009 and will be the driving force behind renewed efforts. Does that mean that the more than 20 million people now insured thanks to the ACA are about to lose their coverage? Not necessarily.

“I don’t think any administration would be interested in leaving consumers hanging,” Marko Vujicic, Ph.D., Chief Economist and Vice President of the American Dental Association Health Policy Institute, replied when I asked him about the potential consequences of an ACA repeal.

Marko is one of the people at some of our partner organizations with whom I spoke last month. I was pleased to learn that, despite some very real concerns about what the future may hold, these colleagues do not ascribe to the doom-and-gloom scenarios many pundits have put forth in recent weeks.

“The health care positions articulated by the Trump campaign are likely to lead to consumers paying more of the cost of their medical care, which could crowd out dental spending,” Marko told me. On the other hand, he pointed out that the ACA also “missed the boat” in many ways when it came to dental care.

“In whatever form repeal and replace happens,” Marko believes, “it might create an opening—an opportunity to reexamine some of the law’s dental provisions.”

What might a Republican health plan look like? The Empowering Patients First Act, authored by Rep. Price, provides a detailed description of one vision for repealing and replacing the current health care law. The Price plan would repeal Medicaid expansion, which has extended coverage to 15.7 million people and delivered an infusion of federal dollars—$47 billion in the first year alone—to participating states. Despite initial reluctance among many Republican governors to accept the new Medicaid funding, 31 states and the District of Columbia eventually chose to take part, and several more states were on the cusp of applying for waivers to design their own Medicaid expansion programs before the election.

Now those efforts are on hold as everyone waits to see whether the new Congress will repeal the expansion or modify the program in other ways. House Speaker Paul Ryan’s proposal, A Better Way, would cut federal funding to states that have already expanded Medicaid rather than eliminate the expansion all together. A third plan, authored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), is mute on Medicaid expansion.

President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Seema Verma, M.P.H., will also play a central role in shaping the new administration’s health policy. The Indiana-based consultant is well acquainted with the ACA, having worked with several states participating in the Medicaid expansion to redesign their programs.

Assuming Medicaid continues to play a part in whatever ACA replacement plan emerges, Seema Verma’s work in the past with Indiana governors Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels may provide clues to what lies in store for Medicaid beneficiaries. The Indiana expansion plan required new participants to pay a greater share of their medical costs and mandated the use of health savings accounts. Of special interest to our community, the Indiana plan included adult dental benefits and used access to these benefits as an incentive for Medicaid recipients to make regular contributions to their accounts.

As for Mr. Trump’s views on these matters, more flexible health savings accounts figured prominently in his campaign’s health care platform, so these might well have a place in a redesigned Medicaid program. During the campaign, he also made clear his desire to turn Medicaid as a whole into a block grant program, which would give states more discretion in how they spend federal Medicaid dollars. Some lawmakers have proposed an alternative—a per-capita funding formula. Interestingly, this per-member-per-month strategy would align with some of the accountable care models that are currently being tested by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, a creation of the ACA.

Like Marko, Scott Litch, Esq., CAE, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel at the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, also sees room for improvement in how the federal government supports oral health, particularly when it comes to children. When we spoke, he mentioned the perennial problems (high administrative burden and low reimbursement) dentists encounter with Medicaid, and he pointed out that although children’s dental care is a covered benefit under the ACA, many insurance plans offered through the marketplaces include high deductibles. As a result, families end up paying out-of-pocket for their children’s dental care or don’t seek care at all. Scott is also concerned about another ACA “glitch”—the fact that consumers who purchase a children’s medical plan that lacks dental coverage are not required to purchase a stand-alone dental plan for their children.

“In dentistry, the whole idea is to get people into preventive care,” Scott says, noting that the need for out-of-pocket spending discourages such behavior. After the new administration takes office, Scott will be keeping an eye on the future of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment (EPSDT) Medicaid benefit, which provides comprehensive and preventive health care services for children, as well as on the future of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP, which is set to expire at the end of September 2017, covers children whose parents lack private insurance but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Our community will need to make a strong case on behalf of these federal programs if we want them to remain intact in the years ahead.

Children’s dental care is one of the 10 essential health benefits that the ACA specifies must be covered by Medicaid, CHIP and private insurance plans sold through the federal and state health insurance marketplaces. Maternity and newborn care, mental health services and addiction treatment are among the other mandated benefits that make current plans costly. In an effort to make insurance coverage less expensive and more attractive to healthy young consumers, the Price plan would allow insurers to sell plans that lack these essential benefits despite their value to other consumers.

Despite all the talk of wholesale change, repeal of the ACA may prove more of a challenge than the Trump team envisioned. In fact, lawmakers appear to be looking for ways to retain two facets of the ACA that have proven extremely popular: the provision that allows young people to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, and the provision that prevents insurers from refusing to cover people with pre-existing health conditions. That said, ACA replacement plans could deviate from these provisions in significant ways. Some Republican proposals would allow insurers to charge sick people more if they allow their health coverage to lapse (if, for example, they are too sick to work and can’t afford insurance between jobs). These proposals also rely on high-risk pools to cover people whose health conditions make them unattractive to insure. Rep. Price proposes funding for these pools at $1 billion per year for three years; Speaker Ryan’s plan allocates $2.5 billion per year in perpetuity.

When I spoke with Julie Frantsve-Hawley, she was still digesting the impact the election might have on her association’s agenda. She told me AAPHD members had identified three advocacy priorities for the coming year: Increasing federal funding for oral health, community water fluoridation, and the creation of an adult oral health benefit in Medicare.

“We may need to divert attention from that to maintain ground on some of these other things,” she told me. She plans to engage in conversations with her members and reach out to other oral health stakeholders to evaluate how best to proceed. “I think anything we do needs to be done collectively,” she concluded.

The American Association for Dental Research (AADR) is also focused on federal oral health funding, with an emphasis, not surprisingly, on research dollars. Although President-elect Trump has not made research funding a focus of his first 100 days in office, AADR Executive Director Christopher Fox, D.M.D., D.M.Sc., sees some reasons for optimism on this front. First, candidate Trump mentioned the importance of medical research and innovation during his campaign and also talked about investing in infrastructure.

“We hope that his infrastructure investment includes infrastructure as it relates to the scientific enterprise,” Chris told me.

Second, Chris rightly points out that biomedical research has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past—for its economic value as well as for its impact on the nation’s health. Finally, a fourth dentist, Drew Ferguson (R-GA), was just elected to Congress. Chris believes Dr. Ferguson will help inform his colleagues on Capitol Hill and the new HHS secretary about issues related to dentistry and oral health.

During this time of uncertainty, it’s easy to be fearful. The foundation on which we’ve built our advocacy efforts over the last decade is now riven with cracks, and what will rise in its place is largely unknown. Yet, as Chris put it, “We cannot put our heads in the sand. We need to stay optimistic and treat this as an opportunity.”

I agree. Repealing and replacing the ACA will be a monumental and time-consuming task, as Senate Republicans have acknowledged. The pace of legislative change gives us plenty of opportunities to reach out to the Trump Administration and our Members of Congress to educate them about the value of what we do and the critical role dental care plays in supporting overall health. Members of the dental education community must rally the same energy that propelled us to support health care reform eight years ago if we want a hand in shaping its continued evolution.

Note: The ADEA advocacy website has news, information and advocacy resources to support our members in this critical pursuit. For breaking news throughout the day, follow our Advocacy and Government Relations team on Twitter at @ADEAAGR.


Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic shares the results of a recent study and strategies that schools are employing to keep dental education costs in check.

Last month, the American Dental Association (ADA) House of Delegates received the results of a study that should be of particular interest to the dental education community. It hasn’t received much fanfare, but the report—which classifies dental education models, examines revenues and expenses, and evaluates the community’s preparedness to engage in research—stands apart as the first research-based effort to get a handle on what is driving the cost of dental education.

At the request of the ADA House of Delegates, Cavanaugh Hagan Pierson & Mintz, a management consulting firm with a strong focus on the health professions, teamed with ADEA to analyze which factors contribute to the cost of dental education and to see if there might be steps that dental schools could take to keep costs in check.

The ADA Study on Approaches to and Implications of Alternative Dental Education Models found that many of the variables that predict dental school expenditures mirror those that predict expenditures in higher education generally: the size of the faculty, the number of students and the cost of living in any particular school’s locale. But to the disappointment of some, the analysis found no “magic bullet” that all schools could seize to improve their efficiency. In other words, it found no correlation between curricular models and costs.

“The unique design and delivery of predoctoral education at every school means that each has to figure out how to deal with cost on its own,” said ADA Trustee Robert Bitter when we spoke last month.

Bob represented the ADA on the joint ADA-ADEA Study Group that helped to inform the research effort. As a periodontist who joined the faculty at Southern Illinois University School of Dental Medicine two years ago, and as the father of a recent medical school graduate, Bob is concerned about the cost of professional education. But the study convinced him that there are no simple solutions to the cost conundrum.

“What will work for each school depends on its mission, its location and how it chooses to engage in research,” Bob said.

Nader Nadershahi agrees. You may know him as the Dean of the University of the Pacific, Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry. He is also a member of the ADA House of Delegates, and in that capacity, he represented that association on the ADA-ADEA Study Group.

“I was hoping if we looked, there would be one or two models of efficiency that stood out,” Nader told me, “but the cost of delivering care in an educational setting is very high and very inefficient.”

Few would argue that point, but just because dental education is inherently expensive, it doesn’t mean individual schools can’t take steps to reduce costs and increase revenues.

At Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Dental Medicine (RSDM), the Dean and Chair of the ADEA Board of Directors, Cecile Feldman, has focused on keeping her school fiscally sound through revenue diversification. She also served on the ADA-ADEA Study Group, and before that, on the 2012–2013 ADEA Presidential Task Force that looked at the cost of higher education and student borrowing, so she is very familiar with the issues.

“Before ADEA undertook the cost and borrowing study,” she told me, “some people believed that dental schools didn’t care about cost but that’s contrary. It’s something we are extremely sensitive of. We want to do right by students. We’re constantly striving to bring in more revenue to keep costs as low as possible.”

Cecile has managed to augment and diversify her school’s income streams by keeping an eye on opportunities at the federal and state levels. She and her colleagues have also had a hand in creating some of those opportunities. For example, RSDM, ADEA and others advocated for the inclusion of dental schools as eligible entities in the federal program that subsidized the adoption of electronic health records. RSDM acquired $3 million in federal funds from that source alone, and another $26 million in state funds for capital improvements.

“If you’re not paying attention to what’s going through Congress or your state legislature,” Cecile says, “you’ll miss things you can really use and leverage to help move things forward.”

RSDM has also gotten managed care companies to improve their fee schedules and has dramatically grown its continuing education program—two other ways that schools can increase revenues.

Nader also has some bold ideas to add to that mix. He sees curriculum sharing as one way to lower costs for all dental schools. “If we were all collaborating,” he told me, “schools could shoulder a small percentage of the cost of developing high-quality content but have access to 100% of it.”

He’d also like to see government provide greater support for the safety-net care that dental schools deliver. “If all dental school clinics were identified as federally qualified health centers and had a per-encounter reimbursement rate,” he believes, “that would be a game changer.”

Bob Bitter also thinks government has a role to play, and he points to the steady disinvestment of states in higher education as one source of today’s educational-cost woes. What can the ADA do about that?

“We’ve advocated on behalf of our students for debt relief and lower interest rates on their educational loans,” Bob told me. “We need to begin advocating for our institutions as well.”

The ADA’s recent report provides an excellent basis for such efforts. By assembling data to inform a discussion that previously consisted of anecdotes and sometimes outdated assumptions, that association has already made a major contribution and given us a fresh look at the cost conundrum.


Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic previews a groundbreaking overseas meeting and describes other milestones in ADEA’s journey to advance global cooperation in dental education.

Question: What do Uganda, Sri Lanka and Peru have in common?

Answer: You can find Journal of Dental Education (JDE) readers in all three countries—not to mention in scores of others around the globe.

In a single week this past August, JDE articles were downloaded or viewed online more than 100 times in Finland, Turkey and Malaysia. JDE articles were accessed more than 1,000 times in Australia, India and Germany—and thousands more times across another 90 countries. If these statistics don’t confirm the JDE’s role as a vehicle for disseminating knowledge internationally, I don’t know what would.

As impressive as the numbers may be, they represent just one facet of ADEA’s current strategic commitment to “[s]erve as a collaborative partner in the global effort to improve oral and overall health.” In fact, ADEA began looking outward long before these words were enshrined in our strategic directions. In 2005, ADEA cofounded the International Federation of Dental Educators and Associations (IFDEA), and in 2007, our Association met with colleagues from 66 nations at an IFDEA summit in Dublin, Ireland, to launch a new era of international collaboration. Today, that global effort—temporarily slowed by the economic impacts of the recession—is going strong, and dental educators from around the world are looking to ADEA as a valued resource and partner.

In an era of increasing globalization, it comes as no surprise that U.S. dental educators are contributing to change and innovation at both established and newer dental schools on every continent (see the Spring 2015 ADEA CCI Liaison Ledger). Many large U.S. universities now have satellite programs abroad, and a few of these include global outposts of their dental schools. An association known as the Consortium of Universities for Global Health has grown exponentially in recent years, and its Global Oral Health Interest Group was one of the first special interest groups to be approved by that organization.

ADEA is also actively engaged in a wide range of activities that benefit our international colleagues and enlarge our own understanding of dental health and education. We can boast three global initiatives in 2016 alone and a groundbreaking event planned for 2017. Let’s start there, because I hope I can entice some of you to join us in London next spring for ADEE/ADEA 2017—the first joint meeting of ADEA and the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE).

This highly interactive meeting will focus on four themes and give participants an opportunity to take part in shaping the future of dental education. How? Up to six hours of protected discussion time has been set aside so that attendees can engage in substantive discussion and work to develop a consensus around best practices related to four areas: 

Senior faculty from both continents will serve as chairs and facilitators for each working group, and a handpicked cadre of junior faculty will serve as rapporteurs, assisting the workshop facilitators in two ways: by participating in the literature review process that will precede the meeting and by writing four position papers that will capture the attendees’ views. These papers are intended to help guide ADEA and ADEE members in responding to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead for dental education, and I, for one, am excited to see what writing them collaboratively will reveal.

We anticipate that representatives from around the world will attend the meeting, scheduled for May 8–9, 2017. In addition to the working sessions, the meeting will feature:

  • A keynote address by medical futurist, university lecturer and widely published author Bertalan Meskó, M.D., Ph.D.
  • A reception in the magnificent Governors Hall of St. Thomas’s Hospital in the heart of London.

The call for posters is now open, and registration for the meeting will open by early December. I hope to see many of you there.

The joint meeting builds on our longstanding close relationship with ADEE and the conscious effort we have made for decades to reach out to the global dental education community. In 2016 alone, we added a feature to the JDE website allowing readers to translate the html text of articles into 90 languages—vastly increasing their accessibility to our overseas readers. We hosted a three-day ADEA CareerCon—an online gathering designed with foreign-trained and North American dentists in mind. And we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with our sister association in Japan, the Japanese Dental Education Association (JDEA). The JDEA represents all 29 Japanese dental schools, and we look forward to sharing our expertise and developing joint initiatives to advance the mission, vision and objectives of each organization.

Where else has this global journey taken us? In recent years, ADEA members and staff have traveled to international meetings in Riga, Latvia; Szeged, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Poznań, Poland, to name a few. We’ve hosted five ADEA International Women’s Leadership Conferences in Canada, Sweden, France, Brazil and, most recently, in Barcelona, Spain—where we collaborated with ADEE to sponsor an international workshop on global standards for dental education.

Closer to home, we’ve been busy contributing to a thriving virtual community of educators hungry for materials to build or enhance the curricula used to prepare new dentists for practice in their home countries. These educators can avail themselves of a host of free online teaching, learning and assessment resources and materials through:

  • MedEdPORTAL®, our open-access curricular collaboration with the Association of American Medical Colleges.
  • ADEA weTeach®, a user-friendly gateway—launched this past year—providing teaching, learning and assessment resources.
  • The ADEA Curriculum Resource Center, a web portal that, in addition to containing high-quality learning materials (curriculum guides, slide decks, bibliographies, case studies and handouts designed to be easily incorporated into faculty-developed courses), also supports the work of dental educators abroad.

As mentioned before, our journal, the JDE, plays a central role in extending ADEA’s global reach. In addition to publishing several dozen articles in recent years that focus on global health, the JDE also provides content specifically aimed at its international readers. Two examples: A 2013 Perspectives piece by two Australian dental educators provides guidance for international authors on scholarly research and writing, and a 2014 paper describes U.S. career pathways for foreign-educated dentists.

While U.S. authors continue to lead in JDE submissions, the journal has seen a steady flow of manuscripts from other shores. Indian and Brazilian authors have averaged 85 and 32 submissions a year, respectively, since 2010, and our colleagues from Canada, Iran, Turkey, China, Australia and Malaysia also have an impressive record of submitting manuscripts for consideration. Submissions from Saudi Arabia have grown at an especially rapid rate—from six in 2010 to 38 in 2015.

ADEA also serves students from other countries through ExploreHealthCareers.org. A leading resource for individuals seeking information about health careers, the website has logged over 340,000 visitors from outside the United States in the year ending August 2016.

Of course, international collaboration lies at the heart of our Association in a fundamental way that we sometimes overlook. Because ADEA represents both Canadian and U.S. dental schools and programs, we are continually prompted to view the issues that confront us through an international lens. Given the position the United States holds in the world, sustaining that outlook can be a challenge for many of us. Fortunately, cooperative agreements and frequent interaction with our sister associations around the world remind us to look outside our borders and engage with colleagues who bring an international perspective to our discussions. I look forward to experiencing this interchange firsthand in London and seeing where our global journey takes us next.

Related content from previous issues of Charting Progress

The Personal Becomes Political: A Global Phase Down of Dental Amalgam
A Small Step for Global Health With Big Implications for Dental Education
Dental Education: An Expanding Universe 
A Warm Day in Adelaide

Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s Charting Progress, Dr. Rick Valachovic reflects on the remarkable progress made by those who have championed interprofessional education and where this effort stands today.

Last month, many of us woke to the sad news that Harrison Spencer, my counterpart at the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), had died. If you were not privileged, as I was, to know Harrison, this tribute will give you some sense of the extent of our loss. Harrison had a stellar clinical and research career before devoting himself full time to academic public health. In that capacity alone he leaves a rich legacy, including as a champion of interprofessional education (IPE).

Alongside ADEA and four other sister associations, ASPPH was one of the founding members of the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC). IPEC has seen tremendous growth since its inception in 2009, and its influence in establishing IPE as an integral part of health professions education has become more marked with each passing year. In 2012, the IPEC founders helped sponsor two influential workshops on IPE, organized by the Global Forum on Innovation in Health Professional Education at the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine). In 2014, the independent educational accreditation bodies of the six health professions represented within IPEC formed the Health Professions Accreditors Collaborative to further facilitate the ability of our schools to prepare graduates for collaborative practice. Last month, the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education recognized IPEC with  a Pioneer Award for creating the IPEC Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice. And this coming year, the Summer Medical and Dental Education Program will become more broadly interprofessional, engaging the schools and students of other health professions under a new name: the Summer Health Professions Education Program. (If you aren’t familiar with this outstanding preparatory program for students who are underrepresented in the health professions, take a look at this earlier issue of Charting Progress.)

Last month I spoke to Lucinda Maine, Ph.D., RPh, Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, another IPEC founder, to take stock of where we stand with IPE.

“I believe IPE is at the tipping point,” she said, invoking author Malcolm Gladwell. “Students like it, our accrediting bodies say we will do it, and selectively employers are telling us they need more team-ready clinicians to hire. The demand side will pull us further and further along the path.”

Indeed, that demand is growing, and the progress we’ve made to date suggests we will be able to meet it. Our schools no longer view IPE as an optional luxury, and the proof is that required IPE learning experiences are rapidly supplanting elective ones. A full 92% of medical schools reported having a mandatory IPE experience in 2014, and that same year, 69% of dental schools reported requiring IPE. That is double the figure from just two years earlier.

Other professions have taken note, and they are eager to join us in this endeavor. IPEC responded this year by expanding its ranks to include an additional nine institutional members, most of which had been supporting members of the collaborative since 2011. We held our inaugural Council meeting in June, and the level of engagement was remarkable, reminding me of the energy we founding members felt at the start of this journey.

Back then, two ADEA Past Presidents, Sandra Andrieu, M.Ed., Ph.D., and Leo Rouse, D.D.S., FACD, carried the IPE torch for our Association. Both were involved in drafting the IPEC Core Competencies, which have become the gold standard for developing IPE initiatives since they were published in 2011. To ensure this influential document’s continued relevance, IPEC recently revised it to organize the competencies within a single domain of Interprofessional Collaboration and broaden them to better achieve the Triple Aim framework that is guiding health care reform.

The competencies have been instrumental in firmly grounding IPE in the curricula of numerous health professions schools, but we have another IPEC initiative as well to thank for recent progress. Since 2012, the collaborative has been hosting a series of IPEC Institutes, where teams from participating schools develop curricular ideas they can implement when they return home. To date, these teams have included members from an almost unimaginable diversity of professions—60 at last count—which speaks yet again to the enthusiasm we’re seeing for interprofessional collaboration. (If you’re curious about the non-health professions among our IPE collaborators, see The Changing Face of IPE and Collaborative Care.)

Another ADEA Past President, Ron Hunt, D.D.S., M.S., has been to so many IPEC workshops that the organizers call him a “frequent flier.” His attendance at six workshops in four years says a lot about the challenges of getting IPE off the ground and about the ability of the IPEC Institutes to jumpstart the process.

As Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Midwestern University College of Dental Medicine-Arizona, Ron was on the first interprofessional team his university assembled in 2012. With an IPE accreditation standard “pointing the way,” the then Dean of the College of Pharmacy funded the expedition of Midwestern senior administrators to attend an IPEC Institute that fall. Ron told me they returned with plans for a first-year course that were “overly ambitious” and soon scuttled when the representative of the medical faculty left the university.

Following a subsequent institute, plans were derailed yet again. The creation of a new college at Midwestern-Arizona and the adoption of a new university accreditation theme shifted university priorities and resources, leaving IPE with limited institutional support. Nevertheless, the pressure on the College of Pharmacy and others to address IPE-related program accreditation standards propelled the process forward.

At a third IPEC Institute, Ron and his colleagues finally hit on a winning idea they could sell back home. The IPE module they developed fit neatly into an existing introduction to the health professions course, and after a successful pilot, the module was expanded to include all entering students on campus.

Building on this initial success, Midwestern sent three more teams to IPEC Institutes. They have developed an IPE experience that brings pharmacy students into the dental clinic to consult with dental students on patient care, and an innovative elective on patient safety that combines online, classroom and community-based learning.

“We could not have done it without the IPEC workshops,” Ron told me. “You get the expertise of the keynote speakers, but probably even more important, you get the concentrated, unobstructed time to work with your team. There are no distractions from students or anything else. Each of the times we attended, we got a lot accomplished.”

The IPEC Institutes are still going strong, with the next one scheduled to begin on October 5.

These developments all suggest that IPE has indeed reached a tipping point. Nevertheless, realizing our collective vision of a flourishing IPE enterprise throughout health professions education will take more time, energy, thoughtful action and resources.

“Many institutions have done a good job of creating classroom and simulation-based interprofessional learning opportunities, but we need to do more to assess IPE and make sure it is relevant to students,” says Jeff Stewart, D.D.S., M.S., Associate Professor in the Department of Pathology & Radiology at the Oregon Health & Science University School of Dentistry. Jeff chaired OHSU’s Interprofessional Initiative Steering Committee for the past five years, and he believes the next push will be to provide more clinical opportunities for interprofessonal learning through patient care.

In October, Jeff will be joining ADEA as Senior Director for Institutional Innovation and Development. In that capacity, he wants to play a role in ensuring that dental and allied dental education remain prominent participants and leaders in the future evolution of IPE, a goal I share.

When I asked Lucinda about the challenges before us, she pointed out that at most of our institutions, the responsibility for IPE still rests on the backs of willing volunteers. “Upper-level administrators need to see IPE as a mission-related activity that requires financial and human resources to sustain over time,” she said.

I couldn’t agree more. Meanwhile, champions like Lucinda, Jeff, Ron, Leo, Sandra and Harrison have been critically important in bringing us to where we stand today. With students, employers and accreditors as our allies, full IPE implementation is no longer a matter of if, but of when.

Related content from previous issues of Charting Progress

The Changing Face of IPE and Collaborative Care
Interprofessional Collaboration Benefits ADEA and Its Partners
Recent Developments on the IPE Front
IPE Is Here to Stay
Paving the Road to Interprofessional Practice
Crossing the Interprofessional Divide 
Interprofessional Practice Can Play Leading Role in an Academic Setting 

Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the use of race as one factor in holistic admissions decisions at the University of Texas at Austin.

June has come and gone, and universities around the country are breathing a collective sigh of relief. The Supreme Court has finally ruled on the role of race in admissions in higher education.

During the just concluded term, the Court revisited the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II) and ruled that the race-conscious admissions program used by the university was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The University of Texas at Austin (UT) instituted a holistic admissions program, which allowed the consideration of race as one of many factors in the admissions process. Although the approach to college admissions used at UT is unique, the Court’s decision signaled that the higher education community stands on solid ground when using race as one factor in holistic admission programs.

The Court first heard Fisher (now known as Fisher I) in 2013 but declined to render a decision. Instead, the justices remanded the case to a lower court to determine whether UT’s admissions policy met the standard of “strict scrutiny.” In other words, the justices wanted the lower court to determine whether the use of race-conscious policies achieved a level of diversity in practice that the university could not achieve through race-neutral policies alone. (For a fuller history of the original case, see my August 2013 Charting Progress.) In 2015, the lower court held that the university had indeed met the strict scrutiny standard, and once again, the case went back to the Supreme Court.

In Fisher II, the most recent decision, the Court affirmed earlier rulings that recognized the value of diversity in educational settings. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated, “[T]he compelling interest that justifies consideration of race in college admissions is not an interest in enrolling a certain number of minority students, but an interest in obtaining ‘the educational benefits that flow from student body diversity,’” a phrase quoted from the Fisher I decision.

ADEA views the Supreme Court’s ruling as critical to acknowledging the unique value that diversity brings to students, staff and faculty throughout dental education. ADEA demonstrated its commitment to diversity in higher education by signing onto three amicus briefs that were submitted to the Supreme Court in the case (No. 11-345 in 2012, No. 09-50822 in 2013 and No. 14-981 in 2015). Our Association is proud of its leadership role in championing access, diversity and inclusion, most visibly through the promotion of holistic review—a balanced assessment of each candidate’s experiences, attributes and metrics—in admissions to our academic dental institutions.

Since 2005, we have been offering training and technical assistance to member schools in how to implement this approach to screening applicants, and our efforts have had a measurable impact. A noteworthy 93% of dental schools reported that they used holistic review in a 2014 survey of schools of the health professions, and other health professions educators are looking to learn from our example.

In the past year, ADEA staff and holistic review trainers from our member institutions have presented at both nursing and pharmacy education conferences and at schools of veterinary medicine. We will embark on a new chapter in our diversity efforts in October, when we will host two sessions focused on unconscious bias at the ADEA Fall Meetings. In 2017, the University of Michigan and the University of Florida will also pilot unconscious bias workshops modeled after those developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges Learning Lab. These workshops will be customized for our schools and programs and, if the pilot goes well, we hope to make this training widely available by next summer.

The CODA Predoctoral Accreditation Standards include three dimensions of diversity:

  • Structural or compositional diversity, which refers to the makeup of the student body, faculty and staff at a program or institution.
  • Curricular or classroom diversity, which refers to the presence of content that promotes the integration of skills, insights and experiences from diverse groups in academic settings.
  • Institutional or interactional diversity, which focuses on each school’s climate or environment and whether it values diversity and provides opportunity for informal learning among diverse peers.

There is still much work to be done on all three of the fronts designated in the CODA standards, and the Fisher II ruling made clear that the Court will be watching to see whether institutions go about that work in ways that are consonant with their missions and “narrowly tailored” to meet precise goals. Justice Kennedy concludes, “The court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies.”

Over time, these decisions affect not only our schools, but also the ability of all people, including the uninsured and economically disadvantaged, to access dental care from dental providers from varied cultural backgrounds. These issues are important, within our community and beyond.

Related content from previous issues of Charting Progress

Preparing to Lead in the Post-Fisher Era
Diversifying the Dentist Workforce, One Cohort at a Time
Number of American Indian Dentists Experiences Amazing Growth Spurt
Can a Girl From the Caribbean Find Happiness in Nebraska? Tales from the AAMC/ADEA Summer Medical and Dental Education Program
Math Literacy: A New Civil Right for an Information Age
Getting the Whole Story: A Holistic Admissions Process
Today’s Students-Tomorrow’s Colleagues


Dr. Richard ValachovicIn this month’s letter, Dr. Rick Valachovic, ADEA President and CEO, shares new evidence of sugar’s harmful health effects and asks how the dental education community might capitalize on growing public interest in limiting sugar intake.

Public willingness to address the health effects of sugar may be reaching a tipping point. Last month, the city of Philadelphia passed a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, becoming the first major U.S. city to overcome resistance to such a measure. Berkeley, California’s residents passed a comparable tax in 2014, but according to the New York Times, this liberal enclave’s success was unique. Forty other municipal and state government attempts to pass similar measures all failed—until now.

Philadelphia’s soda tax—which proponents framed not as a public health measure but as a revenue generator for universal preschool—has given hope to advocates who are alarmed about the nation’s obesity epidemic and the growing body of scientific evidence linking excess sugar consumption to a range of systemic ills.

The World Health Organization (WHO); celebrity chef Jamie Oliver; and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who attempted to ban the sale of large-size sugar-sweetened beverages in New York City, have all brought much-needed attention to the hazards of sugar consumption, but no one has beaten the anti-sugar drum quite so steadily as Robert Lustig, M.D., M.S.L., a Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology and a member of the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Lustig authored the best-selling book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease and now serves as President of the Institute for Responsible Nutrition, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing the nation’s appetite for sugar.

This past April, Dr. Lustig gave the opening keynote address at the National Oral Health Conference. The title of his presentation was “Tooth Decay and Liver Decay: The Nexus Between Doctors and Dentists.” You can find his slides online if you want a more detailed explanation, but the bottom line is this—added sugars in our diets cause both dental caries and liver disease.

Dr. Lustig doesn’t mince words about the severity of sugar’s impact on human health. In his view, sugar is a “toxic” substance every bit as dangerous as alcohol. He believes public policies should limit the availability of the first just as they do the availability of the second.

I’ll leave it to our endocrinologist colleagues to evaluate Dr. Lustig’s assertions about liver disease, but his points about caries are more than familiar. I saw the effects of sugar first hand as a pediatric dental resident at Children’s Hospital in Boston. It’s hard to imagine now, but the city lacked community water fluoridation at that time, and we saw high levels of childhood caries as a result.

Jessica Lee, D.D.S., M.P.H., Ph.D., Chair and Director of Research for the pediatric dentistry department at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) School of Dentistry, is outspoken about the need to address sugar’s causal role in tooth decay. She and Beau Meyer, D.D.S., pediatric dental resident, co-authored a commentary in the October 2015 issue of the Journal of Dental Research calling on policymakers to “be courageous” in developing policies to curb sugar intake and urging the scientific community to raise its voice in support of evidence-based policies.

I reached out to get their thoughts on what the dental education community should be doing to raise awareness among students about the effects of sugar on both dental and overall health. Beau, who is currently pursuing a Master of Public Health degree at UNC, told me they would like to see more emphasis on advocacy in the predoctoral curriculum.

“That goes beyond telling students they need to be advocates and meet with their Congressmen,” Beau said. “I’d like to see something that gets down to the nuts and bolts.” He envisions interprofessional workshops, field experiences and informal opportunities to “lunch and learn” that would teach students how to interact with a legislator, make that first phone call, find appropriate resources and build on established relationships between the state dental society and state legislators. But his vision extends beyond these practical concerns.

“Learning how to see beyond the patient in your chair and look at your practice and how it fits into the community as a whole—it’s a different way of thinking,” he told me, “and it’s a challenging way to think.”

Jonathan Shenkin, D.D.S., M.P.H., couldn’t agree more. Jonathan is Clinical Associate Professor in the Departments of Pediatric Dentistry and Health Policy & Health Services Research at the Boston University Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine.

“When I talk to dental students, I beg them not to think of their futures as treating the patients who walk through the doors,” Jonathan told me. “Being able to change policies so you can improve the health of everyone, not just the people who pay you—it’s the most critical thing we teach students.”

Not surprisingly, Jonathan is excited by the implementation of the soda tax in Philadelphia, and believes such measures will begin catching on around the country. He sees an opportunity for dental professionals to join in this effort to curb sugar consumption and hopes it will have the same impact that tobacco taxes had on smoking.

“We have parallel etiology—sugar—for obesity and for tooth decay. This is a great opportunity to engage the public health and medical communities in helping our patients address the obesity crisis and the oral health crisis at the same time. It can only be positive,” Jonathan believes.

I agree, but given all the attention currently focused on sugar’s contributions to obesity and other aspects of overall health, the challenge may be to keep tooth decay in the conversation. There’s no doubt that it deserves the attention of the dental community. In the same issue of the Journal of Dental Research mentioned earlier, two London-based researchers remind readers that “free sugars” (those found in processed foods, syrups and juices) are the principal (and in their view, the only) cause of caries. They argue that our focus on the other factors—fluoride, bacteria—that mitigate and feed the disease, have taken our eye off the primary culprit. The authors conclude, “Dental caries is a diet-mediated disease,” and they add that “to stress the multifactorial effects on the sugars-induced causal process muddies our understanding and misdirects policy.”

Might it also suggest that we need to reevaluate the role of nutrition and its relationship to the oral-systemic connection in our curricula? I called Rebecca Wilder, B.S.D.H., M.S., another Professor at the UNC School of Dentistry who serves as Director of both Faculty Development and Graduate Dental Hygiene Education. She and her colleagues conducted a survey of North Carolina dentists and dental hygienists to ascertain their knowledge, attitudes and practice behaviors related to oral-systemic disease. They found that respondents were generally knowledgeable but often fell short when it came to putting their knowledge into practice.

“In dental hygiene, we’ve observed these connections for years,” Rebecca told me. “To finally have some science to say yes, these connections have been validated, has been a relief in some respects. Now the challenge is figuring out how to incorporate this into patient care.”

She is encouraged by the recent willingness of pediatric dentists to counsel the parents of their overweight patients about the risks associated with obesity, and she sees room in the curricula to encourage similar efforts for oral-systemic disease.

“I could envision an interprofessional course on oral-systemic disease where sugar is discussed extensively. Students would learn about its detrimental effects—not only orally, but systemically—so they could collaborate on patient care and patient education in the future. Once we have evidence-based knowledge, we have to take the onus as professionals to be assertive and talk to our patients about these issues.”

This fall, I’ll be attending a conference sponsored by a coalition of oral health and pediatric groups with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The goal of this meeting is to engage the oral health community in efforts to prevent childhood obesity. Judging from the preliminary agenda, sugar-sweetened beverages will take center stage.

As for the value of soda taxes, it’s too soon to know what their impact will be on the residents of Berkeley or Philadelphia, but we might infer a few things from our neighbor south of the border. Mexico leads the world in soda consumption, and its rates of obesity and diabetes are similar to those in the United States. After Mexico instituted a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages at the start of 2014, researchers at UNC and Mexico’s National Institute of Public Health found a 6% drop in soda purchases compared with previous years. Mexican cola bottlers begged to differ, citing rising sales, but the researchers are sticking by their methodology and offer even brighter news for 2015. They say soda sales were 8% lower than pre-2014 averages, and bottled water purchases were up 4%. In the years ahead, I’ll be watching to see whether the incidence of caries falls as well.

Related content from previous issues of Charting Progress

Setting the Record Straight on Fluoride
Managing Caries Risk: A Paradigm for the 21st Century?