View this email in your browser [ [link removed] ] .

American Dental Education Association


Volume 3, No. 94, September 9, 2025

House Begins Labor-HHS-Education Bill Appropriations Process
 
On Sept. 2, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) marked up its version of the fiscal year 2026 LHHS appropriations bill.
The Senate Committee reported its version (S. 2587 [ [link removed] ] ) in late July as reported in the Aug.
6 issue of the ADEA Advocate.
[ [link removed] ]
 
Most details of the bill will not be available to the public until after the House Appropriations Full Committee holds its markup, which is expected on Sept.
9. At the Sept. 2 meeting, individual subcommittee members made remarks, but no amendments were offered.
The Committee made available the bill language, and each party issued fact sheets and press releases sharing their views of the bill.
The only information that could be garnered from these materials was that the Committee is recommending that the National Institutes of Health organizational structure remain unchanged, despite President Trump’s proposal to reorganize it.
The National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) is funded at $525,163,000, an increase of $5 million above the current level and the Senate Committee bill.

 
ADEA will share more details about the bill following the House Full Committee action, which is when they should then release the Committee report that will include a detailed explanation of its actions.

Judge Rules Trump Administration Violated Harvard’s First Amendment Rights by Freezing Research Grants
 
U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs issued her decision in the President and Fellows of Harvard College v.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Civil Action No. 25-cv-11048-ADB [ [link removed] ] ) on Sept. 3. In the lawsuit, Harvard contended that the Trump Administration had compromised the university’s First Amendment and due process rights when it froze $2.2 billion in research grants, including cancer research funding.
Judge Burroughs agreed with this assertion in her ruling.

 
“We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other,” Judge Burroughs wrote.
 
Judge Burroughs also stated in her decision that the Administration could not issue new blockades on Harvard’s federal research funding “in retaliation for the exercise of its First Amendment rights, or on any purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the terms” of civil rights law.
 
Harvard brought the case in April, after the Administration insisted that the university had failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitism. On April 11, it sent the school a letter, trying to condition Harvard’s access to federal research money on its acquiescence to a range of demands.
 
ADEA joined with the American Council on Education and 29 other higher education associations and organizations in an Amicus brief [ [link removed] ] , on June 9 that agreed that the Administration’s actions violate the First Amendment, undermined the separation of powers among the branches of the Federal government, and exceeded the President’s executive authority.
 
Finally, Judge Burroughs wrote in her conclusion that, “This case, of course, raises complicated and important legal issues, but, at its core, it concerns the future of grants sponsoring research that promises to benefit significantly the health and welfare of our country and the world.
Through the government’s statements and actions, the fate of that research has now become intertwined with the issue of antisemitism at Harvard.
Antisemitism, like other types of discrimination or prejudice, is intolerable.
And it is clear, even based solely on Harvard’s own admissions, that Harvard has been plagued by antisemitism in recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue.
That said, there is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.
In fact, a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI.
Further, their actions have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes.”

States and Cities File Suits Against HHS Over CMS Rule Limiting ACA Enrollment; Court Temporarily Halts Rule Implementation in Select Cities
 
A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) over new Affordable Care Act (ACA) rules they say will create significant barriers to health coverage.
Filed on July 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the lawsuit [ [link removed] ] targets a final CMS rule that updates ACA marketplace regulations.
The states argue that the rule could cause their citizens to lose access to insurance, increase costs for state programs and reduce the availability of essential health benefits.
 
The rule, set to take effect Aug. 25, introduces stricter eligibility verification, shorter open enrollment periods and removes gender-affirming care from the list of essential health benefits. The coalition contends that these changes violate the law and would harm consumers by raising premiums and out-of-pocket costs while creating additional paperwork that may deter enrollment. CMS estimates that up to 1.8 million people could lose coverage under the new rule.
The states also argue that the rule is “arbitrary and capricious” and would strain state health programs, including Medicaid, by forcing them to cover more health care costs for newly uninsured individuals.
In addition, they challenge the exclusion of gender-affirming care, saying it conflicts with state laws that require such coverage.
Among the states participating in the lawsuit are California, Illinois and New York—all of which are seeking preliminary relief to block the rule from going into effect.
 
While states filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, the City of Columbus and other select cities filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Though the Massachusetts court has not ruled yet, on Aug.
22, the Maryland court granted a stay [ [link removed] ] blocking the implementation of the rule.
However, the stay is limited to the plaintiffs in the case.

ED Confirms With Congress Oct. 1 FAFSA Rollout Date
 
Last week, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMachon notified [ [link removed] ] Congress that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) would be released by Oct. 1 as congressionally mandated. The Department began beta testing the new application in August and is confident that the application will be accessible to the public by the Oct.1 rollout date.

DHS Proposes New Rule to Limit Length of Stay for International Student Visa Holders
 
On Aug. 27, the Department of Homeland Security issued a proposed rule [ [link removed] ] that would limit the length of stay for certain visa holders, including F-1 student visa holders.
Under the proposal, international students and exchange visitors could remain in the United States for the duration of their academic program, but no longer than four years.
Currently, students and exchange visitors are allowed to stay as long as they maintain enrollment in a college or university.
 
A similar rule was first introduced by the Trump Administration in 2020 but later withdrawn by the Biden Administration in 2021. The reintroduction of this policy marks the latest step by the Trump Administration to increase scrutiny of international students, following other measures such as enhanced social media vetting.

Bill to Create Oral Health Assistance Center for People with Disabilities Moves Through California Legislature
 
Legislation [ [link removed] ] that would create an “Oral Health for People with Disabilities Technical Assistance Center Program” at a dental school is moving through the California State Legislature.
Under the bill, the State Department of Developmental Services would be required to contract with a dental school in the state to create the program.
The contracted dental school would be permitted to partner with another dental school in the state and would be required to design, implement and administer the program.
The contracted dental school would also be required to work with the Department to engage up to 21 regional centers to participate in the program, and enlist dental offices and clinics to participate and establish teams of community-based allied personnel and dentists to work with each participating regional center.
Lead faculty at one or more schools would also need to demonstrate having developed and implemented at regional centers or community-based dental care programs:
 • Successfully using teledentistry-supported systems to bring dental care to people with developmental disabilities in community settings;
 • Reducing the number of people needing dental care using sedation or general anesthesia; and
 • Demonstrating improved oral health in community settings as the result of meeting the achievements.

This bill has passed the Assembly and will likely be scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate.

Colorado Medicaid Cuts Will Impact Dental Care in the State
 
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) issued Executive Order D2025-014 [ [link removed] ] announcing significant budget cuts that will directly impact dental care access for Medicaid patients across the state.
Facing a roughly $750 million [ [link removed] ] budget deficit caused by federal tax and spending legislation, the governor made $252 million in cuts that include a $2.5 million reduction from a program that provides dental care for people on Medicaid.
These cuts will limit access to essential dental care for some of Colorado's most vulnerable residents who rely on Medicaid coverage.
 
The legislature granted [ [link removed] ] Gov. Polis this authority, during a special session, by passing a bill ceding the responsibility of cutting the budget to the Governor's Office to address the projected budget shortfall.
The most significant impact on dental providers comes from the governor's decision to reverse planned increases to Medicaid provider reimbursement rates, which would have provided a 1.6% rate hike starting in October.
This decision saves the state $38 million and represents the single largest budget cut announced.
Dental practitioners who were expecting improved reimbursement rates for treating Medicaid patients will continue to receive current payment levels, potentially impacting their ability to serve this population effectively.
 
Colorado's new budget law and executive order impose immediate Medicaid reimbursement cuts that Gov. Polis indicated are only the beginning. He described these Medicaid-related cuts as "just the tip of the iceberg" regarding broader impacts on Medicaid services over the next two years.

[[link removed]]


[[link removed]]


ADEA Advocacy in Action
This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.
 
Issues and Resources
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on teledentistry
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
 • ADEA policy brief [ [link removed] ] regarding overprescription of antibiotics
 • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click here [ [link removed] ] .

Key Federal Issues [ [link removed] ]

ADEA U.S. Interactive Legislative and Regulatory Tracking Map [ [link removed] ]

Key State Issues [ [link removed] ]

The ADEA Advocate [ [link removed] ] is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.
 
©2025
American Dental Education Association
655 K Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-289-7201
Website: www.adea.org [ [link removed] ]

Subscribe
[link removed][0]&p_colname=p_last_nm&p_varname=p_val_arr[1]&p_colname=p_alias&p_varname=p_val_arr[2]&p_colname=p_login_id&p_varname=p_val_arr[3]&p_colname=p_passwd&p_context=NEWSLETTER&p_success_url=censsaindprofile.section_update%3Fp_profile_ty%3DINDIVIDUAL_PROFILE%26p_skip_confirm_fl%3DY%26p_section_nm%3DNewsletters%26p_format%3D110%26p_msg_txt%3D%26p_cust_id%3D%26p_referrer%3D

Unsubscribe
[link removed]

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA
ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer
 
Bridgette DeHart, J.D.
ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy
 
Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.
ADEA Senior Director of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Jema Stubblefield
ADEA Senior Manager of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Colin Donnelly, M.P.S
ADEA Legislative Analyst
 
Contact Us:
[email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]