Page 6 - Bulletin Vol 26 No 3 - Sept. - Dec. 2021 - FINAL 3 version (1)

Message from Donald Hills continued

I think it is a fantastic idea and no restorative dentist could possibly argue against establishing such
a registry. We all see patients who present with a loose screw, or some other easily repaired situation that
is made terribly more difficult simply because we cannot identify the type or size of the fixture present.
I presented the resolution to CDP and the members unanimously agreed it was worthwhile. From
there the resolution went to the NYSDA Trustees and they too unanimously endorsed it as written. Next
up, the NYSDA House of Delegates. I gave testimony at the reference committee as did the chair of CDP
and the NYSDA House passed my resolution on consent. At that point the resolution became an ADA
Second District resolution and, although I was still the author, the full weight of NYSDA backed its passage.
The emails and phone calls began. “It’s too expensive,” “it’s been looked at before,” “there are
personal patient information concerns” and even “cybersecurity concerns.” The resolution only asks ADA to
look into establishing such a registry. I was told, “even looking into it is too costly,” nonetheless we
pressed on.
Prior to the ADA House, as with NYSDA, the 16 Trustees from around the country meet and
recommend a given action for each resolution. Over 100 resolutions were brought forward to Las Vegas
this year and Resolution 79 (our implant registry) was hotly debated by the Trustees. NYSDA Trustee Paul
Leary fought for passage but, in the closest of votes (9-11), a no vote was recommended to the House.

It is important to note, although I think a national registry is a good idea, the concept I originally
came up with was based on an erroneous assumption. I was led to believe when one receives a pacemaker
or an artificial hip some identifying information is entered into a national data bank. If you then have a
problem, say while in Los Angeles, doctors can easily access information about your device. In fact, no such
national registry exists, and patients who receive pacemakers and artificial joints are given an identifying
card by their physician and told to be sure to have the card with them at all times. It clearly places the onus
on the patient to maintain the information.

Too late for a Trustee recommendation, South Carolina presented their own resolution 107 just
prior to the meeting. Their resolution was a simplified version of ours, requesting a patient card system
instead of a registry to address the concerns that were expressed.
Delegates from around the country still felt a national registry was a good idea and I became the “go
to guy” concerning the push for NYSDA’s resolution or changing course and accepting the South Carolina
“patient card” concept. Although not what I originally envisioned, resolution 107 does allow patients to
maintain the important specifics of their implants, it will greatly help me as a restorative dentist, and I was
therefore in favor of resolution 107.
With NYSDA’s blessing there was no further debate in the house and, again on consent, resolution
79 was a no and resolution 107 was passed. I am disappointed my original idea came up short, but not

unhappy with the final decision. The exciting thing was participating and seeing a grassroots idea
developed in my kitchen become national policy. It demonstrates how each and every one of us in our
organization can influence and guide the ADA. The ADA works, and it works for its members, and I am so
proud to be a part of it all.

Don

Editor-in-Chief

6 | Nassau County Dental Society ⬧ www.nassaudental.org