Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

When the independent redistricting commission redraws political lines this summer, experts say it’s likely that the 36th will lose its strongly Democratic northern region around the Los Angeles International Airport. In return, the district could regain the Republican-majority Palos Verdes Peninsula.

To protect incumbent Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, who resigned in February to lead a Washington think tank, the Peninsula was sliced off the district 10 years ago and connected by thin slivers of Long Beach and San Pedro to Rep. Dana Rohrbacher’s Orange County-based 46th Congressional District.

Besides a shifting border, there’s also a second scenario, where most of the current 36th District’s territory is collapsed, possibly into the 37th Congressional District of Rep. Laura Richardson, a Long Beach Democrat who represents Carson.

Such a move could be a way to account for the population shift to Riverside and San Bernardino counties in the 2010 U.S. census, according to Fernando Guerra, director of the Thomas and Dorothy Leavey Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

“In other words, L.A. County has to lose one seat,” Guerra said.

The nonpartisan California Citizens Redistricting Commission is set to issue draft maps on June 10, before the July election, setting up an awkward possibility for Hahn and Huey.

“You literally may be running for a seat that no longer exists,” Guerra said.

Final maps are due Aug. 15, and the first election reflecting the reapportioned boundaries will be the June 2012 primary.

If Harman’s old district does pick up the Palos Verdes Peninsula, surrendering the area around LAX, the change would be enough to make an incumbent’s path to election uncertain.

In 1998, when the Peninsula was a part of the 36th District, voters sent Republican Steve Kuykendall to the office.

The Democrat who lost?

Hahn, who ran for the seat to replace Harman when the congresswoman made a failed bid for California governor.

The California economy is very poor and especially poor in this area of Los Angeles County. Businesses have closed and moved out of the state. Real estate values have plummeted. And, most importantly, the election turnout will be low due to the July election date. This will favor an “outside” candidate and one who can turn out the GOP in the district.

Craig Huey has a definite chance in July to surprise and certainly again in 2012, if he doesn’t.

The next big tell-all book about ex-Alaska Guv Sarah Palin drops Tuesday and the hook on “Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin” is juicy: It is based on Palin’s own words, in the form of thousands of emails she wrote to co-author and longtime former aide Frank Bailey, a self-described Fox News-watching Republican.

“This book is littered with her words — and we took nothing out of context,” co-author Ken Morris, a Marin County resident and self-described progressive, told Comrade Marinucci and I Monday.

“There were so many more shocking revelations that Frank wasn’t comfortable putting in,so we didn’t. He wanted to tell the story about what was wrong as opposed to things about affairs and legitimacies and diet pills. Yes, he wants people to know what kind of person Sarah Palin is like, because that is important,” Morris said.

Morris described Bailey as “a whistle-blower.” And his story is intended to be a warning about unvetted politicians slipping through the process. “I’m really critical of how we’re doing politics now.”

“Sarah Palin becomes sort of symbolic of people like Donald Trump, or of anybody out there who we don’t vet properly,” Morris said. “It’s just a searing indictment of (GOP presidential nominee) John McCain. We leave no doubt that there was zero vetting” of Palin prior to her becoming the Republican VP nominee in 2008.

Not a happy day for Sarah Palin.

But, on the other hand, Bailey did relate that the rumors about Palin not being the mother of Trig (and her daughter Bristol was): “She did have Trig,” Morris said. “(Bailey) went to see Trig the morning of his birth.”

California meets half of the eight policy benchmarks for improving children’s dental health, but children in the state still face significant barriers to accessing care. A recent study by Children Now revealed that one in five California children under age 12 had never seen a dentist. To help alleviate this problem, stakeholders in the state are exploring innovative ways to expand the dental workforce. Pew is supporting a campaign in California to authorize a new type of dental provider who can offer primary care.

Although the state does not yet meet the benchmark for water fluoridation, it has improved significantly since 2006, with over half of the state now receiving the benefits of fluoridated water.

I have some problems with the criteria the Pew Center uses to judge the state of children’s dental health and really see little correlation between each of the categories to judge an overall state of health.

Let me take them one at a time.

Share of high-risk schools with sealant programs:

Pew is assuming that more dental sealants mean better dental health. Over the 30 years of placing and evaluating dental sealants, I have seen little reason why having a school program in high-risk disadvanatged area would correlate to better dental health. Just because there is a program and sealants are placed, does this mean less decayed and missing teeth as adults? I would like to see a current model and study.

Hygienists can place sealants without a dentist’s prior exam:

What does this have to do with children’s dental health? Some states allow this and some don’t – big deal. How difficult is it for a school or public health based clinic to have a retired licensed dentist or dentist volunteers to at least examine the children. Or, does hygienist placement of sealants without a dentist examination mean a better outcome? This is hard to believe.

Share of residents on fluoridated community water supplies:

You might expect better dental health with fluoridation. But, what abut the communities that have naturally fluoridated water? And, isn’t this really a political decision by the local communities and not the states?

Share of Medicaid-enrolled children getting dental care:

More Medicaid children seeing a dentist probably means better dental health. But, what type of treatment are they receiving? Extractions, restorations or regular preventive care? Do the patients return on a regular basis? And, do the states really want to promote utilization of their resources to Medicaid recipients by marketing? I would guess not.

Share of dentists’ median retail fees reimbursed by Medicaid:

Dentists receiving more of their regular fee for treating Medicaid children might mean more dentists treating more children, right? Yes and No. Some dentists don’t participate in Medicaid regardless of the fees paid, because of the needless bureaucracy and ever present/relentless federal audits which might send them to prison for making billing errors. Some dentists just don’t like the federal government intruding on their private business decisions. So, increasing the fees for Medicaid might reward some dentists, but probably would not increase the numbers of dentists providing Medicaid treatment – unless of course, the fees approached 80-85% of their UCR. But, what states and which taxpayers will be able to afford that?

Pays medical providers for early preventive dental health care:

I cannot imagine seeing general/family practice physicians, pediatricians or PA’s sitting down in a Medicaid environment either providing dietary advice, dental sealants, or oral hygiene instructions. Just because physicians can, does not mean most M.D.’s will. I would like to see a study as to which states have a goodly number of M.D.’s providing these type of services.

Authorizes new primary care dental providers:

This is, of course, the hidden agenda question for the Pew Organization who has been at the forefront in promoting the new dental therapist as an alternative to the dentist. This category has no relevance to children’s dental health, since there is no evidence that having dental therapists equates to better dental health. Most of the USA is not Alaska, remote and rural. I don’t think most private practice dentists are going to hire dental therapists, so they can see more Medicaid patients with a reimbursement of around 40% of their regular fees. Remember the “invisible hand?”