{ from the president } by Ron Wilkerson, DMD I’m Afraid We Have a Trust Issue R


ecently, some members have shared with me a letter from Dentaltown founder Dr. Howard Farran titled Howard Speaks: Why


Dentists are Cheering the End of SmileCon and Calling for the ADA to be Replaced.


You can read the full article online, but in short, Dr. Farran criticizes the ADA for can- celing SmileCon, saying:


“This isn’t just about one event dying. It’s about trust. Dentists are sick of being treated like customers, not members. We pay dues. We want representation. We want transparency … and damn it, we want a seat at the table when legacy institutions start slashing legacy programs.”


Some MDA members have commented to me about this article, and I’d like to address a few of their points as they relate to both the ADA and the MDA. My goal is to provide trans- parency, show how your dues are used and explain how we represent you.


LEGACY PROGRAMS & EVENTS ADA’s and ours.


For several years, the MDA has been discuss- ing whether to continue with a House of Delegates and the Connect4Success (C4S) meeting. Like the ADA with SmileCon, we evaluate these events not just on ROI in terms of revenue and attendance, but also on whether they provide real value for members.


In 2023, we combined the House of Delegates and C4S to save costs and boost participation. The results have been mixed. Some like the change, others don’t. Some prefer one meeting, but not the other. Atten- dance at C4S has been an ongoing challenge despite surveying members and experiment- ing with new formats. For the House, it is increasingly difficult to recruit delegates from every component.


So when Dr. Farran says members “want a seat at the table,” we agree. But sometimes, these legacy programs struggle to draw mem- bers to the table.


That’s why, at our most recent House of Delegates, Resolution 2025H-7 passed, creating a task force to explore new ways to increase participation in governance and to ensure members continue to have input on policy (read an update on page 15). Likewise, we continue to work with the New Dentist Committee, the Education Committee and the Board to make C4S more valuable.


TRUST IN THE ADA There are a lot of side conversations going on.


The ADA’s financial challenges have been widely discussed and recent communications have raised concerns—sometimes inflamed by social media accusations of incompetence or misconduct (read the Editorial on page 6).


The truth is, the ADA invested heavily in modernizing membership systems. The upgrades were necessary, but there were missteps and perhaps the pace was too fast. Yes, it cost a lot. Yes, parts failed. Yes, course corrections are needed. I believe recent com- munications show some ownership, but more transparency and responsible spending are essential moving forward.


Despite these challenges, it’s important to remember the ADA’s many contributions. The State Public Affairs (SPA) program has helped fund our legislative wins for years.


10 focus | FALL 2025 | ISSUE 3


The Oral Preventive Assistant (OPA) Pilot Project is another example where ADA sup- port has helped elevate the value of Expanded Functions Dental Assistants.


I’ll admit, I too have some ADA trust con- cerns. But I remain a member because I believe in the ADA’s advocacy on our behalf — even if it doesn’t move as fast as we’d like.


ADVOCACY: GOALS, NOT JUST LEGISLATION


If it’s the No. 1 benefit, why does it take so long to see results?


The ADA’s strongest value is advocacy, though sometimes it feels slow. This spring will be my third ADA Lobby Day and yes— we’ll again be pushing some of the same bills as the past few years.


Our MDA lobbyist, Jorgen Schlemeier, has of- ten said, “Get married to your goals, not your legislation.” That’s true whether it’s ADA or MDA efforts. Passing a bill can take anywhere from one year to one hundred, depending on countless factors.


For example, our push for Dental Loss Ratio (DLR) began in 2024. By 2025, more states had passed similar laws and we made progress, but legislative gridlock stalled final passage. We’ll try again in 2026 — because the LRC believes it matters for dentists and patients.


This persistence is nothing new. In 2008, we first floated the idea of what’s now the OPA.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36