Pennsylvania Opticianry Licensure Bill Introduced

[chip anderson]

Beware, O.D.'s may favor and amend it to the point that you find yourselves in an untennable position. O.D.'s and MDs will be able to hire and fire and pay whomever they choose. But "independents" could be restricted to the point that they: 1) cannot fit contacts (or only as supervised and directed to make them superperfulus). 2) are unable to suggest any type of bifocal. 3) even measure a seg.ht. or P.D. 4) change a focal length for specific jobs or applications. 5) Have to have a new Rx everytime they make spectacles. 6) Be unable to take K readings. 7) Use flourescine dye. 8) Use a slit-lamp.

Always look for the evil in politics. Especially with a govenor like you got in PA.

Chip

[IndianaOD]

Your profession reaps what it sows. If you believe that opticians just woke up one day militant than your input has no value to me since your missing much of the pie. Your inuendo and your attitude says much about what you value in your practice $$$, patient care dictates that anyone in your office or those of the ones in your profession be staffed by the most qualified and skilled within reason. Their have been studies done and salary surveys that show that licensure does not lead to significant increases in pay, and people like you are still free to hire and staff your offices with humps, but you lose the right to call them opticians. The idea of licensure protects the public from thinking that the person serving them is automatically skilled. Anyway your vote doesn't count in Pennsylvania and if your only concern for licensure is to prevent internet glasses I don't see how you call yourself a professional anyway, the purpose of this bill is to protect consumers NOT YOU AND YOUR BUSINESS.

Last post and you guys can go on organizing.

My thought is that a large number of "opticians" are pushing for licensure to work towards the end goal of separating refractions from eye exams. That, so you all can do 5 refractions an hour for x dollars to generate spectacle sales. Oh and making walmart very happy at the same time BTW. Pesky ODs and OMDs trying to push eye health evaluations on everyone.

Absolute true story. Last week I had a 32yo WF in perfect health with no complaints and a low myopic RX. BCVA 20/20 + OD/OS. Even a posterior pole view showed absolutely no problems. A dilated view revealed a LARGE choroidal melanoma (eye tumor) in the periphery.

Bottom Line: Separating refraction from a comprehensive eye exam is not in the patient's best interest. If you think ODs are all afraid of competition you are kidding yourself. No other doctoral level medical profession even comes close to the level of competition as faced by optometrists. We've already got too many ODs, commercial, internet, OMDs, opticians, you name it!

[HarryChiling]

Last post and you guys can go on organizing.

My thought is that a large number of "opticians" are pushing for licensure to work towards the end goal of separating refractions from eye exams. That, so you all can do 5 refractions an hour for x dollars to generate spectacle sales. Oh and making walmart very happy at the same time BTW. Pesky ODs and OMDs trying to push eye health evaluations on everyone.

Absolute true story. Last week I had a 32yo WF in perfect health with no complaints and a low myopic RX. BCVA 20/20 + OD/OS. Even a posterior pole view showed absolutely no problems. A dilated view revealed a LARGE choroidal melanoma (eye tumor) in the periphery.

Bottom Line: Separating refraction from a comprehensive eye exam is not in the patient's best interest. If you think ODs are all afraid of competition you are kidding yourself. No other doctoral level medical profession even comes close to the level of competition as faced by optometrists. We've already got too many ODs, commercial, internet, OMDs, opticians, you name it!

That's just not even relevent, that's the saem fears OMD's had about OD's and look now your prescribing and in some instances performing minor surgical procedures. Licensure for opticians means provideing some sort of baseline measure for who's allowed to practice the profession. If our selling or dispensing eyewear in your establisment then your practice is practicing opticianry and you should have an interest in improving it.

To those interested on Monday, tommorow PA residents or national organization are asked to send a fax to all the mebers of the licensure commitee. Keep in mind the talking points:

1. Professional Liability Insurance for opticians that's required under the bill can help boost the economy by provideing another revenue stream for the insurance industry.
2. PA residents can be assured that their opthalmic products are dispensed by qualified professionals and have a avenue to report any greivences for unprofessional conduct.
3. Licensure fees can be a revenue stream for the state.
4. No statistical impact on small businesses payroll according to salary surveys, while increasing the quality of products offered.

Attached is Vcards for every member of the professional licensure commitee, this will allow anyone who wants to load windows address book with the fax numbers of the members and send a broadcast fax using windows fax. I will post a little later directions for sending a fax using windows fax. Included is also a winows address book file for easier import.

[Johns]

My thought is that a large number of "opticians" are pushing for licensure to work towards the end goal of separating refractions from eye exams. That, so you all can do 5 refractions an hour for x dollars to generate spectacle sales. Oh and making walmart very happy at the same time BTW. Pesky ODs and OMDs trying to push eye health evaluations on everyone.

I'm glad that's your thought, and not the majority of the opticians I come in contact.

The last thing I want to be is stuck in a 8'X20' exam room all day saying, " A or B, B or C..." Come to think of it, most of the ODs I know would rather be doing something better as well.;)

I can make more money fitting glasses than I ever could pumping out refractions.

As far as making WalMart happy - no need to pin that on us. Your buddies have done a fine job "assemblylining" eye exams just fine on their own. No need to worry about us spoiling your gig. (I don't know of too many MDs or Opticians refracting out of WM, so you're safe there.)


(The insecurities really lie pretty close to the surface don't they?)

[hcjilson]

Last post and you guys can go on organizing.

My thought is that a large number of "opticians" are pushing for licensure to work towards the end goal of separating refractions from eye exams.

If you are not trying to stir up some trouble, WHY DO YOU PLACE QUOTES AROUND THE WORD OPTICIAN?

This statement shows an incredible lack of understanding of the reasons behind the effort to become licensed. It further shows the inconsistancy in Indiana's own posts in this thread.

Here's another contradictory post

Originally Posted by IndianaOD
"PS, I used to be fully in favor of increased licensure and education for opticians until I realized how anti-OD many of the posters are on here. I had no idea so many militant opticians were out there."


What has "anti-OD" posters on Optiboard to do with Pennsylvania's attempt at licensure? What have "militant opticians" to do with anything in this thread.

Bottom Line: Separating refraction from a comprehensive eye exam is not in the patient's best interest. If you think ODs are all afraid of competition you are kidding yourself. No other doctoral level medical profession even comes close to the level of competition as faced by optometrists. We've already got too many ODs, commercial, internet, OMDs, opticians, you name it!

If competition has nothing to do with your objection to licensing in Pennsylvania, WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

Indiana OD has managed to shift the subject of this thread to something other than what it was. The subject is licensing in PA, I suggest we continue the discussion and leave the OD wars to another thread.

[Johns]

Indiana OD has managed to shift the subject of this thread to something other than what it was. The subject is licensing in PA, I suggest we continue the discussion and leave the OD wars to another thread.

I couldn't agree more. (And I'll do my best to avoid taking the bait next time.:o)


Being in a sister state to Pa, and knowing that a few years back our local association was able to contribute funding towards the Pa. licensing effort, I can't tell you how gratifying it is to see progress being made.

Other (non-licensed) states should use their determination as a role model/template for their own efforts.

[IndianaOD]

If you are not trying to stir up some trouble, WHY DO YOU PLACE QUOTES AROUND THE WORD OPTICIAN?

This statement shows an incredible lack of understanding of the reasons behind the effort to become licensed. It further shows the inconsistancy in Indiana's own posts in this thread.

Here's another contradictory post

Originally Posted by IndianaOD
"PS, I used to be fully in favor of increased licensure and education for opticians until I realized how anti-OD many of the posters are on here. I had no idea so many militant opticians were out there."


What has "anti-OD" posters on Optiboard to do with Pennsylvania's attempt at licensure? What have "militant opticians" to do with anything in this thread.





If competition has nothing to do with your objection to licensing in Pennsylvania, WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

Indiana OD has managed to shift the subject of this thread to something other than what it was. The subject is licensing in PA, I suggest we continue the discussion and leave the OD wars to another thread.

Sorry one more post, I really didn't intend to derail this thread. The quotes are around optician because I honestly don't know what defines one these days.

[bob_f_aboc]

Sorry one more post, I really didn't intend to derail this thread. The quotes are around optician because I honestly don't know what defines one these days.

That is exactly why we need licensing for ALL opticians!

[hcjilson]

Sorry one more post, I really didn't intend to derail this thread. The quotes are around optician because I honestly don't know what defines one these days.

Apology Accepted!


Please find Optician defined
"
Dispensing Optician - means an individual who prepares and dispenses lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses, contact lenses and/or appliances thereto to the intended wearer or user thereof pursuant to written contact lens or eyeglass prescriptions from a duly licensed physician or duly registered optometrist, and who, in accordance with such prescriptions, interprets, measures, adapts, fits and adjusts such lenses, spectacles, eyeglasses, contact lenses, or appliances to the human eyes and/or face for the purpose of aiding or correcting visual or ocular anomalies of the human eyes."

[HarryChiling]

Dead anyway the guy sponsoring it backed out, on top of that the bill didn't do much for the profession. That sucks.

[GAgal]

Every state needs to be licensed and it is very sad that it failed in PA. :hammer:

Good Luck Texas

[hcjilson]

Dead anyway the guy sponsoring it backed out, on top of that the bill didn't do much for the profession. That sucks.

That's no reason to give up! Why not try to fashion a bill using what other states have as a model? Pennsylvania licenses other professions, keep at it!

[dcdwn]

Just keep on tring one day it will happen.

Here in Texas Sam and 24/7 just wear meet the legislators maybe something will happen one day here also.


Don Price abo/ncle
registered optician

[optical24/7]

Dang Don, I was just in Round Rock yesterday visiting Bob F. I'm sorry I forgot you practiced there too. Next trip to Austin, I'll be sure to drop by!!


Best Regards!

George


:cheers::cheers:

[peregrinerose]

Go easy on us, wmcdonald and don't be certain that all ODs oppose this. I, for one, am in favor of it.

Ditto here, a PA OD strongly in favor of the bill.

[HarryChiling]

Ditto here, a PA OD strongly in favor of the bill.

You live too close to not have gone out for drinks, hey Fezz road trip. :cheers:

[peregrinerose]

You live too close to not have gone out for drinks, hey Fezz road trip. :cheers:

I'd love to, but finances won't allow at the moment... my husband lost his job Monday. If you guys know of anyone looking for a fill in doc Fri, Sat, or Sun, I have lots available. I'm trying to pick up some extra work to pick up the financial slack.

[Barry Santini]

Pesky ODs and OMDs trying to push eye health evaluations on everyone.

Absolute true story. Last week I had a 32yo WF in perfect health with no complaints and a low myopic RX. BCVA 20/20 + OD/OS. Even a posterior pole view showed absolutely no problems. A dilated view revealed a LARGE choroidal melanoma (eye tumor) in the periphery.

Bottom Line: Separating refraction from a comprehensive eye exam is not in the patient's best interest!

Ya know, I gotta say this is a *very* persuasive argurement for *not* separating refractions from a complete eye exam.

Assuming I'm willing to go along, hook, line and sinker, then I think it emphatically follows that any OTCs, or the availability to order "Rx" eyewear on the internet (or anywhere else than a "Dr.s" office) should be completely illegal...

Assuming, of course, that you really want to think logically & critically.

I know I do!

Barry

PS - Keeping the above in mind, why do you think that the FDA spokesperson (Kwami, -that was quoted last August in (my) notorious "Consumer's Digest" article) said that "eyeglasses represent the lowest category of risk of the medical devices we oversee"?

How do you statistically reconcile these apparently opposing precepts?

[wmcdonald]

Ditto here, a PA OD strongly in favor of the bill.

Let me try again to clearly say what I intended. I must not have been clear. The profession of Optometry has strongly oppossed the licensure of Opticians in PA and every other place in thei country for many years. I think they are short-sighted and territorial, but deeply appreciate those in support. My comment was not a personal issue in any way.

Warren

[chip anderson]

I was serious too. I have seen what Optometry has done and attempted to do here and in other states every time opticians attempted to become licensed.
Haveing no opticians on the board is a very serious flaw.
Ammendments that can be tacked on until PA's excuse for a govenor signs the bill can be deadly. Watch the bill for last minite ammendments "added to make it acceptable to Optometry" until it is signed by your miserable govenor.

Chip

[Diane]

Haveing no opticians on the board is a very serious flaw.

Chip

I could be wrong, and perhaps Bev could enlighten me, since there has been no correction posted here on Optiboard, but DO could mean Dispensing Optician.

Diane

[chip anderson]

DO means Doctor Of Osteopathy (virtually same credentials as M.D.)

Chip

[HarryChiling]

Chip,

Your right on this one, the bill had a few major flaws in it. The big one was that "0" opticians would have been on the board. That would take a now independent profession and place it right under the thumbs of another profession.

I also question the intent of the bill, for instance why didn't anyone in the state know about it until days before a meeting of the committee and then why did the legislator immediately drop his sponsorship of the bill? And why is some po dunk brand spanking new legislator from Erie sponsoring the bill? The basic Who, What, When, Where, and Why?

Who - Not sure who is behind the bill?

What - What was the bills agenda, it looks good on the surface but underneath it had flaws, were these intentional or poor planning?

When - The bill was introduced on Feb 9th and with no plan in place to inform PA opticians until the notice here on March 6th, with the committee meeting in 4 days, then 1 day before the meeting the sponsor drops the bill.

Where - Where did this bill come from, someone drafted it. Some of the text in the bill comes from past attempts at legislation going back into the '80s no one I know of has this information at least not when I asked.

Why - The bill seems to place the ophthalmic dispensing right under the thumbs of MDs and DOs. Could this mean that there's a fox in the hen house? Was the bill introduced by another profession? Why didn't it include any provisions to include opticians on the board? Was the exclusion of opticians intentional? And my favorite from a independent firm in PA could it have been a ploy by the state society to try and garner more members?

I spent all day Monday on the phone with various independent firms in the state and when everyone finally cut the bull the consensus was that if this bill got anywhere the majority of the successful independent optical firms would have fought this bill since it would have done more harm than good. I also asked to have any documentation of past attempts at bills sent to me so that a draft of a new bill one that is more palatable can be drafted and used as a template for future attempts.

Also an suggestion was made a few years ago for the state society to try and incorporate all PA opticians in their new registry. The idea when suggested was so that communication to all opticians in the state could be more efficient. The major objection was membership dues, if an opticians was listed in the registry than why would they join the association? What the society didn't realize was that with that attitude they are admitting they have nothing to offer except for putting your name in a database, which has no value especially when the database is so sparse. The database could have been a great tool to allow the society to dessimate information rapidly about a bill such as this and get feedbakc from all opticians in that state allowing a more efficient grass roots effort. The registry can also be coded more efficiently so that instead of just a plain text listing of opticians within the state members coud sign in and access Vcards similar to the ones I posted about the legislators on the committee allowing members to utilize simple tools that ship with windows to fax broadcats, contact one another, and make a directory of opticians they know and communicate with regularly. These Vcards could also be utilized to create a print directory of PA state opticians with a few key strokes of a computer that could be mailed to opticians in the state without internet access. Vendors would more than likely salivate at the chance to get access to a resource such as this in print and even more in Vcard format as the data represents a list of potential clients in the state.

I am working on such a system right now and with very limited resources of course it's a difficult venture.

[wmcdonald]

I appreciate the clarification. I assumed the PA group had submitted the bill. This sounds fishy to me.

Warren

[HarryChiling]

I appreciate the clarification. I assumed the PA group had submitted the bill. This sounds fishy to me.

Warren

I did too since the bill was posted here by the leadership, but the actual bill is not something that benefits independent opticians. There is a reason why I tend to lean more towards science and math things are more concrete, I hate the politics involved with the profession it's exhausting.