SAVE $$ on License Renewal Fees

**LandLord** · 12-07-2010, 08:45 PM

Refract, what is your address? I will send you a check for the full amount of my license fee, if you can convince an employer to pay me a full opticians wage without having a license.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 12-08-2010, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by LandLord

Refract, what is your address? I will send you a check for the full amount of my license fee, if you can convince an employer to pay me a full opticians wage without having a license.

Keep your money. Writing me a check will not buy you or your employer, backbone or morals.

**Doug** · 12-08-2010, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Refractingoptician.com

Doug, COO under present leadership/stewardship has demonstrated no intention, that I can see, of dealing with the internet illegal and unauthorized dispensing even though it is their responsibility , just as it is the responsibility of the OD's to deal with it. COO is breaking their legislated mandate to protect the public. COO 's present Council and Registrar are breaking their mandate , the mandate that is the reason for their very existence ! Not paying them is the only recourse and the ultimate recourse that members have to bring them back into line.

The inaction of COO's councilors has created and allowed unauthorized dispensing to become rampant and go unchecked. COO's Exec is discriminating against its own membership and the public by creating two classes of "opticians" , the legal ones that they will prosecute and the illegal ones which they won't prosecute.

Tell me again who is violating the law ?

Whose rule is it that says opticians can't have an OD in their dispensary ? Show me that rule.

Also whose rule is it that says an optician has to give up his license to work for an OD ? That is against the Charter of Rights and an insult to all Canadians and is strictly the device of the OD College. They have lost in court before on this matter ,have they not ?

Perhaps the OD College needs an awakening ?

Check out the competition bureau report HERE. An excerpt from their report is below. The points you're looking for are in BOLD!

"In Ontario, the College of Optometrists of Ontario has enforced a statutory provision that prohibits optometrists from practising “in association, partnership or otherwise with or while employing or under the employment” of a registered optician.

Given the complementarities between the activities of optometrists and opticians, it is our view that it would be natural for members of both professions to work together. Such multidisciplinary arrangements would likely result in efficiencies not available to professionals currently working separately. Thus, by not allowing these relationships, the College of Optometrists of Ontario is preventing the potential development of more efficient business models and future innovation. Moreover, the Bureau believes that these restrictions may discourage prospective optometrists from entering the market and also protect inefficient incumbent optometrists from competition from more efficient rivals. Accordingly, costs are likely being kept inefficiently high, resulting in higher prices to the consumer. A further anti-competitive result of these rules is that they force most optometrists into the same business model, thus ensuring that they all face a similar cost structure. This makes it less likely that meaningful competition or cost innovation will develop.

As such, the Bureau’s Study recommended that the “Colleges of optometry should remove restrictions that prohibit or discourage optometrists from working in multidisciplinary arrangements with opticians”. We note that shortly after the release of this Study, the College of Optometrists of Ontario sent a letter to their members to put them on notice that there exists regulation prohibiting optometrists from practising “in association, partnership or otherwise with or while employing or under the employment” with a registered optician."

Yes, the OD's do need an awakening refract.

**eyemanflying** · 12-09-2010, 06:30 AM

It is long past due and about time the College of Optometrists got their head out of their a$$e$ and changed their policies. Why should an OD be restricted to make their own decisions? Why should an OD be told to follow a cost plus method? What harm is there if an OD chooses to hire or partner up with an Optician? More than 90% of OD's are self employed business owners - let them decide what's best to successfully operate their practices.

The College shouldn't have a say whatsoever on how to operate a business or practice. The only time they should be involved is in times of complaints of professional corruption, sexual harassment etc.

I've said it many times before - if the two O's could partner easily without any repercussions, it would best serve the general public. I would love the autonomy in partnering and fully operating a busy dispensary, sell, fit and edge all of the orders while the OD simply refracts and feeds the scripts. It would be a very successful marriage in my view.

**optical maven** · 12-09-2010, 02:34 PM

Like all revisionist propogandists a little bit of the truth helps present your agenda without telling the whole truth. For the whole story read the report from HPRAC at www.hprac.org for the history and recommendations on competition and cooperation in their most recent study. I believe both the College of Optometrists and Ontario Association of Optometrists agree with the recommendations. Now they're waiting for the government to enact changes.

Originally Posted by Doug

Check out the competition bureau report HERE. An excerpt from their report is below. The points you're looking for are in BOLD!

"In Ontario, the College of Optometrists of Ontario has enforced a statutory provision that prohibits optometrists from practising “in association, partnership or otherwise with or while employing or under the employment” of a registered optician.

Given the complementarities between the activities of optometrists and opticians, it is our view that it would be natural for members of both professions to work together. Such multidisciplinary arrangements would likely result in efficiencies not available to professionals currently working separately. Thus, by not allowing these relationships, the College of Optometrists of Ontario is preventing the potential development of more efficient business models and future innovation. Moreover, the Bureau believes that these restrictions may discourage prospective optometrists from entering the market and also protect inefficient incumbent optometrists from competition from more efficient rivals. Accordingly, costs are likely being kept inefficiently high, resulting in higher prices to the consumer. A further anti-competitive result of these rules is that they force most optometrists into the same business model, thus ensuring that they all face a similar cost structure. This makes it less likely that meaningful competition or cost innovation will develop.

As such, the Bureau’s Study recommended that the “Colleges of optometry should remove restrictions that prohibit or discourage optometrists from working in multidisciplinary arrangements with opticians”. We note that shortly after the release of this Study, the College of Optometrists of Ontario sent a letter to their members to put them on notice that there exists regulation prohibiting optometrists from practising “in association, partnership or otherwise with or while employing or under the employment” with a registered optician."

Yes, the OD's do need an awakening refract.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 12-10-2010, 12:29 PM

Has the OD College actually done anything whatsoever towards fixing this Charter of Rights violation or are they sitting doing nothing ?

**optical maven** · 12-10-2010, 01:43 PM

Below are the recommendations made by HPRAC. Both the College and Association are in agreement with these recommendations. I believe this is the framework for legislative changes. The documentation is in the government's hands. Should I call the Minister of Health and see how it's going?

8. That Regulation 550 made under the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act be
repealed in its entirety, and relevant sections, as they are amended, be made in a
regulation under the Optometry Act, 1991.
9. That the Conflict of Interest provisions in a regulation under the Optometry Act,
1991 respecting practise in association specify that:
1. A member shall ensure that, in all matters concerning the member’s
professional practice, including business relationships, working
conditions and the member’s exercise of his knowledge, skill, judgment,
and ethics, the best interests of the patient are the primary consideration.
2. a) A member may practise in association with another member, another
regulated health professional, a professional corporation or a corporation
other than a professional corporation.
b) Practise in association means to engage in the practice of optometry as:
i. An employee;
ii. An employer;
iii. A contractor,
iv. A shareholder, director, officer, agent or employee of a
professional corporation, or
v. An optometric partner.
3. A member is responsible, for the purposes of the Act, the regulations, the
standards of practice, guidelines and practice advisories, and the code of
ethics for how the member provides professional services, and that
responsibility is not diminished, modified or affected by the practice
arrangements of the member.
4. When practising in association, a member shall control:
a) the professional service provided;
114
b) whom the member may accept as a patient;
c) the ability to provide the patient with a copy of his or her
prescription;
d) the fee to be charged or collected in respect of the optometric
professional services; and
e) the maintenance, care, custody and control of the records
required to be maintained in respect of the practice of
optometry, including patient records.
5. It is a ground of professional misconduct for a member to enter or
continue with a practice in association in which the member’s
professional judgment is or might be influenced, controlled or impeded.
6. It is a ground of professional misconduct for a member to influence,
impede or control, or attempt to influence, impede or control, another
health professional’s decision-making or judgment or ethical obligations
towards a patient.
10. To assist members in meeting their ethical obligations when entering into
practice associations, HPRAC recommends that the College of Optometrists of
Ontario provide toolkits or publish standards in the Optometric Practice
Reference. These could include, among other matters:
a) Guidelines for members choosing to practise in association, with other
health care professionals or corporate entities, which may include
guidelines about:
i. shared ownership or use of premises, equipment, furnishings or
other property;
ii. shared administrative functions or expenses;
iii. shared office or clinic expenses; or
iv. shared employees.
b) Examples of contractual language or principles to comply with legislative
requirements;
c) A summary of the regulatory framework relevant to inter-professional
collaboration, including requirements regarding billing for services; and
d) Guidance concerning the option of obtaining independent legal advice
upon considering entering a practice association.
11. That the College of Optometrists of Ontario consider making available a
practice advisory service to provide members with information concerning
115
conflict of interest or a prospective practice association. Lessons learned could
be presented in the College’s newsletter.

**idispense** · 12-13-2010, 10:52 AM

Considering how many years it has taken to get this far Optical Maven, yes , it would be a good idea to call the Minister and stay on top of this situation. Some people in charge of optical matters seem to have bigger "back burners" than the rest of the population.