Wes, you have to have a long-term, constant presence in the statehouses. As regulated professions, we serve at the goverment's whim. We have to send boxes of chocolates and cognac as much as a wholesale lab sends fruitbaskets to their accounts at the holidays. You have to have relationships. (And hot showers.)
Then we're just going to have to start advertising as being the vintage method.Originally Posted by drk
Serious question, now.
Some here have embraced the "merchantile model" of opticianry, and some have embraced the "medical model".
If deregulation occurs, does the medical model disappear? I mean, no more licensing fees, no more CE, no more State Board. Hell, the state can't force you to release your p.d.s anymore!
You can still be "an expert" like a good auto mechanic is "an expert".
Is the merchantile model so bad? Lenscrafters doesn't think so.
It's really a simple matter of hiring the "best"lobbyist. Then much to the pol's delight the bidding war err.. campaign contribution$ begin$.
I say embrace the merchantile model, simply because you want to attach your cart to the winning horse. Every new law and every new policy opens up new doors for you are a sales optician, the other way around the doors are closing. As soon as we all dumb down the bright ones can stand out, until then we have a lot of dumb licenses floating around out there.
Bullet proof vest on for this posts.
If eyeglasses were declassed as a medical device:
1. Insurance coverage would go away
2. Regulations would go away
3. Compliance issues would go away
And "experts" would SHINE!
B
I thnk Dr K is talking about deregulating Opticians, Barry, not the product we sell. Are you OK with giving up your license? I am afraid that is what is coiming down the pike, folks. And MakeOptics may just be right. Hell, I have been fighting a battle to protect folks who did not want to be protected. I guess it was me who was dumb!
I'm starting to feel that way too. I haven't quit trying, yet.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
I think it follows that giving up medical device status for eyewear will mean no license for optical.
But no license does not mean no skill. It just means what no one is willing to say: Glasses are over-regulated in the world age of online fulfillment.
If the glasses "appear" satisfactory...whether they are compliant in all of today's respects or not, the client will not complain. So where's the harm?
Impact exposure? Well perhaps advisory signs will have to be installed.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 10-31-2013 at 03:35 PM.
Epitaph
It seems that once non-optical-professionals took over the ownership of opticals, the profession weakened in response, instead of strengthened in response.
Opticians couldn't band together effectively, for whatever reason. Who knows? Maybe they were too independent. Maybe they weren't independent enough. Maybe they couldn't consolidate into a single organization.
Maybe they were too fragmented by fifty different state scopes of license
Maybe they couldn't decide if they were professionals or salespeople. Maybe they were confused about what the public wanted from them.
Maybe they couldn't command a high enough fee for their services because they were unappreciated. Maybe they didn't try hard enough to show how much they knew after they showed how much they cared.
Either way, they couldn't resist the onslaught of big business any more than the local hardware store or restaurant owner.
Now, I'm just being morose on Halloween guys! The profession started from nothing, and it can totally rise from the ash heap, if that's indeed where you are. It begins with leadership.
Now, who's going to lead!? Who's going to follow!?
In the days running up to the committee meeting, Ohio opticians, specifically dual, and contact lens licensed optician, were called and asked to call their representatives, write a letter, or testify. You would not believe the responses! Responses such as:
"I'm tired of the state telling me what to do"...."I don't use it anyway"...to "Good, now my license renewal will be cheaper!" were not uncommon. The responses ranged from irritation, to indifference. Even though I know many opticians, and nothing should surprise me, I was not expecting that type of response at all.
They really do not want to be protected, and in my opinion, their licenses all came to easily, and they have no appreciation for them.
What is a profession?
It's not an individual. It's a group. That's square one.
How do opticians do "group"?
I respect the hell out of you and I wouldn't by any stretch of the imagination call you dumb, but a dreamer your are and thats OK.
Wes you know I respect you man. Reality is here and your fighting for folks who hate you for it.
In order to rise from the ash heap the professions gotta burn to the ground, once the profession is deregulated corporations will revel in their victory a few years with increased profits and then start to look to the next frontier. Deregulating refraction, yummy. It's like a soap opera, nothing is off the table when you think about it.
Now you can afford to hire cheaper labor, good for them for nailing in their own coffins. Who's next on the chopping block, I would worry when strong states start to see legislation like FL or NC, OH quite frankly is an interesting state when it came to licensure. You live int he belly of the beast and yet you had licensure.
I'm sorry you guys have ran into the same issues we have down here with state politics. I've seen it too with my own eyes, unfortunately we have no organization willing to put up a fight even when we have right on our side and a bill sponsored. Truly sad...
Deregulating refraction will NOT create harm either, IMHO. There's plenty of less than satisfactory refracting going on by licensed professionals and the like. Ask me how I know.
But deregulating refraction is not the same as deregulating comprehensive, medically-based eye care. It's just separating comprehensive eye care from what insurance calls "a non-medical, routine procedure"
Like driving: Some do it poorly. Others do it adequately. Others excel.
Same thing.
It's all happened before, and it was fought over before. Then the FTC had to step in and free Rx fulfillment from the exam provider.
Same thing now for refraction next up on the block. You can do it yourself. And maybe get to a good enough place. But obtaining excellence is not within the purveyance of amateurs.
The real question is: What do you want?
B
Sadly, the ignorance level among average opticians is staggering.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
I am a bit surprised to see so many comments about "protecting" the optician and not about protecting the public. The boards in the 20 or so states are there to protect the public. Certainly you can work to make the case that in order to protect the public, you need opticians to be ..... The argument should always start with the public though and not the optician...
And this is why I didn't stop with the ABOM.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
You realized that the ABOM has value for an optician but "optician" has a quickly eroding value. Your masters degree has lasting value especially as the value of attaining an education is quickly surpassing the grasp of most.
I tried for the ABOM and was denied numerous times, then I decided to let it all lapse because life required more of my time then I was giving. Not to long ago I received an email from someone saying I should resubmit my paper since the board had changed. I don't see how that would make a difference with nothing changing but the people looking at the paper and judging it. Plus lots of the content in my paper was discussing techniques which were not main stream, today that has changed and my paper would be considered historical in content. I have a feeling if I was to resubmit my paper I would be asked to cite sources for some of the content that is now known and implemented, or worst I would be told I plagerized articles published since the first submission.
Anyway your ABOM paper was phenomenal, I thoroughly enjoyed it and still have it as reference in my library.
MO.....You gave me a copy of your paper way back when...You did what the ABOM should be all about..."The Advancement of Optical Knowledge". It's a shame your evaluators are not as advanced as you.
And is matched only by the level of apathy.
Ah!
If you're referring to Dr. McDonald's post, I think you are taking it out of context:
As you know, he was not involved in this fight, and (I believe) he was referring this on an educational level. He's protecting opticians from themselves.Hell, I have been fighting a battle to protect folks who did not want to be protected.
From the beginning, this has been about protecting the public, and doing so by having educated opticians. Ohio has stated they do not wish for opticians to be educated, so the argument about protecting the public no longer holds water. State boards? When Ohio's state board talked about the need for more protection of the public, the representatives got up and walked out of the room...before they could even begin.
Yes, very quaint, unless you're a legislator, and then it starts with big business, and ends with big business.The argument should always start with the public though and not the optician...
JB: If it was just 1 comment, I would have said that, and it is not Dr M. But really read the comments and think if you were a neutral observer reading this or sitting on a committee (I will not comment on this specific committee as I was not there for the proceedings). Would your beliefs be that protecting the public is the one and only important item most of these posts are concerned with or is some of it about protecting opticians? IMHO it is only supposed to be about the public and once it starts to cross the line, it becomes much easier to make the other case which is what the people here are trying to not do...
Then please explain why Rep. Gonzales, the sponsor of the bill, began the Interested Parties meeting by stating that this whole issue stemmed from her trying to pick up a 6 month supply of contacts, and being inconvenienced because there was not a contact lens licensed optician on staff. Safety was NEVER mentioned, until opticians brought it up. Even if we were to believe (I don't for a second) that this was based on her personal experience, then it was nothing more than a convenience/customer service issue.
Yes, at this point, opticianry as a profession needs to be protected from the lapdogs of the big box retailers, none of whom have public safety at heart. If the boards are to protect the public, and opticianry does the will of the board, then what part of safety will be served when it is deregulated?
And yes, this is an optical forum, made up of opticians, optometrists, ophthalmologists and others in the field. My posting are not directed at the "neutral observer", but rather those that assume that the public safety comes first.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks