State of Texas Eliminates Licensing and Regulation of Seven Occupations/Businesses

[eryn]

It wasn't meant to be a joke. We looked at it as a stepping stone to obtaining mandatory licensure. A lot of work went into getting us even voluntary. It also required more than many licensed states to maintain ( ABOC + 10 hr's ABO approved CE's every 2 years, 20 if you were dual registered (CL and spectacle).


Many of us had hoped Opticians in our state would realize that if they helped by participation, we may be able to gain mandatory licensure. Some of us have spent thousands of our own dollars and countless hours at the state capitol pursuing just that. We had zero support from any of our National Opticians organizations ( thanks a lot for that! ) But opticians, on a whole, are a lazy bunch. To many that use that title, this is only a job, not a career, just a pay check. They no more want to further their knowledge base than learn fire walking.


Now then, there are some extremely talented Opticians in our state that I would put up against the highest standards and knowledge base of anywhere, but they are the minority. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, I give up on the rest of those folks and will gladly throw them under the bus when a client comes in with glasses made shoddily by them. Good luck Texas Opticians! You're on your own....

Didn't mean to offend, or put down legislative efforts and standards that were in place. I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into the registration program, but lets face it, it didn't improve standards or move us in the direction of mandatory licensing. I believe in education and am currently trying to improve mine on my own without any mandatory regulations or requirements. Like it or not this "change" doesn't mean any anything to the business or practice of Opticians in Texas.

[optical24/7]

No offence taken Erin. I simply added my info for clarification on the reason we accepted "voluntary" when we did, but I also wanted to point out why we did not achieve mandatory licensure.

[Chris Ryser]

Just watch for more actions like this elsewhere, the on-line businesses are working to have a road without obstructions ahead in the future.

[Matthew]

[QUOTE=Chris Ryser;511278]Occupational Licensing Gone Wild? Why Licensing Is Not Always the Answer

• Occupational licensing imposes substantial costs, while its benefits are unclear. (Really? Lets just not license doctors)
  

• A careful examination of the data shows that occupational licensing of barbers and opticians increases the earnings of the professionals without any measurable benefit to consumers. (REALLY??? BULL, Pure BULL)
  

Somebody has is paying this guy off, i wonder which monster it is?

[rbaker]

[QUOTE=Matthew;511552]

Occupational Licensing Gone Wild? Why Licensing Is Not Always the Answer

• Occupational licensing imposes substantial costs, while its benefits are unclear. (Really? Lets just not license doctors)
  No one is proposing the elimination of licensing MD.' s, OD's, Pharmacists, and heaven forbid Attorneys. But how about dog groomers, gardeners, barbers, and heaven forbid opticians.
• A careful examination of the data shows that occupational licensing of barbers and opticians increases the earnings of the professionals without any measurable benefit to consumers. (REALLY??? BULL, Pure BULL) The only measurable benefit of these archaic regulations is to those who have a dog in the fight (no offense to the dog groomers)

Somebody has is paying this guy off, i wonder which monster it is?

Occupational licensing imposes substantial costs, while its benefits are unclear. (Really? Lets just not license doctors)

No one is proposing the elimination of licensing MD.' s, OD's, Pharmacists, and heaven forbid Attorneys. But how about dog groomers, gardeners, barbers, and heaven forbid opticians.

A careful examination of the data shows that occupational licensing of barbers and opticians increases the earnings of the professionals without any measurable benefit to consumers. (REALLY??? BULL, Pure BULL)

The only measurable benefit of these archaic regulations is to those who have a dog in the fight (no offense to the dog groomers)

[Java99]

Texas Optician's Guild.

Or,

Lone Star Optician's Guild.

I am working on that. Really, truly. The optician's association here in Texas is in Houston, and while I live in Texas, I can fly to Vegas for Expo in the same amount of time I can travel to Houston. I am near Ft. Worth. Any other opticians in Texas who are interested and too far from Houston to make use of COAT, please contact me. I have a couple people on board already ready to help us do this, but we need more.

[fjpod]

Count me as being in favor of licensing of opticians. The small cost opticians (and others) pay for that license doesn't even register a blip on the scale. (Im not talking about the educational expense, but even that is manageable). This small cost gives the public some measure of assurance that the person giving them appliances that affect their vision and perception have at least a basic education in the subject. Even if it costs the Public or the licensee a few bucks a year, I think it is worth it.

I hate to direct it to simply the internet, but in today's world, so many pairs of glasses are "dispensed" by unlicensed people online (or by phone). Yeah, there "is a licensed person on the premises at the place of sale", but this legislation has basically removed the need for a licensed professional to have "hands-on" the dispensing process.

Forget Texas, for a minute (I know, hard to do...), even in my state where everything is licensed or regulated, we(I) cannot reconcile the sale of countless pairs of glasses sold online to our residents, without direct licensed contact, and the fact that if a licensed dispenser (OD, MD, LDO) allows an unlicensed but supervised person to dispense glasses, they can be disciplined by the State Board. The online sellers get off scott-free.

Why require licensing for dispensers if anyone can get glasses over the internet? The problem is not going to go away, and in fact, I see it weakening attempts to keep dispensers licensed...or at least keep a license that means something.

[wmcdonald]

Count me as being in favor of licensing of opticians. The small cost opticians (and others) pay for that license doesn't even register a blip on the scale. (Im not talking about the educational expense, but even that is manageable). This small cost gives the public some measure of assurance that the person giving them appliances that affect their vision and perception have at least a basic education in the subject. Even if it costs the Public or the licensee a few bucks a year, I think it is worth it.

I hate to direct it to simply the internet, but in today's world, so many pairs of glasses are "dispensed" by unlicensed people online (or by phone). Yeah, there "is a licensed person on the premises at the place of sale", but this legislation has basically removed the need for a licensed professional to have "hands-on" the dispensing process.

Forget Texas, for a minute (I know, hard to do...), even in my state where everything is licensed or regulated, we(I) cannot reconcile the sale of countless pairs of glasses sold online to our residents, without direct licensed contact, and the fact that if a licensed dispenser (OD, MD, LDO) allows an unlicensed but supervised person to dispense glasses, they can be disciplined by the State Board. The online sellers get off scott-free.

Why require licensing for dispensers if anyone can get glasses over the internet? The problem is not going to go away, and in fact, I see it weakening attempts to keep dispensers licensed...or at least keep a license that means something.

Thanks for your support. I only wish the leadership of your professional associations would support us. They have fought every attempt at licensing of Opticians in this country for decades. It is a shame.

[fjpod]

Thanks for your support. I only wish the leadership of your professional associations would support us. They have fought every attempt at licensing of Opticians in this country for decades. It is a shame.

Well, that may have been in the past, but I'm not so sure it has been the predominant feeling for quite some time. Having been in leadership positions from the 80s through the present, I can honestly say, that no group that I was ever involved in discussed opticians much except as it related to obtaining independent refraction privileges. I'm also sure that there are some cases of what you say being true. But....ophthalmology had a lot of negative things to say about our scope of practice...but we never let that stop us.

I think optical corporations had a lot to do with suppressing optician licensing, as it was perceived to raise the cost of optical care.

We'll probably never agree on the details...but I do feel ophthalmic dispensing should be licensed and/or regulated.

[wmcdonald]

It is not in the past, I can assure you. It is happening right now in states across the nation. I do appreciate your individual support. Most ODs I speak with feel the same.

[Lelarep]

Speaking as an MD, I support the position of requiring licensure for opticians with an examination required. It's just as much a part of allied health as any other position within the human healthcare field. I support licensure with examination for any human healthcare field. I think there has to be at least a minimum level of competence that has to demonstrated before you're dealing with the health of the public at large. The individual who testified before the board in Texas that it's of questionable value to the public, I would really love to see that raw data. It just seems rather unconvincing.

[ICU2020]

My husband and I are moving to the Dallas, Texas area. I'm LDO, ABOC, and finishing up my NCLE Classes. What will this mean for me? My education and certification will no longer matter? Is that what I'm getting from this discussion? We currently live in Virginia.

ICU2020

[Lelarep]

That's what I'm taking away from the conversation. There is no such thing as an "LDO" in TX.

[wmcdonald]

My husband and I are moving to the Dallas, Texas area. I'm LDO, ABOC, and finishing up my NCLE Classes. What will this mean for me? My education and certification will no longer matter? Is that what I'm getting from this discussion? We currently live in Virginia.

ICU2020

There is no license for an Optician in Texas, and 27 other states. National board certification is good to have, although the only real requirement in Texas is a pulse. I am surprised you know so little about your own profession!

[AngeHamm]

I am surprised you know so little about your own profession!

I can't believe you intended that to come across as harshly as it does. With the massive inequity between different states' requirements, I'm not surprised at all. It's sometimes hard enough to keep track of all the changes in your own office, what with ICD-10, software updates, new insurance requirements, new products, etc. I don't worry too much about keeping up to date on other states' licensing requirements.

[Chris Ryser]

I can't believe you intended that to come across as harshly as it does. With the massive inequity between different states' requirements, I'm not surprised at all. It's sometimes hard enough to keep track of all the changes in your own office, what with ICD-10, software updates, new insurance requirements, new products, etc. I don't worry too much about keeping up to date on other states' licensing requirements.

If you and all the others of the same opinion would have worried about it, there would be no on-line opticals, and no 23 to 24 million pairs of glasses sold this year, and 3 to 4 million more planned for next year.

[AngeHamm]

If you and all the others of the same opinion would have worried about it, there would be no on-line opticals, and no 23 to 24 million pairs of glasses sold this year, and 3 to 4 million more planned for next year.

Online opticals exist because I don't know what New Hampshire's licensing requirements are??? Do tell how that is so.

[newguyaroundhere]

Online opticals exist because I don't know what New Hampshire's licensing requirements are??? Do tell how that is so.

Simple. He will use it as an example of how the division amongst opticians on such things as licensing requirements, etc allowed the big corporations and online retailers to manipulate us to take advantage of loop holes in the system

[pezfaerie]

I'm sure California is next to eliminate licensure for Opticians now that we've been absorbed by Optometery :/

[rbaker]

Licensing/Registration was meaningless in the past, is meaningless today and will be meaningless in the future. Put a fork in it.

Opticians will now have to learn to stand on their own two feet and not rely on outside players to insure their place in the eye care vineyard.

[Dr. Bill Stacy]

I'm not sure if opticianry has been absorbed into us here in ca, or if we've been absorbed into optical. Time will tell.




Challenge authority, unless they have a gun on you.

[Chris Ryser]

Online opticals exist because I don't know what New Hampshire's licensing requirements are??? Do tell how that is so.

Online opticals exist because there is no Federal licensing law for optical retailers, nor one for optical labs that manufacture optical prescription lenses direct to the public, on a federal, nor single State level.

If that was the case, sales of non licensed products could then be easily controlled internally and by customs at the border.

Opticians have been and are being misled and brainwashed by the newest and latest technologies, that go for high prices, while the same corporations that offer them, now operate most of the largest online optical's that sell millions of bread and butter frames and prescriptions at rock bottom prices to the public, without any licensing needed.

[fjpod]

If you and all the others of the same opinion would have worried about it, there would be no on-line opticals, and no 23 to 24 million pairs of glasses sold this year, and 3 to 4 million more planned for next year.

Chris,
Online opticals flourish even in states with strict licensing laws. ... States where the practitioners did care to take the time to enact rules and regulations regarding practice.

The existence of online opticals is no one's "fault" it is a product of public demand.

[tx11]

Licensing/Registration was meaningless in the past, is meaningless today and will be meaningless in the future. Put a fork in it.

Opticians will now have to learn to stand on their own two feet and not rely on outside players to insure their place in the eye care vineyard.

How can opticians stand on their own two feet? As independent dispensary owners?

[Chris Ryser]

Chris,
Online opticals flourish even in states with strict licensing laws. ... States where the practitioners did care to take the time to enact rules and regulations regarding practice.

The existence of online opticals is no one's "fault" it is a product of public demand.

They flourish around the world by now from Europe to India.

The 2 largest suppliers of the optical trade do control the largest ones of them all.

Rules and regulations are not, have not, and will not be enforced.