The end of Independant Opticianry in California

[pezfaerie]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201520160AB684

Assembly bill 684 basically allows Optometry to absorb and regulate Opticianry in our state rather than keeping the Medical Board in control as it is now. And while it would now allow a landlord tennant relationship to exist between these two O's it again is heavily regulated in the Optometrists favor.
I do not want to see my career absorbed as part of Optometry. And I wish more Californian Opticians actually cared what was happening.

[pezfaerie]

ANY California Opticians on here?

Is this not a big deal to anyone else? Just look:

"This bill would instead make the State Board of Optometry responsible for the registration and regulation of nonresident contact lens sellers and dispensing opticians. The bill would direct fees collected from registered dispensing opticians and persons seeking registration as a dispensing optician to be paid into the Dispensing Opticians Fund, and to be available, upon appropriation, to the State Board of Optometry."

"This bill, except as specified, would make it unlawful for a registered dispensing optician to, among other things, advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of an optometrist or a physician and surgeon or to directly employ an optometrist or physician and surgeon for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry, by regulation, to impose and issue administrative fines and citations for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry to inspect any premises at which the business of a registered dispensing optician is co-located with the practice of an optometrist for the purposes of determining compliance with the aforementioned written lease agreement provisions. The bill would also authorize the State Board of Optometry to take disciplinary action against a party who fails to comply with the inspection and would require the State Board of Optometry to provide specified copies of the inspection results. Because the failure to comply with the inspection would be a crime under the registered dispensing provisions, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program"
(d) No registered dispensing optician may have any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, or profit-sharing arrangement either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, or trust deed, with an optometrist, except as permitted under this section.
They continually refer to "the landlord" (can now be a RDO under this new bill) and the rules the landlord has to follow such as basically not telling the Optometrist what they can can not charge, how many hours they can work etc. A lot of this bill, other than stripping away the Opticians right to be a stand alone profession, sounds to me like Eyemed and VSP (2 big CA insurance players) getting slapped on the wrist for the way they have been running the manged care practices in this state. Sounds great for the doctors to protect their livelyhood and run their business the way they see fit, however, they need not diminish my career in doing so.

[Craig]

Wow that was not an easy read!
Looks like the groundwork to have VSP direct to retail and they can employ and OD with rules that they can stipulate.

This is uncertain for opticians but looks like a disaster for OD's. Looks like we can participate in any 3rd party plan as the ower of the business.

[pezfaerie]

I fear that if this bill passes my career as an independant Optician is going to be extinct. As they are making us dependant on Optometry.

[rbaker]

We live in interesting times. Lets see how it works out.

[rdcoach5]

You saw what happened when they tried that in Ohio. A lot of opticians contacted their state representatives and my personal rep sent me an e-mail saying he agreed with our argument against putting us in OD's control instead of having our own Optical Board which costs the state nothing. The measure was defeated.

[pezfaerie]

You saw what happened when they tried that in Ohio. A lot of opticians contacted their state representatives and my personal rep sent me an e-mail saying he agreed with our argument against putting us in OD's control instead of having our own Optical Board which costs the state nothing. The measure was defeated.

I sure hope us Californians can/will step up and defeat this bill. Was there some sort of correspondence (that is easily copied) that the Ohio Opticans sent to their representatives? I would love it if I could print up a letter that I can direct people to that they could change a few names and such and just print out and mail or email.

[rdcoach5]

From Dr K

1. Opticianry is a independent profession.
2. Each profession should have their own regulating board.
3. Combining regulating boards runs the risk of the new board not having the expertise to do their job. To wit: would the Nursing Board have the expertise needed to regulate opticianry? Clearly not. Would the Medical Board? Clearly not. Opticianry is a separate profession with a separate body of knowledge.
4. While the Optometry Board may well have enough expertise overlap with the Opticianry Board to do the job, it is unfair to penalize opticianry by subsuming it's regulation under the Optometry Board. Due to the fact that there is, indeed, substantial expertise overlap between the two fields, in the marketplace there is competition between the two fields. To make one a subset of the other in state regulation has the real danger of giving opticanry a competitive marketplace disadvantage.

[Chris Ryser]

As far as I understand politics, this whole bit is a move by a few of some parliamentarians who have been influenced by some (unknown) means.

This is now the third or fourth state some similar restrictions of one sort or another have been proposed within a short time period.

Start guessing who could be triggering the limitations of a profession that has been around forever.

.

[EyeCare Rich]

I am trying to understand your post. I appears from what you wrote that an Independent Optician can not employ an Optometrist under this new regulation. It also has many regulations to prevent Opticians from employing an Optometrist with inspections and fines etc... Is that what I am seeing? I'm sure there is more to the bill than what you have posted here.

Can an Optician in CA currently employ an Optometrist? I don't believe we can in WA either???

The part I would take issue with is the prevention of partial ownership (profit sharing etc...)by Optician of an office with an Optometrist. I would have to assume it is written that the Optician is the owner, sharing with an Optometrist in said office.

Great job getting involved in legislation pezfaerie. Good luck on getting folks motivated in CA to either fight or support any bill affecting a profession.

[pezfaerie]

I am trying to understand your post. I appears from what you wrote that an Independent Optician can not employ an Optometrist under this new regulation. It also has many regulations to prevent Opticians from employing an Optometrist with inspections and fines etc... Is that what I am seeing? I'm sure there is more to the bill than what you have posted here.

Can an Optician in CA currently employ an Optometrist? I don't believe we can in WA either???

The part I would take issue with is the prevention of partial ownership (profit sharing etc...)by Optician of an office with an Optometrist. I would have to assume it is written that the Optician is the owner, sharing with an Optometrist in said office.

Great job getting involved in legislation pezfaerie. Good luck on getting folks motivated in CA to either fight or support any bill affecting a profession.

Currently there can not be any relationship between the two O's. This bill is allowing a landlord tennant relationship to exist between an Optician/RDO and on Optometrist. As long as they have a written agreement and follow specific guidelines outlined in the bill. From what I read and understand, allowing the involvement in heath plans as an owner(RDO) and the landlord tennant relationship are the only pluses for an Optician or RDO in this new bill.
The not so great part of this bill is, if passed, will allow the board of Optometry to regulate the profession of Opticianry, putting us under their umbrella and grouping us under Optometrists. We should co-exist as seperate professions because that is what we are. We each should be regulated by a seperate entity (like the Medical Board currently does). Its almost like Optometry(or some other big money player Lux, VSP, or E in my opinion) is trying to aquire Opticianry and crush the market competition between the two professions.

[Robert_S]

As far as I understand politics, this whole bit is a move by a few of some parliamentarians who have been influenced by some (unknown) means.

This is now the third or fourth state some similar restrictions of one sort or another have been proposed within a short time period.

Start guessing who could be triggering the limitations of a profession that has been around forever.

.

Great point Chris.

[drk]

From Dr K

1. Opticianry is a independent profession.
2. Each profession should have their own regulating board.
3. Combining regulating boards runs the risk of the new board not having the expertise to do their job. To wit: would the Nursing Board have the expertise needed to regulate opticianry? Clearly not. Would the Medical Board? Clearly not. Opticianry is a separate profession with a separate body of knowledge.
4. While the Optometry Board may well have enough expertise overlap with the Opticianry Board to do the job, it is unfair to penalize opticianry by subsuming it's regulation under the Optometry Board. Due to the fact that there is, indeed, substantial expertise overlap between the two fields, in the marketplace there is competition between the two fields. To make one a subset of the other in state regulation has the real danger of giving opticanry a competitive marketplace disadvantage.

Damn, I'm good.

[drk]

As far as I understand politics, this whole bit is a move by a few of some parliamentarians who have been influenced by some (unknown) means.

This is now the third or fourth state some similar restrictions of one sort or another have been proposed within a short time period.

Start guessing who could be triggering the limitations of a profession that has been around forever.

.

Yes. Opticianry's historic enemy may well be Optometry, but the new kid on the block is the mega-optical corporation that wants a wide-open labor pool (without inconvenient professional ethics, I may add).

[ml43]

Currently there can not be any relationship between the two O's. This bill is allowing a landlord tennant relationship to exist between an Optician/RDO and on Optometrist. As long as they have a written agreement and follow specific guidelines outlined in the bill. From what I read and understand, allowing the involvement in heath plans as an owner(RDO) and the landlord tennant relationship are the only pluses for an Optician or RDO in this new bill.
The not so great part of this bill is, if passed, will allow the board of Optometry to regulate the profession of Opticianry, putting us under their umbrella and grouping us under Optometrists. We should co-exist as seperate professions because that is what we are. We each should be regulated by a seperate entity (like the Medical Board currently does). Its almost like Optometry(or some other big money player Lux, VSP, or E in my opinion) is trying to aquire Opticianry and crush the market competition between the two professions.

It's lux

They're tired of paying managing optometrists to run EECA

easier to just have the OD's work for LC/PV/SO/JPO/TO and have the optical manager manage the OD's

the west coast region is their biggest market, and they haven't hit plan in about 2 years or so.

[pezfaerie]

It's lux

They're tired of paying managing optometrists to run EECA

easier to just have the OD's work for LC/PV/SO/JPO/TO and have the optical manager manage the OD's

the west coast region is their biggest market, and they haven't hit plan in about 2 years or so.

You're right, it is lux and nat. vision along with the board of Optometry that have been "talking"
Funny( not really) how they have decided to not include an RDO or panel of RDO's to weigh in on all amendments and adjustments to the proposed bill.

[ml43]

I think the current argument is, there's a surplus of OD's in ca, and in order for chains to employ more OD's, they need to give up some managerial roles and take less pay, so that more can be hired.

doesn't help that the ones saying this are OD's employed by lux

[rdcoach5]

Damn, I'm good.

Yes, you are !!