Ohio Optical dispenser's board was just undone. What kind of sneak attack was that ?
Printable View
Ohio Optical dispenser's board was just undone. What kind of sneak attack was that ?
Wow. I thought Ohio was one of the most entrenched there was?
Show me?
Huh.
The State board of Optometry in California is doing the same thing here. Shoving us under the umbrella of Optometry
Quote:
Originally Posted by pezfaerie
............that is better than getting out of licensing as in other states.
This was my first thought also. The only good thing about lack of licensing in Maryland is that most of my competition doesn't know what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Ryser
Market forces are driving the direction of Opticianry. It has been taking place for some time, and some here feel that is OK. I prefer letting Opticianry make its own rules, but unfortunately we are nearing the end of that journey. If we do not band together to help Ohio in some way the "profession" will be less for it in the long run. I called Ohio folks recently, and the deregulation is no a legislative mandate it is coming from within. It seems many Opticians feel they would rather lose licensure versus being under Optometry. I encourage all to consider this issue carefully, and discuss it thoroughly before making a decision.
Yes, tread carefully Opticians in Ohio. Who's purview do you think you'll work under without Optician licensure? Let me tell you what happened down here....When we had Voluntary Registration, Registered Opticians answered only to the Health Dept. Now, since they eliminated it, Opticians fall under the purview and rules of the Optimetric Board. Which means if you are an independent Optician, the OB can come audit, check any record and/or harass you anytime they want. Yes, consider your support for this very carefully if you are an Optician in the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcdonald
Its the natural course of events.
Back in the day, opticians were almost exclusively independent business men. They and they alone regulated the craft. It was a free market. If you were incompetent, you failed. There was no need State Boards, laws or licensing. One learned the craft by apprenticing under a master optician and once achieving journeyman status could set out on his own. All was well.
Then, in the sixties, along came Mr. Big. The corporate management of the craft turned the optician from a craftsman into a sales clerk followed closely by the insurance companies taking their cut from the optical pie. The independent optician thought that State licensing could restrain the influx of the early corporate players (can you say Pearle) and went bananas enacting regulations. How has that worked out for the optician in the long-term?
Now, we are rapidly approaching a market which may replace the brick and mortar shop with a virtual experience over the internet. We will soon be able to come up with an RX with our smart phone and select a dozen frames which will be shipped to you (probably by drone) to try on and select. Return all the frames indicating your choice and you glasses will be fabricated in some foreign country and shipped to you next day.
The Texas Optometry Act has jurisdiction over non-Optometrists with regard to dispensing without a Rx, 2-door provisions, and all sorts of fraud, but I'm unaware of any other Texas Optometry Board purview over opticians. Is there something I'm misunderstanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7
The thing about our board is that it only covers opticians that are employed at retail establishments. So opticians at private practices are not required to be licensed. Our board does nothing to protect the consumer it's only purpose to to collect fees.
A little history of what it was like in Ontario Canada. Back in the day opticians fell under Optometry and optometry tested applicants for licensure. Guess what? Why would optometry grant a lot of applicants licenses to compete with them? Ontario opticians were finally able to create their own regulatory body called The Board of Ophthalmic Dispensers in 1967 and grandfathered all people working as opticians licenses. Our regulatory body is now called The College of Opticians Ontario and regulates our profession and has recently joined forces with the College of Optometrists of Ontario to seek an injunction against Essilor Group Clearly.com.
You don't want to have optometry regulate you. That would be like leaving an alcoholic in charge of running a liquor store.
Just my take.
Regards,
Golfnorth
All of the above was under the Health Dept. purview of Registered Opticians.( Which superseded the Optometry Board ). The OD board could only file a complaint with the HD, now they get ( OB ) to police Opticians, unless you work for an MD ( Medical Board ). There are things we can do ( under an MD's license ) that the OB can't touch us on, like refraction or fitting CL's).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayde
Thanks, George. As I've read the Act (and I'm admittedly no expert or lawyer,) exactly what the OB can file suit against us on is extremely narrow in scope. Without license revocation to hang over us, they don't have carte blanche to 'police' us like they do license-holding Optometrists. So long as we're not pretending to be doctors, writing or modifying scripts, dispensing contacts without Rxs, or bald-faced lying in our ads, there's no exposure specific to the TOB. (Unless I overlooked something?)Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7
I did find this gem:
Sec. 351.404. EYEGLASSES AS PRIZE OR INDUCEMENT. A person in this state may not give or deliver, or cause to be given or delivered, in any manner, eyeglasses as:
(1) a prize or premium; or
(2) an inducement to sell an item of merchandise, including a book, paper, magazine, or work of literature or art.
I'm splitting hairs here because it seems pertinent to the Ohio OP...which seems different because Optician Licensure is still in play and is going to be folded under the same state board?
Hayde, the problem is that you now have a competing entity in charge of you rather than an independent government agency.
So in your view its better that we are unlicensed compared to controlled by Optometrists? I guess I can see that.Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7
No, Licensure usually means you have your own board making/enforcing rules. In un-license states usually Opticians work under Optometry Boards. Would you rather work under your own profession's board or a direct competitors board?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallboy
I don't think of doctors as competitors. We tell people we are like a pharmacy. Go to your doctor for your Rx then come to me when you don't like their frame selection/ turn around time/ or sometimes lack of newer lens tech. Completely separate services being handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7
I'm also going to throw out there that I have never felt oppressed by any laws or regulation when it comes to filling Rxs. Maybe that's just my state, but I have way more freedom solely to due with being independent.
To be frank, I can't fathom the difference between falling under one or the other. As of now, I'm feeling extremely unregulated. No visits from the OptiPolice yet...
I think I definitely wish there was a regulatory board here in Maryland. I'm such a neophyte compared to you, you've seen the landscape change so much more than I have. Granted it is changing at a breakneck pace these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdcoach5
any clarification on this? I can't find any info on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyeoptical
Governor Kasich has long been interested in "cutting costs/increasing efficiency" etc.
The original plan was a "vision and hearing" board, that included opticians, optometrists, audiologists, and speech pathologists.
I and others fought that chimera.
In the end, they just divided Solomon's baby.
It's stupid. It won't save money. It shows lack of understanding of professions. It shows lack of understanding that there are competitive forces between professions.
There was no way that an audiologist would be able to make decisions about the practice of optometry. There was no way an optician would have been able to make decisions about the practice of optometry. Only optometry should make decisions about the practice of optometry---because only an optometrist would know. Duh.
Same applies for opticianry, for the most part.
Independent professions. Independent boards. Good health care regulation. Happy State.
Didn't I read somewhere the Ohio Opticianry Board was run by a nurse?
Well, since nobody in Ohio wanted to verify the OP title, I called The OODB myself. Licensure has not ended. The state did consolidate many state board, Opticians one of them, but licensure is still alive in Ohio.Quote:
Originally Posted by optical24/7