As always, Roy. We have met the enemy and he is us!
As always, Roy. We have met the enemy and he is us!
Roy,Originally Posted by Roy R. Ferguson
The TDOA nor I supported removal of vision screenings from our duties. We supported not being required and forced to solicit business for independent optometrists by way of vision screenings and other methods. The final order was drafted by the states attorney advisor to the boards, Nicole Armstrong, and did not reflect the question of solicitation nor the only answer given to the question which was "NO". You were there, you know this! If you have issue with that part of the order, you should take it up with the states Assistant General Councel Nicole Armstrong not the TDOA. As for apprenticeship, the TDOA and I supported only opticians and appentices/students performing optician duties, not the mass employment of zero experienced sales floor personel performing the duties under the "umbrella license" of one optician. You stated yourself in a previous statement what a technical field it is and that even apprentices did not get the training needed to the detriment of the consumer. So when you refer to the TDOA "attempting to patch a non-existent apprenticeship program through a declaratory order", are you also saying that you support these zero experienced "sales techs" providing prescription products to the consumers? If not then what exactly is your solution to the solicitation and unqualified staffing? And why have not proposed your solution if you have one to the State? You have all these criticisms and failings of this order, and yet before it ever came to the point of filing a petition, I called YOU Roy on several occasions at your Learning Curve# and a home # that was given to me from a mutual friend, and left at least 5 messages to return my call because I needed advice on these employment issues and was told you were familiar with the state code, and as I had attended several of your CE classes, thought you would speak with me. You never bothered to return any of my calls. Yet when I saw you at the January 07 State Board meeting and caught you in the hall, you read over my list of employment issues and statute questions and told me I was doing the right thing and that it would benefit all opticians, and that those things had been problems in the retail dispensaries for a long time. I have two other opticians who were there and can confirm that, one was the same optician who gave me your home number. You can see their names on the board minutes for that meeting as opticians attending. I was also told by several opticians who attended YOUR CE classes this past year that you mentioned my issues with corporate employment practices to your attendees, and told them that it was beneficial to their profession to support me in any way they could other than financially as I wasn't requesting nor needing financial support with it. So can you clear this up for me, because it appears that you supported this until you found out the TDOA did also, and when a FEW opticians were unhappy with some of the wording in the final order, you quickly took the oppurtunity to once again slam the TDOA and blame them for the short-comings of the State Board, the education of opticians, and anything else you could come up with. As for them not supporting optician education, it is my understanding that they contributed over $60,000 to the founding of the only college program we offer at Roane State. Am I wrong about that, and if not, then how much of your money have you contributed to the college education of opticians? I questioned existing laws to the Board, and did not ask for any new ones or any changes to existing ones. The final wording of the order in answers for #3 & #4 do not reflect the true wording of the statutes questioned. My attorney's proposed draft of the final order did, but was refused by the Board's Assistant General Councel partly due to the NAOO's objections who were hired to do just that by the "evil corporations" as YOU put it that opticians should not be worried about. I do not believe corporations have the best interest of opticians on their mind, I believe the TDOA even though they have made some mistakes, do have opticians best interests in mind. I believe the corporate retail chains pay their contributions and support for opticians and optometrists to the NAOO who then fight "tooth and nail" to eliminate any current or new license measures that stand in the way of them making more profit. I believe these things because I have witnessed and been an example of them first hand. I do not believe that you are so naive as to believe ANY regulated field is safe from corporate strategies if that field limits the corporation's profits. I will continue to support the TDOA because I have personally seen their funds used to support opticianry. I hope others do also because like I have said before, I don't see anyone else contributing PAC funds or hiring lobbyists on behalf of opticians, do you Roy.
These excerpted passages interest me...
Interesting...with so much of this thread offering substantiation for why clients prefer and patronize (over the long term) businesses with trained, competant and motivated personel, you've got to wonder just who in these corporations really understands where their long-term business health originated from.
Barry
Hi All:
Please remember that brevity is a virtue and paragraphs are our friend.
The TDOA nor I supported removal of vision screenings from our duties.
This is referred to as the law of unintended consequences. Lack of intent does not mitigate damage.
…are you also saying that you support these zero experienced “sales techs” providing prescription products to the consumers?
No, I’m on record as opposing the apprenticeship route and developed a program to help replace it. This educational program was actively opposed by the TDOA.
…left at least 5 messages… You never bothered to return any of my calls.
I do attempt to return all calls. After reviewing my phone logs, I am unable to locate any of your contacts.
…they contributed over $60,000 to the founding of the only college program we offer at Roane State.
Most of this contribution came from donated, used equipment that was discarded while I was Program Director. I would urge you to ask for copies of all canceled checks relating to this “donation.”
I do not believe corporations have the best interest of opticians on their mind…
By definition, a corporation’s major concern is the corporate’s best interest.
…I believe the TDOA …do have opticians best interest in mind.
What positive steps has this organization advocated to improve opticianry over the past 20 years?
…I don’t see anyone else contributing PAC funds or hiring lobbyists on behalf of opticians, do you Roy.
PAC contributions can be viewed at TDOA.org. I’m curious when my Titan contribution ($200.00 +) will be posted.
Roy
The Tennessee State Opticians Board has recently posted the ratified minutes of the October 07 meeting and declaratory hearing. These minutes more closely reflect the true nature of the hearing and the final order. They can be found at this site: http://health.state.tn.us/Boards/Do/minutes.htm
There is also links at this site to the Rules and Regulations and the TN State Code regulating opticians and optometrists. Anyone wishing to debate the statutes should at least read and understand them before making assumptions that the rules have changed. Read them word for word as I have and then tell me how to interpret the rules. Pay close attention to the statutes referred to in the original petition posted at the first of this thread by Roy. Please let me know if you feel most corporate opticals are compliant Then read the code of ethics in the rules and regs and see if each of you who are employed at a chain in TN are compliant. I found 2(b)&(k) to be very interesting when apllied to the questions and answers in the Declaratory Order. Hope my response isn't too long this time Roy, guess it just takes more words to tell WHOLE story.
Last edited by BoardPetitioner; 01-24-2008 at 01:35 AM. Reason: Spelling
Hi All:
Please read the following from the 29 Oct 07 Tennessee Board of Dispensing Opticians minutes.
Mr. Trew stated Question #4 is as follows:Now, open the Rules and Regulations portion and find the “law prohibiting opticians to perform screenings.” I’m having difficulty locating it. Thanks.
4. Can optical employees go into the public sector and solicit business for optometrists by means of verbal communication, business cards, and/or vision screenings?
Upon discussion, Mr. Wells made a motion, seconded by Ms. Chitwood, to give an answer of “No” due to the law prohibiting opticians to perform screenings. The motion carried.
Roy
Yes, the law we referred to in the petition was 63-14-104 which addresses acting as an agent or representative of an optometrist on any account being unlawful. However statutes 63-14-102 (1) & (2) do go into detail about attempting to examine by any means or method being strictly prohibited, I guess it lies in the definition of examine. You have to open the State Code to find those statutes. Does that help you find it? Remember I asked that you read the Rules & Regs and the State Code word for word before debating them. While there refer to 63-8-102 (8) & (12) in the Optometry Chapter of the State Code which defines the practice of Optometry. Wouldn't a vision screening be considered "observing symptoms and/or signs with various intruments and techniques"? Aren't vision screenings performed for "the purpose of ascertaining defects of vision" as quoted from the definition of Optometry?
Bump
Last edited by wabmorgan; 04-13-2008 at 01:13 AM.
in my humble opinion ;)the board should fight to make more things for us to do, like put a contact lens in someones eye without a dr. in the room. i see what the board is doing and i do belive they are helping,but dont give away things we can do. i know we will fight the corporate chains"naoo"and the optometry board but if there is nothing we can do whats the point? " quit taking from my pie" we need to expand on our profession, not to give up things. tn. opticians need to be able to do anything an optician can do as well as any thing a optometry tech can do, tn opticians are lic. by the state not just certified.
Yes, logically I *do*....as long as "John Q. Public" can buy over-the-counter optical *anything*, and gets to make the "prescribed" choice themselves.
IMHO, its either legislation and licensed techs/dispensers, or if we allow OTC anything, then its a free-for-all.
In fact, how many of us have clients with corrections of -0.75D (and more....I've seen up to -2.00D!) and drive rountinely without eyewear. Whose stopping them? Whose checking them?
I suggest that *all* traffic stops include license, registration, insurance and... an optical "breathalizer" test for a tight acuity/contrast sensitivity standard when driving.
And whose "responsible" for prescribing their (default) add power for DV use?
????
Barry
Barry, don't give the OD's any ideas! You know they are always trying to expand their scope of practice......An OD with a badge, a gun and a phoropter is a scary thing. And we now know that a lowly optician wouldn't be able to administer a "optical breathalizer"....at least in TN.!!!
:D:D:D
this brings up another point, are not dmv personnel doing screenings when you apply for a drivers license, what training makes them authorities?
Nothing, other than their ability (at least in NY state) to tell a potential testee (?) where the 6 foot (!!!!!!) demarcation point is to take the acuity test.
6 feet, fer goodness sake! Besides sitting the hood ornament on your Rolls or Jaguar, just how does a 6 foot distance correlate to real-world driving conditions?
Oh, I forgot. How prescient of the NYS DMV. They were "ahead" of their time, now that deliveries of the (Mercedes) SMART car ( only 6 foot long!) have begun.
Barry
Last edited by Barry Santini; 01-28-2008 at 01:25 PM.
Hi All:
From the posts it appears the petitioner, who is a TDOA Board member and the TDOA Board and Officers, supported the Declaratory Order. From the petitioners last post it appears all parties were aware that a request was being made to apply Optometric rules to the practice of Opticianry. The more it is reviewed, the stranger this issue becomes.
The TDOA Board and Officers along with other supporting members of your Association attended in support of the Declaratory Order. (ref: TDOA.org)
…Optometry Chapter of the State Code which defines the practice of Optometry. Wouldn't a vision screening be considered "observing symptoms and/or signs with various intruments and techniques"? Aren't vision screenings performed for "the purpose of ascertaining defects of vision" as quoted from the definition of Optometry?
Roy
Roy,
Again, I am sorry to hear once again about such a devastating ruling. For the layman (apparently the board member) it is quite simply put as a restriction in the scope of practice of an optician. What was gained could easily be circumvented, but what was lost cannot so unfotunately opticians in this case lose and it amazes me that the board doesn't see this. Maybe it's time for a new board?
1st* HTML5 Tracer Software
1st Mac Compatible Tracer Software
1st Linux Compatible Tracer Software
*Dave at OptiVision has a web based tracer integration package that's awesome.
If one had an eye chart in the office with a line and a note on the chart: "If you can't see this from behind this line, you need to see the eye doctor." Would this constitute "vision screening?" Or "Sight Testing?"
If we ask, "Then what can you see?" are we in trouble?
And yeah, I know there is more to an eye exam than this?
Chip
Hi Harry:
Upon discussion, Mr. Wells made a motion, seconded by Ms. Chitwood, to give an answer of “No” due to the law prohibiting opticians to perform screenings. The motion carried.
I truly have no idea where this interpretation originated. The board member is a licensed optician who stated a position and avoided referencing the applicable law or rule. To complete the confusion, the Board failed to provide a definition of what constitutes “vision screening.”
Roy
Hi Chip:
What happens when a licensed optician hands the patient a reading card? Is this vision screening/sight testing?
Roy
I guess we could alway have the eyechart and reading card presented by the receptionist. Hopefully she doesn't have to be licensed.
Chip
I ain't licensed but I have at one time or another taken retinal pictures, done field of vision screen tests, and a lot of things. The fact that these test are run, doesn't mean that any interpretation or diagnosis, or prescriptions were written. What is the problem. If I tell a doctor that I see an ulcer, it's still up to him to confirm and do something about it. I am not taking away anything from his medical/optometric practice, just possibly screening out the piece of dust in the eye from the sick or damaged eye and saving him some time.
Once more, I guess my posts are longer because I try to be informitive and tell the whole story, unlike what you have once again done here by leaving off the first of the sentence referring to the statutes from post #107 in this thread. The first of my sentence referred first to the statutes in the optician's Chapter 14 of the code. I only referred to the optometry laws in this thread for further clarification, because I have already seen from prior posts that Roy tries to argue a statute without referring to all of the statutes. Furthermore, I think all of you should be aware that Roy is trying to deceive everyone in an effort to further trash our state asscociation, the TDOA. It is very common knowledge among opticians here in TN that Roy is very much against the TDOA. I think anyone who has read all of this thread can easily see that. The deceit I refer to can be found in the 2nd sentence of his post I am quoting here where he states "all parties were aware that a request was being made to aplly Optometric rules to the practice of Opticianry" (I am not quoting his entire sentence since my response is attached to it). Roy was at the hearing and knows very well that the Board as well as the attorneys present were only allowed to refer to the Optician's State Code and Rules and Regs. At NO time were they allowed to be intoduced, referred to, or "applied" as Roy stated. The statutes I referred to in the first of my sentence that Roy conveniently left off, and the Board referred to is as follows:
63-14-102. “Practice of dispensing opticians” defined — Prohibited practices. —
“Practice of dispensing opticians” means the preparation, adaptation and dispensing of lenses, spectacles, eye glasses and optical devices to the intended user thereof on the written prescription of a physician or optometrist, duly licensed to practice the physician's or the optometrist's profession, and the dispensing of frames as a unit or individually to the intended user thereof.
(1) A person registered under the provisions of this chapter is specifically prohibited from engaging in the practice of ocular refraction, orthoptics, visual training, prescribing contact lenses or the prescribing of subnormal vision aids or telescopic spectacles.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or permit any dispensing optician to claim to be able to, or to offer, undertake or attempt, by any means or method, to examine or exercise eyes, fit contact lenses, or diagnose, treat, correct, relieve, operate or prescribe for any human ailment, deficiency, deformity, disease, injury, pain or physical condition; however, dispensing opticians may fit contact lenses in the presence of and under the direct supervision of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.
To examine by any means or method seems to be a fair interpretation of a vision screening.
The following statute was also referred to:
63-14-104. Revocation or suspension of license. —
It is unlawful for a dispensing optician to act as the agent or representative of any physician or optometrist on any account.
I also included the definition of dispensing opticians above, I can not find anything in it (or anywhere else in our laws) that states vision screenings, pretests, visual fields, visual accuities, auto-refracting, refracting or any other exam tests or screenings are part of our professional duties or ever have been. On the other hand, ALL of those things DO fall under the definitions of optometry duties. So how was a duty taken away that was never really ours to begin with? If the Board was strict on their interpretation perhaps it was because they knew that vision screenings could give a false sense of well being as in "I can read all the lines, I don't need an exam", to bad the screening did not catch the diabetes, or the swollen retina or the brain tumor. Are you opticians who say you've lost a duty prepared to take on the liability for that? Or what about the children who will not get screenings from opticians as some of you stated? Well what about the children who as we all SHOULD know can accomodate vision so well, that have passed these "screenings" only to find out later that they needed significant correction all along. Would any of you want some ticked off parent sueing you because their kids grades were poor until the child got prescription glasses, and after your "screening" the year or two before when the kid passed it. I know most of you tell people that pass one that they should still get a complete exam, but really how many people take the time and money to do so if they have already been told by a LICENSED OPTICIAN that they could see the 20/20 line?
Then perhaps the Board recalled what happened the last time the TN Optometric Association got wind of opticians performing their duties. Surely you recall Roy, it was around 2000-2001 when they decided to support the Sunset of our Optician Board. You know, when the TDOA who "hasn't done anything positive for opticians in the past twenty years" as you previously stated, once again spent over $60,000 fighting to keep our Board intact. As I recall, the three major issues they stated having with opticians were as follows:
1. The board was not enforcing their laws and regulations. Which is what they were doing with this order you continue to try to debunk.
2. The removal of the apprenticeship program. Which you supported then and still do according to your earlier responses blaming the TDOA for supporting apprenticeship.
3. The instruction of refraction at the college opticianry program, which you were instructing.
It seems that the issues they had were issues the TDOA supported correcting.
And yet once again this past summer you sent out letters all over the state, for financial support of an optician under investigation by the state for allegedly performing outside his scope of practice, in which you stated the charges were "he performed a visual accuity test and a refraction test, and filled out a blank prescription pad". You sent this letter knowing full well the optometric association would be keeping close watch on the case, and what their stance on the charges would be. You also knew full well our sunset review was set for this year and the optometrists who supported it last time, would not appreciate the support of refraction by opticians this time. But you sent it anyway! I guess the TDOA will have to spend another $60,000 to convince the optometrists and legislature that most of us opticians believe if we enforce the laws we have and NOT let those unauthorized by the state to perform OUR duties, then there will be plenty of work for us to perform, and we probably wouldn't even have time to do these vision screenings and refractions you covet so much!
Hi All:
Again, please remember that brevity is a virtue and paragraphs are our friend.
The deceit I refer to can be found in the 2nd sentence of his post I am quoting here where he states "all parties were aware that a request was being made to aplly Optometric rules to the practice of Opticianry" (I am not quoting his entire sentence since my response is attached to it).
This was based on your statements and the post on the TDOA website. It was certainly not my goal to misstate intentions. If the TDOA Board and Officers were not aware of the position they were supporting, I certainly apologize.
I also included the definition of dispensing opticians above, I can not find anything in it (or anywhere else in our laws) that states vision screenings, pretests, visual fields, visual accuities, auto-refracting, refracting or any other exam tests or screenings are part of our professional duties or ever have been.
Please clarify this point for me. Is it your position that licensed opticians are prohibited from performing these duties under all circumstances?
Well what about the children who as we all SHOULD know can accomodate vision so well, that have passed these "screenings" only to find out later that they needed significant correction all along. Would any of you want some ticked off parent sueing you because their kids grades were poor until the child got prescription glasses, and after your "screening" the year or two before when the kid passed it.
I’m not sure I understand this statement. As you may know, I’ve been participating in a program to screen the vision of children between the ages of one and six. Are you suggested that such efforts to prevent childhood blindness are illegal?
As I recall, the three major issues they stated having with opticians were as follows:
1. The board was not enforcing their laws and regulations. Which is what they were doing with this order you continue to try to debunk.
Bad enforcement and bizarre interpretation is perhaps worse than a laissez-faire attitude.
2. The removal of the apprenticeship program. Which you supported then and still do according to your earlier responses blaming the TDOA for supporting apprenticeship.
I’m guilty. I do support the replacement of opticianry apprenticeship with formal education.
3. The instruction of refraction at the college opticianry program, which you were instructing.
Actually, I was the Program Director and according to the college catalog and my course descriptions, this is not a true statement.
From the tone and content of your Declaratory Order it would appear that your struggle is with the “large retail optical chains within Tennessee.” Why are licensed opticians in the state being dragged into your fight? Must we all suffer for you to achieve your goal?
Roy
Hi All:
I also included the definition of dispensing opticians above, I can not find anything in it (or anywhere else in our laws) that states vision screenings, pretests, visual fields, visual accuities, auto-refracting, refracting or any other exam tests or screenings are part of our professional duties or ever have been. On the other hand, ALL of those things DO fall under the definitions of optometry duties. So how was a duty taken away that was never really ours to begin with?
It is not my intent to misconstrue this statement. So, for clarification, would it be proper to state this restriction of professional duties was an intentional goal of the Declaratory Order and that the TDOA Board and Officers supported your position?
Roy
I think that the excerpted, bold statement I've highlighted above (and tried to surround with the intended context) is the heart of almost any arguement out there as to why licensed and trained ophthalmic dispenser should *not* be able to extend the scope of their skills practice to include vision screenings and/or refraction. I believe that the underlying assumption is "look, we've done it this way (optometric/ophthalmologic) all along, and the public *assumes* that *any* type of vision screening is equivalent to an eye-health check."
This may, in fact, be true...at this time.
There is *no* reason that both qualified dispensers and the public cannot be educated (and trained) to think and understand otherwise about vision screenings and refraction. Don't you agree?
IMHO, this has become just a politically-charged argurment to maintain the status quo, without a real-world, step-back-for-a-minute perspective about just how much *eye-health-caregiver-gatekeeping* the public expects, or even wants, everytime their refractive state exhibits a change.
I believe the entire eyewear industry both being held hostage to, and holding the public hostage, to this status quo.
I suggest that all ODs (and MDs) think about moving their practices from appearing to be based on "sight-correction" gatekeepers, to ones that focus on the most up-to-date scientific and medical knowledge, employing the latest screening and diagnostic procedures, with the goal to deliver the public the finest present and prophylatic vision-care available.
Barry
Bump
Last edited by wabmorgan; 04-13-2008 at 01:13 AM.
I do agree with most all of your comments, but I also feel I have honestly tried to have a real world perspective and keep the best interests of the consumers and opticians at the forefront. I believe a review of the #1 post of this thread that shows the original petition and the answers given as posted by Roy Ferguson would show that. The ability to perform vision screenings was never even a question on the petition, the solicitation for business by use of them was. The draft of the final order was erroneous in wording of some answers. I am hopeful it will be corrected to reflect the true questions and answers. I am really disappointed that this has become a politically charged arguement, that was not my intention either. But I could not continue to let Roy place blame for mis-written answers to perfectly legitimate questions on our optician association and myself for supporting the questions. Roy supported the questions and recognized the problems himself back in Jan.07 when I personally consulted with him about it at a previous board meeting. I think you have made some very good points, I hope you feel the same about some of mine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks