"Live Free or Die"

[rbaker]

The article below is from a recent Manchester Union Leader article.

Near-sighted: Opticians attack

The New Hampshire Opticians Society claims that by asking the state to license opticians, it just wants to protect poor, unsuspecting Granite Staters from being harmed by untrained or incompetent eyeglass grinders. What evidence does the society have that the state's lack of an optician licensing program is hurting consumers? You decide.


When we asked that question, the society referred us to Dick Murphy, a Manchester optician who says the state needs a license mandate. He told us that a poorly trained optician could grind a lens too thin so that it could break and blind the wearer. Does he have any evidence that has ever happened in New Hampshire? No. But he does say some of his customers have had glasses made improperly by competing opticians, which is how he got them as customers.


With that claim, Murphy unknowingly defeated his own argument. New Hampshire already has a good system for weeding out bad opticians. It's called competition.
The Opticians Society claims that big chain stores are trying to kill their licensing bill. That's true. But not because the chain stores want to avoid adequately training their opticians, as the society suggests. They provide their opticians with extensive training. They oppose the bill because licensing would needlessly cost them lots of money and raise the prices of their eyeglasses. And that is probably why the smaller opticians want the licensing mandate. It also would make becoming an optician more difficult and expensive, which helps protect established opticians from competition.
New Hampshire requires opticians to be registered with the state, but not licensed.


The reasoning is simple. There is no credible public health threat that justifies licensure. The New Hampshire Opticians Society is trying to frighten people with talk of dangerously unlicensed opticians. But that is nothing more than a transparent attempt to limit competition. Anyone can see that.


http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...9-efac2af1c386

[fjpod]

What a misguided reporter. Maybe we should have unlicensed pharmacists and optometrists because we're not killing people at an alarming rate either.

But this is "the age of the consumer", and almost anything goes if it is perceived to be cheaper for him/her....case in point,.. BC

[DragonLensmanWV]

Hmmmm.............fear talk....frightening people....they must be using the same advisors Repubs do.:bbg:

[Barry Santini]

Hey, this reporter has come to the same conclusion as the FDA, whose spokesperson has stated: "Eyeglasses represent the lowest category of risk of any medically-regulated device."

It's not about a health risk to consumers.

It's about providing consumers a higher-standard of care for their vision.

I think it's now time to abandon hope that a government entity will adopt the risk line to further standards in eyewear delivery.

It *is* however, time to resurrect the idea of the "Guild of Prescription Opticians", and have amembership that is certified to the highest standards.

Of course, these standards today would be far different than those of years past.

Discussion?

Barry

[cocoisland58]

Near-sighted: Opticians attack But he does say some of his customers have had glasses made improperly by competing opticians, which is how he got them as customers.

Well yes, that is how it works quite often in un-liscensed states.

[cocoisland58]

It's not about a health risk to consumers. It's about providing consumers a higher-standard of care for their vision.

Barry, the average consumer could care less. The ones who do find their way to a facility that can provide the high standard that they require.

[engnenk]

But this is "the age of the consumer", and almost anything goes if it is perceived to be cheaper for him/her....case in point,.. BC

I think that this is the real point. The push is to reduce costs without regard to consequence. Since there is no imminent health threat, the perception is that it is acceptable to have some people wearing less than optimal glasses so long as most people can pay less.

With the rarest of exceptions, most people don't know a good optician from a bad one. Thus, the competition statement is off the mark. However, that is of little consequence after Mr. Murphy defeated himself in the court of public opinion.

[drk]

You have to view the Opticians' licensure issue in a broader context.

On one hand, you have over-regulation by government. On the other hand, you have lassiz-faire.

We have tended towards a middle ground (with at least some states requiring licensure) and that is the "precedent"--the status quo that will need compelling reason to be changed.

Hence the reporter's one-sided view, and the optician's limited perspective.

As Barry correctly points out, it is not only about product liability. It's about standards of care. Regulated professions tend to have continuing education requirements, ethics codes, a board of accountability for consumer issues. No merchant has that.

The complete argument is that opticianry is a health care profession, that interpretation and filling of a prescription is like what a pharmacist does; opticans work hand-in-hand with physician-level providers like physician assistants or medical technicians; that vision is used to learn in school, operate school buses, airplanes, and tractor-trailers; that quality care cannot be achieved by the marketplace alone; that professionals adhere to a higher standard than "caveat emptor".

The point is that the people of the State of Massachusetts deserve the best in vision care, not a wet-behind-the-ears minimum wage employee.

Having said that, Barry again is dead on; if you wait for mandatory professional licensure you may miss the boat. I've long thought that a self-regulating Opticians' Guild (in conjunction with the opticians' boards) is the correct way to design a stamp of legitimacy. It just makes sense to the average consumer.

[Jana Lewis]

Hey, this reporter has come to the same conclusion as the FDA, whose spokesperson has stated: "Eyeglasses represent the lowest category of risk of any medically-regulated device."

It's not about a health risk to consumers.

It's about providing consumers a higher-standard of care for their vision.

I think it's now time to abandon hope that a government entity will adopt the risk line to further standards in eyewear delivery.

It *is* however, time to resurrect the idea of the "Guild of Prescription Opticians", and have amembership that is certified to the highest standards.

Of course, these standards today would be far different than those of years past.

Discussion?

Barry

Hmmm... I wonder how many hairdressers have sliced up their clients with their scissors? Why do hairdressers/Barbers have to be licensed?

[Fezz]

Hmmm... I wonder how many hairdressers have sliced up their clients with their scissors? Why do hairdressers/Barbers have to be licensed?

They use some very serious chemicals that can truly harm someone if used or applied incorrectly.

[AngeHamm]

Hmmmm.............fear talk....frightening people....they must be using the same advisors Repubs do.:bbg:

To be fair, fearmongering knows no politcical boundaries. It is tried and true for the idiot wings of both parties. The left is perhaps more adept at hiding it behind a veneer of reasonableness, but it is no less bald-faced and dishonest.

Signed,

Andrew (registered independent).



Back on-topic, I think we can't overestimate the value of personal responsibility here. I am an unlicensed optician working with three licensed opticians in Virginia. I have no intention of pursuing a license as my Master's is in Theatre Pedagogy and I am continuing to pursue a career in academia and arts administration (and I have plenty of student loans remaining, thank you). I can confidently say that, with my years of practical experience, my dedication to quality control and customer service, and my intelligence, I am every bit as effective a dispensing optician as my licensed lead op, and a far cry better at it than almost every licensed optician I have ever worked with.

Incompetence is not automatically erased by training, and a licensed optician is just as capable of dispensing poorly-chosen, poorly-made glasses as an unlicensed one. I'm not saying skip the training or make the license irrelevant, just that I think we may be assuming that the license is an automatic solution to QC problems. Much like legislators argue the merits of a new law based on how many lives or dollars it will save, disregarding the fact that a segment of the population is still going to disobey or get around this new law, and lives and dollars will still be lost in large amounts as a result.

A license on the wall does not confer dedication, intelligence, compassion, sales skills, follow-through or patient empathy. And it surely has nothing to do with common sense, which is not a teachable skill.

[jefe]

Quote:"The point is that the people of the State of Massachusetts deserve the best in vision care, not a wet-behind-the-ears minimum wage employee."

They do. That's why this has been a state where opticians are licensed -- and have been for longer than I've been in the field (25 years). This thread is about New Hampshire.

[gunner05]

To be fair, fearmongering knows no politcical boundaries. It is tried and true for the idiot wings of both parties. The left is perhaps more adept at hiding it behind a veneer of reasonableness, but it is no less bald-faced and dishonest.

Signed,

Andrew (registered independent).



Back on-topic, I think we can't overestimate the value of personal responsibility here. I am an unlicensed optician working with three licensed opticians in Virginia. I have no intention of pursuing a license as my Master's is in Theatre Pedagogy and I am continuing to pursue a career in academia and arts administration (and I have plenty of student loans remaining, thank you). I can confidently say that, with my years of practical experience, my dedication to quality control and customer service, and my intelligence, I am every bit as effective a dispensing optician as my licensed lead op, and a far cry better at it than almost every licensed optician I have ever worked with.

Incompetence is not automatically erased by training, and a licensed optician is just as capable of dispensing poorly-chosen, poorly-made glasses as an unlicensed one. I'm not saying skip the training or make the license irrelevant, just that I think we may be assuming that the license is an automatic solution to QC problems. Much like legislators argue the merits of a new law based on how many lives or dollars it will save, disregarding the fact that a segment of the population is still going to disobey or get around this new law, and lives and dollars will still be lost in large amounts as a result.

A license on the wall does not confer dedication, intelligence, compassion, sales skills, follow-through or patient empathy. And it surely has nothing to do with common sense, which is not a teachable skill.

Sure, you may be better. I worked at wallyworld and I probably still fit circles around a lot of the other local guys. There will be great people everywhere, but if you get a license requirement, the average knowledge base will have to grow.

[engnenk]

Since many of the occupations that require licensing http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/licertoccs/occ_index.html defer to national organizations for testing, the concept of a guild might be a saleable one. I wouldn't rely on Mr. Murphy to make the case though.

[Uilleann]

...There will be great people everywhere, but if you get a license requirement, the average knowledge base will have to grow.

Perfectly stated in a single sentence. No one here is claiming to make the system fool-proof, but there is something to be said in raising the entry requirements as well as both the education and the practical testing demands of entry into the field in the future. That is what has been proposed if anyone cares to peruse the small book that has been written in the "Entry Requirements" thread. Meeting is this July folks. Let's get as many out to attend as possible!

[AngeHamm]

Perfectly stated in a single sentence. No one here is claiming to make the system fool-proof, but there is something to be said in raising the entry requirements as well as both the education and the practical testing demands of entry into the field in the future. That is what has been proposed if anyone cares to peruse the small book that has been written in the "Entry Requirements" thread. Meeting is this July folks. Let's get as many out to attend as possible!

Agreed 100%. I just felt a need to address the tendency around here to lump "unlicensed" in with "unprofessional."

[bob66hall]

It may be a long road, but it IS quite possible to make a standard (or set of standards) the defacto rule of law. I've dealt considerably with ASTM and ISO standard setting, and here's the point. Once a material body of folks begin to "accept" a standard (or substitute "certification" or "guild"), then the legal profession begins to assert that this standard is, well, the standard! And once companies begin to detect risk in NOT complying with such standard, that standard in fact becomes the norm. Long way of saying, if you begin the long march suggested by Barry, there is a pot of gold (or at least silver) at the end of that rainbow. What do you have to lose?

[Judy Canty]

I am an unlicensed optician working with three licensed opticians in Virginia.

FYI...
You cannot be an UN-licensed Optician in Virginia. You must have a valid license to practice Opticianry in Virginia to call yourself an Optician.

[cocoisland58]

Agreed 100%. I just felt a need to address the tendency around here to lump "unlicensed" in with "unprofessional."

Most here know that I am a lowly ABOC in an unlicensed state and can't recall anyone ever referring to that as being unprofessional. IMO it should be a requirement to at least pass the ABO in this state. It isn't a difficult test. I'd even give them three tries. But after that they would need to stay near the reception desk. I have met the people from the OAM and it surprises me not that nothing has ever been accomplished here.

[rbaker]

It may be a long road, but it IS quite possible to make a standard (or set of standards) the defacto rule of law. I've dealt considerably with ASTM and ISO standard setting, and here's the point. Once a material body of folks begin to "accept" a standard (or substitute "certification" or "guild"), then the legal profession begins to assert that this standard is, well, the standard! And once companies begin to detect risk in NOT complying with such standard, that standard in fact becomes the norm. Long way of saying, if you begin the long march suggested by Barry, there is a pot of gold (or at least silver) at the end of that rainbow. What do you have to lose?

Both the ISO and ASTM are voluntary. The lack of certification does not prevent you from manufacturing a product or providing a service. It can, and is, however, an assurance that said product or service has been provided under a minimum documented standard of quality and serviceability.

As far as the legal profession is concerned they can (and sometimes have) sued a ham sandwich so from the tort aspect you really cant win - hence liability insurance.

[Chris Ryser]

They use some very someone if used or applied incorrectly.

Even more so in the backroom of opticians where they cook their dyes and and heat their neutralizers and breathe the fumes without any ventilation.

[Fezz]

Even more so in the backroom of opticians where they cook their dyes and and heat their neutralizers and breathe the fumes without any ventilation.

That may or may not be, but those chemicals are not used on the customer or patient directly.

[fvc2020]

Sure, you may be better. I worked at wallyworld and I probably still fit circles around a lot of the other local guys. There will be great people everywhere, but if you get a license requirement, the average knowledge base will have to grow.

Who are we kidding..I know lic opticians in state of Florida, that are completely clueless. They have no base knowledge, except for what they needed on the test. They refuse to take ce's that grow their knowledge and make them better.... With that being said, now living in a non-lic state, I wish there was some form of standards that aren't just the abo. The reason I say this is, people claim here to be opticians, but can't troubleshoot, use a lensometer, read prism, educate patients on how's and why.....I agree with Barry...We need something to hold "opticians"accountable

Christina

[fvc2020]

Judy

I know technically you're right. However tell that to someone who has been a practicing optician in a non-lic'd state for years, and then move to Virginia or Florida, and tell them they are a "dispenser"....I will always be an optician no what what the law says......

Christina

[Judy Canty]

now living in a non-lic state, I wish there was some form of standards that aren't just the abo. The reason I say this is, people claim here to be opticians, but can't troubleshoot, use a lensometer, read prism, educate patients on how's and why.....

Christina, you can be anything you want to be. You cannot present yourself in the State of Virginia as an Optician. That's our standard. You can't have it both ways.