Is licensure valid ?

[idispense]

In today's world of competitive unlicensed on-liners, apathy in the industry, and lack of enforcement of rules , and layers of old rules and new rules with no teeth, is their still validity to licensure ?

Consider that in the States licensure has never been uniform or reached full penetration, in Canada a single on-liner undid and rewrote an entire provinces regulation in less time than it took to put it in place and no other province has been willing to risk raising a challenge.

It can be said that the reason to pay renewal fees is as a form of protectionism Or at best it might be said that renewal fees are a franchise fee to a protected territory.

But is there reason at all for licensure today ? What is the license buying ?

There is definitely a reason for higher education and those that want it will seek that education but what is the value of licensure itself ?

Thoughts and comments?

Please try to stay in topic with no personal flames.

[idispense]

To start this conversation off in some direction I'll throw out some controversy to think on:

Does the present form of licensure add value to the education you paid for any more than the graduation diploma you place on the wall ?

Does a central body for a state or province's licensure become an ineffective old boys club ?

Are you happy with how the license fees are spent ? Are you getting value for the price ?

Is there a different form of licensure that would serve us better ?

Can anyone think of how open-source licensure might work as opposed to a central legislated body ?

What are the disadvantages of today's form of central legislated licensure ? Is it the dream we dreamed of ?

[Uilleann]

Does the public at large care?

There's your answer.

[MikeAurelius]

In my personal view, the public at large does not see eye care and/or dispensing as a "medical" practice, as opposed to the family doctor/general practitioner. The only time they see the eye care specialist as a medical professional is when there is actually a "medical" issue like an infection or cataracts etc. The rest of the time, they see it as another place where they are going to spend more money than they think it should.

Again, my opinion.

[optilady1]

One large part of licensure is to ensure the public can contact a regulating body if they feel they've been mistreated or mismanaged by a 'medical' professional. Therefore, when I am the licensed optician on staff, (at least in Connecticut), all roads lead to me. So if a patient felt that a coworker or myself did something wrong, they could contact the state department of health and make a formal complaint. Which would ultimately come back on me. Therefore, I was compensated more for my knowledge and my license.

This response doesn't take into account how the governing board is using my licensing fees. Or how they are serving me. I personally have no opinion and consider the dues and yearly fees as a necessary evil.

[idispense]

Thank you Uillean, Mike, and Optilady1.

is there an alternative you would prefer ?

[idispense]

Is it fair to say that as unlicensed on-liners have proliferated in licensed territories without regulatory check, then it would be a reasonable fair trade assumption to require licensure boards to refund protectionism license fees, reduce their staffing and office expenses, in direct correlation to the annual increase % in market share of say CC or a combination of the top 10 holding companies of on-liners to compensate for the devaluation of our licenses?

IN other words, in the territories where ECPs are self governing, then license boards will work on a performance basis . If they perform their protectionism and on-liners market share diminishes in a year then they can increase their fees by the same percentage and conversely they diminish and refund fees in the years they fail to perform.

Self governing ECPs could do this. If as license boards tell us , we can't control the internet ( which I doubt is true) then we should believe the license boards prophecy, heed their advice to members and reduce them in accordance to their performance of protectionism and rule enforcement. They have in essence already told us they admit defeat. Can we continue to reward and carry a self defeating expense or should we give them one last shot on a strictly performance basis ?

What would your boss do if you were not performing ?

[rdcoach5]

Does the public at large care?

There's your answer.

Why license nurses, manicurists,acupuncturists etc.
Because the state gets a tax ,

I was going to state that further benefits to the public would be more protection to the public but I realized that was a joke. The only thing in my state that has changed is that opticianry has been de-valued. Opticians used to be compensated about the same rate as teachers and nurses. Now , it's about half, at best.

[idispense]

Hi Riverdog

What caused this devaluation ?

[wmcdonald]

What cause the "devaluation" of Opticians? A lack of consistent regulations in the first place, along with a clear vision for continual improvement. Opticians are the least educated and prepared of ANY health related field, and have done this to ourselves. Is it over? It all depends. We can certainly make great headway in the current environment, as ODs have moved into new practice models and we can certainly advance. But only with a focused plan that is the same across the country.

I am enjoying this dialogue, and hope it continues. I do support licensing. That is not secret, but it takes more than just that.

[idispense]

What cause the "devaluation" of Opticians? A lack of consistent regulations in the first place, along with a clear vision for continual improvement. Opticians are the least educated and prepared of ANY health related field, and have done this to ourselves. Is it over? It all depends. We can certainly make great headway in the current environment, as ODs have moved into new practice models and we can certainly advance. But only with a focused plan that is the same across the country.

I am enjoying this dialogue, and hope it continues. I do support licensing. That is not secret, but it takes more than just that.

Is it possible that licensing is part of the problem today and not part of the solution ?

[wmcdonald]

Not from my perspective. Licensing is one last bastion of hope for a slowly devolving "profession" that was once proud if not somewhat deluded. Until Opticians do more than they currently do professionally we will continue to decline slowly. There will always be someone called an optician but will the title mean much? It all depends on those in leadership positions and they vision they bring to the table.

I do need to correct one thing.......it was a lack of a clear vision. An Optician in Minnesota is vastly different from one in NC or Florida, for example. Why? No one could assemble these disparate groups into an entity that could move the field forward, and so it remained splintered. In my experience, Opticians want to blame almost anyone for their plight. The evil chains, the terrible ODs........when the truth is they did not seek that the enemy came from within. In the early days, those larger business owners dd not want to pay higher salaries, so in most of the states that do not have a license requirement, you can trace most of this lack of a license to those folks. There were no chains and the ODs had little power at the time.

I assume your answer is to do away with any license, and that may just happen if we do not improve and expand our scope a bit. Time will tell, but we must be the knid of people that make things happen, not let them, or worse......wonder what happened. It is in our hands.

[HarryChiling]

Give me an unlicensed or licensed state and their are examples of good and bad opticians in both. So I dont think the level of knowledge or the gap in supports licensure.

Protection, is not a valid arguement. I feel this statement is true because not very many complaints are heard of and many opticians either police themselves or have very little avenues for punishment should they wrong a client.

Medical, a person goes to a doctor and gets examined to be diagnosed. They then leave the office with a prescription and pick up a device that provides no treatment. Eyeglaases and contacts are similar to a cruth or orthopedic inserts in that they require very little knowledge or skill to fit or dispensr despite the numerous attempts to over complicate the subject many do well when fit with the KISS principle. On rare occasion a specialist is required for fit and dispense in certain cases but those cases are few and far between.

These are just my opinions, no I dont like or think licensure is a valid way of qualifying opticians. Unfortunately knowledgeable opticians for the most part can figure out that this profession will not make a salary comensurate with the level of knowledge required to be considered a great optician. So while good opticians proliferate in the industry, great opticians will continue to disappear. For this fact alone the protectionist nature of a license is not only true but very NEEDED.

My personal hope is that every state loses licensure and the industry rapidly degenerates. This rapid degeneration is my hope for bringing a greater public awareness to a problem that right now noone cares about.

[wmcdonald]

I understand your frustration, Harry. You know I am as well. You are correct.....the level of knowledge and skill is minimal, as evidenced by those who have such a difficult time with the simplistic NOCE. But we either implode it and start over, or we move from the current baseline. It is a problem we should address, but I fear it is a very high hill to climb.

[idispense]

I understand your frustration, Harry. You know I am as well. You are correct.....the level of knowledge and skill is minimal, as evidenced by those who have such a difficult time with the simplistic NOCE. But we either implode it and start over, or we move from the current baseline. It is a problem we should address, but I fear it is a very high hill to climb.

Therein is the first issue with licensure: the bar is too low, why were the standards lowered ? Please don't respond " because only short people applied "

[idispense]

Not from my perspective. Licensing is one last bastion of hope for a slowly devolving "profession" that was once proud if not somewhat deluded. Until Opticians do more than they currently do professionally we will continue to decline slowly. There will always be someone called an optician but will the title mean much? It all depends on those in leadership positions and they vision they bring to the table.

I do need to correct one thing.......it was a lack of a clear vision. An Optician in Minnesota is vastly different from one in NC or Florida, for example. Why? No one could assemble these disparate groups into an entity that could move the field forward, and so it remained splintered. In my experience, Opticians want to blame almost anyone for their plight. The evil chains, the terrible ODs........when the truth is they did not seek that the enemy came from within. In the early days, those larger business owners dd not want to pay higher salaries, so in most of the states that do not have a license requirement, you can trace most of this lack of a license to those folks. There were no chains and the ODs had little power at the time.

I assume your answer is to do away with any license, and that may just happen if we do not improve and expand our scope a bit. Time will tell, but we must be the knid of people that make things happen, not let them, or worse......wonder what happened. It is in our hands.

My answer is not to do away with licences. My answer is to do away with old boy, political licensure.

[idispense]

[QUOTE=wmcdonald;491141]I understand your frustration, Harry. You know I am as well. You are correct.....the level of knowledge and skill is minimal, as evidenced by those who have such a difficult time with the simplistic NOCE. But we either implode it and start over, or we move from the current baseline. It is a problem we should address, but I fear it is a very high hill to climb.[


who set this bar ?

[wmcdonald]

Good question, but I suspect it was done over the years in response to the changing market, and outside forces. We allowed others, like the corporate organizations, who pressure those who set the standards. If a state wants to initiate licensure standards, the first in line to fight it are the large corporates. Someone above mentioned taxation as the reason for licensure, but that is just false. Professional licensure I is needed to protect the public from poorly prepared providers. RNs (especially), and others are just ridiculous examples, because the public can be harmed if we do not have competent professionals in those fields. It is important to note that RNs, Dental Hygienists, and other health professionals advanced themselves through education and expansion of professional responsibilities, while Opticians dumbed ourselves down with each generation. I will anticipate your next question, why? Because we could not agree that requiring an education to do what it is Opticians do is not necessary. So there is some inherent inferiority issue within the field itself. I see a lot of things we should be doing that we are not. If we just had a clear vision across the country as to what an Optician should be required to know.

The poster also mentions that salaries for Opticians has decreased, which is not the case across the country. Average salaries have been addressed here many times, but to tell you the truth, if all we do is measure PDs and seg heights, I often wonder of we are worth the average 40K we are getting.

Look, I am not here to fight. You wanted opinions. Mine is different than yours, and I told you why very clearly. We disagree. You mention "political" licensing, and that is largely a thing of the distant past. In the "good old days" here in NC if you worked for the right company you got a license. If not, well you did not. That is long gone now. You also mention self-governance, which is what these boards are, correct. Most of the members are Opticians. Unfortunately, most of those Opticians have educational credentials that consist of a high school diploma, and could not pass their own exam.

At this point, I have stated my opinion. I wish you good luck as you continue the discussion. If you have specific suggestions (doing away with political licensing is very vague) that can make our situation better, let us know. I may like the approach and be willing to help. I do like the topic, or I would not be in the conversation.

[wmcdonald]

There are good and bad examples in both, Harry, but in the eyes of a legislative body, there is more credence given to those who have met specific standards established in the state. You may not feel it valid, but as you state, it is needed. Only when we gain some established standards across the nation will we become relevant again.

Give me an unlicensed or licensed state and their are examples of good and bad opticians in both. So I dont think the level of knowledge or the gap in supports licensure.

Protection, is not a valid arguement. I feel this statement is true because not very many complaints are heard of and many opticians either police themselves or have very little avenues for punishment should they wrong a client.

Medical, a person goes to a doctor and gets examined to be diagnosed. They then leave the office with a prescription and pick up a device that provides no treatment. Eyeglaases and contacts are similar to a cruth or orthopedic inserts in that they require very little knowledge or skill to fit or dispensr despite the numerous attempts to over complicate the subject many do well when fit with the KISS principle. On rare occasion a specialist is required for fit and dispense in certain cases but those cases are few and far between.

These are just my opinions, no I dont like or think licensure is a valid way of qualifying opticians. Unfortunately knowledgeable opticians for the most part can figure out that this profession will not make a salary comensurate with the level of knowledge required to be considered a great optician. So while good opticians proliferate in the industry, great opticians will continue to disappear. For this fact alone the protectionist nature of a license is not only true but very NEEDED.

My personal hope is that every state loses licensure and the industry rapidly degenerates. This rapid degeneration is my hope for bringing a greater public awareness to a problem that right now noone cares about.

[idispense]

wmc

I am not fighting, I am not sure why you would think that I was ?

I like your statement about there being a lack of leadership and no clear vision.

Why are these lacking ?

Canada came closest to the entire country being licensed and having a unified vision with unified advertising. Unfortunately it lacked in other areas. It could be revived with the right leadership and it would be great if under new leadership the USA bought into the idea.

[idispense]

Are there any semi-professional organizations who have succeeded with a different variation of licensing but without political sanctioned licensing, such as Registration or Certification combined the use of with a trademarked name ?

[HindSight2020]

In today's world of competitive unlicensed on-liners, apathy in the industry, and lack of enforcement of rules , and layers of old rules and new rules with no teeth, is their still validity to licensure ?

Consider that in the States licensure has never been uniform or reached full penetration, in Canada a single on-liner undid and rewrote an entire provinces regulation in less time than it took to put it in place and no other province has been willing to risk raising a challenge.

It can be said that the reason to pay renewal fees is as a form of protectionism Or at best it might be said that renewal fees are a franchise fee to a protected territory.

But is there reason at all for licensure today ? What is the license buying ?

There is definitely a reason for higher education and those that want it will seek that education but what is the value of licensure itself ?

Thoughts and comments?

Please try to stay in topic with no personal flames.

Just when we thought the horse was dead...

To be blunt and put it into perspective in a simplified form, the world and the way consumers purchase today has drastically changed and evolved; it will continue to do so whether you agree with it or not. You nor anyone else cannot undo it or stop it so if you're not prepared, informed and along for the ride, you shall be left behind in the dust.

Whether it's legal or not is a gray area and personal licensure only legalizes the person performing the dispensing, not the companies or consumers doing the selling and purchasing. In short, the suppliers don't care and will continue to sell as long there are consumers buying and saving money.

The licence fees one pays provides a right to sell legally within your regulations (so you sleep well at night) while filling the coffers of the organizations/associations. The biggest issue is these same organizations/associations are funded in large part by the same companies not following the legislation or 'the rules'.

It's good ole fashioned politics and is very effective. CC had the BC minister of health in their back pocket to ensure the deregulation would pass and it did. There isn't an individual out there with enough funds or cuhoonas to challenge it in court, nor is there a soap box large enough to garner enough support otherwise, so ophthalmic marshall law has begun.

Now to change gears, I know numerous independent opticians and OD's (in the hundreds) that still haven't been affected at all by this. So it's really up to an individual practice owner to stay ahead of the curve on pricing, technology, selling techniques and providing good ole fashioned service and value. And the gap is not as big as you think.

[CCGREEN]

Does the public at large care?

There's your answer.

The public/consumer only cares when something stands in the way of them getting what they want when they want it or when it is difficult for them to get what they want.
And then they are going to grumble and gripe the whole distance.

[rbaker]

Are there any semi-professional organizations who have succeeded with a different variation of licensing but without political sanctioned licensing, such as Registration or Certification combined the use of with a trademarked name ?

Realtors

[Gizzo]

I am certified by the ABO and registered w/the state. Both pieces of paper are useless where I live. There are decent opticians here making min. and commission and there are opticians making 3-4 times as much that aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. I grew up in the business and people in my trade are (considering the passage of time and inflation) making less than I did in'68 when I started...I never have advised people enter the trade. Now, if they ask, I smile and shake my head. I fear for the future of our trade. There aren't any coopers nor farriers; and few tailors nor shoemakers...