The end could be near

[CNG]

In times like this unity is required. Licensing is there for the public protection. In many states that do not have opticianry licenses, a simple duplication is not allowed. When things go south in filling a prescription that is when the value of license optician comes into play. Anyone can write an order or measure a seg height... BUT when that person cannot see as expected then what? Seeing is a precious and valuable in so many level. Licensing makes a difference then because it elevates the level of responsibility that the dispenser has. No study has ever address that issue. I was privilege to knowing the exact refund numbers that a big box optical had and it was and always been in non licensed states. Wether you accept this comment or not it is up to you.Before you say that you are better than a license optician vs a non license optician or that you are equal to a license optician I ask you what is your benchmark and ....if you really can guarantee that your fellow opticians in your state have passed a minimal competency exam. I can... is a much better answer that I dunnono.
cng

[wmcdonald]

It is my understanding that a study will soon be released that indicates that the services of those who meet minimum standards do a superior job when compared to those who have met no requirements. Look for that soon.

[CNG]

There is nothing sweeter than deregulation when is for personal gains...statement like the ones I read are so biased. licensing is unfair...licensing does not prove I am less of an optician because I live in a non license state. Maybe not you as an individual but maybe as a group you have no defense against incompetentcy...it is easy to put down what you not have. It is easy to wish in silence what you cannot achieve. If I was in NC I would be calling each and every politician. Love your profession and protect what you have.

Cng

[eeopti]

Not requiring a license does not unprotect your license. The option to become licensed is still there. Leave it up to the consumer and OD to determine its value.
As for public safety, there have been studies done between licensed states and non licensed states. And the determination was there was not added value in licensed states, or a concern for public safety in non licensed states. Saying a non licensed state creates a public safety issue is absurd.

[wmcdonald]

The OD? Opticianry in licensed states is an independent profession. I am sorry you see so little value in what the majority on this board do. It is a clear example you know little of what could be done.

[Johns]

In times like this unity is required.

Very true. From a pure business stand point, I should be on the other side of this battle, as I would greatly benefit from deregulation. Pay opticians less; what's not to love about that? Unless you're the optician, of course.

[eeopti]

The OD? Opticianry in licensed states is an independent profession. I am sorry you see so little value in what the majority on this board do. It is a clear example you know little of what could be done.

This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.

[CNG]

Lol

cng

[drk]

opticianry is under attack in every state, and it is being funded by corporations

This is it, folks.

The same underlying principle that brings you Coastal Contacts, Warby Parker, and Blink is in effect here. Business interests (NOT PROFESSIONALS) who want a piece of the health care pie. (Think insurance companies, while you're at it.)

Ironically, what small margins we do garner are based upon a professional's service. When they take the professionalism out, the margins will drop to the level of selling sneakers.

Is that a win for the health care consumer?

[drk]

This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.

This is a state by state issue.

[eeopti]

This is a state by state issue.

Again, this is my point. ODs have the privilege of having their education be universal across the U.S. Sure, maybe they have to take an exam if they move to another state, but not go back to school and take numerous tests. Why should opticians have more stringent requirements? If they can pass the test, shouldn't that be enough? Why should opticians have more roadblocks in advancing themselves? In my opinion it is to limit the amount of opticians able to go out on their own and be independent.

[Andrew Weiss]

I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC. I agree it's time to act.

As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit. I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified. Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license. To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.

[eeopti]

I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC. I agree it's time to act.

As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit. I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified. Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license. To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.

This. Exactly. A universal standard should be set across all states so opticians are not limited. If you have the knowledge, you should be able to be successful within your profession.

[newguyaroundhere]

Its difficult to establish a universal standard when those in the field can not agree with each other on what the standard should be. There needs to be a group of leaders strong enough to help establish it. However, egos and pride will prevent such a movement

[drk]

Again, this is my point. ODs have the privilege of having their education be universal across the U.S. Sure, maybe they have to take an exam if they move to another state, but not go back to school and take numerous tests. Why should opticians have more stringent requirements? If they can pass the test, shouldn't that be enough? Why should opticians have more roadblocks in advancing themselves? In my opinion it is to limit the amount of opticians able to go out on their own and be independent.

Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license. Not "no licensure". I thought that was your position.

[Andrew Weiss]

Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license. Not "no licensure". I thought that was your position.

Exactly.

[wmcdonald]

This is not true. In NY you cannot dispense at all without an OD present or a licensed optician. This is exactly my point. ODs have to hire licensed opticians if they ever want to take a vacation or have a day off, but they are not paying them what an optician would make if they were independent. They also hire non licensed people who are dispensing when they are not present, which technically is illegal. The way I see it this only hurts the non licensed people working for ODs for years, who have the experience and knowledge. It blocks them from becoming independent.

It certainly IS true, Sir!! An Optician can be a stand-alone if he/she chooses and open their own office under their professional license. That is what I mean by INDEPENDENT profession, if it was not clear. ODs are great. I consult with several regularly, and have lectured at a number of their conferences over the years, but the truth is they often do NOT hire a licensed Optician, and can and do leave these unlicensed people alone to dispense glasses all day. Again, you have no idea of the reality here.

[Tigerclaw]

Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license. Not "no licensure". I thought that was your position.

As an OD, reciprocity sure would be nice for us to have. It's not like states are bending over backwards to give us easy access to practice anywhere we'd like. In our case, state boards benefit from being able to control who and how many of "who" are allowed to practice (i.e. compete) with those already there. If you want to know why there are barriers to licensure in various states, I'm sure "follow the money" is a valid adage to consider.

[Jarhead Daddy]

http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/legal_opinion.asp

Licensure vs. certification. I am for certification, and against licensure for opticians for the following reasons:

1. Certification encourages advancing a profession in an environment of liberty and choice. Licensure is compulsory, and can be abused to form a regime that protects itself from the competition of outsiders and innovation (as the MDs of NV have done with glaucoma treatment, and the ODs have done with private practice ownership).

2. Certification boards are more flexible. For instance, I may want to be ABO certified, but have no interest in CL dispensing in my business model. But in NV, I cannot start an eyeglass shop without acquiring my NCLE, and passing the CL fitting portion of the state board.

3. Certifications are more often tiered. Anybody here have a Master ABO?
http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...4-f3e881fee795

Just because somebody is against compulsory legal measures does not mean they are slack, or against advancing the industry.

[wmcdonald]

I am saddened but not surprised to hear of this development in NC. I agree it's time to act.

As to the larger issue being raised here: I have deep respect for Warren McDonald and have been a long-time supporter of licensure as a way to maintain professional standards for the public's benefit. I would only suggest that those who do not go to school for a degree in opticianry and who have years of hands-on experience in the field be given an opportunity to prove to the licensing board if they are qualified. Those who apprentice and do intensive study on their own, and who can prove that they actually have the knowledge, ought to get the license. To me, the importance is maintaining the standards of knowledge and care, and how one goes about acquiring that knowledge isn't as important as acquiring it.

There is still an apprenticeship pathway, Andrew, and I appreciate the kind comments. But the truth about that in the past has been it was little more than cheap labor, with little teaching going on. I am fine with an Apprenticeship pathway, so long as it is a structured one, with a mandated course of study as a component, like we established in NC with the NAOs CPP program. But the reality is we will never achieve any real recognition professionally until we have mandatory formal education. We are the sole health-related field remaining that allows such a pathway and have been for some time. That was a real sticking point in this latest mess here in NC.

[wmcdonald]

As an OD, reciprocity sure would be nice for us to have. It's not like states are bending over backwards to give us easy access to practice anywhere we'd like. In our case, state boards benefit from being able to control who and how many of "who" are allowed to practice (i.e. compete) with those already there. If you want to know why there are barriers to licensure in various states, I'm sure "follow the money" is a valid adage to consider.

In the case of ODs you are right on the mark. It used to be the same even for state boards, until they developed the national compacts that eliminated some of that. In the case of the Optician, the disparate views of what we are and are not make agreeing on a common approach difficult at best. But is needs to take place. NC, and I am very proud of my state, has one of the strongest licensure laws in America. We are one of only a few that will allow waiver of examination for those who come to the state with similar training and/or education that covers all our scope in this state allows us to do. That includes CL fitting, so many states do not qualify. The answer many want to see is to dumb us down. I want to see us raise, not lower the bar. But the truth is, most no longer fit CLs. Should we still test on the material? We need national leaders that can work across border, and have the synergistic ability to bring together all those disparate views, and make for common ground. The best, and easiest way is to start from a solid foundation of education, whether it be in a college setting full time or dispersed as part of an apprenticeship, all should learn the material that meets the agreed-upon definition we develop for ourselves. Until then, we are dead in the water, and these self-serving folks will want us all to dumb down to meet their agenda.

[wmcdonald]

http://www.nremt.org/nremt/about/legal_opinion.asp

Licensure vs. certification. I am for certification, and against licensure for opticians for the following reasons:

1. Certification encourages advancing a profession in an environment of liberty and choice. Licensure is compulsory, and can be abused to form a regime that protects itself from the competition of outsiders and innovation (as the MDs of NV have done with glaucoma treatment, and the ODs have done with private practice ownership).

2. Certification boards are more flexible. For instance, I may want to be ABO certified, but have no interest in CL dispensing in my business model. But in NV, I cannot start an eyeglass shop without acquiring my NCLE, and passing the CL fitting portion of the state board.

3. Certifications are more often tiered. Anybody here have a Master ABO?
http://www.abo-ncle.org/ABO/Certific...4-f3e881fee795

Just because somebody is against compulsory legal measures does not mean they are slack, or against advancing the industry.

But until we have a mandatory licensure requirement we will never advance as a field. Certification is voluntary and good to have, but we need more.

[Andrew Weiss]

There is still an apprenticeship pathway, Andrew, and I appreciate the kind comments. But the truth about that in the past has been it was little more than cheap labor, with little teaching going on. I am fine with an Apprenticeship pathway, so long as it is a structured one, with a mandated course of study as a component, like we established in NC with the NAOs CPP program. But the reality is we will never achieve any real recognition professionally until we have mandatory formal education. We are the sole health-related field remaining that allows such a pathway and have been for some time. That was a real sticking point in this latest mess here in NC.

Hi Warren, nice to "see" you again. I had no idea of the political implications of the apprenticeship path. What you describe is pretty darn close to the home-schooling path and makes a great deal of sense to me. I hope we can convince the legislature or the Governor's commission that structured apprenticeship study is the equivalent of classroom education, but if we must cave on this issue, we must.

[wmcdonald]

Then the answer is reciprocity or a nationally accepted license. Not "no licensure". I thought that was your position.

There is something similar to reciprocity in several states now, so long as the training and/or education of the individual meets the entering state standards. Unfortunately, many do not, and until we have a common background this approach will not work. The Constitution of the US places licensure in the hands of the states, so unless you change that, you will not have a national "license" any more than you see a national driver's license. But I second your question.........I thought they were against all licensure?

[Jarhead Daddy]

Wmmcdonald, you are relying on government to advance your field. Why not rely on competition and innovation?