The end could be near

[wmcdonald]

I am nor privy to any direct lobbying information, but it is my understanding that there has been activity from a number of outside forces. NC has one of the strongest licensing laws in the nation, and if one falls, so will others. Most of the chains would love to see licensure go away, and most see us as nothing but labor anyway. They may have a point, as we have significantly declined over the last few decades. But in all honesty, I suspect this situation came from the national article, and folks here. If our state board and state association had a better relationship I suspect it never would have happened.

[drk]

This is the basis for the national assault on Opticians. I’m not sure when it happened, but at some point it the not so distant past we Opticians stopped caring for patients and started selling to consumers or customers. In most people’s opinion there is no need to educate or train a salesperson and thusly no need to licensed that individual. As a patient I care for the health of your eyes as a consumer I’m mainly concerned about your credit card clearing! The term should be stricken from the optical vernacular and I challenge all to do so, especially the optical leadership and organizations. This line of thinking just plays to the argument of the retailers who support such legislation.

AMEN. Opticianry has to join the health care industry, at least halfway.

[drk]

there has been activity from a number of outside forces...Most of the chains would love to see licensure go away

Agree.

I suspect this situation came from the national article, and folks here.

WhatchootalkinaboutWillis? What national article and whom on Optiboard?

[wmcdonald]

I do not know Willis, but not folks on Optiboard. I mean people in NC.

[wmcdonald]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers

The Timmons article is what I was referencing earlier, and has been discussed already on Optiboard, although it did not pick up much steam. It is written by a professor from outside the industry with little understanding of the work Opticians SHOULD do. He may be spot on, however, in describing the actual work now done. He is right, there is little rhyme nor reason to licensure, but there are 22 states that require a license, not 21 as the article states. As I have stated MANY times, and some have listened, we must have consistent standards across the country in EVERY jurisdiction to even begin to gain any real credibility. Unfortunately at every turn, it is not just the chains, but the OD leadership fights us as well, which is nothing more than a short-sighted turf battle.

[rbaker]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/econom...income-workers

The Timmons article is what I was referencing earlier, and has been discussed already on Optiboard, although it did not pick up much steam. It is written by a professor from outside the industry with little understanding of the work Opticians SHOULD do. He may be spot on, however, in describing the actual work now done. He is right, there is little rhyme nor reason to licensure, but there are 22 states that require a license, not 21 as the article states. As I have stated MANY times, and some have listened, we must have consistent standards across the country in EVERY jurisdiction to even begin to gain any real credibility. Unfortunately at every turn, it is not just the chains, but the OD leadership fights us as well, which is nothing more than a short-sighted turf battle.

Not that I agree with his conclusion, he does represented the other side of the equation, that is to say, he doesn't have a dog in the fight and may represent a more objective analysis.

[wmcdonald]

Correct, Dick. What needs to be pointed out is the significant flaws in his methodology, but that is for another day. OAA and others have defended this already quite admirably. But we should realize that when folks view this field from an objective viewpoint like this, they are always amazed at the mess it has become.

[ml43]

Not that I agree with his conclusion, he does represented the other side of the equation, that is to say, he doesn't have a dog in the fight and may represent a more objective analysis.

sounds like his dog is biased towards the other side, as he ends his article by saying the $15million the president is spending on this initiative was not a waste.

I think with a budget of $15mil, he/we could have incorporated an opticianry program into almost every optometry program in the nation. The facility and classes are already there. just need someone to organize and standardize it to be inline with the rest of the schools in the nation.

or we could have tried to put heavy tarrifs on the import of medical devices. So online spectacle companies would see their profits tumble, and we could see the number of U.S. based jobs increase and at the same time see the U.S. gdp increase.

but they would rather spend $15million on a study to make what little skilled lower middle class workers we have left, be grouped with the unskilled in an attempt to increase the number of jobs.

why not deregulate teachers as well, since we have a shortage of them.
they have no liability insurance, so they must be useless.
(my attempt at reductio ad absurdum)

[OptiStudent]

Really? Optometrist are refractionist and not lens experts. This why my Drs partner with me. Just because you work at the Drs office, does not mean you have knowledge of a degree in opticainry. Bet you don't know where the MRP on a PAL is.......prism thinning, or vertical imbalance? And how can you compare ABO certification to state boards?
,

[Tigerclaw]

or we could have tried to put heavy tarrifs on the import of medical devices. So online spectacle companies would see their profits tumble, and we could see the number of U.S. based jobs increase and at the same time see the U.S. gdp increase.

Part of the problem is that glasses are not medical devices (contact lenses are). Whether or not they SHOULD be is worthy of debate. Also, most frames are imported. I import handmade frames from other countries and do not want to pay more for them. It's not like high-quality American-made frames are an option. They exist, but not in the variety and name-recognition you find in those made abroad. Consumers ultimately drive the market, and as much as I hate online companies, that's not going to be the answer. Realistically we need to repeal the laws that give people freedom to go to other places with their prescriptions. All it leads to is corporations taking over.

[Jarhead Daddy]

Laws don't "give people freedom." We are born free, and laws restrict those freedoms.

[Jarhead Daddy]

And why do you wish to restrict your fellow man? To avoid competition from corporations. Don't you realize that large corporations thrive in highly-regulated markets? They use their lobbyists to promote the loopholes for them an no one else. greater regulation is not the answer for optometry.

[Tigerclaw]

You are not entitled by natural law to the fruits of anyone else's labor. You hire a photographer, that doesn't mean you get unlimited use or even access to all the photos he takes. If you have problems with the concept of intellectual property, then maybe you'd fit right in in China.

[Tigerclaw]

And why do you wish to restrict your fellow man? To avoid competition from corporations. Don't you realize that large corporations thrive in highly-regulated markets? They use their lobbyists to promote the loopholes for them an no one else. greater regulation is not the answer for optometry.

We are the ones who are restricted. If you support the Eyeglass Rule or the "F"CLCA then you must SUPPORT regulation.

[Jarhead Daddy]

What a fortuitous faux pas on my part! I completely misunderstood your libertarian argument, and erroneously argued for the statist postion.

As I mentioned in a previous post, laws restrict freedom. In this case (any law requiring an optometrist to give the patient the Rx), it is a restriction on the doctor and the patient to choose the relational arrangement of their preference. I would absolutely be for deregulating optometry in this manner. People should have the right to form contracts apart from government interference, and this should include who gets to control the Rx after an exam.

[Jarhead Daddy]

And who benefits from this restriction? The very corporations who sent the lobbyists to push the regulation through. I could really get on board with this idea. What would optometry and opticianry look like if we were simply able to eliminate this one foolish regulation?

[Tigerclaw]

And who benefits from this restriction? The very corporations who sent the lobbyists to push the regulation through. I could really get on board with this idea. What would optometry and opticianry look like if we were simply able to eliminate this one foolish regulation?

EXACTLY. Glad we finally agree! lol

Well Brad Scott would be in the unemployment line, Chinese and other online retailers/counterfeiters would be out of business, Lux, VSP, and who knows who else would get publicly neutered, the consumer benefits in the end because the oligopoly is destroyed and with the help of social media/internet consumers have access to finding out which doctors share Rxes or carry frames they like at prices they like. This has made the laws outdated, and they have always been dangerous.

If you support Rand Paul (an ophthalmologist), drop him a letter. Repeal is a long shot, but not an impossibility. Personally I think the Feds had no business implementing it in the first place, as doctor-patient relationships are not interstate commerce.

[Jarhead Daddy]

Wow...Tigerclaw...hug?

[Jarhead Daddy]

BTW, so far, I am supporting RP.

Seems to me that your idea could really work. Some points:
1. Most people would not want the idea to apply to all medical records, and it certainly flies in the face of HIPAA, so the exception should be limited to optometry (tactics).
2. An argument against cheap Chinese knock-offs (intellectual property) killing American jobs would resound with the public.
3. The optometric associations would support the idea more than the opticians' associations, since there are many independently-owned optician practices without an optometrist.

[Tigerclaw]

The flip side is it would make OD-employed opticians more valuable and thus raise their wages. Additionally, it would effectively shut down chains that don't value a skilled optician. Also, opticians could network with OD's, since an OD isn't likely to risk losing a patient just because he doesn't carry prescription Ray-Bans, "But I can fax your prescription to Melissa, an optician I trust down the street. She sells Ray-Bans and can fix you up over there."