OAA Backs Nationwide Mandatory Opticianry Certification

[Joann Raytar]

VMail from Vision Monday for Monday, February 10, 2003.

OAA Backs Nationwide Mandatory Opticianry Certification

GULFPORT, Miss.--At the recent Opticians Association of America’s state leadership conference here, the OAA board voted to back a plan for nationwide mandatory opticianry certification via apprenticeship with a formal education component.
Currently, opticianry certification is fragmented state-to-state, with some states requiring certification and some requiring certification with licensure, while other states have no certification requirements.

Does anyone know anything about this plan?

[Homer]

I just forwared this address to the state leaders e-mail list in hopes we can get come comment.

I thought that apprenticeships were out of favor a few years ago.

I think OAA should be for a national something instead of the fragmented, state-by-state aproach they have tried, unsucessfully, for the past several years.

The real issue is whether the licensed states will lower themselves to accept a uniform standard for the good of the nation.

I think there is support to be had in optometry, ophthalmology and national chains for a nation-wide standard.

[Joann Raytar]

Connecticut accepts ABO and NCLE certifications combined with either formal education or apprenticeship as qualifiers for licensure. I don't see a reason why we wouldn't support a plan that reinforces formal education and certification.

What caught my eye in the article was the use of the phrase, "nationwide mandatory opticianry certification via apprenticeship with a formal education component." It looks like the OAA is planning on teaching us to walk before we learn to run. The states might feel mandatory certification as less of a threat than mandatory licensure but it is no less a step in the right direction.

[Bev Heishman]

I learned that there may be some need to require mandatory cerification in our state for a variety of individuals including lab techs(hospital) and others due to the problems arising from physician insurance problems and HIPPA. The physician malpractice insurance has reached a crisis in PA as in other states. However, sharing the cost of insurances for this matter is unfair to incorporate others who are not experiencing these problems.

[Homer]

OAA has voted to back lots of stuff that is listed in the book of resolutions, which nobody reads or pays any serious attention.
It makes quite interesting reading when we are not facing a war.

What interests me is what is the "a Plan" .

Anyone with a clue?

Bev, were you there? I was enjoying a peaceful Winter in the Coloado Rockies.

[Bev Heishman]

Wasn't there. Will I see you in NY? Maybe we can catch up. Hmmmm!

[hcjilson]

Homer,
States would not be lowering themselves by accepting National Certification. National Certification would presumably encompass what the licensed States are requiring now. The problem will come in the face of a tendency of congress to require less regulation than more. Heck even the states try to regulate less(vis a vis Sunset Laws)HIPPA being the noteable exception to that rule.

I am more interested in the reasoning behind Apprenticeship with an educational component- Rather than Education with an apprenticeship component. I fear this is why OAA has managed to make no progress toward uniform standards... and will continue to make no progress.

While I have the utmost respect for the American Board and National Academy, it appears that the status quo with OAA under their thumb is serving THEIR interests rather than furthering the profession.If we are to survive and grow in the future, this must change.

hj

[wmcdonald]

I was at Leadership and was feeling the same way. Here is what I was told. THe department of Labor has funding for people to hire and train Apprentices. I understand it is up to $10,000 per person for year 1 only. I do not think however that OAA has adopted anything. THe State Leaders don't adopt, that is done at the convention of all of OAA. That will probably be in conjunction with Florida in October this year.Back to the issue; I understand wanting to get federal dollars....what I don't understand is the lack of desire in Opticianry to educate its people. We are sending so-called Apprentices (cheap labor in Apprentice clothes) to the wolves and they have a hard time passing the boards. Even the ABO, which is a very basic exam, has less than a 60% pass rate. I see it time and again....Apprentices are not well trained in MOST cases. There is always that individual who was fortunate enough to be trained by the right person, but the majority are not prepared. If Opticianry is to move forward into true professional status education is the only route to take. Calling it Apprenticeship sends the wrong message. Now on the other hand, we must define ourselves. Are we professionals or tradesmen...can't be both! If we are to remain where we are, Apprenticeship is fine as long as they do get some educational component. Consider this; trainers today were poorly trained themselves and that is causing a "dumbing down" of the profession, so at the very least that educational component is a must. The argument from the proponents of Apprenticeship is this; we won't do away with it, so we might as well utilize it to our best interest. I have a different view...we need to expand our professional endeavors which will require an education. With the Internet capabilities we now have there is no reason Opticians can't receive a thorough education! Maybe it is time, much like the in early part of this century when the most competent among us broke away and formed Optometry, that we look to separate Opticianry into two groups. One that will do more advanced clinical things and the other, the retail side of the house. Still Opticians, but provide opportunities and avenues for each group. Now, someone will say I am advocating something that will break us down even further, but in reality that is what is happening anyway. Think about these issues! We are at the bottom and only have one way to rise to higher levels, and it is EDUCATION in my opinion, but we need to define who and what we are to ever arrive at the answer.

[Homer]

I agree with you both on the educational point ! We probably do need a practical component to the educational process so let us call that a residency ranther than apprenticeship. Apprenticeship is so old-world, antiquated, and tacky. It relates to trades and not professions.

Harry Said:
"States would not be lowering themselves by accepting National Certification. National Certification would presumably encompass what the licensed States are requiring now."

Here in lies the problem Harry, the licensed states could never agree on what a minimum standard for certification should be! The licensed states inconsistant, non-reciprocal, and often archaic standards must be the laughing stock of any serious legislator who might be willing to introduce a standard for opticianry in her/his state. If we could a an agreement from the licensed states on what a national standard should look like, I'll bet we could even get the national chains on board because they would not want to be seen a opposing either high standards or education. This united front could even go against the trend of states wanting less regulation.

Warren knows that the Leadership Conference is nothing more than a sharing of ideas among state leaders. While there are often strong feelings and desires expressed to the OAA board members who attend the meeting, not much action results. So what the original VM announcement was about, I haven't a clue.

NATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Harry, don't you find it to be phenomenal that many of the top brass from OAA Board of Directors spend the next years on the ABO Board where they are able to accomplish twice as much ad they did on the OAA Board, ie.; (2 x 0 = ? ) Which any ABOC should be able to figure.

I have no figures to prove it, but I would venture to guess that ABO makes much more money off of otometric staff and national chain employees than it ever does from OAA and their state affiliate membership. There is something about looking the gift horse in the mouth ...... that might be applicable here. They don't want to raise the bar because that would reduce the revenue.

Does catch-22 or merry-go-round sound like it fits here?

We have the education available and deliverable what we need is unity on the curriculum!

[Joann Raytar]

I agree with what Homer just posted. (Haven't done that in awhile, have I, Homer. :) )

However, the ABO would still make money if there were a mandatory national certification exam. Or, is there a fear that certification will be done at a college location by the college?

[Homer]

You're just being kind to me bacause your my Valentine ;)

I'm all for a national certification exam which the present "Minimum Competency Examination was originally designed to be. With pressure, it has been dumbed down to what it is today.

OK, so lets make the Advanced Certification Exam the standard across the courntry for opticians and lets even add a practical component so we know that the examees can actually do something and let's call them something like ABOC. After they take a 1 year residency, we will call them CPO's (Certified Public Opticians) and then when they do their thesis we will allow them to be called Master Public Opticians (the names aren't as important as the nation-wide consistancy and standard).

Now the problem is that those in charge of ABO (mostly from licensed states), while liking the income, don't want to allow the National Chains to have that advanced designation and the National Chains want a national test all of their people can pass.

The problem is still in the national leadership. I still say that the licensed states are the greatest obstacle to any kind of national movement or recognition.

From what I have seen here on the board, most are quite eager to know more and do more and have recognition for it.

Now, there must be something in there that you can disagree with, Jo. ;)

[Joann Raytar]

Actually no. Harry J sold me on his thoughts about what states are doing with regards to nursing certification and it is along the same lines that you just described above. I will admit that part of the problem lies in the fact that from licensed state to licensed state there is no reciprocity. If each states standards are that different, then yes, we have issues. The public and the politicians are not going to take a non-standardized profession seriously.

[Bev Heishman]

I agree about the need for formalized education with an "internship requirement" not apprenticeships always have! This has been bantered about at State Leadership at least 10 plus years.

However opticianry has been diluted to the point of any one can be an optician in over 1/2 of the states. Standardized certification /licensing may lead to reprocity but take nursing as an example and being a doctor...you still got to sit for licensing exams in each state.

[Homer]

EXACTLY !

[BobV]

Just a little comment here...it seems to me Darris and I were saying pretty much the same thing a couple of months ago and we got slammed for it.

Bob V.

[hcjilson]

Please go to this website to see the model that will work for Opticians.

http://www.ncsbn.org/

Click on Nurse Licensure Compact on the right side of the page. You will learn what the nurses are doing to avoid having to sit for exams in each jurisdiction. This will work for this profession as well and the machinery to put it together is in place with the National Committee of State Regulatory Boards. (NCSORB)

When I suggested this model as something the group could persue, it was met with a somewhat less than enthusiastic reception. Unfortunately, in this profession, the regulatory powers have historically acted to limit the practice of Opticianry in their respective jurisdictions. That attitude is changing but not at a pace that will satisfy the progressive members of our profession.

While members argue that PD's are taken differently in Florida than they are in Connecticut.....Rome burns....and conversations like this thread continue on.
I am sad about this.

hj

[Homer]

Thanks so much for the insight and idea. I agree that this is the kind of thing that needs to happen. I will visit this website again. I have already printed of the compact.

Do I understand correctly that this came about as a need for reciprocity and uniformity among state licensing bords?

If that is the case, I should say that my point still stands: that the weight of leadership and positive action is completely in the camp of the licensed states !! ... since the 28 unlicensed states now experience full and complete reciprocity.

Unfortunately, the leadership of OAA and ABO has largely been held or controlled by the licensed states and they seem completely impotent in their ability to either agree between themselves or to lead the majority of practicing opticians into a higher state of unity or recognition.

Guess Rome will have to burn before we can rebuild.

[hcjilson]

Homer,
Reciprocity is a can of worms by definition. The compact allows you to practice in the signatory state under your OWN license but Under the rules and regs of the signatory state.No Need for multiple licenses.



The nurses situation is somewhat different than ours because there is a critical shortage of them nationwide. The compact becomes a way to provide nurses mobility and states to be able to compete to attract nurses. You will notice, that the first states to sign on are largely rural (with the possible exception of Maryland) I haven't paid too close attention as of late but I'm sure more states have signed on since 2001.

It makes all the sense in the world to do this.What will hurt chances for this to suceed are states who are and will continue to act to restrain competition. A lot of things need to change to make this a reality but I think its doable. This plan will also require defining legislation which won't be easy either.

hj

[Bev Heishman]

Harry,

I believe you misunderstood what I was saying. Specifically I do not agree with apprenticeship as the term when formal education is required.

It would take a legislative act to make certification or licensing a recognizable standard in my state. Certification would still place us into the Bureau of Occupational Affairs as would licensing. The main difference would be that we would fall under a board and not establish a new board. Been there and know it.

National certification ABOC is recognized by the OAP and many employers and it doesn't matter where you lived when you took it. What would be considered in the legislative process is that we can not deny a livelihood if that person calls themselves an optician without it( in an unlicensed state). Seen by the eyes of these legislatures as a restriction of trade.

Ultimately we need a to have a formal education/internship component to occur before certification tests are taken.

[hcjilson]

Bev,

I agree with your last statement,

Ultimately we need a to have a formal education/internship component to occur before certification tests are taken.

Why is no one plugging for licensure?(I gathered that from your post, I really have no idea of what is going on in PA)

Before you say been there done that, are Hairdressers and Barbers licensed in PA? Point of that question is to show you that Licensure IS doable.Its a lot of hard work on behalf of a thankless profession, but it can be done.

best from Cape Cod, looking forward to seeing you in NY.

harry

[chip anderson]

Never forget, licensure is a TAX. All licenses are TAXES disquised as something other than a TAX. Otherwise they would be FREE once the requirements were met. Permits are also TAXES.
Whether you go fishing with them or pour concrete these are all TAXES.

Chip

[Steve Machol]

chip anderson said:
Never forget, licensure is a TAX. All licenses are TAXES disquised as something other than a TAX. Otherwise they would be FREE once the requirements were met. Permits are also TAXES.

So does this mean that licensing MDs is also a tax? Given this, do you only go to unlicensed MDs yourself? ;)

[chip anderson]

Yes, Steve:

Licenseing M.D.'s is a TAX! Certifying and regulateing them is public health!

Chip

[Steve Machol]

So you would have no problem with an Optician's Certification program then, right?

[Homer]

Taxes generally have a much broader application. However a "ticket" to play the game is more likely.

While we would like to consider it an administrative fee that we are willing to pay in order for our industry / profession to protect the health and welfare of the public, the fact that there are no "dead bodies" in the unlicensed states we are not likely to convince cash-strapped state legislatures that this is a necessary, critical, and appropriate action.

When you look at the broad spectrum of licenses, you see much more economic protectionism dancing in a professional suit than you actually see protection of the public welfare.

In fact, my experience in physical observation of two state optometry boards is that they are actually very ineffective in the protection of the public health and welfare. Since they are a group of optometrist themselves, they are very reluctant to act against their colleagues.

So, by and large, licensure is the deffinition of a specific game that is allowed in a state and provides that each player can by a ticket to play that game if he/she has competed certain requirements - it takes the game from "sand-lot" football to the grassy girdiron with some striped shirts persons to call foul once in a while.