Ohio Opticans License Under Attack !!

[Johns]

Ohio House Bill 95 is in the process of being passed. Contained in this bill is language that will combine the Ohio Board of Optometry with the Ohio Board of Opticianry ! This is not a hoax, it is for real ! It will be know as the "Ohio Vision Board". Don't think for a moment that optcians stand a chance of being represented fairly on such a board.


Senators on the Ohio Finance and Financial Institution Committee are:

Ron Amstutz
David Goodman
John Carey
Bill Harris
Jay Hottinger
Kevin Coughlin
Randy gardner
Eric Fingerhut
Mark Mallory
Ray Miller
CJ Prentiss

The vote on this bill is April 23. E-mail your senator today. The passage of this bill as it is now written, means an end of a voice for opticianry, and possibly, the end of opticianry.

If you have any questions, call your local association, or contact the Opticans Association of Ohio @ (800) 661-5367. Ask what you can do.

Contact your state senators today !

http://www.senate.state.oh.us/senators.index.html

[wmcdonald]

This situation requires swift action on the part of ALL Opticians, not just those in Ohio. THey need our help now. Please send support to the Ohio Association. Once this is over, however it comes down, we MUST be proactive in changing ourselves. Think about it, Tennessee and Ohio are in trouble. Soon other states will follow. Frankly, if we don't demand a more stringent training program, including formal education, we will be assistants working in some doctors office and have no control over our destiny. A license won't matter. If you really think about it, a license is for the protection of the public. Specatcles have some limited potential for harm, but contact lenses are where Opticians licensure was solidified in the old days. Contact lenses can cause significant harm! We need more training in that arena and require CLs as part of the training for each and every Optician. Someone will say"but I don't fit CLs". Your friendly Ophthalmologist doesn't practice Urology either, but they had to learn it to become a physician! We have watered ourselves down so much, we don't even know who we are, much less legislators. Opticianry needs to be re-defined and we should not let someone else do it. I realize there are many of you who don't feel licensure is important. Good for you, but in the states that are licensed, most want to keep them. Please support their wishes and all of us need to work for the profession now as never before. We are in significant trouble! Together we can accomplish great things, so we must come together as never before.

Best wishes,
Warren

[Homer]

one would expect this to happen for government efficiency. Budget decreases usually require a close look at redundant services.

While opticians don't see this as redundant, ALL OF THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES! including the legislators! ... who are as misinformed as the general public because they generally are the general public.

Trying to educate legislators in the next 2 or 3 days is like throwing snowballs at a M1 tank.

I have said in previous posts that opticianry licenses will be picked off one by one over the next few years. I don't think it can be stopped. However if all opticians would agree on a nation system of credentialing that is uniform, we might have a chance. Guess who's generally against this type of approach? Most licensed states!

We can prove no public harm (there are no dead bodies, no statistics), so expect the worst.

Good luck!

[palfi]

I can only watch and hope for you all - Homer - I agree - dispensing is an honourable profession that saves lives and unrepresented dispensing can do harm. An old and frail lady in our village was given bifocals by some unskilled person and fell over and broke her arm when mounting a street kerb. Dispensing here is so under valued since its deregularisation. The fellow that heads the vision centres of a large firm here assured me 'that anyone without experience could run an opticians store' !!! Palfi

[paw]

I can tell you from what my OD husband told me, that the ODs are not in favor of combining the boards either. These are 2 different professions and should each be regulated by their own board. The impetus for this bad idea is the state's budget crisis.

[Joann Raytar]

Dr. McDonald is correct "Opticianry needs to be re-defined." We also know that Optometry is trying to re-define itself. If the two boards are combined, will either field be able to raise the bar for their professions or will difficulties arising from the two fields working towards very different goals create a brick wall blocking any advancement?

Licensure is indeed important. Most folks who view licensure as a piece of paper and feel they get along fine without any form of regulation are not looking at the big picture. I think we all agree that the major frame and lens companies and the chains have changed Opticianry for good and for bad. Chains are multi-state entities; what happens in one state will affect the others to some degree. Start lowering the bar by losing regulation, even if one state at a time, will create an employment free for all. Just as independents must compete on the retail end they also compete as employers. As the pay scale and value of skilled employees decrease on a national level due to deregulation (anyone watching their payroll on that level is going to shoot for the cheapest labor possible) the wages offered by independent owners will drop as the wage competition decreases. So much for your marketability as a professional.

Licensure does have other values and is in place to protect the consumer; I am just trying to point out that deregulation will affect everyone.

[Johns]

Even if the bill passes this stage, it will still be sent back (I think to the house) for a rewrite. This buys some time, but it would be much better to get it taken out now.

If you haven't written a letter, or sent an e-mail, it's not too late. Every opinion gets registered.

Make your voice heard now, or you may not have on tommorrow.

[Homer]

paw said:
I can tell you from what my OD husband told me, that the ODs are not in favor of combining the boards either. These are 2 different professions and should each be regulated by their own board. The impetus for this bad idea is the state's budget crisis.

What do you think of this?

Both opticianry & optometry (employed by anyone or independent practitioners) have had the opprotunity to be hurt by national chains for several reasons.

If in fact Optometry sees opticianry as a profession that should be supported (mutually supportive) the best thing that could be done would be for Optometry and Opticianry to combine their efforts to promote national, uniform licensing requirements. In addition, It should be required that optometrists as well as opticians have licensed opticians on staff. This would force the chains into situation that could limit their expantion, especially on the "$59 eyewear, exam free" level.

While optometry and opticianry display various levels of national unity and uniformity, they spend most of their energy in turff protection in the own states ...... while the national chains have only a national goal!

As has been said, we can choose to fight together or hang separately!

[mjh]

I would like to know what the OAA (Opticians Association of America) has to say about issues like this re: Ohio's licensing problem. Is the OAA backed by the chains and they really work against licensing and national standards, or are they on the side of keeping this a licensed profession with a goal to have national regulations? This isn't a loaded question...I genuinely do not know what exactly the OAA does. If I can get a decent reply, then I may even join them. Who does more to fight for licensure and lobbying for our professions: OAA, NAO, or some other organization? Just wondering.

[Homer]

mjh said:
I would like to know what the OAA (Opticians Association of America) has to say about issues like this ... I genuinely do not know what exactly the OAA does. If I can get a decent reply, then I may even join them. Who does more to fight for licensure and lobbying for our professions: OAA, NAO, or some other organization?

And you are not the only one who wonders. OAA died last year and is now in Purgatory! They are hoping there are enough saints to pray for them to be resurrected .... ortherwise they will have died a completely unspectacular death.

FYI .... OAA kicked out the chains over 10 years ago. NAO has no interest in licensing opticians or entering the political areana on their behalf - they are only about education.

Find out if you have a state organization of opticians - might be a place to start ..... or not.

Better to spend our time marketing CPO's (Certified Public Opticians) directly to the public and forget the legislators - they by and large, don't have a clue about where opticians fit into the healthcare delivery system.

[mjh]

...you may be onto something there about national credentialing to help save the profession. Why do you say that licensed states are against it? I am preparing ideas right now that would put our profession in the national spotlight, and your answer will help me understand certain things. As for "Certified Public Opticians", while the title may give people a chuckle, it shouldn't be far from the truth. Let's borrow part of a title from other health professionals who work with doctors: Registered Nurses. Everyone knows what R.N. stands for. So, why not a nationally-recognized title for all of us too: R.O. Registered Optician. Regardless of what state you are from, or if you dispense, work in a lab, or whatever. If we want consistent, nationwide acceptance by the public for the work we do, then how about "R.O." ? Some states have "Licensed Opticians", some have "Registered Dispensing Opticians", others have unlicensed people who used to work at the shoe store in the mall one day and the next day they try their hand at optishunree. I am ready to begin work (despite fulltime work as an optical manager, and having a 3 month old son at home) on some as-of-yet untitled campaign to raise the public's awareness about what opticians do and the need for some type of national standard for education and/or licensing and/or state registration and/or competency. This is going to have to be a new thread, because I don't want to take away from this thread's important message about Ohio's potential troubles. But, it's because of this thread's very existence (and all of the other chatting about "is my state next?") that I am feeling so interested in getting something done. Any comments, please contact me at mjhoptician@yahoo.com Thanks. Michael.

[Johns]

mjh,

I'm not chuckling ! I think it's a great idea. It's not a new idea, but put into simple terms the way it has been here, there's no reason why it couldn't work.

As far as the OD's being against the combination of the two boards...they won't say a thing if they think it might happen. They've got nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

As far as chains go, if they had their way, there would be nothing more than an autorefractor in each of there stores, plus their "worker of the day" to hand out the glasses.

[Homer]

here are my reasons:

1. What ever is done to improve the lot of opticianry must be national and uniform. It is the only way that we could hope go get broad based support; Insurance Companies, HMO's, Government Agencies, optometrists and even perhaps the national chains(bases on uniformity)

2. This needs to be sold first to the public, they will then back us with the legislators. (ie., do you know that a person can be garbage colocter one day and present themselves as an optician the next?)

3. Most licensed states have had the "we have made it, why don't you get your act together" attitude toward unlicensed states. In addition you could never get the licensed states to agree on a uniform licensing criteria by themselves let alone the others. Some of the main reasons that licensed states don't want to agree is, turff protection and the "I think my license is better than yours" syndrome. You would never have an unlicensed state saying that! So, whatever the licensed states could agree upon as the national standard, I'm sure the unlicensed states will be glad to follow and support

The truth is that Florida got only a short extention during their recent sunset review and Alaska was forced to change their law. Tennessee had to defend their license and Kentucky is comming up. An now Ohio. They will either put aside their differences and band together to agree to a national standard or loose their licenses one-by-one over the next ten years

[Homer]

If you'd send me an e-mail, we could talk about some of this off-line. I have some ideas too.

[Laurie]

Hi Homer,

While you and I have agreed on every issue here thus far, I have to gently nudge you in regard to your information/opinions about licensure in Florida...

We were not under sunset review, but were in a situation where our governor (the other brother) wanted to "shrink the beast" and deregulate many professions to give the illusion of shrinking government. Thanks to our strong lobby (POF) and grass roots efforts, we were successful in blocking the attempt...

It was not temporary, however, we must always keep our eyes open.

Secondly, I think that more licensed states would agree upon a national standard, so long as contact lens fitting and mandatory education (in college, not CE's!) is part of the agreement. Many states fight for licensure of fitting specatacles and give up the contact lens part of it in order to have successful legislation. Most licensed states will not weaken their own stature for the good of the whole.

Warren McDonald has mentioned the importance of CL education here many times (hi warren!), and it is excellent advice.

You keep mentioning a "national certification", and I am curious of your specific ideas about that. Would it be an extended ABO? Would it include an AS degree in opticianry?

You do know that there is no such thing as national licensing, right? What is your national proposal?

: )

cheers,

Laurie

[mjh]

...again, out of fairness to keeping this the thread for Ohio opticianry's issue, I am starting a new thread for the subject of national standards, licensing, and education. See you there!

[Homer]

Thank you for correcting me. It is always a pleasure to be corrected by you! Sorry if I misled anyone on the Forida state of the union.

Nonetheless, it seems that all state goverments are operating with an axe these days and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.


When you say "grass roots", are you talking about all optical industry people or consumers?

Your other questions I will address on the new theread.

I still love ya, ;)

homer

[Laurie]

The grass roots I mentioned were from many qroups...

Of course, opticians were the largest group, then clients, optical students, friends and neighbors, and the lions club. The legislators got swamped with hand written letters by many concerned people which made a big difference.


laurie

[Dannyboy]

If both boards are combined what will be the representation of opticianry in such board? In a perfect world this would not be a bad idea if the rules where clear and if both professions did not overlap scope of practice.

Dannyboy

[Johns]

There is strong suspicion that opticianry will be under-represented, or not represented at all.

Both boards are financially self sufficient, and in fact, the combination of both boards would not decrease office staff, but increase it. There is absolutely no good reason, economic, or otherwise, to combine.

[stephanie]

We here in TN have been doing this for so long it now seems like a way of life. Is there anyway we can get a petition going to send to all of these legislative bodies so they can see how many opticians out here want licensure? This is ridiculous. I am sorry but to have our livelihoods constantly in the balance like this is so unsettling. Well if they finally succeed with it, better not have any docs coming to the glass maker and say "hey can you read these for me" cause they may not be able to. Sad but true. The public doesn't even understand...they just assume.

Steph

[Homer]

Johns, you said they were going to vote today. Did they?

Who was pushing for this bill? Really?

Wouldn't this be a real "downgrade" for Optometry?

Would this be an upgrad for Opticianry?

How are the boardmembers selected?

Is is not true, that if a professional organization is the only source for board members that this is an illegal situation?

Waiting to hear. .. . .

[Johns]

Homer

-As of tonight, the "recent actions" section of the online Ohio House report is not showing any new activity.

-The word was that "mass retailers" were the driving force behind the ammendment of the bill. (Keep in mind that this is the Ohio Budget Bill) We were told that "mass retailers" are not neccesarily optical retailers. It's all large retailers. (You think OD's & MD's have lobbyists, I guess these guy are huge.) Again, this is just what I was told by someone who talked to some of the lobbyists.

-It would be an upgrade for optometry and a downgrade for opticianry. (We think). This is based on your other questions as to how the board is selected...

-The board members are chosen by the govenor. Politics being what they are, he's going to put the folks in that supported him and his party members in the biggest way.($$$) Opticanry ($) only has so many resources to donate, while optometry ($$$$$) and ophthalmology ($$$$$$$$$$), obviously can get much more influence. If they are handing out seats on the Vision Board, optometry will have more opportunity to buy tickets than opticianry.

-As far as the makeup of the board. The optician board is comprised of 5 opticians (at least one is an Optiboard member), 2 optometrists, and 1 MD.

An interesting note: Last evening I logged on to the Ohio Opticians Assoc. web page to see if there were any updates, and the majority of the site talked about the upcoming Fall (2002!) convention. Not a word about HB95. Their web site sums up the whole state of opticianry. Pathetic...

[mjh]

Can I ask: "WHY" would someone allow not one but 2 optometrists onto a board of opticians? How many opticians are there on the optometrists board?

[Homer]

This is optiboard, not opticians board!

While some may not think so, optometrists are welcomed here by not only the management but also most of the contributors. It is presumend that this is an exchange of ideas, although sometimes conflicting ones, but the conversation and diversity are greatly welcomed.

Opticians should also be contributing to optometric forums. It's what makes the world go 'round and a super ride it is!