Once again, Licensed Opticianry in Virginia is facing de-regulation. There is no bill as yet because the General Assembly will not go into session until January.
BUT we know it's coming. Fore-warned is fore-armed.
Once again, Licensed Opticianry in Virginia is facing de-regulation. There is no bill as yet because the General Assembly will not go into session until January.
BUT we know it's coming. Fore-warned is fore-armed.
Who's behind it this time?
The same conservative Republicans as the last time. One of whom is an OD.
Last edited by Judy Canty; 09-03-2023 at 09:23 PM.
It first started, and no offense intended, in most licensed states across the country. ODs fought us at every juncture. It was a different time, and I hope that is better. If you question that, I have copies of numerous bills in several states.
But in my view an article written by Dr. Timmons at the Mercatus institute of George Mason University was a killer. It provided insights into the reason Opticians didn't need to be licensed and made us an easy target. It got press all over the country, and on broadcast media. I am happy to send a copy of that study. It is highly critical of licensure of opticians, and indicates it keeps prices elevated. It's not new and should not be a surprise. There are many who have warned of this for many years. You can reach me at WGMPhD@aol.com. I will be happy to provide a copy. As a reminder, I and others did a rebuttal piece, but it got little traction, while the Timmons article was front page news. You can also look it up online. And we got about as much argument from within Opticianry as out, as to the need for licensure. I suspect that will be the same reaction to this post, by many of the same people.
Bringing the Effects ofOccupational Licensing into
Focus: Optician Licensing in
the United States
Edward J. Timmons and Anna Mills
February 2015
MERCATUS WORKING PAPER
Another important article important to this discussion was written in 2006, Opticianry at a Crossroads, written by Optometric Educator Dr. Jim Sheedy around 2005 or 6. It was sponsored by SOLA. In that paper, Dr. Sheedy wrote a great piece on Opticianry, and indicated we were at a crossroads. In it he talks about an OAA resolution in 1989 that supported refraction for Opticians. It provided a framework for Opticianry's advancement and was a model for us that was realistic and achievable. I personally wrote a 7-part series in the old Eye Care Professional Magazine regarding similar steps and completed a nationwide study on the topic.
Opticians, there is now a new day. I had almost given up but attended the OAA Leadership Conference at the invitation of several longtime friends. I saw new folks there with an interest in being more. They are educated, one completed the ABO Master's Certificate and proudly posted it on social media before that meeting. There are new state associations that want to form and are doing well so far. We are far from dead!
Now, let me go ahead and tell you the response some will provide; It's not a problem! We are fine as we are, and as long as we can sell, and take a PD, we'll be OK. If that's your position, fine. Some say ignorance is bliss! Be happy.
Several of us, myself, Dr. Ferguson, Professor Russo, and others have tried to point out new directions. Ways to improve ourselves and be more significant in the eye care delivery system. We have that opportunity if we just take it. But it is
getting closer. One state loses that license, and the rest will soon follow.
Take this seriously, folks. For many years, some have tried to get the attention of the majority. As Lord Perry said in the war of 1812, “We have met the enemy, and he is us”! Folks, it's not the disruptors, it's not the evil corporations, who by the way are now by far our biggest employers! The ODs no cooperate with us more than in the past because they too face challenges. The problems we face are of our own making. Apathy, and just a lack of moving forward. Three kinds of people. Those who let things happen, those who wonder what happened, and those who MAKE things happen.
To those who will do all you can to dispute what I am saying, go ahead. I am used to it, and you'll be the same as you were in the past. If you can't help. at least don't try to hurt us! But I do hope some will think a bit. We must get better, and we can. Let me know if these articles mentioned are new to you! I'm happy to send a copy if you send me an email.
And Judy, all Republicans, are not evil!
I agree with you, Dr. Warren: The enemy is us.
i can offer an effective counterpoint to all the traditional fiats supporting licensing. I am for education and certification, but not licensing.
B
Thanks, Barry. I understand your point, and that is the direction we're now headed. When licenses begin to fall, and it has been happening for several years now, we need to be prepared, and ready. I think the ABO NCLE has prepared and is set to do all it can to fill the void. But I want people to be aware. Change is coming. What we do with it now will be important. I always envisioned a profession that, like or colleagues in Optometry, Nursing and others, defined itself, rather than only market forces alone. We could have been, and still could be more.
I have been saying that we are our own worst enemy for years. And Warren, I have met very few Republicans who have my respect.
No Judy. Who's paying?Originally Posted by Judy Canty
Could be anyone. The process began with a report from JLARC, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in 2018. Interestingly, the committee targeted a number of professions including Opticianry but ignoring Hearing Aid Specialists which is the other half of the HASOPT (Hearing Aid Specialists/Opticians) Board. HAS regulates a much smaller profession than Opticians, so on its face the differentiation is suspect, at least in my opinion.
In this day and age, it's much more difficult to "follow the money", but it is telling when neither of the other "O's" have spoken in defense of our profession.
That is not to say that Opticians in VA have done a spectacular job of supporting each other, because we haven't. Most have been content to let a small group of active Opticians fight their battles for them, content to pay their licensing fees every 2 years and remain blissfully content in their own spheres. I will also add that the HASOPT Board solicited public input regarding the current regulations covering Opticians and if there were any changes thought to be necessary. There was exactly one (1) response and it was mine. It was opened many times by the HASOPT administration and became a sad commentary on involvment by my colleagues.
As I have shouted for more years than I care to acknowledge, WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US. As I have also said as a group, Opticians behave like "crabs in a bucket", willing to crawl over each other to assert their place, by virtue of license, certification, education and/or employer. Unless and until Opticians are willing to work together to move our profession forward, we will face these battles continuously.
Who is behind this? I have my ideas and they don't move far from our own industry. That's a discussion that I'll have when and if I ever decide to retire and allow my license to lapse.
Last edited by Judy Canty; 09-04-2023 at 12:18 PM.
Here's what goes on, undeniably.
A bunch of politicans (any party, mind you) are busy, but never too busy to get campaign contributions. That's how government works.
Big business has known, FOREVER that they can get what they want by buying available politicians (99% of them, and ESPECIALLY in Virginia).
They pay, they get their play.
So...again...cui bono?
When I testified in Ohio against dumbing down the requirements for optical chains to have a CL-licensed optician on premises to dispense contacts, the sponsor of the bill (yes, a Republican, BTW--former mayor of my small town, and a REAL piece of work) was contributed to by some shell organization that had an officious-sounding name, like "National Organization of Optical Retailers" or something. But it was 95% Luxottica/Lenscrafters (HQ near Cincinnatti) owned-and-operated.
And the votes were already whipped, and it was a mere formality. Luxottica got what it wanted...no licenses needed to dispense contacts.
But there was no one strong enough or interested enough (I was told by the Ohio Optometric Association that I did NOT represent organized optometry, but was on my own) to fight the machine.
Now anyone who doesn't understand this is naiive as hell.
PM'd you.
Now anyone who doesn't understand this is naiive as hell.
Indeed.
Sadly, very sadly, I don't think we're going to reverse this trend.
Opticianry doesn't pay well enough to have a pack of independents that have money to donate for political clout. And optometry couldn't care less. Arguments could be made that it benefits optometry, but optometry simply doesn't care about optical, even in their own back yards or offices.
So...there's always opportunity to stand out from the crowd. Even if optical care is deregulated (officially) (the trend has been inexorable) it's not easy to do right. Those that can survive independently may not get rich but can work for themselves and do a great job. (Maybe get a little rich.) People will find you.
And if you're kinda in it for the job, well, there are going to be less "big retail" opportunities but there will be some chances. Maybe use that as a training ground?
That is correct. Some will need to do things to make themselves stand out! We have the Great Santini's of the world, and then a few others, but for the most part, it's now a job. We, long ago wanted to provide a vehicle that would allow the Optician to separate themselves from the crowd, and started the Society to Advance Opticianry, we used the accountant as an example. One does not have to be a CPA, but that is considered the best. As licensure declines, there are coming new opportunities for Opticians to stand out. We'll figure it out! I appreciate your ongoing dialogue here.
Last edited by wmcdonald; 09-04-2023 at 04:48 PM.
This is where it's coming from:
"Soon after the Kochs funded its inception in the early 1990s, the Institute for Justice — a legal nonprofit that likes to call itself “the national law firm for liberty” — began challenging licensing in court. The lawyers at IJ cannily chose cases that were low-hanging fruit, suing on behalf of aspiring and aggrieved casket-makers, tour guides, limousine businesses, computer technicians, eyebrow-threaders and, yes, florists. As a bonus, these people’s stories — why do I need an expensive license for that? — made lively human-interest fodder for local news. The results of the litigation were mixed, but in some instances, states and cities deregulated these occupations to get clear of the lawsuits. And some non-libertarian economists, most notably President Obama’s chief economic adviser, the late Alan Krueger, began to agree that licensing was locking some low-income Americans out of good jobs."
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/featur...onal-licensing
Happened in Massachusetts under republican William Weld but our dominant Democratic super majority legislature fought back and the bill was defeated.
It lost, I think, for 2 reasons.
First- they bundled too many professions into it so hearings were well attended.
Second- there's a fair chunk of change that our states Division of Professional Licensure pulls in from all these professions. For opticians it's $42 a year.
I've always favored unionizing a chain (Wal...cough...mart) but I need a helmet and flak jacket now because that word never fails to rain down ordinance from all directions on me in my little foxhole.
If you read the link about 2/3 down:
Meanwhile, Koch-funded websites like the libertarian Reason and the right-wing Daily Caller, along with the always-friendly Wall Street Journal, would publish op-eds by Koch allies, treat each new Koch-funded study and ALEC-inspired piece of legislation as news, profile the lawmakers sponsoring the bills, and gin up outrage with feature stories about the human casualties of runaway licensing the Institute for Justice was representing in court. When the Kochs were rethinking their image, Arthur C. Brooks, president of the (yes, Koch-funded) American Enterprise Institute, had advised them to “lead with vulnerable people” in making the case for their free-market agenda. “Telling stories matters,” he said. “By telling stories, we can soften people.”
So the Koch network told stories. There was the one about the boy shoveling his grandmother’s snow in Normandy, Missouri, who received a warning from police because he didn’t have a permit for snow-shoveling services. There was the kid who set up a lemonade stand outside the Saratoga County Fair in New York, only to be shut down by a state health inspector when licensed lemonade vendors at the fair complained. (“Sadly,” wrote Reason’s Scott Shackford, “not enough people make the connection between these lemonade crackdowns and the broader ways licensing and permitting laws restrict people’s ability to earn a living.”) There was the poor department store florist in Louisiana — a widow, mind you — who lost her job because she kept failing the state board’s floral arrangement exam, and ultimately “died in poverty in 2004 because the state had prevented her from working to support herself.” There were the inmate firefighters in California, risking their necks to save lives and homes, who would be barred upon release from making a living doing the same because state law didn’t allow anyone with a criminal record to become a professional firefighter. And who could soon forget the sad tale of the Kentucky minister who tried to “dispense eyeglasses to the poor,” and was blocked by the state boards of Optometric Examiners and Ophthalmic Dispensers?
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 09-06-2023 at 09:23 AM. Reason: addition...
the fact that you still have licensing is impressive. Because every retailer wants that law tossed. And they have a TON of money behind them, and will eventually win.
Opticians would benefit greatly, IMHO, from
Throwing off the shackles of licensing and regulation, holding onto education and certification, and move to a more free market for their services.
B
Leaving the ABO-NCLE as the ONLY certifying body and the ONLY arbiter of acceptable education. "One ring to rule them all"
i accept your point. But the myriad of little state board fiefdoms is not a good alternative either.
This may not appear to be a positive interaction! But I am very pleased that we're having this conversation. We've sat and wondered what happened far too long!
Without those little "fiefdoms", opticianry as an independent profession will all but cease to exist. There is no requirement anywhere for the certification provided by the ABO-NCLE. Opticianry will be absorbed by OD/MD practices and corporate entities. There will be no need for the college-based education that so many have worked to establish.
The general public will not have the protections that licensure and regulation provide.
The purpose of licensure of almost any profession is to ensure public safety. Anyone want a new home wired by Joe Schmoe down the street?
In general, I am in favor of licensure of most professions, including ours. However, there needs to be better reciprocation and communication among licensed states. I moved from Kentucky to Florida in 2016. Both states have exactly the same requirements for licensure. I was made to take the NCSORB by Florida because I got licensed in Kentucky before the test went into effect (I took my practical in person in front of members of the KY board).
Florida would not accept Ky's official website portal for license verification. They required the KY board to send it via snail mail to the FL board. There is only one contact person in KY and it took me MONTHS before I could get this accomplished. I called and left messages and emails several times a week.
It took 6 months before I could sit for the NCSORB because of BS red tape of both states. I complained to both boards and I still have very little positive to say about either one.
Last edited by Elvis Is Alive; 09-07-2023 at 01:14 PM.
You are not wrong. Nearly every profession has state specific licenses but they seem to play nice together. Ours don't.
This argument of protecting the public from harm is without merit today
we no longer have glass lenses
and fashion increasingly drives most want of eyewear
And the fiefdoms ensure lack of intelligent standards.
i say end licensing.
the abo will at least ensure consistent set of knowledge.
we can discuss what that should contain.
B
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks