October 18th, 2006

FYI
It was asked at fall convention---Since an apprentice optician must 
be supervised 100% of the time when doing contact lenses, can they 
hand out boxes of contact lenses to a patient when a LDO is not on 
the premises?
The answer, according to the DOH is Yes!! Our law says that they must 
be supervised 100% of the time when fitting and adjusting contact lenses. 
There is no reference for dispensing! 

 

September 6th, 2006

 

In answer to the concerns raised at spring convention.

 

At the spring convention of 2003, Bill Gregory motioned to proceed with option 3.

The motion was amended by Glenn Charles to be a feasibility study of pursuing option 3.

The motion passed with the amendments.

A committee was formed.  Members were, Diane Charles, Dan Riley, Maureen Irey, Dennis Prescott, Cathy Nguyen, and Ginny Lashley.

We met and decided that the only way to continue with option 3 was to be able to expand the educational opportunities across the state.  In other words, to have our program in more colleges across the state.

At the fall convention we presented our report, and said we were still unclear how we were going to expand the education piece of our plan.

We met with Lisa Thatcher and Judy Haenke.  Also, Pam Lovinger from the DOH.  They recommended contacting the Technical college people.

We knew it would require major legislative action as it is a substantive change in our law.  Our lobbyist at that time cost @ $36,000. per year.  It would require many, many meetings across the state to get ALL licensed and non-licensed opticians on board with the idea.  It would require reactivating the Pac Fund for donations to many legislators. It would require an extremely active grass roots effort to get active on every legislative campaign in this state.  Our best guess is it would increase our dues by @ $100. per member per year for the duration.  We believed it could not be started without continuing. And we were unsure of putting a time line on this issue.  We knew our opposition would be the corporates and the optometrists, and believed some of our own members would be unhappy with this issue

I talked to Michelle Andreas from the Technical college group.  She did some research and came up with the opinion that at that time we were a flat industry.  She based that on the fact that there was no waiting list for entry into our existing program, and that there were very few want adds in the papers of the 5 largest counties in the state.  As money was very tight in the state budget, they could not at that time see expanding into other colleges across our state.  She did recommend reinvestigating in @ 3 - 5 years.

At our spring of 2004 convention, the committee made a report, that we recommended not pursuing option 3 at this time, and that we recommended not putting a time line on this issue, but to revisit it at a later date.

At spring of 2005 the committee made their final report.  We realized it would be a several year process to pursue option three.  We believed we completed our request from the members of doing a feasibility study.  We recommended that a new committee be formed to pursue other avenues of education in our state and continue looking at option three in the future.

 

Thank You

Diane Charles

Alphabet Soup for the Ophthalmic Industry

 

AAO American Academy of Optometry

AAO American Academy of Ophthalmology

ABO American Board of Opticianry

AOA American Optometric Association

BVI  Better Vision Institute

CLAO  Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists

CLI   Contact Lens Institute

CLES  Contact Lens Eyecare Symposium

COA Commission on Opticianry Accreditation

EFOO  Educational Foundation in Ophthalmic Optics

JCAHPO  Joint Commission on Allied Health Professionals in

                  Ophthalmology

NAO National Academy of Opticians

NCSORB  National Committee of State Opticianry Regulatory Boards

NCLE  National Contact Lens Examiners

NFOS  National Federation of Opticianry Schools

OAA Opticians Association of America

VCA  Vision Council of America

 

   Education Task Force Cost & Feasability Results

 

         At the request of the OAW and its board, pursuant to a vote taken at the spring convention of 2003 on Bill Gregory’s motion to accept option 3 and as amended by Glenn Charles’ motion to study the cost of formulating and presenting such an issue to the legislature, a committee was formed to look at the issue of making a two year degree mandatory for becoming a LDO in the state of Washington. As part of this investigation, information has been gathered and a schedule of events, a task list if you will, has been compiled spelling out the steps that must be done before this proposal can become law. Three things are apparent before the process actually begins, and those three things are:

 

It will take time

It will take commitment

It will take money

 

·        The patients see us as professionals, but with formal education, other health care providers will see us as the professionals we are. As stated before, opticianry is the only health related job that can be attained other than by going to school. There must be input from opticians everywhere as to why this change is needed.

 

·        All interested parties must meet together. This proposal requires meeting with all interested and involved parties around the entire state. These will NOT be one time meetings, rather it can be planned that there will be MANY meetings involved in submitting this proposal.

 

·        Feasibility of the proposal needs to be discussed with all parties, and this includes technical college representatives. Could such a program be made available to all interested parties across the state? The question of conquering geographical/physical barriers should be addressed. Since this would involve the colleges, what would they have to do to make sure that this could move forward? It should be kept in mind that if the law is changed, schools must abide by state law. If the law changes, the school system will change. It should also be noted that there are now several “on line” opticianry degrees available; for example, the Charter Oaks State College degree.

 

·        Meetings must occur with the Department of Health. Are there any barriers to this new requirement that they can see and state? It needs to be known if this proposal impacts the DOH financially, and along with the DOH are there potential impacts to employers and health care in general?

 

·        Meetings must happen with the Department of Labor and Industries. These meetings must be of a collaborative nature to see what could be done about implementing this change.

 

·        Meetings must be held with the optometrists, the ophthalmologists, the chains and any and all  other parties that can be identified. These types of meetings must include ANY INTERESTED PARTIES.

 

·        Build and prepare legislation reflecting what has been learned by meeting with all interested parties.

 

How Long Will This All Take?

Best estimates range in the area of 8-12 years. This will allow time for all meetings to occur and all apprentices registered to finish out their allotted time under the current law.

 

How Would This Affect Current License Holders?

Any legislation would have to include a “grandfather” clause under which all current license holders would still continue to hold their licenses; basically, if this law were to pass, all current license holders would be unaffected by the change. The proposed change would only affect persons wishing to sit for the LDO exam after the law goes into effect, and not already enrolled as an apprentice.

 

How Much Money Do We Need To Make This Happen?

The best estimates put the cost of developing this legislation at approximately 50-55 thousand dollars per year for the time noted above, depending on the rapidity of the process. This amount should cover the cost of a lobbyist and PAC contributions. We do not need to have all the money in hand to begin the process! As far as money to fund this project, it is recommended that we should contact all national organizations, state organizations and the national federation of opticianry schools to present our mission and to ask for their financial support. THE AMOUNT NOTED IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS OF ENACTING THIS LEGISLATION.

 

        This proposal, as noted near the beginning of this report, is going to take time, effort and money. Every optician in this state should be informed as to what is being proposed. If it is decided that this project should go forward, all opticians must understand what is being proposed, support the proposal and the outcome. It needs to be said that if we go ahead, every member of the OAW will need to become a “de facto” member of the committee and be prepared to work as needed to attain the goal.

 

 

Volunteer Opticians Needed

        The Millionair Club of Seattle , a mission downtown, has an eye clinic established one day a week. We have been dispensing about 275 pair of eyeglasses per year there for the last 12 years. The eye exams are provided by VOSH doctors. The equipment is all donated. The lenses are paid for by the West Seattle Lions Club. The frames are all new, donated by many sources.

        We are in need of optician volunteers, licensed or not, Thursday AM, from 9:00 to about 12:00 . You will usually see 7 people plus maybe a repair or two. Only very basic skills are needed: PD’s, seg heights & frame pre-adjustments. Only SV & flat topped bifocals are used.

        The people are so appreciative. They are clean & sober, or else they wouldn’t qualify to get the glasses. It’s mostly men and a few women. If you can spare even one morning in 4 to 6 months, it would be greatly appreciated.

        Please contact Diane Charles to be added to the schedule. Her phone number is (425) 885-7028 Tuesday-Saturday.  

 

   

 What to do about un-licensed practice?

 

          First of all, what constitutes un-licensed practice? Obviously, someone practicing opticianry independently without evidence of a license on the premises. A “frame consultant” taking PDs and seg heights. An un-licensed employee of a medical doctor or optometrist who works while the doctor is at another location. An apprentice optician working longer unsupervised hours than allowed.

          What can you do about it? While an anonymous call to the Department of Health sounds tempting, the only real way to get action is to file a written complaint. The complaint should be as detailed as possible as to the time(s) of the infraction, the name of the individual, and the nature of the infraction, as well as your name. The chance of your name being revealed to the individual is very small, but can happen in a court of law. Most enforcement is made voluntarily by either the individual or the employer.

 Could this practice harm the public?  According to David Magby, the Chief Investigator for the DOH, if the answer is “yes” the individual will be contacted within a few days to two weeks, depending on the urgency of the situation. Upon receiving a written complaint, the investigative unit has up to 150 days to complete its investigation. David says the average investigation is being completed within 90 days. Companies and corporations are not subject to investigation, as they are not licensed entities in this state, a situation that could change in the future.

          One way you can be sure not to be mistaken for an un-licensed practitioner is to keep your license in plain view of the public at your practice. Encourage the public to ask for the licensed status of the dispensers they encounter. And don’t be too shy to report infractions!  

Report infractions in written form to Judy Haenke, our Optician Program director at the Department of Health. Letter, fax or email will work. The mailing address is:

Washington Department of Health

Health Professions Quality Assurance Division (HPQAD)

PO Box 1099

Olympia, WA 98507-1099

fax # (360) 586-0745

email: judy.haenke@doh.wa.gov

 

 

 

Home / OAW Office / Legislation / Education / Convention / Membership