Protecting your optical license

The burden to prove that an Optical License is necessary to protect the public from harm lies on the shoulders of the Licensed Dispensing Optician. To the Licensed Practitioner who experiences sub-standard eyewear, complicated prescriptions, abuse of contact lenses and a multitude of other potentially dangerous circumstances to patients and consumers on a daily basis, this is as apparent as someone needing a license to drive a car.

If we do not allow a non-licensed driver on the road due to the apparent safety concerns, then why would you trust someone without a license to fit and prepare something as essential as properly fabricated eyewear? To the legislator or the lay person who questions this necessity, the answer is not quite so clear. The lawmakers are continuously bombarded by parties who would benefit by a deregulation of Optical Dispensing with arguments that call this necessity into question.

As Optical Dispensers we often find ourselves on the defensive side rather than the assertive side of this argument. How do we change this position?

License mobility

Currently license mobility is a topic of discussion. The number of practitioners in most states do not number high enough to satisfy the corporate rate of expansion as they scramble to obtain their hefty slice of the baby boomer and millennial pie.

A movement toward license mobility has been proposed as a partial solution to this situation. Mobility itself is not a bad suggestion; many other healthcare professions have adopted a form of mobility to ease the burden of licensed practitioners. Optometry, nursing and a few others are examples of health care professions which have successfully been able to adopt license mobility.

Mobility calls for an agreement on the standards among states on training and testing for licensure. Currently the spectrum of qualifications and training for practice and/or licensure vary widely from state to state. This division on qualifications and training has left the industry vulnerable to those who would question the necessity of any standards or regulations. Sadly, the opportunity to call the necessity of licensure and regulation through state boards of Opticianry into question has been seized by one of the organizations proposing mobility.

Below is an excerpt from the opinion written by the NAOO (National Association of Optometrists and Opticians) to the Federal Trade Commission asking for an investigation into license mobility. This organization represents big box optical chains and retailers. The document may be read in its entirety at ftc.gov.

Are there some occupations for which it would be better to reduce or eliminate licensing requirements, rather than develop an interstate licensure compact or model law to ease licensing requirements across state lines?

Response: Yes, there are opportunities to reduce licensing requirements in both opticianry and optometry without harming the health, safety or welfare of the public.

States should not license an occupation unless there is clear and convincing evidence presented by the proponents of licensing that:

• The unregulated practice of the occupation or profession clearly harms or endangers the health, safety or welfare of the public;
• The potential for harm is easily recognizable and not remote or dependent on tenuous argument;
• The public needs, and can be reasonably expected to benefit from, an assurance of initial and continuing professional or occupational competence; and
• The public cannot be adequately protected by other means in a more cost-effective manner.

Additionally, states should look carefully at claims that licensing is necessary to “advance” or “develop” the profession seeking licensure. Too often, when there is no evidence of a public health, safety or financial welfare need for or benefit from licensure, these are code words for restricting supply to drive up income for the fortunate few who obtain licensure.

These principles are drawn from the Colorado Sunrise Act, §24-34-104.1, C.R.S. Other state Sunrise Acts and proposals use similar standards, e.g. Arizona (A.R.S. §§ 32-3101 through 32-3106 and 32-4401 through 32-4403). A health profession shall be regulated by this state only if:

1. Unregulated practice can clearly harm or endanger the public health, safety or welfare and the potential for harm is easily recognizable and not remote or dependent on tenuous agreement;
2. The public needs and can reasonably be expected to benefit from an assurance of initial and continuing professional ability; and
3. The public cannot be effectively protected by other means in a more cost beneficial manner.

What this means for us

In response to this question each state may be called upon to justify the existence of a Board of Opticians to protect the public. As stated previously, mobility is not a bad concept; however, the state regulation and requirements of training must be such as they add value to being licensed and serve to the protection of the public. “On the job training” that is provided in many instances in a retail environment can no longer serve as the only means of training of what is necessary to provide proper protection to the public from harm. As an industry we must endeavor to further substantiate our profession through education while being mindful that achievement of licensure be obtainable in a timely manner. We must be cautious to not swing the pendulum of balance too heavy to either side.

We must make a stand when we see regulations broken. We can no longer afford the luxury of looking the other way or hiding in the shadows. Every regulation that is allowed to be broken without being brought to light negates the value of a license to protect the public from harm. Complaints may be made anonymously or with full disclosure, but they must be made to protect the integrity of the profession. We can no longer use the excuse that nothing will be done. To coin an old phrase, “the squeaky wheel gets the oil.” It is time to squeak. I encourage you: if you are in a position that causes your professional integrity to be brought into question, speak out. Your future livelihood may depend on your voice.

We must get involved at a state and national level. Write or visit your government officials. Let them know the importance of your profession to the protection of the public. Share your stories. Be proud — call yourself a Licensed Dispensing Optician.