Optometry Scope of Practice in California

[Doctor]

Ergo, OD's are THE primary eye care provider.......primary eye care physicians......

I should add that being a primary care provider has nothing to do with being a physician, in this specialty or any other. There are Nurse Practitioners who are primary care providers all over the U.S. ... and not just for eyeballs. Are Nurse Practitioners considered physicians because they provide primary care? Of course not.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ophthal3]

As a med student, I have worked with several outstanding optometrists during rotations, and every one of them referred to themselves as OPTOMETRIST, not doctor or eye physician. The posts on this thread from optometry STUDENTS calling themselves (already) "eye physician, future glaucoma specialist" etc should not be taken as the voice of all optometrists. These threads that degenerate into lame insult exchanges demean everyone involved. A little professional decorum, please, before another round of mudslinging begins in reference to the above post...

 

[hello07]

opthal3,
the majority of OD's out there address themselves as optometrist and as eye doctors or as Dr. so and so. pay no mind to "future glaucoma specialist" and "optometric physician" terms. The ones who use them are crying for help and recognition above and beyond what we really are.
As far as OD students using the above terms, pay no mind to them. The 33,000 plus practicing OD's in this country are more realistic than the very few delusional OD's that echo their sentiment.
I got banned 2 weeks trying to explain to someone with no knowledge wat reality is ll about but my emotions got the best of me.
just ignore those terms.

 

[ophthal3]

Right Hello07, we are on the same page. I was trying to tell "Doctor" not to get bent out of shape over some of the posts on this thread, as they are not at all reflective of any of the optometrists I have worked with (and learned from). Intelligent discussion regarding practice scope is one thing, name calling and bickering (which is what these threads come to most often) is unproductive and petty.

 

[hello07]

i agree ophthal3

 

[vsarge0708]

.

 

[362.04]

Any time that a bill will amend existing law, the legislation will show the current law and then cross out the existing language and replace it with the proposed changes.

At this time, the legislature has asked optometry and ophthalmology to negotiate amongst themselves. With that agreement given by both parties, the bill has those lines stricken to clarify more than anything else the practice of optometry in CA.

Should the negotiations fail to create an agreement, it is likely that the legislature will remind both sides (mainly ophthalmology) that the legislative intent of the last bill, SB 929 (Polanco, Chapter. 676, Statutes of 2000) was created with the understanding that no redefinition bill would come up before the legislature for 10 years. In consideration, both sides gained equal shares of what they wanted. Optometry agreed to withhold any new efforts at redefinition for 10 years. It is now 10 years past and we find ophthalmology and optometry again negotiating hopefully in earnest to come to some common ground for a new bill.

I'm sure both sides are resolute but legislative intent is a funny thing. Despite what ever rash or deliberately inflammatory language that is used by any side, the legislature seems to be quite pragmatic on this subject and is grounded in achieving a settlement and has reminded that both sides agreed to the truce in the aftermath of AB 929. Neither is the legislature swayed by any kind of extremism or subterfuge by either side that will detract from a result. Organized optometry has met its promise by awaiting 10 years and awaiting ophthalmology to meet theirs.

If the legislative intent is not observed, I can foresee the legislature not avoiding the subject but crafting something else which might surprise both sides. If either side wants a better say in the final bill, I would recommend that negotiations be done in a more good faith manner than I think has transpired over the last year and a half.

By the way, ophthalmology has known full well what the shape of the SB1406 might take for some time before its introduction. This is part of the legislative intent that was hammered 10 years before.