I have an interview comming up and I have been researching like crazy trying to find currents issues that are affecting optometrists. I have found several topics, but I was wondering if anyone knew of some specific bills or legislative issues that are hot topics right now.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
current issues in optometry
- Thread starter kmccartin
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
what have you found??
While I have found several articles, I unfortunately feel like I don't know enough about the politics or the business yet to fully understand the finer details of what these changes imply to the field of optometry. I guess I spent to much time with my nose in a book, or working over the last few years. :-/ Anyways, I digress. I'm able to grasp the major concepts of he following below articles, and I have been practicing (meaning talking to myself) going over the basic points of each to make sure that I don't just memorize their points, but fully understand them, but I'm still just a little worried.
The main points that I got from this article, is that according to the bills passed by congress, the optometry practice will continue to be/now will be considered something that should and will be covered under medicare. This should obviously be a plus for not only citizens with medicare, but also for practices, but I've also heard that medicare doesn't provide optometrists with very much compensation for their services, so it may not help business that much.
http://www.aoa.org/x14659.xml
I have found several article that reference the Affordable Care Act (http://www.aoa.org/x22185.xml) and that is has parts that are potentially harmful to the field, so I am researching further into that. However, with the Supreme court dismissing challenges to provisions that I'm assuming the AOA wanted to have, maybe this is old news.
Of course the AOA preaches on their website that they are lobbying in Washington to support Optometry careers, and I would like to assume that they are beneficial to the field, is that true?
I found one article dating back in May 2012 that discussed the hundreds of optometrists and optometry students that went to Washington to argue against several issues that included Medicaid cuts, granting vision coverage and access to children, and again, the Harkin Amendment. In the article it said they were working towards "Expanding access to high-quality health care services and introducing much-needed competition into the health care marketplace by fully implementing new federal provider non-discrimination safeguards (Harkin Amendment)." What do they mean by "non-discrimination safeguards."? Who are being discriminated against? Optometrists? I know there are threads and talks on forums about other doctors working into and offering refractions and Optometrists becoming, in a sense, obsolete, but I'm not interesting in discussing that here. I'm just wondering if that is what they mean by the discrimination.
The Harkin Amendment was mentioned to have been passes, and the AOA said that that was a "win" for Optometry. After researching the amendment, I found this quote "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that providers license or certification under applicable State law." and it sounds like it would benefit optometry. Maybe I will try to focus on this.
The main points that I got from this article, is that according to the bills passed by congress, the optometry practice will continue to be/now will be considered something that should and will be covered under medicare. This should obviously be a plus for not only citizens with medicare, but also for practices, but I've also heard that medicare doesn't provide optometrists with very much compensation for their services, so it may not help business that much.
http://www.aoa.org/x14659.xml
I have found several article that reference the Affordable Care Act (http://www.aoa.org/x22185.xml) and that is has parts that are potentially harmful to the field, so I am researching further into that. However, with the Supreme court dismissing challenges to provisions that I'm assuming the AOA wanted to have, maybe this is old news.
Of course the AOA preaches on their website that they are lobbying in Washington to support Optometry careers, and I would like to assume that they are beneficial to the field, is that true?
I found one article dating back in May 2012 that discussed the hundreds of optometrists and optometry students that went to Washington to argue against several issues that included Medicaid cuts, granting vision coverage and access to children, and again, the Harkin Amendment. In the article it said they were working towards "Expanding access to high-quality health care services and introducing much-needed competition into the health care marketplace by fully implementing new federal provider non-discrimination safeguards (Harkin Amendment)." What do they mean by "non-discrimination safeguards."? Who are being discriminated against? Optometrists? I know there are threads and talks on forums about other doctors working into and offering refractions and Optometrists becoming, in a sense, obsolete, but I'm not interesting in discussing that here. I'm just wondering if that is what they mean by the discrimination.
The Harkin Amendment was mentioned to have been passes, and the AOA said that that was a "win" for Optometry. After researching the amendment, I found this quote "A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not discriminate with respect to participation under the plan or coverage against any health care provider who is acting within the scope of that providers license or certification under applicable State law." and it sounds like it would benefit optometry. Maybe I will try to focus on this.
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 393
You're doing fine. No one will expect you to be able to fully understand the fine details of these political issues. Just being aware that they exist is a good start. Most committees would expect you to know a thing or two about the issues in the state(s) that you are interested in practicing in and have at least a rudimentary position on them so I would start there.
Thanks. I'm interviewing at PUCO and my boyfriend and I really want to settle down in Oregon when I am done with school, so I will polish up on what I've found going on in national news, and research Oregon issues. I must say, once I started researching and finding news, it is all really interesting, so that's nice that at least it isn't boring me 🙂.
Thanks. I'm interviewing at PUCO and my boyfriend and I really want to settle down in Oregon when I am done with school, so I will polish up on what I've found going on in national news, and research Oregon issues. I must say, once I started researching and finding news, it is all really interesting, so that's nice that at least it isn't boring me 🙂.
Phone the Oregon Optometric Physicians Association (OOPA) at 503-654-5036. Ask them what the current issues are in the state. Oregon has a fairly good scope of practice in that we are licensed to use injectables (anterior segment only).
The main issue currently in my opinion is getting defined federally as providers of medicaid services (H.R. 1219). Currently in my practice if I have a patient that has a foreign body, or conjunctivitis, etc, and they are on medicaid, most of them now (as of September 1st) must drive into town to see an ophthalmologist for those services. It's a complete waste of my patients time and resources.
If you have any specific questions regarding PUCO or practicing in Oregon, just PM me.
