Expanding the Scope of Optometry

[The Dark Knight]

I know my guess is as good as the next guys, but given that I'm only a medical student I'd like to hear from the eye surgeons in the field already about what they think the next 25 years will have in store for the field of ophthalmology with respect to increasing scope of optometry?

It seems like many optometrist want to expand their scope of practice so that they can feel like surgeons and physicians, as well as make more money. I for one can't blame them because being a surgeon does sound very nice and money is always a good thing, even if they aren't qualified..

That said, will their attempts to increase their scope of practice to include more surgery make any progress based on what you've already seen in Oklahoma and New Mexico, or are theese just very specific cases based on the needs of those 2 states only?

What is being done by the AMA or other organizations to prevent surgery from being performed by those that are not trained in this area. Are optometry schools considering residencies and adding surgery to their curriculum.. or heck can they even do that?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Meibomian SxN]

I know my guess is as good as the next guys, but given that I'm only a medical student I'd like to hear from the eye surgeons in the field already about what they think the next 25 years will have in store for the field of ophthalmology with respect to increasing scope of optometry?

It seems like many optometrist want to expand their scope of practice so that they can feel like surgeons and physicians, as well as make more money. I for one can't blame them because being a surgeon does sound very nice and money is always a good thing, even if they aren't qualified..

That said, will their attempts to increase their scope of practice to include more surgery make any progress based on what you've already seen in Oklahoma and New Mexico, or are theese just very specific cases based on the needs of those 2 states only?

What is being done by the AMA or other organizations to prevent surgery from being performed by those that are not trained in this area. Are optometry schools considering residencies and adding surgery to their curriculum.. or heck can they even do that?

...Waiting for the piss fest to begin...:troll:

 

[DKofLV]

I know my guess is as good as the next guys, but given that I'm only a medical student I'd like to hear from the eye surgeons in the field already about what they think the next 25 years will have in store for the field of ophthalmology with respect to increasing scope of optometry?

It seems like many optometrist want to expand their scope of practice so that they can feel like surgeons and physicians, as well as make more money. I for one can't blame them because being a surgeon does sound very nice and money is always a good thing, even if they aren't qualified..

That said, will their attempts to increase their scope of practice to include more surgery make any progress based on what you've already seen in Oklahoma and New Mexico, or are theese just very specific cases based on the needs of those 2 states only?

What is being done by the AMA or other organizations to prevent surgery from being performed by those that are not trained in this area. Are optometry schools considering residencies and adding surgery to their curriculum.. or heck can they even do that?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE people...dont respond to this and start another set of ugliness on here...Ophtho and Optom have their thoughts on this and it has been beaten to death already...so instead of beating a dead horse, look at the top of the forum, there is one thread that discusses this (about Oklahoma), there are also many other times when this has been brought up

 

[caprese]

Maybe he's trolling, but maybe not. I'm a third year medical student who is leaning toward ophthalmology but this is definitely a topic I'd like to know more about as well. Every field has its issues but this is one that comes up in ophtho. I know there is a 10+ page sticky thread discussing it, but if someone wouldn't mind giving a quick synopsis of how the new laws in OK and NM will effect the field as a whole, the chance it will spread to more states and whether it is anything to worry about, I would definitely appreciate it (as would the other anonymous medical students stalking this board). Thanks!

 

[MR1]

Quick synopsis. It won't affect ophthalmology at all. There will probably always be a subset of OD's trying to push scope but in reality it is only about 1% of them that truely want to do surgery.

In reality, like in OK now, they will get lasers, so maybe YAGs and SLT's, I don't see retina lasers being an issue though, too much liability. Never surgery, don't worry. As far as refractive lasers, the bottom dropped out of the market so this doesn't matter anymore.

Bottom line, don't worry about it at all, if you want to do ophtho, do it. OD's won't put you out of your job. There just isn't a market demand for more eye surgeons.

 

[MstaKing10]

here we go...

 

[DKofLV]

Maybe he's trolling, but maybe not. I'm a third year medical student who is leaning toward ophthalmology but this is definitely a topic I'd like to know more about as well. Every field has its issues but this is one that comes up in ophtho. I know there is a 10+ page sticky thread discussing it, but if someone wouldn't mind giving a quick synopsis of how the new laws in OK and NM will effect the field as a whole, the chance it will spread to more states and whether it is anything to worry about, I would definitely appreciate it (as would the other anonymous medical students stalking this board). Thanks!

If you care enough, either read the previous posts about OK or find the other discussion previously done here below

 

[eyehope]

Quick synopsis. It won't affect ophthalmology at all. There will probably always be a subset of OD's trying to push scope but in reality it is only about 1% of them that truely want to do surgery.

In reality, like in OK now, they will get lasers, so maybe YAGs and SLT's, I don't see retina lasers being an issue though, too much liability. Never surgery, don't worry. As far as refractive lasers, the bottom dropped out of the market so this doesn't matter anymore.

Bottom line, don't worry about it at all, if you want to do ophtho, do it. OD's won't put you out of your job. There just isn't a market demand for more eye surgeons.

I hate to rehash this argument and sound like an alarmist, but this a valid concern for anyone considering this field. Certainly, this 'turf battle' is not unique to ophthalmology. I love the field, but as EyeMDs, we should be very concerned.

1. The public does not know of the difference between optometrists and ophthalmologists (ask your patients if you do not believe me). This puts general ophthalmologists (and even some subspecialty ophthalmologists) in direct competition with optometrists - particularly in saturated regions. Why? Because the patient doesn't know the difference in training between the two. In other sub-specialties, it is clear when the provider is not an MD (CRNA, NP).

2. Optometrists outnumber ophthalmologists by at least 2-3 to 1. This means more support (more $$) for their political action committees (PAC). If you think $$ has no influence in politics, you are very wrong. Unless we support our PACs more, it is only a matter of time until we lose the legislative battles going on in most states. Unfortunately, some EyeMDs are hesitant to fight the fight because they solely rely on OD referrals.

3. It does not matter if only 1 or 2% of optometrists desire surgical privileges. Once the legislation passes, many more will want to do surgery. When that happens, there will always be a willing EyeMD to teach them.

4. Optometry continues to expand schools while the number of residency spots remains stable. This means more OD graduates. See #2.

5. Evolving technology like femto laser cataract surgery will put even more surgery (laser) into the possible scope of optometrists. If they can do YAGs and PIs, what stops them from doing femto laser cataracts (as least the initial parts). Some form of femto-laser will probably be the standard cataract procedure within 10-15 years (see Alcon's purchase of LenSX). Think of the feeding frenzy from 2-3M cataract surgeries per year- it will be a bloodbath.

 

[Visionary]

I hate to rehash this argument and sound like an alarmist, but this a valid concern for anyone considering this field. Certainly, this 'turf battle' is not unique to ophthalmology. I love the field, but as EyeMDs, we should be very concerned.

1. The public does not know of the difference between optometrists and ophthalmologists (ask your patients if you do not believe me). This puts general ophthalmologists (and even some subspecialty ophthalmologists) in direct competition with optometrists - particularly in saturated regions. Why? Because the patient doesn't know the difference in training between the two. In other sub-specialties, it is clear when the provider is not an MD (CRNA, NP).

2. Optometrists outnumber ophthalmologists by at least 2-3 to 1. This means more support (more $$) for their political action committees (PAC). If you think $$ has no influence in politics, you are very wrong. Unless we support our PACs more, it is only a matter of time until we lose the legislative battles going on in most states. Unfortunately, some EyeMDs are hesitant to fight the fight because they solely rely on OD referrals.

3. It does not matter if only 1 or 2% of optometrists desire surgical privileges. Once the legislation passes, many more will want to do surgery. When that happens, there will always be a willing EyeMD to teach them.

4. Optometry continues to expand schools while the number of residency spots remains stable. This means more OD graduates. See #2.

5. Evolving technology like femto laser cataract surgery will put even more surgery (laser) into the possible scope of optometrists. If they can do YAGs and PIs, what stops them from doing femto laser cataracts (as least the initial parts). Some form of femto-laser will probably be the standard cataract procedure within 10-15 years (see Alcon's purchase of LenSX). Think of the feeding frenzy from 2-3M cataract surgeries per year- it will be a bloodbath.

Wasn't really looking to jump into this, but wanted to comment on some of your points:

1. Completely accurate. I hear this all the time.

2. Partially accurate. Yes, optometrists outnumber ophthalmologists, but that doesn't have as much to do with the money aspect as does the fact that ophthalmologists simply don't donate like optometrists. For optometrists, it's more like a tithe--the expectation is that you donate to your PAC. It's like pulling teeth to get ophthalmologists to donate. Sad.

3. Maybe, maybe not. Cataracts don't reimburse as well as they used to, and competition has dramatically dropped LASIK charges.

4. Accurate, but as some optometrists on this board will likely tell you, that actually threatens to saturate their field.

5. Don't agree with this one. Cataract surgery will never be a completely laser-based procedure. There will always be an invasive component, as the lens material must be removed and an IOL placed. Of course, many in the community are doubtful that femtosecond laser cataract surgery will even catch on. The ROI would be terrible. The equipment is (at least for now) far too expensive, and there is no significant demonstrable safety/efficiency benefit over phaco yet. Your projection of 10-15 years seems optimistic. The technology first has to make it into the training institutions in sufficient quantity. Doubt many already in practice will be looking to reinvent the wheel. We'll see.

 

[PBEA]

I hate to rehash this argument and sound like an alarmist, but this a valid concern for anyone considering this field. Certainly, this 'turf battle' is not unique to ophthalmology. I love the field, but as EyeMDs, we should be very concerned.

1. The public does not know of the difference between optometrists and ophthalmologists (ask your patients if you do not believe me). This puts general ophthalmologists (and even some subspecialty ophthalmologists) in direct competition with optometrists - particularly in saturated regions. Why? Because the patient doesn't know the difference in training between the two. In other sub-specialties, it is clear when the provider is not an MD (CRNA, NP).

2. Optometrists outnumber ophthalmologists by at least 2-3 to 1. This means more support (more $$) for their political action committees (PAC). If you think $$ has no influence in politics, you are very wrong. Unless we support our PACs more, it is only a matter of time until we lose the legislative battles going on in most states. Unfortunately, some EyeMDs are hesitant to fight the fight because they solely rely on OD referrals.

3. It does not matter if only 1 or 2% of optometrists desire surgical privileges. Once the legislation passes, many more will want to do surgery. When that happens, there will always be a willing EyeMD to teach them.

4. Optometry continues to expand schools while the number of residency spots remains stable. This means more OD graduates. See #2.

5. Evolving technology like femto laser cataract surgery will put even more surgery (laser) into the possible scope of optometrists. If they can do YAGs and PIs, what stops them from doing femto laser cataracts (as least the initial parts). Some form of femto-laser will probably be the standard cataract procedure within 10-15 years (see Alcon's purchase of LenSX). Think of the feeding frenzy from 2-3M cataract surgeries per year- it will be a bloodbath.

here's a little more fuel

1. So what? The public doesn't know that non-ophtho MDs (PCP's, pedes, etc) get relatively little training with regard to the eye. Yet they flock to their PCP or just get those "steroid drops" called in over the phone. ODs are infinitely more qualified then these folks, but I don't hear you crying about a PCPs "lack of qualifications, training, or experience". Nahhhhh, that's not a double standard Hell even NP's and PAs have greater license to diagnose and tx eye disease then ODs. That's a frickin joke. If I hear another doctor saying that I can't follow the patient for diabetic eye disease, or manage their glaucoma, I'm going to start filing slander suits in my neck of the woods. Be forewarned you arrogant loudmouths.

2. I would add that optometry is CONSTANTLY on the defensive, if there weren't some money in the coffers, ODs would be limited to refraction. Organized medicine basically thinks ODs are "sight testers". You guys ever going to get your head out of the clouds? Frankly, I find this policy to be unethical, immoral, etc. You guys are a bunch of liars.

3. Nope, market is too small.

4. yes, this is a problem, but I think this may be part of the education bubble that is going to burst. I believe a number of osteopathic schools have just opened up optometry programs, and why not? They just want to make more money, its called capitalism. I don't like it, but the powers that be cry "anti-trust" when it comes to controlling OD numbers.

5. can't answer to that, but again doubtful, limited market (save maybe under served rural fantasyland). If there is ophtho to do these procedures then its a no brainer, they do them, end of discussion.

I think prospective ophtho's need to look in the mirror. The oversupply is in ophtho as well. ODs have saturated the routine exam market, and many have supplemented with some low to middle level medical management of the eye. Ophtho has flat out saturated the surgical market, ODs have NOTHING to do with your dwindling volume, or salaries. And please don't give me this nonsense about "baby boomers", that ship set sail awhile ago. Lastly it seems ophtho, in an effort to bolster their practices have added opticals en masse, and are booked out several months seeing borderline diabetics without retinopathy. Why? oh that's right because the ODs can't do that stuff (turn on your sarcasm sonar folks, because I am pinging away here). Pretty transparent, self-serving tripe, imo.


all flames welcome here

 

[MR1]

here's a little more fuel

1. So what? The public doesn't know that non-ophtho MDs (PCP's, pedes, etc) get relatively little training with regard to the eye. Yet they flock to their PCP or just get those "steroid drops" called in over the phone. ODs are infinitely more qualified then these folks, but I don't hear you crying about a PCPs "lack of qualifications, training, or experience". Nahhhhh, that's not a double standard Hell even NP's and PAs have greater license to diagnose and tx eye disease then ODs. That's a frickin joke. If I hear another doctor saying that I can't follow the patient for diabetic eye disease, or manage their glaucoma, I'm going to start filing slander suits in my neck of the woods. Be forewarned you arrogant loudmouths.

Maybe because we aren't in the same location but PCP's in my area don't do this. All the ones around here refer to us for everything eye related and never give out steroid drops. I would agree that OD's are more qualified to see ocular issues, I doubt any of us would.

On this note I don't care if the public doesn't know the difference, they don't know the difference in any of the medical fields. I didn't go into medicine so the public would stand back and say "wow". All medical fields aren't respected anymore.

 

[DKofLV]

here's a little more fuel

1. So what? The public doesn't know that non-ophtho MDs (PCP's, pedes, etc) get relatively little training with regard to the eye. Yet they flock to their PCP or just get those "steroid drops" called in over the phone. ODs are infinitely more qualified then these folks, but I don't hear you crying about a PCPs "lack of qualifications, training, or experience". Nahhhhh, that's not a double standard Hell even NP's and PAs have greater license to diagnose and tx eye disease then ODs. That's a frickin joke. If I hear another doctor saying that I can't follow the patient for diabetic eye disease, or manage their glaucoma, I'm going to start filing slander suits in my neck of the woods. Be forewarned you arrogant loudmouths.

2. I would add that optometry is CONSTANTLY on the defensive, if there weren't some money in the coffers, ODs would be limited to refraction. Organized medicine basically thinks ODs are "sight testers". You guys ever going to get your head out of the clouds? Frankly, I find this policy to be unethical, immoral, etc. You guys are a bunch of liars.

I cant figure it out. Are you just an angry person or simply a total jerk? In reality you may just be in an area where ODs are unnecessarily treated like *****s and thus you have a bad taste in your mouth. I respect almost every Optom I work with directly and those I work with dont seem to act this way towards me, and vice-versa

 

[PBEA]

I respect almost every Optom I work with directly and those I work with dont seem to act this way towards me, and vice-versa

evidently then I am not referring to you, but lets be honest here, you know as well as I do that big medicine looks to pigeon-hole ODs. The indoctrination appears to start early in medical school, evidenced by countless posts from neophyte medical students as well as some ophtho residents. It continues with tireless and shameless public campaigns to discredit optometry. I believe a recent quote from big med was something like ".........push them into the ocean". As both fields continue to push out ever growing numbers of practitioners this will likely worsen.

 

[PBEA]

Maybe because we aren't in the same location but PCP's in my area don't do this. All the ones around here refer to us for everything eye related and never give out steroid drops. I would agree that OD's are more qualified to see ocular issues, I doubt any of us would.

On this note I don't care if the public doesn't know the difference, they don't know the difference in any of the medical fields. I didn't go into medicine so the public would stand back and say "wow". All medical fields aren't respected anymore.

as you know, practice patterns differ. Here some will do exactly as I have described. I've seen many myself, most are worthless txs (antihist for bleph, abx for ebmd, abx for pink eye, steroid for subconj heme, etc) and I've seen several that went south (abx for uveitis, steroid for hsv, abx for glaucoma which was a doozy!, etc) Just anecdotal stuff, but it is what it is.

I also don't care what the public thinks, many are uneducated or simply not that bright. They lie about history, they are non-compliant, and many have an entitlement attitude that is breath taking. Of course that doesn't stop big med from touting some RAND survey as "evidence" that ODs are "misleading the public". The part that I DO CARE about is when john q public tells me their PCP says they need to go to an ophtho (even though I've been following them for years), for no other reason but that I'm an OD. Its this kind of ignorant, biased, politically motivated garbage that gets me going. This kind of slanderous horseapple can undermine my practice and is unethical at best, illegal at worst.

 

[Meibomian SxN]

I cant figure it out. Are you just an angry person or simply a total jerk? In reality you may just be in an area where ODs are unnecessarily treated like *****s and thus you have a bad taste in your mouth. I respect almost every Optom I work with directly and those I work with dont seem to act this way towards me, and vice-versa

Piss fest is starting to get more yellow as I read...

 

[eyehope]

here's a little more fuel

1. So what? The public doesn't know that non-ophtho MDs (PCP's, pedes, etc) get relatively little training with regard to the eye. Yet they flock to their PCP or just get those "steroid drops" called in over the phone. ODs are infinitely more qualified then these folks, but I don't hear you crying about a PCPs "lack of qualifications, training, or experience". Nahhhhh, that's not a double standard Hell even NP's and PAs have greater license to diagnose and tx eye disease then ODs. That's a frickin joke. If I hear another doctor saying that I can't follow the patient for diabetic eye disease, or manage their glaucoma, I'm going to start filing slander suits in my neck of the woods. Be forewarned you arrogant loudmouths.

2. I would add that optometry is CONSTANTLY on the defensive, if there weren't some money in the coffers, ODs would be limited to refraction. Organized medicine basically thinks ODs are "sight testers". You guys ever going to get your head out of the clouds? Frankly, I find this policy to be unethical, immoral, etc. You guys are a bunch of liars.

3. Nope, market is too small.

4. yes, this is a problem, but I think this may be part of the education bubble that is going to burst. I believe a number of osteopathic schools have just opened up optometry programs, and why not? They just want to make more money, its called capitalism. I don't like it, but the powers that be cry "anti-trust" when it comes to controlling OD numbers.

5. can't answer to that, but again doubtful, limited market (save maybe under served rural fantasyland). If there is ophtho to do these procedures then its a no brainer, they do them, end of discussion.

I think prospective ophtho's need to look in the mirror. The oversupply is in ophtho as well. ODs have saturated the routine exam market, and many have supplemented with some low to middle level medical management of the eye. Ophtho has flat out saturated the surgical market, ODs have NOTHING to do with your dwindling volume, or salaries. And please don't give me this nonsense about "baby boomers", that ship set sail awhile ago. Lastly it seems ophtho, in an effort to bolster their practices have added opticals en masse, and are booked out several months seeing borderline diabetics without retinopathy. Why? oh that's right because the ODs can't do that stuff (turn on your sarcasm sonar folks, because I am pinging away here). Pretty transparent, self-serving tripe, imo.


all flames welcome here

1. I never said that optometrists could not manage glaucoma or diabetic eye disease in my statement. If you don't think there is a difference in training, I don't know what else to say. No one confuses a PCP or NP with an ophthalmologist, whereas many confuse an optometrist with an ophthalmologist. My point being - this adds to the competition in the real world (for someone considering the field). And, I will mention, some times we are the goat, and some times we are the savior. If you are concerned about their treatment, why not send them a return letter with your concerns.

2. Perhaps you can show me where ophthalmologists have tried to introduce legislative bills to further limit optometry (really, that is a genuine question). It seems to me that most optometry students should know the limited scope of practice (state dependent) before entering school. But, to ask for all laser and ocular privileges in order to gain oral med privileges as a compromise is disingenuous. How do we know it is going to stop there? We don't - so we have to protect our field - just as you would like to protect your field against opticians (gaining more privileges).

3. If the market is too small, why try to legislate to obtain these privileges?

4. All medical specialties limit the number of residency spots and you do not hear about anti-trust issues. What is so special about optometry? I may be wrong, but I assume each school needs to be accredited by your national organization. No accreditation = much more difficult to attract applicants. You are right that eventually OD salaries will drop from oversupply - perhaps some schools will close then.

5. limited cataract market - the most commonly performed surgery in the US? Perhaps, in a saturated market...

Certainly, desirable places will be saturated in almost every field. Again, it sounds like you are in an area with an oversupply of ophthalmologists. General ophthalmologists compete for the same market, so I don't know how you can say that there is no competition. Some have added opticals to generate revenue, to offer patient convenience, and to compete with optometrists. No doubt, MDs like to refer to other MDs - they are used to doing this from residency onwards.

Look, I understand we are never going to agree and I am not going to continue arguing. The post was meant for medical students considering the field. These are my concerns (not necessarily shared by all) that I have as a general ophthalmologist in a saturated area. I do not see a reason to change the legislation to include any surgical privileges (including laser) for optometrists. There is already a route to obtain those privileges.

Given the apparently angry nature of your post, you obviously have had bad experiences in the past. It is unfortunate. IMO, the tone of your post really distracts from your arguments. I guess I will step down from my arrogant, loudmouth, unethical, immoral, lying, transparent, self-serving high horse now.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

3. If the market is too small, why try to legislate to obtain these privileges?

4. All medical specialties limit the number of residency spots and you do not hear about anti-trust issues. What is so special about optometry? I may be wrong, but I assume each school needs to be accredited by your national organization. No accreditation = much more difficult to attract applicants. You are right that eventually OD salaries will drop from oversupply - perhaps some schools will close then.

I'm afraid that's not entirely accurate. The number of medical residency positions is set by the government (through medicare) who decides how many of each residency at each location to fund. It is much easier to open a new school (OD and DO are both doing that frequently these days) than it is to get approval for new residency slots.

 

[eyehope]

I'm afraid that's not entirely accurate. The number of medical residency positions is set by the government (through medicare) who decides how many of each residency at each location to fund. It is much easier to open a new school (OD and DO are both doing that frequently these days) than it is to get approval for new residency slots.

I apologize for the error of my statement. You are correct. But, I still think programs can limit the number of spots (not filling all approved spots). While it may be easier to open schools, I do not see how it is considered anti-trust to limit the enrollment to your profession (ala dentistry).

 

[azzarah]

Once the realities of paying for malpractice insurance hits them, they will stop thinking about doing eye surgery.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I apologize for the error of my statement. You are correct. But, I still think programs can limit the number of spots (not filling all approved spots). While it may be easier to open schools, I do not see how it is considered anti-trust to limit the enrollment to your profession (ala dentistry).

The AOA (optometry) lost a big anti-trust suit awhile back. Since then, its been very hands off about many issues.

 

[KHE]

Once the realities of paying for malpractice insurance hits them, they will stop thinking about doing eye surgery.

I honestly have no idea how much the average independent ophthalmologist private practice ophthalmologist pays for malpractice insurance.

What numbers are you all hearing being thrown around?

 

[Visionary]

I honestly have no idea how much the average independent ophthalmologist private practice ophthalmologist pays for malpractice insurance.

What numbers are you all hearing being thrown around?

Varies considerably by location, but the average is probably about $15k/year.

 

[Meibomian SxN]

Varies considerably by location, but the average is probably about $15k/year.

$30K/yr if you live in the NYC/Nassau County area.

I'd be curious as to what the Oklahoma ODs who perform LASIK and other laser procedures pay in malpractice...

 

[Visionary]

$30K/yr if you live in the NYC/Nassau County area.

I'd be curious as to what the Oklahoma ODs who perform LASIK and other laser procedures pay in malpractice...

Yeah, the average doesn't reflect the range. As I said, it varies considerably. I've heard lows of $7k/yr and highs of $30k/yr. Average is around $15k/yr. The variation is due to differences in litigiousness and damage caps among the states.

 

[cme2c]

I pay $3500 per year. State has a cap, low rate of lawsuits.

 

[DOCTORSAIB]

Since we're on the topic of malpractice insurance, are you guys getting it through OMIC?

Is that the go-to company for most ophthalmologists?

 

[Visionary]

Since we're on the topic of malpractice insurance, are you guys getting it through OMIC?

Is that the go-to company for most ophthalmologists?

My group is with Medical Protective. I doubt there is a "go-to" company. It's a matter of finding a good meld of rate and coverage.

 

[azzarah]

I don't know what the avg is for ophthalmology but I know an oculoplastics guy who pays 60K per year and he has never been sued.