More on OD oversupply

[Jason K]

Not too surprising but the saddest thing is that there are a couple of people trying to turn these forums into a sort of ODWire extension site and they are being allowed to flood these forums with their one minded view of things.

You've got to be kidding me. Read through that thread, netmag, and then you can come back and comment about what you think on the topic. Well, you can't read it; you're not an OD.

The poster of that thread, [Byron] Newman, OD, graduated optometry school in the mid 1950s. To say that he is out of touch with reality would be the understatement of millennium. He, for whatever reason, never responded to the responses to his post, most of which were not very understanding of his claim. Some simple math was all that was needed to show that it was basically nonsense. When people starting making comments that were much less than flattering about Dr Newman, probably in response to his disappearance, the moderator decided to shut it down. It was going absolutely nowhere. I'm not the moderator on ODWire, but I can say with reasoable certainty that the disrespect shown to an "elder statesman" in optometry was the "mysterious" reason it was shut down.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Tippytoe]

You've got to be kidding me. Read through that thread, netmag, and then you can come back and comment about what you think on the topic. Well, you can't read it; you're not an OD.

The poster of that thread, Clarke Newman, OD, graduated optometry school in the mid 1950s. To say that he is out of touch with reality would be the understatement of millennium. He, for whatever reason, never responded to the responses to his post, most of which were not very understanding of his claim. Some simple math was all that was needed to show that it was basically nonsense. When people starting making comments that were much less than flattering about Dr Newman, probably in response to his disappearance, the moderator decided to shut it down. It was going absolutely nowhere. I'm not the moderator on ODWire, but I can say with reasoable certainty that the disrespect shown to an "elder statesman" in optometry was the "mysterious" reason it was shut down.

For those that are not familiar with the now famous Dr. Newman 'hit and run' post on ODwire:

I'll explain even further. The elder OD Dr. Byron Newman (not Clarke actually), stated the often repeated fairytale that "If only 1% of the population more than we have now would make appointments to have their eyes examined, everyone would be inundated with patients."

Another poster did the simple elementary school math and showed that an extra 1% of people presenting to OD offices would give each OD office a WHOPPING 1.7 extra patients per week. HARDLY ENOUGH TO MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE. (simply divide the number of ODs by 1% of the population).

See, this 'elder stateman' OD and most every other one like him in leadership simply repeat the same old tired sayings that have been around for 50 years and they have never actually stopped and thought about it.

Just like "when all the baby-boomers get old we'll all be super swamped and we'll need even more ODs to keep up with the demand."

Just didn't and isn't going happening. Most people already are in the eye care system before they reach Medicare age. There is no great flood.

Yet another great fantasy 'theory' for those profiting on gullible ODs and OD students is the: "There is a vast unmet need of vision therapy and low vision patients just waiting for ODs to serve their needs". NOT TRUE.

It is true that there are alot of low vision patients that need help. Problem is we don't have any great ways to help them other than to sell high priced magnifers that most of the low vision patient population can not afford (most of them don't work being blind and all and insurance doesn't cover any of it) and the few that can afford it, will just bitch and complain because the $1,000 magnifer doesn't allow them to see 20/20 like they did when they were 21 years old. (Although I will admit there are probably a few small pockets in the US that could support a low vision or VT OD.......a few rich areas of old low vision people or rich neurotic parents with high maintenance kids).

These are all fantasies propagated by some to justify the need for more ODs. (read it all as $$$$$$).

Apparantly Dr. Newman was not used to people questioning him. We're supposed to just bow and say, "thank you" because he's old. He was busted out and made to look a fool and ran away with his tail between his legs. A shame really. But maybe he will think twice about posting such nonsense.

 

[Jason K]

.....The elder OD Dr. Byron Newman (not Clarke actually)....

Egad! - I just blamed the wrong Newman! Thanks for the correction!

 

[KHE]

I'll explain even further. The elder OD Dr. Byron Newman (not Clarke actually), stated the often repeated fairytale that "If only 1% of the population more than we have now would make appointments to have their eyes examined, everyone would be inundated with patients."

Another poster did the simple elementary school math and showed that an extra 1% of people presenting to OD offices would give each OD office a WHOPPING 1.7 extra patients per week. HARDLY ENOUGH TO MAKE THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE. (simply divide the number of ODs by 1% of the population).

Who was that other poster? He's a smart son of a gun!

 

[Tippytoe]

Who was that other poster? He's a smart son of a gun!

Yes he was.

 

[JAZZEYE]

Who was that other poster? He's a smart son of a gun!

Yes KHE... it was a spot on rebuttal and conveyed in a respestful manner.

Thats why I couldn't understand how the thread became more a discussion about respecting colleagues,
than about the point the OP initially was trying to make about "There is no oversupply".

Why is it, if you disagree and present a counter argument this is viewed as disrespectful on ODwire ???
...and how can an "elder statesman" present such a provocative point of view and not expect questioning and respond.
One of the OD's pointed out that the OP started the thread than disappeared...

Also Paul who moderates the site seemed quick to pull the plug...whats up with that ?
This gave it a very political flavor... old guys vs. younger generation...here its more like younger generation vs. students...

But at least when the OD's who come on here and go the opposite extreme and say things like...
"Optometry is Dead"...well at least they have the kahoonies to respond...even when they're not treated very respectfully

Most students here are already all-in...
or made up their mind by now and have to maintain a positive attitude,
the doomsayers become more annoying then mentoring.

Mentorship is what is needed more on a forum like SDN.
Thats why all the negativity will always be disconcerting for students no matter how it is presented.
It doesn't need to be "sugar coated"
but a little guidance on how the new grads can overcome some of the many obstacles,
and how they might impact the future of Optometry would certainly be more useful.

I understand the purpose of the agenda of those who come on here just to say... run !!
I'm not sure this is the approprite forum for constantly discouranging pursuance of an career in Optomerty...
in the guise of " I just want everybody to know what they're getting into"

They already have a forum dedicated to just that...
Optometrysucks will give ya all the reasons you need to choose another path.
Its an excellent forum of discouragement... isn't that enough ?
Here.. you have students mostly invested or about to begin school, so whats the point.

Okay I'm done ..I'm ready for some football !!!
Love the underdogs...

 

[Jason K]

They already have a forum dedicated to just that...
Optometrysucks will give ya all the reasons you need to choose another path.
Its an excellent forum of discouragement... isn't that enough ?
Here.. you have students mostly invested or about to begin school, so whats the point.

Yes, there already is a forum dedicated to the idea that optometry is not a great prospect these days. Everyone on there is already aware of it so it would be pointless to go there and discuss it. Just like it's pretty much pointless to go onto ODWire and discuss it. Most ODs on ODWire have similar views about over-supply, commercial optometry, the opening of new programs, etc. Not everyone has identical views about the results of those problems, but pretty much everyone agrees that there major issues and that they are causing serious problems. Going on there and complaining about things brings no one any new knowledge to anyone since pretty much everyone is already aware, except apparently Byron Newman.....(not Clarke!).

I posted my threads in the pre-optometry forum for a reason; because I primarily wanted pre-optometry students to read them. I agree that the topic of my most recent thread turned away from the original intent. Did I set out to trample the dreams of optometry students everywhere when I started these threads? Of course not, I was a student once. I remember how difficult it was and I don't think reading the stuff I write would have been terribly reassuring for me if I read it either. But, the fact is, this is stuff you guys need to know about. Sticking your head in the sand and saying "This sucks, don't talk about this stuff it stresses me out!" is not going to help you or anyone else.

I don't argue that doing nothing but studying and sharpening clinical skills during school will do absolutely nothing for your career if that's all you do. It will be a lot more painful to have this information forced upon you later and all at once so I'd rather get it earlier when there's still time to prepare. So, if a few OD students read this stuff and get a fire set under their ass, then that's good for them and it's arguably good for the profession.

The information on these threads will do different things for different people; it all depends on what you do with it.

 

[sanityonleave]

Wow.

I thought we dealt with a lot of naivete over in the pre-med forums, but this thread (and the other one which has been locked) are something else entirely. While mostly in the pre-med forums it's a bunch of college students bickering with each other (when none of them have any idea what's going on), in this forum it's college students arguing with full time professionals about the state of their own profession. That's just... wow. Words cannot describe how ridiculous that is. Even though I realize the vast majority of ODs don't post on SDN, the fact that not a single OD has come on this board to refute their claims speaks volumes. The vast majority of US physicians don't post on here either, but we still manage to get a variety of viewpoints on almost every discussion topic that arises.

To Jason K, KHE and company: I feel for you guys having a largely incompetent lobbying body and a group of professionals who aren't doing a very good job of pressuring their organizations to look out for the field as a whole. The fact that we had months of talk about healthcare reform in Washington with barely even cursory lip service given to tort reform should tell you just how impotent the AMA is currently.

 

[KHE]

To Jason K, KHE and company: I feel for you guys having a largely incompetent lobbying body and a group of professionals who aren't doing a very good job of pressuring their organizations to look out for the field as a whole. The fact that we had months of talk about healthcare reform in Washington with barely even cursory lip service given to tort reform should tell you just how impotent the AMA is currently.

Meh.

That's just because congress is 90% lawyers. I don't think it's a problem with the AOA or the AMA per se.

Hypothetically, imagine if congress was 90% doctors and there was a $250,000 cap on damages and lawyers wanted to remove that cap. It wouldn't happen.

That's one of those things that like the old Bruce Hornsby song says is "just the way it is."

 

[200UL]

I believe the optometry lobbying crew is actually fairly effective. The problem is with optometry, the only issue that matters is scope expansion. No matter what, this will only benefit a few rogue optometrists.

If even a fraction of this interest and attention was made on creating a better graduate, not diluting training experiences, and limiting graduates so that all would have decent jobs after graduation (it seems strange that a new school is needed each year), optometry would like be fine and the rest would fall into place (perhaps even expanded scope).

However, optometry as a whole will never be taken seriously by medicine with the current tactics ("give us the rights to surgery, we will figure out how to train in it later"). After all, medicine does everything to limit what graduates can do unless competency is proved.

Wow.

To Jason K, KHE and company: I feel for you guys having a largely incompetent lobbying body and a group of professionals who aren't doing a very good job of pressuring their organizations to look out for the field as a whole. The fact that we had months of talk about healthcare reform in Washington with barely even cursory lip service given to tort reform should tell you just how impotent the AMA is currently.

 

[Tippytoe]

i believe the optometry lobbying crew is actually fairly effective. The problem is with optometry, the only issue that matters is scope expansion. No matter what, this will only benefit a few rogue optometrists.

If even a fraction of this interest and attention was made on creating a better graduate, not diluting training experiences, and limiting graduates so that all would have decent jobs after graduation (it seems strange that a new school is needed each year), optometry would like be fine and the rest would fall into place (perhaps even expanded scope).

However, optometry as a whole will never be taken seriously by medicine with the current tactics ("give us the rights to surgery, we will figure out how to train in it later"). After all, medicine does everything to limit what graduates can do unless competency is proved.

+1

 

[KHE]

However, optometry as a whole will never be taken seriously by medicine with the current tactics ("give us the rights to surgery, we will figure out how to train in it later"). After all, medicine does everything to limit what graduates can do unless competency is proved.

I've stated my position on the whole optometry surgery thing many times over the years. I stand by my assertion that it's not about surgery but I completely understand why you all are skeptical.

I would say however that I can't go along with your statement about optometry not being taken seriously by medicine with the current tactics.

The fact is optometry will not be taken seriously by medicine not ever, no matter what, no matter what the "tactics" are.

Medicine has a very long history of taking the position that the only path to enlightment is allopathic medical school and that's it. There is no other way. Even osteopathic medicine is only begrudingly accepted and that's a lot closer to your model than optometry is.

So let's at least be honest with ourselves about that. Hypothetically, if optometry were to come up with some sort of training program in which optometry graduates perform surgery with the same complication rates as MDs (yea, yea....I know I know...Ben Gaddie.) it still wouldn't be accepted because again....it wasn't allopathic medical school and residency so therefore something must be wrong.

 

[Tippytoe]

Let's be real. Turf wars are 100% about money. Always has been. Always will be. We want to do more procedures to gain more money (as other income has been cut).

Ophthalmology doesn't want us to do more because they stand to lose money. That's easy to understand. Ophthalmology added opticals when surgical fees went down. Why? Too better serve their patient base. Of course not. They did it for additional (passive) income.

It's not about patient safety. That's rediculous. Trial lawyers would sort that out VERY quickly if there were many problems from any particular group.

Same thing with most every other medical field. MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!

 

[200UL]

So let's at least be honest with ourselves about that. Hypothetically, if optometry were to come up with some sort of training program in which optometry graduates perform surgery with the same complication rates as MDs (yea, yea....I know I know...Ben Gaddie.) it still wouldn't be accepted because again....it wasn't allopathic medical school and residency so therefore something must be wrong.

I belive you are correct, this will never happen as opthalmology could never have complications rates as low as optometrists in Kentucky and Oklahoma.

In all seriousness - is your argument the following: "optometry should not have to develope a standardize curriculum involving surgery with humans because those cry-baby MDs will not accept the training anyway."

In summary, do not expect respect when you start your argument by LYING to lawmakers and the public (zero complications). Develop a curriculm that involves treatment of human beings. After you have some sort of curriculum, then work on proving your equivalent training. Seems simple, but it is tough because it involves actual work and not simply $.

 

[PBEA]

I belive you are correct, this will never happen as opthalmology could never have complications rates as low as optometrists in Kentucky and Oklahoma.

In all seriousness - is your argument the following: "optometry should not have to develope a standardize curriculum involving surgery with humans because those cry-baby MDs will not accept the training anyway."

In summary, do not expect respect when you start your argument by LYING to lawmakers and the public (zero complications). Develop a curriculm that involves treatment of human beings. After you have some sort of curriculum, then work on proving your equivalent training. Seems simple, but it is tough because it involves actual work and not simply $.

It may sound simple, but I think it isn't. How does optometry set up a curriculum to train on certain procedures without actually having the legal right to actually perform them? It seems obvious (to me) that they can't, so it should go without saying that in order for optometry to actually start training on those procedures they need to have the laws changed. Which of course has you folks screaming that now every OD is going to blind the public with their lack of surgical training. Its a classic chicken or the egg.

 

[KHE]

In all seriousness - is your argument the following: "optometry should not have to develope a standardize curriculum involving surgery with humans because those cry-baby MDs will not accept the training anyway."

.

Not really.

In a previous posting, you suggested the only way for ODs to get "respect" would be to do X, Y, and Z.

WHat I'm saying is that even IF ODs did your X, Y, and Z you would not be satisfied. So there's little point in the argument.

 

[Visionary]

It may sound simple, but I think it isn't. How does optometry set up a curriculum to train on certain procedures without actually having the legal right to actually perform them? It seems obvious (to me) that they can't, so it should go without saying that in order for optometry to actually start training on those procedures they need to have the laws changed. Which of course has you folks screaming that now every OD is going to blind the public with their lack of surgical training. Its a classic chicken or the egg.

I think the point is that, if you desire to pursue certain privileges, you should have a plan as to how you intend to train and certify for said privileges. The Kentucky Law, for example, was passed without any such description. It was "we'll figure that out later." The bill passed. Now the Kentucky Optometric Board, in all its wisdom, has decided a 32 hour course with supervision on a single human eye is sufficient for all of these procedures. Yeah, that's equivalent training.

 

[Jason K]

It’s a game. The few ODs who have been pushing this issue are basically in a cat-and-mouse chase. I don’t believe this has anything to do with “beefing up” an OD’s earning potential or strengthening the profession in any way; it’s about winning the game and being able to say “Haha!....we did it!” I think the manner in which the bills passed is demonstrative of that.

If we’re “gunning” to do some of the same surgical procedures as OMDs, then it’s not unreasonable to insist that the training involved be equal to what they experience. That includes the training up to and including the “32 hour weekend course” we keep hearing about. I’ve heard the argument that says “Well, if an OMD is learning a new piece of equipment, he/she gets the same brief training course that we do so what’s the difference?” The difference is many thousands of supervised surgical experiences that took place long before they ever set foot in the room to learn that new piece of equipment. We can’t just skip over that little step and pretend it’s not there. Just because we can’t reproduce it in our current raining model doesn’t mean we just need to legally side-step it completely. The whole thing, for me, is quite embarrassing.

 

[east]

It’s a game. The few ODs who have been pushing this issue are basically in a cat-and-mouse chase. I don’t believe this has anything to do with “beefing up” an OD’s earning potential or strengthening the profession in any way; it’s about winning the game and being able to say “Haha!....we did it!” I think the manner in which the bills passed is demonstrative of that.

If we’re “gunning” to do some of the same surgical procedures as OMDs, then it’s not unreasonable to insist that the training involved be equal to what they experience. That includes the training up to and including the “32 hour weekend course” we keep hearing about. I’ve heard the argument that says “Well, if an OMD is learning a new piece of equipment, he/she gets the same brief training course that we do so what’s the difference?” The difference is many thousands of supervised surgical experiences that took place long before they ever set foot in the room to learn that new piece of equipment. We can’t just skip over that little step and pretend it’s not there. Just because we can’t reproduce it in our current raining model doesn’t mean we just need to legally side-step it completely. The whole thing, for me, is quite embarrassing.

Yes, it's also about overpriced schools of optometry being able to tell that prospective student...hey look what you're gonna be able to do, won't that be great. Even though many of these procedures gained are about a finacially viable as many of these aspiring new OD's degrees may be in the coming years.

 

[PBEA]

I think the point is that, if you desire to pursue certain privileges, you should have a plan as to how you intend to train and certify for said privileges. The Kentucky Law, for example, was passed without any such description. It was "we'll figure that out later." The bill passed. Now the Kentucky Optometric Board, in all its wisdom, has decided a 32 hour course with supervision on a single human eye is sufficient for all of these procedures. Yeah, that's equivalent training.

I don't pretend to know every detail about any of the bills (and I'm not sure you do either). I just looked at some links for the Kentucky one and it sounded like initally it was passed with a 16hr course but then amended to make it 32hr, so I think its hard to take anything at face value on these forums. Regardless, I'm not saying anything about whether that is sufficient training, but merely that no such training could exist without legal standing to do. Now that they do have the right, then my expectation is that the criteria will now increase. After all why sell a 32 hr course at $x when you can have a 64hr course at twice the price.

 

[Visionary]

Just heard a rumor that Louisville is looking at opening an optometry school. Seems apropos, given the recent law passage. Anyone else heard this?

 

[KHE]

I'm going to close this thread because it has turned towards discussion of optometric surgery and there's already another thread on this forum and an additional one in the ophthalmology forum discussing this same topic.

We don't need three threads discussing the same issue. If someone wants to start a thread with a new point to make about oversupply not related to the whole surgery debate, then go ahead.