NM surgical scope bill

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
hey - i'm not for optometrists doing surgery. i have no opinion on the issue. none. that's my position. quote me on it if u like.


anyways i'm tired of this nonsense. why should i come on here and try to talk sense to some juvenile MDs (ophths, and sometimes non-ophths like toughlife who seems to be from anesthesia and can't spell ophthalmology. hey toughlife, have u published in an ophthalmology journal before?)


but on internet forums, a lot of people who seem to take licks in real life, get to dish it out to people in a far away land. i guess that's the sign of real courage isn't it?


the corollary of ur argument is that MDs always use their "MD" and MD-education as an axiomatic point that only they have the right to be experts on human health/diagnosis/treatment. yet above - i used a medical biochemistry term (Shh) which was misinterpreted by an MD here (VA guy) to be a video-game term.


remind me again exactly how this MD-education is supposed to be divine? (or were u too busy playing SEGA?)


anyways - i'll just remain busy doing my research into the eye, and publishing into ophthalmology journals. i'm allowed to do that right? u MDs aren't going to stop me r u?
 
Actually, I think a lot of these examples do occur but to a lesser degree. I have worked with physicists who have some crossover into engineering-type duties. I have heard of paralegals and realtors that skate very close to that line that defines the practice of law (usually as it relates to contracts -- I haven't heard of anyone in these fields arguing that they should be able to retain clients to represent in them in court).

The bottom line is that medicine in general is under constant assault from pseudo-physicians. Like it or not...
 
hey - i'm not for optometrists doing surgery. i have no opinion on the issue. none. that's my position. quote me on it if u like.

I don't think I can believe a statement like this. You are a frequent poster on discussions such as this, which suggests to me optometry scope of practice issues are important to you. So either you think that the current restrictions that prevent optometrists from performing surgery are appropriate, or you think that optometrists should perform eye surgery. I have trouble believing that you would have no opinion on the issue. So which is it?
 
uhh. sarcasm?


no opinion on the issue. none. that's my position.

and who cares what my position is. u don't even know me.



have u published?
 
i've never learned any surgical techniques or procedures. why on earth should i want to do something like that?

that isn't to say there probably isn't some ODs who have some experience with the stuff. but i can't say i have any.


so why should i care about surgery? i personally have never learned it before.
 
btw - before u try to pick more fights with me because i'm an OD

i co-author articles in ophthalmology journals with ophthalmologists.
 
So someone has to get an MD degree to perform surgery? What about dentists? They perform hardcore maxillofacial surgeries all the time (overlap with ENT surgeons). What about podiatrist? They don't have an MD degree, yet they do foot and ankle surgeries, and in some states, knee surgery. The most important thing is obtaining adequate training during school. I mean, if podiatrist can do ankle surgery after 4 years of podiatry school and 1-2 years of residency, how come optometrists can't perform these simple, relatively safe eye procedures after, for example, a year of interventional optometry residency?

Some day you will be proud of your kids when they become optometric interventionalists. That's clearly the future.
 
btw - before u try to pick more fights with me because i'm an OD

i co-author articles in ophthalmology journals with ophthalmologists.

Haha is that you on the cover of IOVS this month?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So someone has to get an MD degree to perform surgery? What about dentists? They perform hardcore maxillofacial surgeries all the time (overlap with ENT surgeons). What about podiatrist? They don't have an MD degree, yet they do foot and ankle surgeries, and in some states, knee surgery. The most important thing is obtaining adequate training during school. I mean, if podiatrist can do ankle surgery after 4 years of podiatry school and 1-2 years of residency, how come optometrists can't perform these simple, relatively safe eye procedures after, for example, a year of interventional optometry residency?

Some day you will be proud of your kids when they become optometric interventionalists. That's clearly the future.

dentristy, podiatry..these are procedural/surgical professions with possible additional residency training. Most dentists doing "hardcore" maxillofacial surgeries completed 2 years of medical school, have a dual degree, passed all the USMLE, completed a surgical internship, and an OMFS residency. This is the standard for most training programs. The comparison to optometry is again, apples to oranges.

There is already an established route to perform ocular, periocular, and orbital surgery. Ophthalmology. Applications are available to to all who are interested. Optometrists are not being excluded from going to medical school and applying for Ophthalmology residency training.

Salmonella, this thread is to discuss the NM bill, not rationalize any possible alternative to the current standard which requires 8 years of post-graduate training to become an ophthalmologist and surgeon. The other fact often ignored is that surgical training is not the only difference between ophthalmology and optometry.

14-spade, it's nice that you publish, but this has nothing to do with the NM bill and makes you no more credible. It is not relevant to this discussion.
 
It was my understanding that NW optometry and ophthalmology have basically compromised on this issue, most of the surgical procedures that would have been authorized were removed from the legislation.

As SB367 stand now, it only authorizes the following surgical procedures:
(3) does not include the use of surgery or
injections in the treatment of eye diseases except for the
use of the following types of in-office minor surgical
procedures:
(a) non-laser removal, destruction or
drainage of superficial eyelid lesions and conjunctival
cysts;
(b) removal of nonperforating foreign
bodies from the cornea, conjunctiva and eyelid;
(c) non-laser corneal debridement,
culture, scrape or anterior puncture, not including removal
of pterygium, corneal biopsy or removal of corneal
neoplasias;
(d) removal of eyelashes; and
(e) probing, dilation, irrigation or
closure of the tear drainage structures of the eyelid
 
PDT4CNV

do u think "eye expertise" is restricted to those who hold an MD?
 
I don't think I can believe a statement like this. You are a frequent poster on discussions such as this, which suggests to me optometry scope of practice issues are important to you. So either you think that the current restrictions that prevent optometrists from performing surgery are appropriate, or you think that optometrists should perform eye surgery. I have trouble believing that you would have no opinion on the issue. So which is it?

You too are a frequent poster on discussions such as this, which suggests to me optometry scope of practice issues are important to you. So either you think that the current restrictions that prevent optometrists from performing surgery are appropriate, or you think that optometrists should perform eye surgery.


see. there u go. participating in such threads doesn't necessarily imply i support OD scope expansion. unless u do, do u?
 
which begs the question, why didnt you just go to medical school then ophthalmology, rather than pushing for surgical rights?

In the hundreds of threads on this stupid topic, i've yet to hear a convincing argument for going to opto school then trying to pursue surgical rights through legislation vs the already established route of ophthalmology.

I think the ODs are pushing for this because, in many states, they aren't allowed to do things they've been trained in. I'm not even talking about lasers at this point, but punctal plugs and superficial foreign body removal.
 
You too are a frequent poster on discussions such as this, which suggests to me optometry scope of practice issues are important to you. So either you think that the current restrictions that prevent optometrists from performing surgery are appropriate, or you think that optometrists should perform eye surgery.


see. there u go. participating in such threads doesn't necessarily imply i support OD scope expansion. unless u do, do u?

hey - i'm not for optometrists doing surgery. i have no opinion on the issue. none. that's my position. quote me on it if u like.


anyways i'm tired of this nonsense. why should i come on here and try to talk sense to some juvenile MDs (ophths, and sometimes non-ophths like toughlife who seems to be from anesthesia and can't spell ophthalmology. hey toughlife, have u published in an ophthalmology journal before?)


but on internet forums, a lot of people who seem to take licks in real life, get to dish it out to people in a far away land. i guess that's the sign of real courage isn't it?


the corollary of ur argument is that MDs always use their "MD" and MD-education as an axiomatic point that only they have the right to be experts on human health/diagnosis/treatment. yet above - i used a medical biochemistry term (Shh) which was misinterpreted by an MD here (VA guy) to be a video-game term.


remind me again exactly how this MD-education is supposed to be divine? (or were u too busy playing SEGA?)


anyways - i'll just remain busy doing my research into the eye, and publishing into ophthalmology journals. i'm allowed to do that right? u MDs aren't going to stop me r u?


You have quite the talent for going after the two guys on this forum that support OD rights more than any.
 
i'm "going after" you? i concede that i mentioned u. but going after you?

i'm not. really.
 
why don't u highlight the exact sentence where i mentioned u. it was part of a point i was trying to make. u helped me make it.



anyways, apologies if u take offense to that. i was just very surprised at how u reacted to my initial post. u erred there. u never apologized for that.
 
anyways, apologies if u take offense to that. i was just very surprised at how u reacted to my initial post. u erred there. u never apologized for that.

Fair enough., I suppose I didn't explain exactly what I meant well enough. I'll try to do better now.

You and PBEA both I think could make excellent points about optometric scope, but to my mind you're going about it in a way that is not terribly productive.

14_of_spades said:
anyways i'm tired of this nonsense. why should i come on here and try to talk sense to some juvenile MDs (ophths, and sometimes non-ophths like toughlife who seems to be from anesthesia and can't spell ophthalmology. hey toughlife, have u published in an ophthalmology journal before?)

but on internet forums, a lot of people who seem to take licks in real life, get to dish it out to people in a far away land. i guess that's the sign of real courage isn't it?

the corollary of ur argument is that MDs always use their "MD" and MD-education as an axiomatic point that only they have the right to be experts on human health/diagnosis/treatment. yet above - i used a medical biochemistry term (Shh) which was misinterpreted by an MD here (VA guy) to be a video-game term.

remind me again exactly how this MD-education is supposed to be divine? (or were u too busy playing SEGA?)

anyways - i'll just remain busy doing my research into the eye, and publishing into ophthalmology journals. i'm allowed to do that right? u MDs aren't going to stop me r u?

I have bolded the sarcastic parts, which don't accomplish anything; and I have underlined the just downright insulting parts, which actually make folks listen to any real points you have even less. I suggest a new approach.

One of the problems this forum has always had, in the 3 years I've been here, is the lack of a proper definition of what constitutes ocular surgery and what doesn't.

Technically, as I"ve mentioned before, punctal plugs are considered surgery (60000 series code under Medicare). Are the MDs around here ok with ODs doing that? If not, why not? Once that has been answered, our local ODs should dicuss their objections in a reasonable way. Do the MDs feel that ODs don't have enough experience doing them? ODs: post the approx. number of them you did while in school. Are the MDs worried about ODs not being aware/able to diagnose less common pathology that can lead one to suspect run of the mill dry eye? Counter with your standard thought process that leads you to determine the need for punctal plugs. You can see where I'm going with this. A point-counterpoint debate will accomplish much more than a) going on the offensive against PCPs doing any eye care b) comparing a PhD with an MD in terms of knowledge c) sarcasm anywhere and d) anecdotal stories about anyone, MD or OD, screwing up something simple.

I am about the most pro-OD MD student you will ever meet (dad and both of his parents were ODs, and very politically active ones at that), yet some of the things I read you guys posting makes me want to side with the MDs. If you can piss me off, imagine what you're doing to others, like toughlife, who aren't as friendly to your cause as I am.

I want to see optometry do well and progress, I really do... so don't shoot yourself in the foot while you're trying to do just that.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
14-spade, it's nice that you publish, but this has nothing to do with the NM bill and makes you no more credible.


you know, in a nutshell - the above thought is why u MDs have problems in the first place. u make everything a turf war.


in this ophthalmology thread, I (an OD) am deemed not "credible". yet, there are contributors to this thread who have no specific training in the eyes (toughguy who seems to be in anesthesia, and VA guy, i don't know what his specialty is) who are presumably deemed credible because they are MDs. but u know, life isn't that simple. maybe u live ur life around pre-meds, but when u are 45, people won't care if u are MD. they will judge u based on ur knowledge, competence, and decency. so if at 45 though u are an MD, but if u suk, people will know u suk, and that's all that u will carry around with u.


u aren't qualified to determine who is credible and who isn't. if doyle stulting likes a paper i write, he'll publish it. there's a reason why he's the editor of a prestigious ophthalmology journal and u (presumably) are not. he can see past the turf war.


but u know - this is where ur field (ophthalmology) problems lie. there are two types of people in this world: MDs and non-MDs. u as MDs, know what u are capable of, and have gone through. its been said that u don't know what it's like to be an MD unless u actually do it. further, u live in an environment with other MDs who validate ur belief in the MD degree/experience, because u see how brilliant/talented ur colleagues are. the problem is, the people outside ur circle, us non-MDs, don't understand that which u feel u have rightfully earned through ur education. legislators are non-MDs. they don't understand what it is to be an MD. so when optometrists propose for new legislation, for u to reply that such stuff should not pass simply because u are MDs and optometrists are not, is not enough. to u, the argument is clear, perhaps axiomatic - because u understand the MD degree. but we, non-MDs, do not. that includes legislators. so ur arguments fall on deaf ears.


my point is. if ur going to win battles, u have think like non-MDs. u've been cultured in the medical life so long, u have probably forgotten what it's like to think this way. but in order to achieve ur goals, u'll have to think outside of the MD mindset. explain what it means to be an MD. we apparently don't. tell us, then we'll understand, and perhaps agree.


so my advice: don't make this fight about an MD/OD turf war. u'll lose. really.
 
You and PBEA both I think could make excellent points about optometric scope, but to my mind you're going about it in a way that is not terribly productive.

...yet some of the things I read you guys posting makes me want to side with the MDs.

ok. ur efforts at being "fair" in this discussion are acknowledged and appreciated.


i'm not trying to expand scope. i got trained in one of the most conservative areas anywhere. how can i feel strongly about legislating something i know nothing about or have never seen even done? i'm not political. i'm not. i love MDs. i've been best man to two. i have no animosity to them at all. i mean, why would i?


but every once in a while, i see some grossly partisan statement appear in a thread like this. i'll challenge it. in the same way that what i post makes u want to side with MDs, i see some statement about ODs being good for nothing, then it makes me want to call it out.


i won't become uncivil unless i'm prompted to. and that does happen here.
 
i am pleased to witness this thread evolve into a civil discourse rather than a flame war marked with sarcasm and insults. it is important to understand that this forum is a microcosm. for the most part, it represents a body of talented and hard-working medical students and ophthalmology residents who, for the most part (myself included) have little experience in the private practice of ophthalmology and optometry. the threat of OD surgical scope expansion scares us because it threatens to undermine a profession that we have sacrificed so much to become a part of. so when a a bill surfaces, we are quick to react in this mostly anonymous forum with strong opinions and views. you throw a few members from the optometry forum into the mix and things quickly degenerate. the truth of the matter is, the only optometrists that i have ever encountered who want to increase scope of practice have been on this forum. note, i am not naming anyone or calling anyone out. when you really start taling to people in the real world of private practice, everyone is content on where they are and what they do. scope expansion is being perpetuated by a few aggressive and vocal ODs (with firends in high places).


so my advice is this, put your energy into where it matters. although these threads are entertaining, they matter very little in the grand scheme of things. contrary to a recent thread on another forum that criticized and reported my moderation on this forum, closing threads is my least favorite part of this. my whole reason for being here is not to "abuse [my] position and end threads at [my] leisure... taking the last (biased) word," but rather to dissemenate information for our young colleagues that are working so hard to become a part of this profression and help streamline information to perpetuate and advance and at times, protect the field of ophthalmology. so what should we be doing? Some of the best information that has been given to me is as follows:

1. Contribute to your PAC.
2. Write your congressional representatives.
3. Get involved in the American Academy of Ophthalmology. There is even a Young Ophthalmologists Committee.
4. Educate your patients. We are going to do a "laser surgical procedure today to lower the pressure in your eyes." We will perform a "surgical procedure to remove the chalazion from your eyelid." Don't let anyone else but the American Academy of Ophthalmology define what surgery is.

Good luck to everyone taking OKAPs tomorrow.
 
uhh. sarcasm?


no opinion on the issue. none. that's my position.

and who cares what my position is. u don't even know me.



have u published?

Sorry, 14, I'm confused. Are you saying that your post was sarcastic, or were you saying that my post was sarcastic? I have re-read my last post several times to try to see where it may have come across with sarcasm. I was trying to point out that your statement ("no opinion") was not congruent with your actions (your passionate posts on SDN forums).

Believe it or not, I care what your position is. I come here not just to share my own thoughts and ideas, but also because I want to hear what other have to say. If I disagree with others, or if they disagree with me, then I expect to have a rational, intellectual debate. Who knows, this technique might even win some hearts and minds. I hope to do the same.

Yes, I have published. Thanks for asking. But I am not sure how this contributes to a discussion on clinical scope of practice.

You too are a frequent poster on discussions such as this, which suggests to me optometry scope of practice issues are important to you. So either you think that the current restrictions that prevent optometrists from performing surgery are appropriate, or you think that optometrists should perform eye surgery.


see. there u go. participating in such threads doesn't necessarily imply i support OD scope expansion. unless u do, do u?

Please go back and re-read my post. Alternatively, since you echoed my words back to me, then just look up at those words. I did not imply that you "supported OD scope expansion." I was just trying to point out that someone who has no opinion, as you claimed, would be unlikely to be motivated enough to repeatedly engage in threads like this. Yes, optometry scope of practice issues ARE important to me. Thank you for noticing. These issues are important to me because I believe that optometrists and ophthalmologists fulfill important roles to eye care. I know what optometrists learn, and I I think I have a sound basis for my opinions on what optometric scope of practice should entail. I don't think that ODs should be restricted from doing anything beyond refraction. I believe that MDs that think this way are doing themselves and the public a great disservice. But I also think that the extremists who are constantly trying to expand the scope of optometry in a way that undermines ophthalmology are also placing unnecessary risk upon themselves, their profession, their patients, and the public trust.
 
If ophthalmologists are anal and selfish enough to oppose ODs doing the simplest procedures (for example, easy eyelash procedure which even beauticians can learn in a few months), then the ODs need to stand up for themselves and forbid ophthalmologists do refraction, contacts and glasses in their practice. Afterall, optometrists are the true "experts" in refraction.
 
i am pleased to witness this thread evolve into a civil discourse rather than a flame war marked with sarcasm and insults. it is important to understand that this forum is a microcosm. for the most part, it represents a body of talented and hard-working medical students and ophthalmology residents who, for the most part (myself included) have little experience in the private practice of ophthalmology and optometry. the threat of OD surgical scope expansion scares us because it threatens to undermine a profession that we have sacrificed so much to become a part of. so when a a bill surfaces, we are quick to react in this mostly anonymous forum with strong opinions and views. you throw a few members from the optometry forum into the mix and things quickly degenerate. the truth of the matter is, the only optometrists that i have ever encountered who want to increase scope of practice have been on this forum. note, i am not naming anyone or calling anyone out. when you really start taling to people in the real world of private practice, everyone is content on where they are and what they do. scope expansion is being perpetuated by a few aggressive and vocal ODs (with firends in high places).


so my advice is this, put your energy into where it matters. although these threads are entertaining, they matter very little in the grand scheme of things. contrary to a recent thread on another forum that criticized and reported my moderation on this forum, closing threads is my least favorite part of this. my whole reason for being here is not to "abuse [my] position and end threads at [my] leisure... taking the last (biased) word," but rather to dissemenate information for our young colleagues that are working so hard to become a part of this profression and help streamline information to perpetuate and advance and at times, protect the field of ophthalmology. so what should we be doing? Some of the best information that has been given to me is as follows:

1. Contribute to your PAC.
2. Write your congressional representatives.
3. Get involved in the American Academy of Ophthalmology. There is even a Young Ophthalmologists Committee.
4. Educate your patients. We are going to do a "laser surgical procedure today to lower the pressure in your eyes." We will perform a "surgical procedure to remove the chalazion from your eyelid." Don't let anyone else but the American Academy of Ophthalmology define what surgery is.

Good luck to everyone taking OKAPs tomorrow.

Well put as usual. I do take issue with one part, however. Shouldn't it be up to the state medical boards to define surgery? The AAO, much like the AOA for the ODs, is a bit too political for me to want them setting that sort of thing.
 
Let me explain what's going on. The OD's are building a "buffer". For years and years they have been prevented from doing what they are trained to do. (foriegn bodies, glaucoma meds, meds in general, hell, at one point OD's could not use tropicamide) Now, with a few exceptions they are able to more or less practice "full scope optometry" in all 50 states.

So, they still have all these PACs. ODs had/have a choice. Fight a defenseive battle to hold onto what they have fought for, or go on the offensive and made inroads into ophthalmology territory. By fighting for surgery, the OMDs are more or less forec to throw all thier political might against this one issue. And in the end, the OMDs will probably win. There will be no ODs performing cataract extractions, or vitrectomies. But by the time that fights over, ODs will have been practicing "full scope optometry" for years, and no one will be able to reasonably take away thier glaucoma meds, punctal plugs etc etc etc.

No ( or almost no) ODs really want surgery ( real surgery, not this eyelash psudosurgery stuff), its not practical.

LASIK, for example, requires hundreds of thousands of dollars in infrastucture, plus, if all the ODs suddenly become LASIK surgeons, there is no way to be profitable. I doubt many would even try. And until the OD schools start teaching things like cateract extractions, no OD is going to approach that with a 50 foot pole.

Anyway Im convinced that if there is some "national strategy" its just a charade to keep control of what ODs have fought for over the past 20 years
 
April 16, 2007

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) signed Senate Bill 367 into law April 3, putting into statute many procedures that ODs had sought to perform.

“At the onset of this legislative effort, our No. 1 priority was to clarify optometrists’ authority to continue providing the minor treatment procedures that have been legally and safely performed by optometrists in New Mexico for over 22 years by codifying procedures previously authorized by the New Mexico Board of Optometry,” said Richard Montoya, executive director of the New Mexico Optometric Association (NMOA).

The procedures include:
Non-laser removal, destruction or drainage of superficial eyelid lesions and conjunctival cysts;
Removal of nonperforating foreign bodies from the cornea, conjunctiva and eyelid;
Non-laser corneal debridement, culture, scrape or anterior puncture, not including removal of pterygium, corneal biopsy or removal of corneal neoplasias;
Removal of eyelashes; and
Probing, dilation, irrigation or closure of the tear drainage structures of the eyelid; scalpel use is to be applied only for the purpose of the use on the skin surrounding the eye.
Prior to this legislation, the NM Optometry Act read: “The practice of optometry… does not include the use of surgery or injections in the treatment of eye disease.”

The legislation was amended to include an “emergency clause,” which means it goes into effect immediately.

This legislation will authorize optometrists to perform any optometric surgical procedure except those that involve treatment lasers.

“The most critical aspect of this legislation is that these procedures are referred to as ‘SURGERY’ in statute, with mention of scalpel use,” Montoya said.

The second most critical aspect of this legislation, he said, is that the statute will not limit any of the above procedures to a certain technique (such as removal of foreign bodies by forceps).

“We feel this is a huge step for our profession, and our hope is that other states can apply some of the lessons learned in their own battles,” Montoya said.

“Our No. 1 one priority with this legislation was to maintain patients’ access to procedures that have been performed by optometrists in New Mexico for over 20 years,” said Bobby Jarrell, O.D., NMOA legislative chair.

The New Mexico Optometry Board authorized these procedures several years ago as a response to HIPAA regulations that mandate the use of CPT codes for all managed care transactions.

CPT coding guidelines categorize the above procedures as “surgical.”

“We recently received notice that, despite the Board’s authorization of these procedures, our regional Medicare carrier would no longer reimburse optometrists for these procedures because our Optometry Act prohibited optometrists from performing ANY surgical procedures,” Dr. Jarrell said. “The only solution was to authorize these procedures by statute and to clarify them as ‘surgical’ procedures.”

“Our two greatest strengths in passing this legislation were our close relationship with Governor Richardson and our membership’s involvement with their lawmakers at a grass-roots level,” Dr. Jarrell said. “With the help of an outstanding lobbyist, Mr. Luke Otero, we were able to leverage these strengths to achieve our goals.”

According to Dr. Jarrell, “Governor Richardson has always been a friend of optometry, and we have supported him from his early days as governor. He continues to be a strong advocate for our profession and the services we provide for our patients. As Mr. Richardson campaigns for U.S. president, we believe he will continue to support optometry on a national level.”

According to Montoya, members throughout the state have always maintained close relationships with their senators and representatives.

“They understand that these relationships take years to develop and cannot be cultivated overnight or only when we are asking lawmakers to pass legislation. It has been a 10-year effort to pass this bill,” he said.

“The offensive belligerent media campaign waged by the American Academy of Ophthalmology also worked to our advantage,” Dr. Jarrell said.

He noted that “most of the lawmakers were put off by the negative ads and some were outright offended (see related story).

<continued>
http://www.aoanews.org/x6639.xml?AOAMember
 
http://www.aoanews.org/x6639.xml?AOAMember - The article reads as follows:

NM optometrists celebrate surgical scope victory

April 16, 2007


From left, New Mexico Optometric Association Keyperson Tom Arvas, O.D., NMOA Legislative Chair Bobby Jarrell, O.D., New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), and NMOA Lobbyist Luke Otero.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) signed Senate Bill 367 into law April 3, putting into statute many procedures that ODs had sought to perform.

"At the onset of this legislative effort, our No. 1 priority was to clarify optometrists' authority to continue providing the minor treatment procedures that have been legally and safely performed by optometrists in New Mexico for over 22 years by codifying procedures previously authorized by the New Mexico Board of Optometry," said Richard Montoya, executive director of the New Mexico Optometric Association (NMOA).

The procedures include:

* Non-laser removal, destruction or drainage of superficial eyelid lesions and conjunctival cysts;
* Removal of nonperforating foreign bodies from the cornea, conjunctiva and eyelid;
* Non-laser corneal debridement, culture, scrape or anterior puncture, not including removal of pterygium, corneal biopsy or removal of corneal neoplasias;
* Removal of eyelashes; and
* Probing, dilation, irrigation or closure of the tear drainage structures of the eyelid; scalpel use is to be applied only for the purpose of the use on the skin surrounding the eye ------>😱 😕 :scared: (WTF IS GOING ON HERE?!)

Prior to this legislation, the NM Optometry Act read: "The practice of optometry&#8230; does not include the use of surgery or injections in the treatment of eye disease."

The legislation was amended to include an "emergency clause," which means it goes into effect immediately.

This legislation will authorize optometrists to perform any optometric surgical procedure except those that involve treatment lasers.

"The most critical aspect of this legislation is that these procedures are referred to as &#8216;SURGERY' in statute, with mention of scalpel use," Montoya said.

The second most critical aspect of this legislation, he said, is that the statute will not limit any of the above procedures to a certain technique (such as removal of foreign bodies by forceps).

"We feel this is a huge step for our profession, and our hope is that other states can apply some of the lessons learned in their own battles," Montoya said.

"Our No. 1 one priority with this legislation was to maintain patients' access to procedures that have been performed by optometrists in New Mexico for over 20 years," said Bobby Jarrell, O.D., NMOA legislative chair.

The New Mexico Optometry Board authorized these procedures several years ago as a response to HIPAA regulations that mandate the use of CPT codes for all managed care transactions.

CPT coding guidelines categorize the above procedures as "surgical."

"We recently received notice that, despite the Board's authorization of these procedures, our regional Medicare carrier would no longer reimburse optometrists for these procedures because our Optometry Act prohibited optometrists from performing ANY surgical procedures," Dr. Jarrell said. "The only solution was to authorize these procedures by statute and to clarify them as &#8216;surgical' procedures."

"Our two greatest strengths in passing this legislation were our close relationship with Governor Richardson and our membership's involvement with their lawmakers at a grass-roots level," Dr. Jarrell said. "With the help of an outstanding lobbyist, Mr. Luke Otero, we were able to leverage these strengths to achieve our goals."

According to Dr. Jarrell, "Governor Richardson has always been a friend of optometry, and we have supported him from his early days as governor. He continues to be a strong advocate for our profession and the services we provide for our patients. As Mr. Richardson campaigns for U.S. president, we believe he will continue to support optometry on a national level."

According to Montoya, members throughout the state have always maintained close relationships with their senators and representatives.

"They understand that these relationships take years to develop and cannot be cultivated overnight or only when we are asking lawmakers to pass legislation. It has been a 10-year effort to pass this bill," he said.

"The offensive belligerent media campaign waged by the American Academy of Ophthalmology also worked to our advantage," Dr. Jarrell said.

He noted that "most of the lawmakers were put off by the negative ads and some were outright offended (see related story).

One lawmaker from Albuquerque, Rep. Kathy McCoy (R), was quoted by the Associated Press: "If I was ever wavering on this at any point, I think the&#8230; basic marketing and hatchet job that the ophthalmologists did on the optometrists pushed me over."

NMOA officials credit "tremendous support from the AOA's State Government Relations Center, especially from the Committee Chair, Dr. Steve Loomis, and Sherry Cooper. They provided us with insight into the language of the legislation and advice on political strategy as we moved the bill forward."

According to Dr. Jarrell, "the optometrists from Oklahoma, namely AOA Trustee David Cockrell, O.D., from the Oklahoma Board of Optometry, and George Foster, O.D., with Northeastern State University College of Optometry, were also instrumental in guiding our efforts. They have been through these battles more than anyone, and they helped us anticipate the many obstacles we would face during this process."

Dr. Jarrell noted, "This is a great day for the profession of optometry, but the real winners here are our patients. There is no reason that people in need of the best quality eye care should not be able to receive that care from doctors who have been trained to treat their conditions," he said.

Optometrists are experts in treating diseases of the eye, he explained, and in many rural communities throughout New Mexico and the country optometrists are the only eye care providers.

"Those who support laws that do not allow optometrists to practice to the level of their education and training are doing the citizens of such states a tremendous disservice," Dr. Jarrell noted. "In New Mexico, a public health care crisis was created when a major medical insurance provider refused to reimburse optometrists for simple eye care services based on the restrictiveness of our law."
 
...Most dentists doing "hardcore" maxillofacial surgeries completed 2 years of medical school, have a dual degree, passed all the USMLE, completed a surgical internship, and an OMFS residency. This is the standard for most training programs. The comparison to optometry is again, apples to oranges.....

Although I agree this is comparing apples to oranges, the rest of this info is inaccurate. The MD degree is optional and peripheral to the specialty of oral & maxillofacial surgery (a dental specialty governed by the ADA). Only 40% of the residencies even offer a medical degree. It's definately not "the standard" when only 30% of practicing oral surgeons nationally have medical degrees.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Although I agree this is comparing apples to oranges, the rest of this info is inaccurate. The MD degree is optional and peripheral to the specialty of oral & maxillofacial surgery (a dental specialty governed by the ADA). Only 40% of the residencies even offer a medical degree. It's definately not "the standard" when only 30% of practicing oral surgeons nationally have medical degrees.

I disagree in that the MD degree is not peripheral to the subspecialty. The OMFS team at my institution maintains a fair number of inpatients on a regular basis and co-manage patients with the trauma team. Of course our OMFS team does a lot more than just pull teeth (most common OMFS procedure). While it is true that the majority of currently practicing oral surgeons do not have a medical degree, the trend has been for more and more training programs to require this so that many more recent graduates are graduating with dual degrees. At my institution, it is not optional, it is required. Neveretheless, the point is that general dentistry is a procedural profession. OMFS training includes not only additional surgical but also additional medical training and testing. There is no comparison to optometry. Like I said, apples and oranges.
 
I disagree in that the MD degree is not peripheral to the subspecialty. The OMFS team at my institution maintains a fair number of inpatients on a regular basis and co-manage patients with the trauma team. Of course our OMFS team does a lot more than just pull teeth (most common OMFS procedure). While it is true that the majority of currently practicing oral surgeons do not have a medical degree, the trend has been for more and more training programs to require this so that many more recent graduates are graduating with dual degrees. At my institution, it is not optional, it is required.....

All of the things your describe (admitting, managing inpatients, operating) are performed with a dental degree. None of these require an MD. I was admitting/managing inpatients and doing intracranial Lefort 3 advancements long before I got an MD. My medical degree changed nothing. While the MD is a required part of the OMFS residency at my institution as well, it is still optional as a specialty, and therefore peripheral to what we do. Non-MD faculty (DDS only) in my program perform skull base surgery, primary cleft repair, blephs/brows/rhytidectomy etc., harvesting of ribs/iliac crest/tibia/calvarium for bony reconstruction, etc. The MD adds nothing to our clinical scope of practice, and this is why the MD is indeed peripheral to our specialty.

There is definately no "trend" to incorporate the MD into more OMFS residencies. In the past decade, 4 programs have converted from MD-required to non-MD (Miami and 3 military programs). Nova Southeastern in FL just got a new program which is non-MD, as did Vanderbilt. Loma Linda just changed to an MD-required program, and I can't think of any others.

Didn't mean to hijack, but I feel the adequacy of our dental background is often overlooked by outsiders making comparisons.
 
The bottom line is that medicine in general is under constant assault from pseudo-physicians. Like it or not...

Optometrists claim to be physicians, i.e. optometric physicians.

Even oral surgeons don't call themselves "dental physicians".

The only other occupations that I am aware that call themselves physicians without attending medical school are chiropractic physicians and rug doctors.
 
NM optometrists celebrate surgical scope victory

scalpel use is to be applied only for the purpose of the use on the skin surrounding the eye

ok - this optometry lobby is admittedly getting a bit out of hand...

i have never been trained in the use of the scalpel, probably never even saw one in my 4 years of optometry school training, and would never think about using one for surgical purposes ever.

i can't imagine all NM ODs are in favor of this. quite honestly, this is probably the last thing on the minds of those working happily in their wal-mart, or those 40 and over who've had many years of successful practice.

anyways, i'm sure u MDs have more opinions on this than i do.
 
ok - this optometry lobby is admittedly getting a bit out of hand...

i have never been trained in the use of the scalpel, probably never even saw one in my 4 years of optometry school training, and would never think about using one for surgical purposes ever.

i can't imagine all NM ODs are in favor of this. quite honestly, this is probably the last thing on the minds of those working happily in their wal-mart, or those 40 and over who've had many years of successful practice.

anyways, i'm sure u MDs have more opinions on this than i do.

Hey, I appreciate you being logical and honest about the subject. I am in no way anti-optometry, but I realize that patient care will suffer if untrained professionals partake in procedures they are not accustomed to or are trained in. I just hope the general public is smart enough to realize this and make astute decisions in choosing eye care.
 
scalpel use is... really... silly.

i really don't think (no way) ODs have the training to do this kind of stuff. i've seen the procedures done, and i certainly wouldn't think about trying them. the easy stuff might seem simple, but how would one manage a complication? e.g. something as "simple" as bleeding that doesn't seem to stop --> send them to an ophthalmologist, in a hurry!

that said, i haven't been trained to do surgery, and to be fair, i don't know how my attitudes would be different IF i was properly trained to do surgery, but that's a different discussion entirely. i went to OD school cause i liked primary care, i did NOT go to do surgery i.e. no blood-n-guts.

anyways - i agree, its crazy.

is the use of scalpels (i can't believe i'm asking this question) supposed to be available to ANY OD, or do u need additional certification?
 
btw - i think the reality is that u won't suddenly have swarms upon swarms of ODs doing scalpel surgery. at most, u might have a (very) small handful more adventurous ODs doing it.

the rest (assume they have a certificate saying they're qualified) will prominently display their certificate in their waiting area, refer themselves as qualified to perform some eye "surgery", but still refer out all the surgical procedures to ophthalmologists anyways.

that's what i think anyways.
 
btw - in unfinished business from above,

those of u MDs who took the position that research/publishing has no significance in the discussion between OD/OMDs really allow me to question ur level of intellect. why on earth would u defend the position that research has no relevance to clinical practice? it is an absurd position to take, given which side u are on. consider:

- on medline, ophthalmology journals outnumber optometry journals by a factor of about 20 to 1. u guys are obviously on the forefront of eye research, why would u want to give up that natural advantage u have just for the sake of rhetoric?
- if u went into ur residency interview and declared "it is my position that research and clinical practice have no relation whatsoever", do u think u would have made it into ophthalmology? would u have made it into ANY residency?
- u ophthalmology residents have a publishing requirement don't u? why is this?
- ur academy journal, called Ophthalmology - why do u guys publish it if it has no relation to clinical practice?
- show me a SINGLE ARTICLE in an ophthalmology journal that has no relation to clinical practice.

i didn't reply earlier to this issue, cause i wanted the thread to take time off, but really - if the only position u take is the position OPPOSITE of someone u think is an OD, then u really have no intellect and no ability to formulate opinions for yourself.
 
Optometrists claim to be physicians, i.e. optometric physicians.

Even oral surgeons don't call themselves "dental physicians".

The only other occupations that I am aware that call themselves physicians without attending medical school are chiropractic physicians and rug doctors.

Repeat after me: It started for insurance. There's a good many insurance plans that only admit physicians.

Now I'll be the first to admit that this has gone a bit far (huge billboard ads with "Optometric Physician" on them, but then again I think any doc advertising on a billboard is tacky), but its origins are humble enough.
 
btw - in unfinished business from above,

those of u MDs who took the position that research/publishing has no significance in the discussion between OD/OMDs really allow me to question ur level of intellect. why on earth would u defend the position that research has no relevance to clinical practice? it is an absurd position to take, given which side u are on. consider:

- on medline, ophthalmology journals outnumber optometry journals by a factor of about 20 to 1. u guys are obviously on the forefront of eye research, why would u want to give up that natural advantage u have just for the sake of rhetoric?
- if u went into ur residency interview and declared "it is my position that research and clinical practice have no relation whatsoever", do u think u would have made it into ophthalmology? would u have made it into ANY residency?
- u ophthalmology residents have a publishing requirement don't u? why is this?
- ur academy journal, called Ophthalmology - why do u guys publish it if it has no relation to clinical practice?
- show me a SINGLE ARTICLE in an ophthalmology journal that has no relation to clinical practice.

i didn't reply earlier to this issue, cause i wanted the thread to take time off, but really - if the only position u take is the position OPPOSITE of someone u think is an OD, then u really have no intellect and no ability to formulate opinions for yourself.


14,

As I review this thread, I cannot find where anyone has advocated that research (basic science or clinical) is unimportant or irrelevant to how either profession delivers patient care. Research is important to both optometry and ophthalmology. This has not been called into question by anyone on this thread. What has been questioned is how participation in research and authoring peer-reviewed publications can justify allowing someone to begin performing surgical procedures without having had a formal surgical training. If you look back through the thread, you referred to the fact that you have been published in ophthalmology journals. You also asked me if I was published. I am an advocate for research. I am proud of the research I have done. I applaud you for your committment to research, and I hope this committment continues. But the ability to design a good study, collect and analyze data, and submit the results for publication does not mean that one deserves an expanded scope of practice that involves surgical procedures when they have had no surgical training. This is how you framed the debate, and others responded to it. Now you seek to manipulate and misinterpret those responses.

Nobody on this thread suggested that research is irrelevant to how we provide patient care. This is worth repeating: nobody on this thread suggested that research is irrelevant to how we provide patient care. In the era of evidence-based medicine, the scientific and clinical literature is the backbone of how medicine is practiced. Ophthalmology is no exception to this. But keep in mind that being a clinician and being a researcher are different skill sets. Some people do both of these things very well. There are some clinicians that could not design a good study if they had to. This does not make them bad clinicians, and it does not mean that they believe research in unimportant. Conversely, there are some non-clinicians who generate exceptional research, but NEVER see patients in a clinical context. This is especially true for those who do basic science research.

In the course of this debate over a surgical scope bill in New Mexico, the fact that anyone engaging in the debate has (or has not) published in peer-reviewed journals contributes nothing to the debate about whether the New Mexico bill is responsible legislation. Before you begin questioning anyone's intellect, make sure you understand what was actually being said. This style of misinterpretation and taking words out of context works great for lawyers and politicians, but it won't fly here.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
ok - this optometry lobby is admittedly getting a bit out of hand...

i have never been trained in the use of the scalpel, probably never even saw one in my 4 years of optometry school training, and would never think about using one for surgical purposes ever.

I can't say I've seen a scalpel yet either, and I really don't know if I will. However, I know OD's, some of my professors, that do have this training. Do you think that you were not exposed to this because you trained in Canada? Where did you complete your externships (any in the US), what experience did you get at those sites?
 
But the ability to design a good study, collect and analyze data, and submit the results for publication does not mean that one deserves an expanded scope of practice that involves surgical procedures when they have had no surgical training. This is how you framed the debate, and others responded to it. Now you seek to manipulate and misinterpret those responses.

the only person manipulating and misinterpreting responses is you.

the debate i entered, started with me challenging the notion that only ophthalmologists (or further, only MDs) can be experts on the eye.

go back to page 1 of this thread and read stuff in context. i never suggested publishing should lead to expanded scope. that notion first appeared in the thread YOU just wrote.

go back and read post #36 by toughguy. there'll u'll see an MD delineate between clinic and research. pinkertinkle above tried to ridicule me about the cover of IOVS. PDT stated me non-credible even though i publish. ALL this (given by MDs) suggests a separation between clinic and research. i didn't suggest it, and i didn't suggest publishing should lead to expanded scope. but u did. thanks. i'll think about the merits of that.
 
I can't say I've seen a scalpel yet either, and I really don't know if I will. However, I know OD's, some of my professors, that do have this training. Do you think that you were not exposed to this because you trained in Canada? Where did you complete your externships (any in the US), what experience did you get at those sites?

i did my externship with an ophthalmologist (cataract surgeon and glaucoma fellow).

i saw him do some minor lid surgeries. he wasn't trying to "teach" me, but i wouldn't feel comfortable doing them anyways.
 
New to this, I'm wondering for this new "surgery" thing in the bill that was just referenced, do malpractice rates for optometrists in that state go up now? It would seem that if you're allowed to do more, then malpractice insurance would make you accountable for more?

-Ice
 
Top Bottom