RE: Justification for New Optometry Programs

[Jason K]

I posed a question to Dr. Elizabeth Hoppe, the Dean of the new optometry program at WesternU Health Sciences. I asked her to comment on how she can justify the existence of their OD program in light of the existing excess our profession currently faces. Her response is below. I would hope that this thread could be a constructive dialogue highlighting both sides of the argument so that the initial thread intended for applicants to the program is not hijacked.

Personally, I feel the answer below is incredibly belittling to the problem at hand. It's clear that Dr. Hoppe spent several minutes google searching for some articles that have no bearing on the argument at hand, and then listed them as evidence to support her claim. I mean no personal attacks against Dr. Hoppe, I understand she is doing her job, but an actual, credible response would be very much appreciated.

Will representatives of the new schools please comment on their reason for existence with logical, constructive arguments? If Dr. Walls from the Massachusetts school would care to participate, I'm sure his views would be more than welcome. As someone who is beyond retirement age, many ODs would like to know why he feels the program in Massachusetts, an hour and half away from NECO, is needed at all if it's not for financial gain.

Thank you both for sharing your opinion and your concerns. While my thread is intended to help applicants navigate the application process and school selection, I did forward your question/concern to our Dean and have included her reply below.

Based on the best public health information and statistical data available today, the United States is expected to experience a shortage of all health care providers. Below are some links for more information, including articles that have been published in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The main points relate to expected increases in demand for health care due to improved access through health care reform, increased needs for services due to the aging population, and increased rates of eye disease associated with the diabetes epidemic. In addition, the United States has always had a geographic maldistribution of eye care providers, meaning that some areas have higher concentrations of providers, where other areas (such as rural and urban settings) remain underserved. We often find that people form opinions based on their personal experiences or personal frustrations, rather than based on health policy predictions. We always urge potential students to investigate all of the information and to receive input from a variety of sources. When weighing the evidence to reach a conclusion, we advise all of our current and future students to do the research themselves by looking at primary information sources rather than relying on one person's opinion. In addition to the articles shown below, there is a lot of information from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook, the American Public Health Association, and Health and Human Services. Other research publications with workforce projections can be found in the published literature in peer-reviewed manuscripts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=162934

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Shnurek]

Yeah, those links have nothing to do with Optometrists. They complain about a lack of primary care medical physicians.

Right now the ratio of people applying to optometry school vs getting in is 1.4:1

Seems like anybody can become an optometrist nowadays, awesome.

 

[Jason K]

As someone who has been working very hard the past few years to fulfill their dream of becoming an optometrist and just pressed the submit button last month, this is very depressing to read. Do you guys think that there is no need for new optometrists at all? Or that we shouldn't go to WesternU? Cause it sounds like your saying that were screwed regardless.

I'm not telling anyone to stay out of optometry. That's your decision to make based on the information you have at hand. For me, personally, if I could go back in time and never get an OD degree, I would do it in a heartbeat. The cost was WAY too high (over 200K for me) and the future of the profession is far too uncertain in my opinion, especially when you consider what is going on with the surplus problem and the addition of new OD schools. If nothing changes, that is, if new schools continue to open and flood an already super-saturated US market, optometry will head toward a major professional crisis in the next 5-10 years. It will be due to the uncontrolled numbers of OD grads being produced, the subsequent out-of-control growth of commercial optometry as a direct result of that surplus, cuts in insurance reimbursements, etc, etc. The rapid proliferation of commercial optometry has, in my opinion, been fueled by so many excess OD grads leaving school and having nowhere else to go. You've gotta pay those bills so if it means signing up with Walmart, Sam's or America's Best, then that's what you do. The result is an ever shrinking private practice market relative to the ever-expanding commercial optometry market. Just like pharmacy, we're heading towards a nearly entirely commercialized profession.

What I'm doing here is trying to give you guys some information you will not hear from the schools, the AOA, or anyone else interested in your money. I started school at a time when this problem was well underway, but I had no clue about it. The information was there for me to see on forums like this one, but I never sought it out. The negativity that I did hear, I dismissed as being from "ODs who just couldn't measure up. I'd be better than they were. I'd work hard, and I'd be different." Here I am, finished with my training, only to find out that those people who warned me about the profession were right all along.

I'm here to make applicants aware of the fact that there should not be new OD programs popping up all over the country while there is a significant excess of optometrists as it is. The general consensus across the US among practicing ODs is that these new programs are an absolutely ridiculous "sucker-punch" to the profession when it's already suffering. There is absolutely NO need for more ODs in the US right now. Private OD programs, the AOA, and meaningless surveys that you'll read in US News and Money Magazine will tell you that "the aging babyboomer population" and "increasing eye disease among older adults" will lead to an increased need for optometrists in the near future, but this is simply not true. There are more than enough ODs in the country right now to handle any increase in eye disease. Furthermore, most new ODs don't even enter practice modes in which they treat eye disease, you'll be doing almost entirely refractive optometry since the usual path for grads now days is commercial optometry; Costco, Walmart, Sam's Club, Sears, JCPenny, etc. I have a residency in ocular disease which I paid dearly to get in terms of interest on my loans and lost income due to low pay during my residency year. As an optometrist in a commercial setting, I see a handful of "disease" patients in a given month and it's usually stuff that will clear on its own whether I intervene or not. That's the kind of optometry you're heading for, not the kind in a nice, large, private group practice where everyone shares a mixture of routine and specialty cases. The "increased eye disease" and "aging babyboomer" nonsense is just smoke and mirrors and it's not based in reality.

The other excuse for new schools, my personal favorite, is the "We have underserved areas in the US that really need ODs." Very true, and that need could probably be filled COMPLETELY if a couple of hundred existing optometrists were given incentives to move to those areas and provide services. Which approach makes the most sense?

A) Fill the very small need for ODs in rural under served areas by attracting some of the existing ODs to those areas?

Or

B) Just cram as many ODs through the pipeline as possible without regard for the effects on the profession, hoping that a few will randomly decide they want to go practice in rural Kentucky of their own free will.

Again, I'm not telling you to stay out of optometry. That's up to you. But just know that when you show up the first day, you'll hear exactly what I heard on my first day; "You're entering the optometric profession at such an EXCITING time!! You'll graduate as the most highly-trained class of ODs yet, since each year we enhance our training. In just 4 short years, you guys will be making the Big Bucks!"

Better yet, since you'll be in a private program, private practice optometry will probably be emphasized while commercial optometry is downplayed. At some optometry schools, Luxottica reps are not even allowed on campus to recruit students. They have to do so in off-campus dinners if they want to. What no one bothered to tell us was the fact that commercial optometry was where just about all of us were headed after graduation. There simply aren't many private practice jobs available for new grads and those that are, are usually part-time, out-of-state, and likely to offer very low pay. But here I am, one of the roughly 70% of my class' graduates who currently practice in commercial optometry. I can assure you that none of us had any plans of doing anything other than private practice after we finished our training, and yet here we are, flipping dials at Walmart, Sam's, Sears, JCPenny, etc. That's not to mention the people, six years out of school, who have left the profession entirely.

Only you can make a decision as to whether or not to buy an OD for a couple of hundred grand. But know that you're not going to be making the 96 to 175K that's mentioned on the WesternU OD information page. It's just not going to happen. Those numbers are accurate, they're just not accurate for anyone going to school now. They apply to ODs who are already settled in their offices. Don't think that you can duplicate what today's thriving OD offices have done. Those practices were created at a time in which optometry was VERY different from today. Many new ODs, even some with considerable experience, have to string together part-time schedules, a couple of days at Walmart, one at Sam's Club, maybe a day in a private office if you're lucky. Finding a full-time associateship with benefits is very unlikely for new grads these days. It does happen, but it's going to be a few people per class. It's also going to be for a very low salary, in all likelihood. If the pay is too low for you, the next guy in line will be happy to take it.

Look, the job market is tough right now for everyone, ODs included. But the problems facing the profession right now are independent of the economic problems our nation is facing. I liken the optometric profession to an unruly teenager who can't control himself or his behavior. He just does what feels good or fun at the time without any regard for how it might affect him down the road. Other professions have run into surplus practitioner problems and they have self-regulated. They have had the foresight to monitor their own production of practitioners with an understanding that it will benefit the profession long term. Ophthalmology, for example, in the mid 1990s, decided they were putting out too many grads and they VOLUNTARILY cut several residency programs to address the issue. They didn't wait until there was an OMD on every street corner. They fixed the problem before it became a problem. What is optometry's response to a surplus of ODs? Well, why not just add 4 or 5 more optometry schools? Sure, we'll make some money while we can, and then we'll just open a physician's assistant program once the optometry "well" has dried up.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I honestly wish someone had presented this information bluntly to me before I started school. I got a lot of vague negativity with no explanation behind it. It was like they were afraid to tell me the truth. I'm not afraid to tell you the truth. Here it is, it's real, it's not pleasant, but it's here for you to consider. I can't tell you what to do, the decision is yours, but know that few practicing ODs would tell you there is anything but a gross excess of optometrists right now. We just don't need more.

The school is going to respond by saying that this is all just unwarranted negativity. That my claims are just those of a few disgruntled optometrists and not representative of optometrists across the nation. Unfortunately, you guys can't get on ODWire, a forum site for practicing ODs, until you're an OD student. If you could, you'd be able to read the dialog that's been going on for a long time now. People asking;

"Where are these new schools coming from?"
"Why are they starting up at a time when there's too many of us already?"
"Why has our AOA simply given up trying to stop them from starting up?"
"What's going to happen to our profession if this continues?"

The new schools' higher-ups, the deans, the presidents, etc, they're not worried about the profession and its future. They're comfortably "nestled" in their academic careers, making huge salaries guaranteed as long as they keep bringing students through the 1st year doors. They're not worried about your future either. You need to worry about your own future. Do your own research, talk to as many newer grad ODs as you can get your hands on, and make your decision with full knowledge of what you'll be getting. If you go into it with blinders on, you'll be very disappointed when you realize that what you worked so hard for and paid so dearly for is not what you ended up getting.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck, whatever you decide to do.

 

[imemily]

Lol, I doubt anyone will read that.

 

[KHE]

Jesus Christ.....I thought that I could be long winded.

 

[Jason K]

Jesus Christ.....I thought that I could be long winded.

Ha! Maybe, but yours was longer!

 

[Tippytoe]

"We often find that people form opinions based on their personal experiences or personal frustrations, rather than based on health policy predictions."

This quote is my main problem with the good doctor's response.

Does she truely believe we base all our opinions on our own little practice world? Does she not realize we have these things called the 'internet' and 'telephones' and 'meetings' where we talk with our colleagues from all over the country on a daily basis?

And yes, the shortage of family docs has absolutely no relationship to optometrists. Apples and oranges.

But then again, people in paid positions have to say what their handlers tell them to say. To do otherwise, is foolish.

 

[Judgment Dragon]

It seems like the optometry schools only care about the money and not the actual optometry profession.

 

[epalacios]

Jason K, I appreciate your thorough essay on the state of the profession.

It seems like a simple economic principle of supply and demand. These schools would not open if there was not a demand for them! Or at least if they did not feel that they could fill the seats. While I understand your perspective on the "negative" impact of corporate optometry, let's not forget that the VAST majority of people who go to see the eye doctor do so because they want to buy glasses, or because their contact lens prescription is about to expire. And since Walmart Vision Centers, Lenscrafters, Sears Optical, etc. exist for the sole purpose of selling glasses and contacts, there will always be a need for corporate optometry. It's the bread and butter of the optical industry! As a trained health care professional, optometrists are equipped to do far more than simple refractions, but don't underestimate the importance of the routine eye exam. How many vision threatening complications have been discovered during routine eye exams?!?! Many, many, my friend! So while pathology may be a very small part of the corporate optometrists daily routine, it does occur. And as I mentioned in my response to your other thread, independent OD's are allowed to determine their own scope of practice at corporate optical chains (state laws prohibit retailers from infringing upon the independent OD's practice).

So long ramble short, your practice is what you make of it; whether corporate or private. It's how you market yourself, and what kind of word of mouth references you get from satisfied patients. If you feel like a second-rate practicioner simply because you do eye exams at a Walmart, then that vibe will be picked up by your staff and ultimately your patients.

One thing I do agree with you on is this: if working for a corporate retailer scares you, then don't even get into the profession; because the statistics don't lie. Eight out of ten of us WILL end up in a corporate retailer. For me, that's no big deal!

 

[scalded]

Jason K, I appreciate your thorough essay on the state of the profession.

It seems like a simple economic principle of supply and demand. These schools would not open if there was not a demand for them! Or at least if they did not feel that they could fill the seats. While I understand your perspective on the "negative" impact of corporate optometry, let's not forget that the VAST majority of people who go to see the eye doctor do so because they want to buy glasses, or because their contact lens prescription is about to expire. And since Walmart Vision Centers, Lenscrafters, Sears Optical, etc. exist for the sole purpose of selling glasses and contacts, there will always be a need for corporate optometry. It's the bread and butter of the optical industry! As a trained health care professional, optometrists are equipped to do far more than simple refractions, but don't underestimate the importance of the routine eye exam. How many vision threatening complications have been discovered during routine eye exams?!?! Many, many, my friend! So while pathology may be a very small part of the corporate optometrists daily routine, it does occur. And as I mentioned in my response to your other thread, independent OD's are allowed to determine their own scope of practice at corporate optical chains (state laws prohibit retailers from infringing upon the independent OD's practice).

So long ramble short, your practice is what you make of it; whether corporate or private. It's how you market yourself, and what kind of word of mouth references you get from satisfied patients. If you feel like a second-rate practicioner simply because you do eye exams at a Walmart, then that vibe will be picked up by your staff and ultimately your patients.

One thing I do agree with you on is this: if working for a corporate retailer scares you, then don't even get into the profession; because the statistics don't lie. Eight out of ten of us WILL end up in a corporate retailer. For me, that's no big deal!

Jeese I love it when a pre-optometry student tells a practicing optometrist how things are out in the real world. Lets talk about supply and demand. The Schools customer is you the pre-optometry student not patients or post optometry school students. They don't care if you get a job when you get out or watch as wages slowly decline in the profession. As long as they can get your money in the way of 30 year loans it doesn't matter to them.

Since I started school 2 more optometry schools opened and 2 more are planned. right now in the US we have ~1 OD for every 9000 patients. during my practice lifetime the next 30 years if trends continue and no new schools open we will have ~1 OD for every 4500 patients.

In reality what will happen is salaries will drop to the point it not worth going into the profession in both commercial and private practice. Some people will leave the profession some will default on their loans and some schools will go out of business as it becomes a less desirable profession to enter. The problem is the lag time. It will not be a pretty time to be an optometrist. I just hope I can save up enough in the next 10 years to pay off my student loans because those don't get forgiven in bankruptcy kiddies.
good luck

 

[scalded]

oh when I said 9000 patients and 4500 patients I should have said people. cut that by ~60% to get actual potential patients.

 

[Jason K]

Jeese I love it when a pre-optometry student tells a practicing optometrist how things are out in the real world. Lets talk about supply and demand. The Schools customer is you the pre-optometry student not patients or post optometry school students. They don't care if you get a job when you get out or watch as wages slowly decline in the profession. As long as they can get your money in the way of 30 year loans it doesn't matter to them.

Since I started school 2 more optometry schools opened and 2 more are planned. right now in the US we have ~1 OD for every 9000 patients. during my practice lifetime the next 30 years if trends continue and no new schools open we will have ~1 OD for every 4500 patients.

In reality what will happen is salaries will drop to the point it not worth going into the profession in both commercial and private practice. Some people will leave the profession some will default on their loans and some schools will go out of business as it becomes a less desirable profession to enter. The problem is the lag time. It will not be a pretty time to be an optometrist. I just hope I can save up enough in the next 10 years to pay off my student loans because those don't get forgiven in bankruptcy kiddies.
good luck

You're right, the clock is ticking - I'm trying to get mine paid off as much as possible before the impending implosion.

 

[Jason K]

One thing I do agree with you on is this: if working for a corporate retailer scares you, then don't even get into the profession; because the statistics don't lie. Eight out of ten of us WILL end up in a corporate retailer. For me, that's no big deal!

epalacios, this is at the core of the problem today. People are short-sighted and don't realize that corporate/commercial optometry is sinking the profession by drowning out the relative presence of private practice. It's happening because new grads don't have anywhere else to go. No one enters optometry with the intention of making a career in commercial, but they end up their to pay the bills (as I did) and it grows the "beast" larger and larger with each graduating class. Be careful what you're "ok" with because when it becomes a reality, we'll have a very different profession.

The mounting OD surplus and the resultant commercial/corporate explosion is like a pot of slowly heating water. And as the old saying goes........

If you throw a frog into boiling water, he jumps out. Heat him up slowly and he boils to death.

 

[epalacios]

Jason K, what can the optometrist in a private setting do to serve their patients more effectively that cannot be done in a corporate setting?

My point for asking this question is to get a better understanding of why optometrists are so against corporate. I understand that corporate is pushing private practice out of business, but the reason for that is largely because private cannot compete with corporate on pricing, and patients are going where they can get the best value on eyewear and contact lenses. It's economies of scale; corporate charges much lower for glasses, because their costs are much lower, and they pass that savings to the customer. Therein lies the benefit of corporate: more affordable eyewear, which allows the patient to benefit!

So, back to my question: how does corporate negatively affect the optometrist in that setting? If the optometrist is free to practice how he/she sees fit, and the patient benefits on pricing, then it is a win for the doctor and a win for the patient.

 

[Tippytoe]

Jason K, what can the optometrist in a private setting do to serve their patients more effectively that cannot be done in a corporate setting?

My point for asking this question is to get a better understanding of why optometrists are so against corporate. I understand that corporate is pushing private practice out of business, but the reason for that is largely because private cannot compete with corporate on pricing, and patients are going where they can get the best value on eyewear and contact lenses. It's economies of scale; corporate charges much lower for glasses, because their costs are much lower, and they pass that savings to the customer. Therein lies the benefit of corporate: more affordable eyewear, which allows the patient to benefit!

So, back to my question: how does corporate negatively affect the optometrist in that setting? If the optometrist is free to practice how he/she sees fit, and the patient benefits on pricing, then it is a win for the doctor and a win for the patient.

I'll let Jason answer for himself. But I'll give you my opinion. You are correct that large corporation can deliver cheaper goods as a result of volume buying. Because of the desire to keep cost down, the upper level MBAs of the corporation will insist of the cheapest material frequently. For some, this is fine. But they try to use the same cheap lenses and frame on every person......a one size fits all.

But the biggest reason it's bad is that in the effort to sell as much product as possible, the corporation frequently makes the doc see more and more patients, forcing him/her to shortcut the exam---skip dilation, skip explanation, skip treating time-consuming conditions(glaucoma/macula degeneration, etc). Because the corporations ONLY concern is selling more products. All they need from the doc is a refraction written down so they can take it next door to buy glasses. They want refractionists........not doctors. Additionally, as a result, most times equipment is minimal.

If your an OD that is not writing ALOT of eyeglass Rx's, you won't be in the store long.

 

[Judgment Dragon]

You're right, the clock is ticking - I'm trying to get mine paid off as much as possible before the impending implosion.

How long have you been practicing optometry? How much debt did you started out with and how much debt do you still have left?

 

[KHE]

Jason K, I appreciate your thorough essay on the state of the profession.

It seems like a simple economic principle of supply and demand. These schools would not open if there was not a demand for them! Or at least if they did not feel that they could fill the seats.

Understand that the "demand" for seats in optometry schools has no bearing on whether there's demand for optometrists once they graduate.

While I understand your perspective on the "negative" impact of corporate optometry, let's not forget that the VAST majority of people who go to see the eye doctor do so because they want to buy glasses, or because their contact lens prescription is about to expire. And since Walmart Vision Centers, Lenscrafters, Sears Optical, etc. exist for the sole purpose of selling glasses and contacts, there will always be a need for corporate optometry. It's the bread and butter of the optical industry! As a trained health care professional, optometrists are equipped to do far more than simple refractions, but don't underestimate the importance of the routine eye exam. How many vision threatening complications have been discovered during routine eye exams?!?! Many, many, my friend! So while pathology may be a very small part of the corporate optometrists daily routine, it does occur. And as I mentioned in my response to your other thread, independent OD's are allowed to determine their own scope of practice at corporate optical chains (state laws prohibit retailers from infringing upon the independent OD's practice).

This whole notion of "independence" comes up all the time. Let's try to clear it up again because I've posted this dozens and dozens of times.

If you as an optometrist are practicing in any commercial setting, whether it's Lenscrafters or Walmart or Eyemart of whatever....if the optical is doing well or if the optical is doing as well as the optical/regional/district manager THINKS it should be doing....you will generally be left alone.

But once that optical is NOT doing well or is not doing as well as the optical/regional/district manager THINKS it should be or could be doing, THAT is when you will get "the visit" where the optical/regional/district manager will encourage you to reduce your fees, see more patients per hour, stay open later and work more time on weekends, "recommend" multiple pairs of glasses, "recommend" certain types of contact lenses, sign up for more insurance plans etc. etc.

If you don't get with the program, you will find out exactly how "independent" the "independent doctor of optometry next to *insert coprorate optical here*" is.

That doctor will be SO independent, they won't even work there anymore.

One thing I do agree with you on is this: if working for a corporate retailer scares you, then don't even get into the profession; because the statistics don't lie. Eight out of ten of us WILL end up in a corporate retailer. For me, that's no big deal!

It should be.

 

[optsuker]

...It seems like a simple economic principle of supply and demand. These schools would not open if there was not a demand for them! Or at least if they did not feel that they could fill the seats...

I'll skip the whole corporate debate and just address this incredibly naive statement.

The new school are purely seen as a profit center for the schools establishing them. Secondary motivation is trying to increase the prestige of the school by expanding the doctorate programs they offer.

Notice that it's not optometry or a public health group that's asking for/opening new schools.

Bottom line is that these schools will be accepting applicants that couldn't (shouldn't!) be accepted anywhere. They'll flood an already weak market for good positions, making it worse for all new OD's. Their students loans will dominate their first 10-15 years of practice & reimbursement will go down for the whole profession.

It really scares me when I see threads boasting about being accepted with a 2.5 GPA and admitted weakness in science classes! Guess what? optometry school is ALL science classes!

 

[Judgment Dragon]

It seems like a simple economic principle of supply and demand.

Demand to enter optometry school =/= demand for optometrist in the job market especially when people don't properly research about the job market.

 

[Jason K]

How long have you been practicing optometry? How much debt did you started out with and how much debt do you still have left?

6 years. I left school with about 180K, did a residency and racked up more debt due to low pay and high interest. Now I'm back to pretty much what I graduated with. If you don't or can't over-pay, your dent against the principal doesn't move much for a long time.

 

[Eyes Only]

So, back to my question: how does corporate negatively affect the optometrist in that setting? If the optometrist is free to practice how he/she sees fit, and the patient benefits on pricing, then it is a win for the doctor and a win for the patient.

Regardless of what you hear or read, there is no "independent practice" within the typical commercial setting. I have known people to lose their lease because they added a few dollars to the exam fee, wouldn't work the "required" hours or days, or just irritated the "district manager" one time too many.

If you want to be independent and practice the way you should, you need your own practice.

 

[Judgment Dragon]

Does the fact that there is an oversupply of ODs harm the current ODs or just the new ODs and the graduating ODs? In other words, should an OD who has 20 years of experience fear an oversupply of ODs? I'm assuming "yes" due to the fact that the new ODs drive down the salaries of the old and experienced ODs. I want to ask to hear a 2nd opinion though.

 

[nicmc]

I'll skip the whole corporate debate and just address this incredibly naive statement.

The new school are purely seen as a profit center for the schools establishing them. Secondary motivation is trying to increase the prestige of the school by expanding the doctorate programs they offer.

Notice that it's not optometry or a public health group that's asking for/opening new schools.

Bottom line is that these schools will be accepting applicants that couldn't (shouldn't!) be accepted anywhere. They'll flood an already weak market for good positions, making it worse for all new OD's. Their students loans will dominate their first 10-15 years of practice & reimbursement will go down for the whole profession.

It really scares me when I see threads boasting about being accepted with a 2.5 GPA and admitted weakness in science classes! Guess what? optometry school is ALL science classes!

I agree completely. The new schools available are only increasing the number of Optometrists, and decreasing the quality of applicant. It really scares me too when I see someone with a 2.5 get in or someone who struggles with science classes. This may offend someone, but I think that a sub-3.0 should be automatic grounds for rejection.

 

[Jason K]

Does the fact that there is an oversupply of ODs harm the current ODs or just the new ODs and the graduating ODs? In other words, should an OD who has 20 years of experience fear an oversupply of ODs? I'm assuming "yes" due to the fact that the new ODs drive down the salaries of the old and experienced ODs. I want to ask to hear a 2nd opinion though.

Your question gets to the core of this entire debate. All ODs are affected by the oversupply issue, although some much more than others. It's bringing the entire profession down. Your question, however, really points to what needs to be well understood by anyone considering the profession.

It's not the guys 20 years out who are in a total panic about this. They're very upset by it, there's no doubt about that. I'm sure they even fear what the future will bring, but most of those docs of that experience level are in private practice with partial or complete ownership. They have their lots carved out at this point. They're not trying to get into the game, they're already in it. Personally, I think that if the experienced ODs in the US were a little more concerned, more people would be aware of the problem. As a profession, we have been hiding our "dirty laundry" for too long. The AOA sits on data it has, schools blatantly lie to prospective ODs, and practicing ODs are hesitant to be totally honest about how they view the future.

My point is, it's the newbies who are going to be left out in the cold. The optometry they're signing up for is drastically different from the one they are going to get. People who see that 20 or 30 year old OD practice and think that they're looking at the face of optometry now and in the future. The reality is, that side of optometry is fading away and will not likely return. It's actually already gone for those entering the profession now.

There are many forces putting a strain on the profession, but the oversupply issue is crushing the future for optometry. It's not the experienced owner docs who will be devastated by the problem, it's the younger ODs and anyone who has hopes of a career in respectable private practice. Commercial optometry is the future unless something dramatic happens very soon.

And what's more frightening? Once the commercial side has completely taken over, there won't be any reason to provide "incentives" for new grads to enter that mode of practice. Then the clamp will really close. Pay for new grads will drop even more, hours will increase even more, benefits will disappear even more, those cheap little monthly leases at the big-box discount store will suddenly not be so cheap anymore. That's when things will really get ugly. I think we're actually right at the cusp of that point right now. New grads have nowhere else to go and it's only a matter of time before the effects of that trickle up to the hiring/leasing entities in commercial optometry. If luxottica decided tomorrow to cut starting pay by 10 or 15K, new grads would still be lining up for jobs, that's the reality of the situation.

I really wish something could be done, but the reality is, the people who could do something about it don't have the necessary motivation and the people most affected by it are largely unaware that the problem even exists. By the time everyone sees the problem, it will be too late to do anything about it. A very sad situation for the profession.

 

[Jason K]

Jason K, what can the optometrist in a private setting do to serve their patients more effectively that cannot be done in a corporate setting?

My point for asking this question is to get a better understanding of why optometrists are so against corporate. I understand that corporate is pushing private practice out of business, but the reason for that is largely because private cannot compete with corporate on pricing, and patients are going where they can get the best value on eyewear and contact lenses. It's economies of scale; corporate charges much lower for glasses, because their costs are much lower, and they pass that savings to the customer. Therein lies the benefit of corporate: more affordable eyewear, which allows the patient to benefit!

So, back to my question: how does corporate negatively affect the optometrist in that setting? If the optometrist is free to practice how he/she sees fit, and the patient benefits on pricing, then it is a win for the doctor and a win for the patient.

(Sorry I missed this question initially, it's a good one!)

Epalacios, the reason for the fear of corporate/commercial takeover of optometry has to do with control, specifically, control of patient care. In a corporate or commercial setting, you're not ultimately in control of the care you deliver to your patients. You may think you are, but you're not. The people in control are interested in profit over patient care. As doctors, we're trained to provide good care before all else, we take an oath on it. We're not out to lose money, sure, any OD wants to profit from his training, but the vast majority would not choose to sacrifice good care and their professional reputation to make a few extra bucks. Corporate/commercial entities take no such oath. They have an "oath" to make a profit even if it might be at the expense of good care. Saving pennies on the dollar is what matters, even if it means cutting large corners. Profit is the goal above all else. Don't think for one second that it is any other way.

When you work in private practice for someone else, you might argue that you don't have complete control of your patient care either. The difference there is, the person in control of you is a doctor, another person who has sworn to, and has been trained to deliver good care to his patients. I'm in no way saying that docs in commercial and corporate settings are not delivering good patient care as best they can, but they're not ultimately in control of the services they deliver and that is the problem. Nor am I implying that all private practices are run by ethical ODs. It's the underlying drive that matters; profit for corporate/commercial and patient care for private practice.

As the corporate/commercial side of optometry expands with each new graduating class of fresh-faced ODs, more control of our own profession is lost to those primarily interested in profit from the sale of materials. It's driving down the perceived value of optometry and its services, it's absorbing the vast majority of new grads, and it's seizing control of the profession, all while practicing ODs are watching the whole train wreck unfold before our own eyes. When commercial and corporate entities have a complete hold on optometry, then the "fun" will really begin. That, in my opinion, is what's wrong with commercial and corporate optometry.

.........that, and those ridiculous commercials for Pearle Vision. They're unbelievably annoying.

As a trained health care professional, optometrists are equipped to do far more than simple refractions, but don't underestimate the importance of the routine eye exam. How many vision threatening complications have been discovered during routine eye exams?!?! Many, many, my friend! So while pathology may be a very small part of the corporate optometrists daily routine, it does occur. And as I mentioned in my response to your other thread, independent OD's are allowed to determine their own scope of practice at corporate optical chains (state laws prohibit retailers from infringing upon the independent OD's practice).

Ok, for god's sake, please don't lecture to me about what I can and can't do as an OD - I'm aware. I don't mean to be blunt here, but your response highlights your misunderstanding of the problem. The vast majority of private practice ODs in the US make their living on routine eye care. No one fears corporate optometry because they only bother with routine exams. It's about control. Again, you may think the guy at Walmart has total control over his practice, but nothing could be further from the truth. I won't even get started with the situations of employed ODs at LC, PV, AB, etc. Luxottica and other commercial entities are seeking to seize more and more "real estate" in optometry and make no mistake, they are succeeding.

 

[gmch155]

This site is notorious for trashing certain professions in an attempt to get less to apply to x profession.

Jason K (+ others), your obsessive posting definitely throws red flags everywhere. Perhaps you are trying to discourage many in a shallow attempt to increase your chances/profession.

I would love to see a photo of your degree. It'll take 5 minutes. Take a pic, post it here. Prove to us you aren't a low life who is trashing optometry. Prove to us that you are indeed a certified optometrist.

I know of available spots in my area for optometrists. I am in a rural area, but regardless there are job openings.

 

[imemily]

This site is notorious for trashing certain professions in an attempt to get less to apply to x profession.

Jason K (+ others), your obsessive posting definitely throws red flags everywhere. Perhaps you are trying to discourage many in a shallow attempt to increase your chances/profession.

I would love to see a photo of your degree. It'll take 5 minutes. Take a pic, post it here. Prove to us you aren't a low life who is trashing optometry. Prove to us that you are indeed a certified optometrist.

I know of available spots in my area for optometrists. I am in a rural area, but regardless there are job openings.

Hey, I've been saying this all along.

I highly doubt JasonK is even an Optometrist. Same goes with tippytoe.

 

[Jason K]

Perhaps you are trying to discourage many in a shallow attempt to increase your chances/profession.

Hi netmag. Why did you change your name to gmch155? Anyway, it's "yes" to the first claim and "no" to the second. There's no "perhaps" - my main reason for being here is to inform people that optometry is a profession heading rapidly in the wrong direction. I thought we already established that a long time ago. If someone is too blinded to see the "writing on the wall," that's something they'll have to deal with once they're an OD. As far as trying to increase my personal chances within optometry? If you had any clue as to the scale of the mounting excess and the resultant problems that are forming because of it, you'd see how ridiculous that statement really is.

I would love to see a photo of your degree. It'll take 5 minutes. Take a pic, post it here. Prove to us you aren't a low life who is trashing optometry. Prove to us that you are indeed a certified optometrist.

I love this...."prove to US?" What is this, a jury trial now? Are you Perry Mason or something? Prove to me you're a pre-dental student (odd since all of your posts are optometry-related.) Better yet, prove to me you're not an annoying pharmacist who blows into town every once in a while, makes false claims about other posters (ie me), and then backs down when he's asked to justify his claims. You seem a little charged up for someone who's only been on for a couple of days and there's a striking similarity between you two. I wonder if you couldn't be someone who's been on here all along, just back with a shiny new screen name. I guess we'll never know. If you are, indeed, who I strongly suspect (know) you are, then you have just catapulted yourself into a whole new realm of lameness.

Is that really what it's come to now, though? You don't have anything else to say so you try to prove that I'm some kind of optometric "imposter," roaming the OD forums pointing out the shortcomings of optometry for no particular reason? Really?

....You know what? You caught me. I'm actually not an OD. I wanted to be one, but I suffer from lachanophobia (an irrational fear of vegetables). As such, I was unable to bring myself to use fluorescein strips for fear that I might contaminate myself with the wretched substance (it's a vegetable-based dye). I asked one school if I could just use yellow food coloring, but they said no. So, what am I? Well, if you must know, I'm............I'm an aardvark whisperer. That's right, everyone, I tame wild African aardvarks.....you know, for roles in feature films and such. I train them to do little aardvark back flips, bike riding, juggling, and other general mammalian hijinks. I have one veteran aardvark that I've trained to actually juggle other aardvarks - it's crazy. Why does anyone need an aardvark whisperer? Well, people are largely unaware of the potential four-legged carnage that can be unleashed by an aardvark if the conditions are right. Sure, they look harmless; a long tubular furry snout, short stubby little legs, but lose focus for even a second, and the little guy gets behind you? - all of a sudden you're an unwilling participant in a human/aardvark pinwheel assembly. It's terrible, I've seen it too many times - guys end up not bein' able to sit right for a month. (...remember what I said about responding to garbage with garbage??)

I know of available spots in my area for optometrists. I am in a rural area, but regardless there are job openings.

Jesus, is there a gas leak in here or something? We've been through all this before. I've never denied that there are opportunities for ODs in some very rural areas. Is that your justification for 1600ish people that will soon be entering optometry each year, adding to an already heavily over-supplied market? Is that it? That every one of those 1600 fresh-faced ODs should just move to a new state and live in a town of 200? Maybe they can all move to the same town and do exams on each other? Please tell me that a few jobs in rural parts of the country is not what you're resting everyone's hopes on.

 

[Jason K]

I highly doubt JasonK is even an Optometrist. Same goes with tippytoe.

You're right - you solved the mystery. Tippytoe is a tap-dance instructor. His name gave him away. I'm sure he'll be devastated that I gave up his true occupation. Sorry Tippytoe, there's just no hiding anything from this one, she's just too crafty.

 

[Tippytoe]

You're right - you solved the mystery. Tippytoe is a tap-dance instructor. His name gave him away. I'm sure he'll be devastated that I gave up his true occupation. Sorry Tippytoe, there's just no hiding anything from this one, she's just too crafty.

Actually I'm an astronaut. But with the space shuttle progam all but over, I've got alot of free time on my hands. So since I don't have a family, a hobby, friends or a life, I come on here and randomly post negative things about optometry. I skip every other profession. I have a secret hatred for optometrists because one made me wear some horrible rigid gas-permable (RGP) contact lenses when I was a kid.

So I have an agenda. I am going to bad-mouth optometry so no one enters the field and as a result, all the school will close down and half of the population will be walking around blind because there will be no one to give them glasses.

You're a smart one, you are!

 

[Jason K]

Actually I'm an astronaut. But with the space shuttle progam all but over, I've got alot of free time on my hands.....

Funny thing, before I became a world-renowned expert in aardvark science, I too once considered a career in the astronautical arts. I had narrowed down my choices to airforce test pilot, astronaut, and aardvark tamer. I think the wise choice was obvious.

I feel your pain regarding the GP experience, but for me, what triggered my insatiable need to deter people from optometry was a terrible tragedy involving my first pair of glasses. See, my mother had an unusual fascination with Elton John. As a fairly near-sighted child, I wore glasses from the first grade onward. Things would not have been so bad, but my mother insisted I have lenses mounted in actual frames that once belonged to Elton John (the exact pairs are pictured below) - she had won them all in a raffle. For all of elementary and high school I was forced to wear them day in and day out. Let me tell you, kids can be pretty cruel. Do you know what it was like to have to jumping jacks with that first pair on? I still wake up with nightmares. So, when I'm not out taming african land-dwelling insectivores, I'm here, warning all those who would seek a career in optometry for no particular reason other than my traumatic flamboyant spectacle experience and to spare other children the same fate.

(I don't know how imemily sniffed me out too. Here I thought I was fooling everyone. Look out Angela Landsbury, there's a new super-sleuth in town! )

I played running back in HS. Try getting a helmet on over these frames.

I failed my driver's test because of these babies.

These actually came in handy for cleaning my laptop keyboard. Other than that, they were awful.


.

 

[imemily]

Lol!

You guys are entertaining, but its really easy to see through your posts. (not that I actually read them!)

 

[Tippytoe]

Lol!

You guys are entertaining, but its really easy to see through your posts. (not that I actually read them!)

Emily,

I would like for you to post a copy of your driver's license (if you have one) so we can prove that you are real. I have a wager that you are 14 years old, living with mommy and daddy with Justin Beber posters all over your walls. In which case, I feel weird interacting with a pre-pubescent little girl so I'll have to end it here.

Don't forget SpongeBob is coming on tonight and if your lucky, you might case an episode of My Little Pony.

My second guess is that you are a 53 year old balding, homely man who's never been with a woman while you're still living in your parent's basement and you use 'imemily' as you pseudonym while surfing teenage 'badboy' websites.

So which is it? Tell us a little about yourself.

 

[iammc]

jason,
if you think is optometry is bad..
what do you think about dentist vs pharmacist vs optometrists?
do you think optometrists are worse than those two?

 

[Jason K]

jason,
if you think is optometry is bad..
what do you think about dentist vs pharmacist vs optometrists?
do you think optometrists are worse than those two?

Depends on your definition "worse." Dentistry is the only one of the three that doesn't have a significant commercial side to it (yet). But they have forces working against a commercial take-over of the profession. Optometry really doesn't. That translates to a lot of advantages for new DMD/DDS grads, existing practitioners, and the dental profession as a whole. Is dentistry perfect? No. For starters, it's expensive just like all the rest. As for pharmacy, it's already commercialized while optometry is well on its way.

There are many different ways to compare the three professions. If I take an overall look at things, to me, dentistry offers the best long-term outlook across the factors that I consider most important. Is it perfect? No. Are there unhappy dentists out there? I'm sure there are (I don't know any, though). But from what I hear from those within the profession, dentistry doesn't have a large segment of its practitioners in a major panic over where the profession is heading. Optometry cannot say the same. As for pharmacy, I never really considered it because it didn't offer the independent direct patient care I was after. It's fundamentally different from the other two so it's a little bit of an "apples and oranges" comparison.

My advice; look at the professions you are considering and try to find out whether your expectations once you graduate actually meet with what's realistic given the current and any likely future changes. If you have dreams of opening your own private OD practice after you graduate, and living happily ever after in a city of your choice, I'd take serious pause before you apply to any OD programs. New grads these days aren't opening offices, they're going into commercial for a variety of reasons. If you're ok with working in a Walmart or similar setting for your career, then maybe an OD won't be as bad as it would for someone like me who dislikes it intensely both for the work itself and what it is doing to the profession.

Just talk to as many practitioners as you can and make sure that they are in settings that you are interested in. Don't just talk to a few career military ODs if you're interested in working in private practice. Sounds obvious, but a lot of people assume the opinions they get will be equally applicable across the board.

Put it this way, if one of my kids were old enough to be looking at professional schools, insisted on pursuing a health care degree right now, and could take a pick of those three, I'd say go with the dental degree over the other two without even a moments hesitation.

 

[imemily]

Emily,

I would like for you to post a copy of your driver's license (if you have one) so we can prove that you are real. I have a wager that you are 14 years old, living with mommy and daddy with Justin Beber posters all over your walls. In which case, I feel weird interacting with a pre-pubescent little girl so I'll have to end it here.

Don't forget SpongeBob is coming on tonight and if your lucky, you might case an episode of My Little Pony.

My second guess is that you are a 53 year old balding, homely man who's never been with a woman while you're still living in your parent's basement and you use 'imemily' as you pseudonym while surfing teenage 'badboy' websites.

So which is it? Tell us a little about yourself.

Its obvious you are not an OD. Quite pathetic really; at least sound like you hold a doctorate degree. Also, I really didn't read this post...I read the first couple of words and assumed it would be one of those posts which you cant back up, like always.

You know, I may just give a shout out to KHE or one of the mods if you continue to troll!

EDIT: Reported; expect PMs soon!

 

[iammc]

Put it this way, if one of my kids were old enough to be looking at professional schools, insisted on pursuing a health care degree right now, and could take a pick of those three, I'd say go with the dental degree over the other two without even a moments hesitation.

i hate looking at dirty teeth all day!! it all depends what you like..

i dont know if you realized it but did you notice all those groupon deals or local deals that many dentists offers x-ray exam, cleaning, and whitening tools for less than $50 bucks now..i wonder why. green is always greener on other side.

no matter what profession you are in, there is always people who are sucessful at what you do.. and there is always who are not happy with profession.. i dont see your point getting anywhere jason..it is usually people who had bad experience that need to vent more.
this arguement will never end and it has been going over for a few years now

 

[Jason K]

i hate looking at dirty teeth all day!! it all depends what you like..

i dont know if you realized it but did you notice all those groupon deals or local deals that many dentists offers x-ray exam, cleaning, and whitening tools for less than $50 bucks now..i wonder why. green is always greener on other side.

As I said, dentistry is not perfect. Nothing is. But as "bad" as you think any trends in dentistry might be, the ones going on in optometry are far worse. If you can't stand looking at teeth, however, none of that really matters. Personally, the human mouth doesn't scare me all that much. I'd much rather stare into a mouth for 8 hours straight than do what gynecologists do all day long, but that's just me.

no matter what profession you are in, there is always people who are sucessful at what you do.. and there is always who are not happy with profession.. i dont see your point getting anywhere jason..

this arguement will never end and it has been going over for a few years now

If you don't see my point going anywhere, then you simply don't understand the problem. I can't help you with that if you don't already get it.

it is usually people who had bad experience that need to vent more.

It's almost always people who've had bad experiences who need to vent more. What's your point? Does the fact that thousands of ODs are having "bad experiences" seem irrelevant to you? As I've said before many times, take a stroll through the threads on "The State of Optometry" over on ODWire. You'll have all the "venting" you'll ever need. Here on SDN, negativity is almost universally met with immediate attacks and suspicion. On ODWire, positivity is met with the same animosity. Who do you want to place your trust in....a group of naive pre-optometry students or a group of experienced optometrists who are fed up with the garbage that's going on in the profession?

 

[iammc]

As I said, dentistry is not perfect. Nothing is. But as "bad" as you think any trends in dentistry might be, the ones going on in optometry are far worse. If you can't stand looking at teeth, however, none of that really matters. Personally, the human mouth doesn't scare me all that much. I'd much rather stare into a mouth for 8 hours straight than do what gynecologists do all day long, but that's just me.

we will never know how these professions will change in next 10-20 years.
there are 61 dental schools (not including dental medicine school) so go figure what dentistry will become..pharmacy schools are over 100 with commericialization..so only time will tell and will also depend on health reform and where us will be next 20 years.

 

[Jason K]

we will never know how these professions will change in next 10-20 years.
there are 61 dental schools (not including dental medicine school) so go figure what dentistry will become..pharmacy schools are over 100 with commericialization..so only time will tell and will also depend on health reform and where us will be next 20 years.

Very true, there's a possibility that dentistry could follow the path of optometry. You know why it almost certainly won't happen? Because dentistry will steer itself out of harm's way long before they get to where we are now. They won't let this happen to themselves because they've got a built in feedback loop. Optometry does not have that mechanism in place.

 

[Tippytoe]

Its obvious you are not an OD. Quite pathetic really; at least sound like you hold a doctorate degree. Also, I really didn't read this post...I read the first couple of words and assumed it would be one of those posts which you cant back up, like always.

You know, I may just give a shout out to KHE or one of the mods if you continue to troll!

EDIT: Reported; expect PMs soon!

Love you too!

 

[Judgment Dragon]

Very true, there's a possibility that dentistry could follow the path of optometry. You know why it almost certainly won't happen? Because dentistry will steer itself out of harm's way long before they get to where we are now. They won't let this happen to themselves because they've got a built in feedback loop. Optometry does not have that mechanism in place.

What is the built in feedback loop mechanism?

 

[Jason K]

What is the built in feedback loop mechanism?

The negative feedback loop is professional leadership which monitors the direction of the profession, taking actions to adjust its course when necessary to maintain its health. Within "self-regulating" professions such as ophthalmology, dentistry, and podiatry, programs are encouraged to cut back on numbers during times of practitioner excess. This encouragement comes from the top and within the profession. Unfortunately, optometry does not have such a mechanism. In fact, we have quite the opposite in place. We have a positive feedback loop. Instead of cutting back seats and programs when the AOA "uncovered" an impending excess of optometrists, they decided the best course of action would be to bury the information and keep moving "business as usual." Now, not too many years later, we see new programs popping up at a time when we should be closing them. We have a very strong desire to cut back enrollment from within the profession, but we lack the leadership with the frame of mind to actually do anything about it.

I believe the AOA has created this mess with a purpose. They benefit tremendously from such as vast excess of ODs (estimated to top out at around 60K from a level of about 30K). Well, I should say, they think they do. The potential revenue in dues is around $50 million per year for that level of increase. But, what they are not considering is that when 95% of ODs in the US are in commercial practice, their incomes will drop even further and the idea of paying $1700 /per year for AOA dues will become as ridiculous as the membership itself. I'm certainly not going to pay 2% of my income for a plastic card and bunch of BS from the institution that ruined my profession and made my degree worth a lot less than it should be.

 

[vandal]

Hi Jason,

So I read what you wrote, and it scares me. Is it really that bad? Would I not be able to make a decent living? I know I'm not going to bringing home a huge amount of money, but enough to live on(i.e pay back loans and buy a house one day). I want to practice in California, which I know is pretty saturated. I'm just so far into the process(I'm basically turning the application in today) that I feel I would have wasted so much time, money and work if I quit now.

I mean, I'm sure I have the grades and ability to go dental school, but I just haven't done enough research on it to see if I would enjoy it as a career.

What do you think?

 

[Jason K]

Hi Jason,

So I read what you wrote, and it scares me. Is it really that bad? Would I not be able to make a decent living? I know I'm not going to bringing home a huge amount of money, but enough to live on(i.e pay back loans and buy a house one day). I want to practice in California, which I know is pretty saturated. I'm just so far into the process(I'm basically turning the application in today) that I feel I would have wasted so much time, money and work if I quit now.

I mean, I'm sure I have the grades and ability to go dental school, but I just haven't done enough research on it to see if I would enjoy it as a career.

What do you think?

There are some ODs who have a slightly more optimistic view than I do, but even they usually admit that the future is not going to be pretty. Knowing what I know about the way things have gone in the past and what's likely not to happen in the future, I see optometry ending up just like pharmacy, almost entirely commercial. If that mode of practice meets your needs, then you may do just fine. Just know that your pay will likely not be in line with what successful PP docs are making now. The figures that many schools post on their websites are unrealistic. (WesternU, for ex quotes a range of 96K to 175K.) If you read that range and think it's accurate for people going to school today, you're in for a real shocker. New docs in commercial practice sometimes start out with a little higher pay than a PP associate, but top out a lot lower and stay there for the duration. They also don't enjoy the independence that one has in PP.

As far as income goes, figure out what you'll likely need to borrow, what that amount will cost you in terms of monthly payments, then multiply by 12 and subtract that from your expected income. Many potential ODs forget the little step of accounting for student loan payments when figuring out income. If you're making 85K per year in a retail setting, you're not making 85K. Your're making 85K - 12(monthly loan payment). For many, that amount is about 55-60K per year. There are some college degrees that will get you that income right out of school so unless you really enjoy what you're doing in commercial optometry, you might be very disappointed with your career once you're in it and working. Am I saying that you're guaranteed to be stuck in commercial? No, but based on the numbers, that's where you're most likely to end up, especially if you plan on staying in CA.

You will very likely have to move out of state to find a FT job. That you wish to stay in CA worries me. If you have any intention of staying near anything close to a populated city, certainly anything near the coast, forget it. You'll be stringing together single days at doc-in-the box locations for years and may never find a FT position. I know too many docs who are 5-10 years out of school, many with residencies, who have never found FT work in CA. Some do, but most don't and in any case, you're likely to pay for your surroundings/nice weather in the form of lower pay. Some people are of the misconception that pay is higher in CA to meet the increase in cost-of-living, as it is in NYC, for ex, but it's not the case.

I can't tell you whether dental is right for you or not, but really think about whether staring into people's mouths will really be "that bad." I know a GI specialist who shoves tubes up people's "tail pipes" a couple of days per week and loves what he does. Every part of the body needs a doc to look at it, the mouth is just another one.

Finally, why do you think it's too late to change? You haven't even started yet in my opinion. If you think you've wasted time at this point, imagine being in my position. For me, it's too late. For you, it's not.

 

[Jason K]

there are 61 dental schools (not including dental medicine school) so go figure what dentistry will become.

For what it's worth, there are 61 accredited dental programs in the US right now. That DOES include what you call "dental medicine schools." I'm assuming when you say "dental medicine schools," you are referring to DMD programs. DMD and DDS degrees are absolutely equivalent in terms of practice scope, they do exactly the same thing. A DMD can do no more than a DDS.

 

[319671]

For what it's worth, there are 61 accredited dental programs in the US right now. That DOES included what you call "dental medicine schools." I'm assuming when you say "dental medicine schools," you are referring to DMD programs. DMD and DDS degrees are absolutely equivalent in terms of practice scope, they do exactly the same thing. A DMD can do no more than a DDS.

http://www.drsimonrosenberg.com/d_m_d__versus_d_d_s_.html

 

[xmattODx]

Finally, why do you think it's too late to change? You haven't even started yet in my opinion. If you think you've wasted time at this point, imagine being in my position. For me, it's too late. For you, it's not.

I've been following your posts with some interest. Why is it too late for you? Remind us when you graduated.

When I was working commercial full-time (and going to graduate school full-time) my employer, who must have been in his 40s, up and got rid of all of his commercial leases (~10) and went and got his DO. He's finishing his residency now.

I've gone back to get a masters and am currently studying for my GRE to go back and get a PhD/DrPH. It is never too late to make a change.

 

[vandal]

What about if I tried to start my own private practice? I know you say that the majority of graduates don't do it and just go into retail. Why is that?

 

[Jason K]

I've been following your posts with some interest. Why is it too late for you? Remind us when you graduated.

When I was working commercial full-time (and going to graduate school full-time) my employer, who must have been in his 40s, up and got rid of all of his commercial leases (~10) and went and got his DO. He's finishing his residency now.

I've gone back to get a masters and am currently studying for my GRE to go back and get a PhD/DrPH. It is never too late to make a change.

I graduated in '05 and did a disease residency until '06. I would love to make a change, believe me, I would. But with a monthly student loan commitment of around $1500, I don't have the ability to go back to school to do anything because I'd have no way to pay the bills while I was in school. My wife works full time and much of what she earns goes to her student loans so there would be no way for her to "float the boat" even if just for a few years. That's the trouble these days, once you're in, you're in for the long haul. It's not like a mortgage in a home that loses value, you could sell that at a loss and get the heck out. Once you buy an OD for 200K, it's like a prize on Wheel of Fortune, it's "yours to keep." If I could switch careers to something I really enjoy and still pay my loans, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I've thought of biting the bullet and getting a loan to buy a practice, but with all of the insanity going on in the insurance world (both medical and vision), commercial overtake, the online materials sales, and the economy being the way it is, I don't know if that's a wise choice at the moment or ever for that matter. Sounds like it worked out for KHE, I'm just not sure if the investment would be a sound one today. That's not even mentioning what Obama might do to small business owners if he's re-elected.