After lengthy discussion with other states’ volunteer leaders and executive directors, I find the POA is often in the position of getting advice from other state affiliates regarding scope of practice and legislative issues. The AOA is well aware of where we stand with our legislative battles as we are their fifth largest state affiliate. We often have conversations about how we can further our legislative agenda and protect ourselves from others whose agendas can affect us. Many of those conversations center around language that can help us.
Unfortunately, like the last legislative session, we again have to defend our ability to practice against a predatory bill that is being reintroduced. Organized ophthalmology has a primary sponsor for a “Definition of Ophthalmic Surgery” bill that, if the language is similar to last session’s bill, can affect us greatly. It will halt any future scope advances we will need as technology and standard of care evolves, and has the potential to limit some of the procedures we have fought so hard for in the past. Defining ophthalmic surgery in the Medical Practice Act is unnecessary. Our Optometric Practice Act specifically states under Section 2 that the “Practice of Optometry shall not include … surgery, including, but not limited to, laser surgery; the use of lasers for therapeutic purposes …” So please, get out and spread the word – contact your legislators and ask them not to cosponsor this predatory and unnecessary bill.
The flip side is that POA is often in the position of giving advice to other state affiliates regarding other issues. The Electronic Claims Service we have at the POA office is the only one of its kind. It gives us a source of non-dues income, allows us to be in constant touch with the specifics of reimbursement and gives an ongoing source of feedback when our members have issues with payers. We can then add those issues to the agendas for the Optometric Advisory Committees (OAC). Other states believe they have good relationships with their third party payers but none have the personal relationships with the number of major payers as Pennsylvania.
I was also able to present our developing webinar concept to the other state affiliates and was approached by several colleagues with inquiries afterward. Others have thought about the concept but have not pursued it any further. When we are successful with the webinar for COPE-approved CE, we can serve as a model for others wanting to do the same.
I also discussed our Podiatry/Pharmacy/Optometry/Dentistry (PPOD) initiative that has evolved through our Pennsylvania Diabetic Eye Health Alliance. We strive to provide the most efficient and complete care for our diabetic patients and share information with other specialties. This program benefits both the patient and the practitioner. We have also presented it through our OACs so the third party payer can see some benefit from this as well.
I think it’s very important to evaluate your strengths and weaknesses. That being said, I think our pat on the back should be brief and we should focus on our weaknesses. We have a very big challenge right now to protect our association and our ability to make a living. The legislative issues we face right now are huge and have long standing consequences. I will close by again rallying the troops and calling you to action. Please visit your legislator and use the POA talking points on our website so we can present a consistent and unified message. Increase your giving to POPAC and support the POA and local societies in whatever way suits you best. Let’s keep our eye on the big issues and not lose ourselves in the smaller stuff. Thank you again for the honor and privilege of being your president and lending me your ear.
Daniel F. Russell, O.D.
President
Pennsylvania Optometric Association
