Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/14/2002 01:37 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 270-BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced SB 270 to be up for consideration.
MS. HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Therriault, sponsor of SB
270, said that there was a committee substitute.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to adopt the CS to SB 270. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
MS. BRAKES said that SB 270 was based on an audit conducted by
the Legislative Audit Division and it had several concerns about
the Board of Dispensing Opticians. One of them was addressed in
recommendation #1 on page 7 of the audit.
The auditors felt the disparity between the number of
people who become licensed and the number of people
registering to be apprentices suggests that 6,000 hours
of required apprenticeship may be unduly prohibiting
people from being licensed. The auditor suggested that
the board reconsider the necessity of the 6,000
requirement.
The board's response agrees with the auditor's recommendation,
but they want to add an additional $800 correspondence course.
The course is not included in the legislation. The feeling is
that it would be a hardship to the employee and the expense may
be shifted to the employer.
Recommendation #2 addresses the board's state exam. The
95 sunset review recommended that the board improve the
objectivity and consistency of the state's exam. After
finding, again, that the board's exam process was
flawed in several of the cases selected for review by
the auditors, the auditor suggests that the board give
serious consideration to discontinuing the practical
exam and require applicants only to pass the nationally
recognized exams offered. Those national exams are
incorporated in SB 270. The auditor continues to be
concerned about the apparent subjectivity and error-
prone nature of the exam.
MS. BRAKES said the section 1 extends the Board of Dispensing
Opticians for three years to June 30, 2005 as recommended by the
audit report released on January 24. Sections 2,3,4,6,8 and 9
remove the board's state examination. Section 5 reduces the
number of apprenticeship hours to 3,000 hours. It also allows for
an applicant who has earned an associate degree from a recognized
school or college of dispensing opticians to use it as a
substituted in lieu of any apprenticeship hours.
TAPE 02-5, SIDE B
MS. PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, said that she recommended
only a three-year extension until 2005 rather than the typical
four-year extension. Her reasoning is discussed in the Auditor's
Comments where they looked at alternative methods to achieve the
purpose of the program. This looked like one where making those
changes - moving to a national exam, reducing the apprenticeship
hours - could be handled by the Division of Occupational
Licensing under the registration process rather than full
licensing under a board process. They wanted to see how the board
dealt with the recommendations in the report and come back in
three years and see if it appeared to still be a good idea to
take it to a registration process.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked how many states have boards.
MS. DAVIDSON replied she thought 22 states currently license
dispensing opticians. The other states either have a registration
process or no registration or licensing. In looking at those,
scope of practice seemed to be one of the key things.
In other states, these type of activities may have
required supervision by either an optometrist or an
ophthalmologist. In this state having a license for
dispensing optician allows them to establish a practice
without supervision of either of those two other
professions.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the bill covered her concerns as shown
in the audit.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that it does.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the legislature was supposed to
discuss about whether they need the licensing board or not in
2005.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that there are automatic sunset audits for
these boards. They would come back in three years and the focus
of the audit at that time would be an evaluation of whether a
licensing board is still required or whether it can simply go to
a registration process.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the number of states having a
licensing board was increasing. He wanted to know what the trend
was.
MS. DAVIDSON said she didn't have that information. There is a
national professional organization with a website which is where
they can get that kind of information. She reiterated that, "Part
of the interplay with this profession has to do with those other
professions that are closely associated with this type of
practice. Those being the opticians and the ophthalmologists."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the substitution of an associate degree
was acceptable for the auditors in place of the actual hours
training.
MS. DAVIDSON said currently if a person has no more education
beyond high school, 6,000 hours of apprenticeship is required.
That is reduced to 2,000 hours if one has an associate degree.
The recommendation says if you're only relying on your experience
for qualification to reduce the hours from 6,000 to 3,000; but if
you have a degree, your apprenticeship is waived.
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that it is odd to say one of the
qualifications is to have attended a high school for four years.
He thought they would want a person to have graduated.
MS. DAVIDSON responded that was an excellent point.
2:35 p.m.
MR. LARRY HARPER, a dispensing optician, said he represented the
State Board of Dispensing Opticians, National Contact Lens
Examiners and the Opticians Association of Alaska. He noted that
he had just received their working draft. He said:
One of the reasons that the audit was so damning to us
in regards to the testing procedures was when we look
back at our past fail rate, and that's important not
only here in the state, but on a national basis, we're
finding that people who are coming to take this exam at
the end of their 6,000 hours are doing a miserable job
of passing this national written exam. The reason for
asking for the home study course was to put in an
educational component. The way this course works is two
fold. It really develops and cleans up the
apprenticeship program, of which the guidelines have
been incredibly lax, and puts the apprentice himself in
contact with a sponsor in the Lower 48 who is also in
touch with their sponsor on the job. So they learn in
an sequential manner. This program has been trouble
shot over the past 20 years and reducing the hours from
6,000 to 3,000 makes no sense. If we can't bring these
people to the test table and have them prepared at the
end of 6,000 hours, how are we possibly going to do it
in 3,000 if we don't clean up the training program:
It's imperative that the training program be included
in this scenario in order to prepare these people for
success.
MR. HARPER said the Board has found a source for a professionally
written practical examination. His experience on the National
Contact Lens Examiners Board and the Board of Optitionery shows
that the national written test was never designed as a stand-
alone competency exam for optitionery. It is an entry level
certification exam so someone entering the field has an idea of
what it's all about. He concluded that the educational component
was necessary if the hours were reduced to 3,000.
The other concerns of the legislative audit are being
aggressively pursued, he said.
SENATOR TORGESRON asked if he was in favor of dropping the hours
to 3,000.
MR. HARPER replied that he is not in favor of it unless the
educational component becomes a part of the equation. "We just
are not seeing the success at the testing table that we should be
seeing."
SENATOR TORGERSON asked if the education component was on-the-job
training.
MR. HARPER replied, "As with all on-the-job training, it depends
greatly on the instructor as to how successful the trainee is
going to be…."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he has some concerns with exempting
employees that isn't dealt with in the bill.
MS. CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, said her division staffs both the Board of Dispensing
Opticians and the Optometry Board. She said that there are
ophthalmologists who are MD physicians who specialize in eye
care; then there's optometrists and opticians.
In the past, there has been a difference in perspective
between the Board of Dispensing Opticians and the
Optometry Board over whether the employees of
optometrists who do dispensing optician work should
have to be licensed as dispensing opticians or optician
apprentices. This came up at the time of the last
extensions for both boards four or six years ago. It
has been an issue of contention for longer than that.
My summary is I have the impression that some
optometrists have raised this issue in the last day or
so - expressing the desire to have their employees
exempted from the dispensing optician statute.
My brief summary of what I think the arguments on
either side are is that the optometrists feel like
since they are supervising their employees work that
they can provide the necessary public health and safety
protection insuring that their employees are doing
adequate dispensing optician work. So they don't need
to be licensed. Mr. Harper is here, so he could correct
me, but my impression is that the Dispensing Opticians
Board has felt that it is necessary to have
demonstrated the skills and knowledge of dispensing
optitionery, which are proven through the licensing
process in order to safely provide those skills to the
public.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked how long is a typically dispensing
optician apprenticeship before they decide to sit for a license.
MS. REARDON replied that some of the apprentices choose never to
sit for the exam. They come to the end of the six years and move
on to a different occupation. A dispensing optician apprentice is
not highly paid; so some people are not going into those jobs as
a career. They are apprentices for training.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS calculated that it would take a little over
three years to hit 6,000 (5,076) hours given a 240 day working
year at eight hours a day; 2,000 hours would be less than one
year. So he thought it would take a little less than one and a
half years to meet the 3,000-hour obligation.
He asked Mr. Harper why they wanted to require the home school
course when it seems like the individuals would get a lot more
hands-on instruction with the 3,000 hours under a professional
instead of an instructor. He didn't understand the justification,
because the person in the apprenticeship gets a lot more
instruction.
MR. HARPER replied that in almost every situation when someone is
in an apprenticeship program, they are doing other things
throughout the course of an 8-hour day that doesn't fall anywhere
close to the realm of training. That is why time for the
educational component is so important. An AA degree has the work
component within it, because they all have dispensaries within
the schools. Plus they are getting 8 hours of instruction without
interruptions for doing other unassociated things. A degree
program is much more intensive course work and covers a broader
curriculum than the apprenticeship program.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if he was speaking for the Board or
individually. He asked what the Board's position was on removing
the state requirement for examination.
He replied that he is speaking individually. The Board is not
interested at all in removing the state requirement for
examination. "That's coming from Budget and Audit. The State
Board's position as reflected in the minutes of our last meeting
are very very specific."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that the correspondence curriculum would be
geared towards a national test not for a state test.
MR. HARPER replied that wasn't correct. He said the program they
found is as good as anyone could find in a home study program. It
goes far beyond the national competency exam, which is not for
licensing.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the National Board of Opticians has
national standards.
MR. HARPER said he is a past president of the Opticians
Association of America and that there is a lot of different
components to what they do, but how to apply that on the day-to-
day work station and deliver the best in optics to the public is
what the second component focuses on.
We want these people prepared for success and we want
the very best for the population for the State of
Alaska. This is a very good public health program and
we need more of them. This doesn't cost the state a
dime…"
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked how many people begin as apprentices
actually sit for a license.
MS. REARDON replied eight.
MR. HARPER said they have reviewed the results and are not happy
with them. "There has been a 10-year lapse and we feel that this
board has a lot of work to do."
MS. DAVIDSON said on page 13 of the Audit Report they identify
the number of apprenticeships by fiscal year for the last three
years as well as the number of licenses issued for dispensing
opticians.
You'll see a significant difference in those numbers. I
would add that it does appear, just given those
numbers, that as Ms. Reardon spoke to, not everyone
working for a dispensing optician has the goal of that
as their profession in mind. When there's a discussion
about apprentices taking that course, the concern
becomes is it reasonable for people who are not looking
for licensure as a dispensing optician to go through
that expense. If you are trying to raise your passage
rate and it's a good idea, then it's a good idea. I
don't know that the state wants to create that type of
requirement. If they are not prepared to pass that
national test, then they won't.
Our concern with the audit is the problems with the
practical exam. It was a problem six years ago and it's
a continuing problem. Being a problem when you're
dealing with a licensing function is that you're
putting barriers of entry into the profession in front
of individuals and that's what we see as the major
problem and those have to go away. I understand the
Board may want to set those standards high enough to
protect the public, but they cannot be as subjective as
they are right now, because it causes more problems.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if a prior audit had the same
recommendations.
MS. DAVIDSON replied that their prior audit six years ago also
identified problems with the practical exam given by the Board in
terms of its error-prone nature and its lack of real objective
criteria.
MR. HARPER said he couldn't agree with Ms. Davidson more. "The
strange truth of the matter is that opticians are not necessarily
qualified to be professional test writers. Therefore, they did an
RFP and have found a good test and would like to give it in
April. There is no cost to the state; there's no increased cost
to the test takers.
All it does is give them a professionally qualified
exam…. Both the chairman and I have taken the exam. It
is absolutely straight-forward. There is no guess work;
there is no subjectivity - just yes or no. There's only
one answer.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if he had a position on exempting certain
employees from statute.
MR. HARPER replied that has been an on-going topic of discussion.
The position of the Optician's Board is this, "If you are going
to make independent optician decisions having to do with patient
care, then you need to be a licensed dispensing optician or
working under someone's direct supervision."
If someone wants to be a frame stylist or whatever, they don't
have a problem with that. He said that there are a few
optometrists who don't like the fact that their people have to be
trained.
SENATOR TORGERSON noted a letter from the Board to Ms. Davidson
in which they approve the 3,000 hours and moved to pass CSSB 270
(L&C) from committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|