and harmful effects of these points-in contrast to the so-called benefit the public presentation. I have not discussed, nor do I intend to discuss, each of these sections in detail, but have attempted to point out a few which would establish our position that this bill is intended to serve the interest of the proponents only. If members of the committee have questions relating to any of the details of the proposed bill, I would be happy to attempt to answer them. In conclusion, my points are these: (1) The current statutes are adequate and satisfactory for the regulation of the practice of optometry and opticianry in the District of Columbia; (2) The changes as proposed in this bill would ultimately create an increased cost to the consumers; (3) Passage of the bill would remove many well established and highly respected companies and firms and their employees from their businesses in the very short period of 90 days. This would leave a considerable number of employees of all types-optometrists, opticians and receptionists-in a position of being forced to seek new occupations and employment, because it would no longer be possible for them to obtain employment in their chosen fields. Their only recourse would be to attempt to go into business for themselves, and I am certain that many of them are not in the position to supply the needed capital to do this. (4) The consumer would be denied convenience and freedom of choice in the selection of his eye care and his eyeglasses and would be forced to seek these services and materials from those who have chosen to protect themselves under the mantle of this restrictive legislation. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one statement that is not in my written statement, if I may. Mr. SISK. Go right ahead, Dr. Rowe. Dr. RowE. This has to do with the statement I heard this morning by the gentleman from Texas. I was rather appalled at what he said. He said that as he was leaving, he was called by several optometrists and was told that they did not know what was in the District bill, but if this bill would promote the upgrading of the profession, they were for it. On the surface, that would sound like a very good statement, and I would feel the same way. But I am concerned about the means, and there was no mention by these men to investigate the means by which you are going to do this. They were saying, in effect, use any means that you can in order to promote the passage of this bill and to upgrade ourselves. I would like to make this suggestion, because there are means by which the two things can be accomplished. No. 1 upgrading a profession and, No. 2, promoting the benefit and the welfare of the public. I feel that if the time and the effort and the money which I see the American Optometric Association and its affiliate State associations throughout the United States spending on the promotion and the attempt to pass legislation and litigation which would elevate their position and put this same time, effort, and money into increased graduate and postgraduate educational facilities, into student procurement, into assistance for graduates of optometric colleges, they would then be able to accomplish the intentions which have been stated here, as the intent of this bill, and it would not be necessary for us to be coming to the Legislature to ask that you do the job which these associations are not doing. There is a great deal of lipservice paid to these concepts by the associations, but it was because of the fact that it was lipservice and nothing was done that I chose to drop my membership in the American Optometric Association several years ago. This is something that is talked about, great programs are presented, but we are finding that the money is being channeled into attempts to legislate this in rather than doing it as it should be done, by increasing our educational facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SISK. I thank you, Dr. Rowe, for your statement. The gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. WHITENER. Dr. Rowe, in the bill and in your statement, the term, "opthalmic materials" is used. Would you tell us what would be embraced within those terms? Dr. Rowe. Actually, this is a term used by those who are in the business and the profession and a pretty good indication of what is meant, but I understand that it should require clarification. I would state that opthalmic materials are eyeglasses, eyeglass frames, lenses, contact lenses, and the accessories which normally go with these products. Mr. WHITENER. What would those be, the accessories? Dr. RowE. The accessories would be contact lens solutions which are necessary when contact lenses are fitted, the chains and the different devices that are used to support eyeglass frames, the bands that are used by children to keep them from falling off and breaking, various things of this type. Mr. WHITENER. You mean the term "opthalmic materials" would' include a piece of tape around the back of the glass to hold it on an athlete's head or a child's head? Dr. RowE. There is a device called the glass guard used by children and by athletes to keep their glasses in place. These are definitely a part of a pair of eyeglasses when they are worn, and they have somet effect upon the fitting and the adjustment of the eyeglasses. Mr. WHITENER. When you say, eyeglasses, are you restricting that to prescribed eyeglasses? Dr. RowE. Ophthalmic materials? Yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. That would not apply to sunglasses bought off the drugstore counter? Dr. RowE. There are two types, really, of sunglasses. There are those which we call ophthalmically ground sunglasses which are ground in the same manner as a prescription lens is ground; however, no' prescription is ground into the lens, and there is another type which would encompass several, really, types of lenses. There are pressed lenses, plastic lenses, which we would not think to be ophthalmic in nature because they are not ground to any scientific standards. Now, I would include nonprescription safety glasses, for this reason, that although they would not affect the vision if they are nonprescription, if they are not correctly ground, there could be distortion in the lenses which could affect the performance of the worker in his job. It could create dizziness or different symptoms if those lenses were not perfectly ground lenses, even though they did not have a prescription, in them. A Mr. WHITENER. I notice your organization bears the name, "National Association of Optometrists and Opticians." I assume from that that you, as a licensed optometrist, and the gentlemen who are practicing the trade of optician are equally welcome as members of the organization? Dr. RowE. Yes, sir. Mr. WHITENER. Is there any place where an optician must qualify by State examination? Dr. RowE. In order to practice opticianry? Mr. WHITENER. Yes. Dr. RowE. Oh, yes, several States. Most of the New England States. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Georgia, California. Mr. WHITENER. Would there be more States that do require qualification tests than do not? Dr. RowE. No, more of the States do not require qualification tests or licensing of opticians. Mr. WHITENER. I do not mean to get personal about your organization, but when a man applies to membership in your organization and says, "I am an optician, I want to join," what sort of standard, if any, do you have to determine whether he is an optician? Dr. RowE. Because of the nature of our membership, which is primarily firms and companies, he would probably have to be an owner of a firm or company, with a limited number of several officers. That would be his qualification, that he is in some manner conducting the business of opticianry, or an office of optometry. Mr. WHITENER. Suppose he were an employee of the John Doe Opticians, Inc., but he has been working at the trade for 40 years. Could he be a member of your organization? Dr. RowE. No, sir. Mr. WHITENER. How do you determine that a man is an optician? The fact that he owns a store would not mean anything. Dr. RowE. No, it would not. We feel if he owns a store, he is employing people who are qualified under opticianry. This is a matter of following the practice which is in effect. Opticians, generally, though they are not licensed, are qualified by means of apprenticeship. In most of the States where they are not licensed, they do serve a form of apprenticeship from a period of 2 to 4 years Also, some of the States recognize this apprenticeship as qualifying an optician to take the examination, and if he can pass it, he then becomes licensed. Mr. WHITENER. Does a man always become an optician through on-the-job training, or are there schools? Dr. RowE. There are schools, too. There are two schools of opticians, one in Buffalo and one in Chicago, although I am not sure the one in Chicago is still operating. It is a 2-year school. Mr. WHITENER. That is college level training? Dr. RowE. No, it is trade school. Mr. WHITENER. Thank you. Mr. SISK. Mr. Harsha? Mr. HARSHA. Dr. Rowe, are not optometrists in Ohio classified as professional men? Dr. RowE. No, they are not, sir. I have a compendium of the laws here, and I can read that for you. In Ohio, the definition the practice of optometry is the application of optical principles through technical methods and devices in the examination of human eyes for the purposes of ascertaining departures from the normal, measuring their functional powers, and adapting optical accessories for the aid thereof. Mr. HARSHA. They are not designated as professional? Dr. RowE. Not in Ohio, no, sir. Mr. HARSHA. I thought somebody gave us a statement that said they were. Dr. RowE. Not according to State law. Mr. HARSHA. No, what he gave me was a decision in Ohio that specifically held that optometry is a profession under the statutes of Ohio. That is a 1936 case. Dr. Rowe. I do not know. Mr. HARSHA. Volume 2, northeast second, page 601. Mr. WHITENER. According to this, Mr. Harsha, the court held in that case that optometry is not a learned profession but is a limited statutory profession which denies the right to incorporate for the purpose of engaging in the practice of a profession, State v. Optical Company, 1310 Supp. 217, 2 N.E. 2d, 601. Mr. HARSHA. Well, I have here an Ohio Supreme Court opinion which says that inasmuch as optometry has been placed in the category of a profession by the legislature, "incorporation for profit for the purpose of carrying on its practice is forbidden." Mr. WHITENER. That is State v. Myers. Mr. HARSHA. Yes. Well, what is Cole National? Dr. RowE. It is the operator of optical offices in exclusive locations and in department stores throughout the United States. Mr. HARSHA. What stores, particularly? Dr. RowE. Primarily, Sears, Roebuck stores. Mr. HARSHA. Do you operate in Ohio? Dr. Rowe. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Any other stores? Dr. RowE. Montgomery Ward and J. C. Penney. Mr. HARSHA. What is your position with Cole National? Dr. RowE. I am director of these offices. I direct the activities of the offices. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. That is all I have. Mr. SISK. Dr. Rowe, in your statement, on page 3, you take note of the practice of optometry and eye care in my home State of California. Dr. RowE. Yes, sir. Mr. SISK. I might say that we are very proud of the quality of our care. I assume your company does not operate in California, is that right? Dr. RowE. Not at the present time, we do not. Mr. SISK. Do you expect to be able to operate there at any time in the foreseeable future? Dr. RowE. There is a possibility that we could have opticianry offices in California. We are not there now, though. Mr. SISK. Opticianry offices? In what connection? Dr. RowE. Well, simply to have offices which would act as a dispensing optician to fill the prescriptions of ophthalmologists and optometrists. Mr. SISK. Would they operate as part of a furniture store or drugstore or hardware store? Dr. RowE. A department store. Mr. SISK. I mean they would operate in some department store? Dr. Rowe. There are many of this type of office in California at this time. Mr. SISK. In which they are doing the kind of advertising Dr. RowE. They are not doing any advertising, because advertising is not permitted in California. As I Mr. SISK. Let me say this with reference to your comments. say, we are quite proud of our eye care in California, the quality of it. I believe you indicated that it is the highest, most expensive eye care in the country. I am not sure about that, and 1 do not see any figures to back up your statement. That may be possible. The thing that I wanted to discuss briefly with you was the quality involved. In your operation with Cole National Corp., as I understand it, how many patients does an average optician or optometrist employed in a Montgomery Ward store see in a day, on an average? Dr. RowE. I cannot give you an average, but it will be somewhere between 5 and 20 examinations a day. The optometrist does none of the dispensing of the eyeglasses. This is done by an optometrist whose function is simply to examine and give a prescription for the eyeglasses. They will go from 5 to 20 examinations a day. Mr. SISK. Does your firm do any work with the schools, with the department of welfare and in other areas, taking care of the eye care for the public in general, where we have problems with people involving problems of finance? Of Dr. RowE. In those States where the welfare department shows an inclination to send us cases, we do cooperate with them. course, we do not work with the schools because the schools do not engage in the procedure of paying these services. They simply recommend that the child be examined. Now, we do a great many examinations as a result of the screening which is done in the schools, and the child is brought to our office in order to be examined. Mr. SISK. Let me ask you, and I do not want to take a lot of time, because I see our time is getting away here, but let me ask you, Dr. Rowe, do you know Dr. Carp of Texas? Dr. RowE. Dr. Clark? Mr. SISK. Dr. Carp. Dr. RowE. Sorry. C-a-r-p. Mr. SISK. You are not acquainted with him? Dr. RowE. No. Mr. SISK. Do you know whether or not he is a member of your organization? Dr. RowE. Dr. Carp? Mr. SISK. Yes. Dr. Rowe. No, he is not a member of the National Association of Optometrists. |