Quite recently, Senator Hart of Michigan recognized the inherent dangers which exist in the practice of medical doctors dispensing and selling eyeglasses based upon their own prescriptions, and has introduced, subsequent to exhaustive examinations and investigations, legislation which would prevent such practices. It is anomalous then that certain optometric societies purportedly acting in "the public interest," would attempt to promote the type of legislation which would permanently tie together the performance of optometric services and the sale of ophthalmic materials and, in effect, create a monopoly among optometrists alone. At this point we must establish that our purpose at this hearing is to reveal the true intent of this bill as opposed to the stated intent. The insistence upon relating the sale of the merchandise involved; namely, eyeglasses and accessories, to the services involved, is sufficient indication of the desire of the proponents to control the entire industry in the District of Columbia. The fact that extensive consideration and preparation has been given to the sections of this bill which relate to the restriction of competitive activity and very little consideration has been given to the harmful effects which the bill would create for the consumer in terms of convenience and cost, should clearly indicate the real intent of the proponents of this bill.

It has been stated that the problems which supposedly exist in the District of Columbia do not exist in the State of California-as the result of the passage of legislation similar to this bill. Now whether this has truly been accomplished certainly is questionable since if a person wishes to break the law he still may do so in California or anywhere else in the United States for that matter. But, this much is true, optometrists are not allowed to work for corporations or firms in California and advertising of optometric services and ophthalmic materials is prohibited in California. I cannot give you documentation for this fact, but if you will ask any member of the optical industry this question, "Which State in the United States has the highest cost of optometric service and eyeglasses?" the answer will invariably be, "California." So, whereas one of the reasons given for the proposal of this bill is based upon a recent violation of the law in the District, and whereas the law, though differently written in California, can still be violated, one thing is certain; the consumer is paying a lot more money in California for the same services and materials than he is in the District of Columbia. Strangely enough, these materials are available in California at the same wholesale cost as they are anywhere else in the United States.

Presently, two opticians are being tried in court in the District of Columbia for violating the optometry law. The very fact that they are being tried indicates that a law does exist which gives the Optometric Board and the Board of Commissioners the authority and the means by which to regulate and police unlawful activities. Incidentally, there have been more stringent requirements established under the present District of Columbia optometric law as recently as 1951-by the Board of Commissioners, through their rulemaking

powers.

This has already been indicated by other testimony.

Let me give another example which will point out that this is truly a self-seeking bill. I refer to page 14, line 19, whereby the estate or the widow of a deceased optometrist would be able to operate the

practice for only a 1-year period following the death of her optometrist husband. Under these circumstances, any optometrist working for the widow or the estate would be able to demand a salary which would leave no profit for the widow or the estate, and at the end of the period of 1 year, simply take over the practice, records, and goodwillbecause by law the widow or the estate would be forced to give it up. Now, if the widow or the estate decided that they did not wish to be "taken" in this manner, they could simply destroy the records and close the practice. This would mean that the former patients of deceased optometrists would no longer have available to them any of the past history of their eye care and would be forced to seek out a new practitioner and begin all over again.

The fact that consideration was not given to the consumer in this section reiterates, as I have stated before, that the intent behind this bill is to create favorable conditions for the exclusive benefit of optometric practitioners who have banded themselves together and are now attempting to monopolize the optical business in the District of Columbia.

Mr. HARSHA. May I interrupt you there, Dr. Rowe?

Dr. RowE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HARSHA. What would you suggest be done in that section to alleviate this problem?

Dr. RowE. I feel definitely that the time period should be extended, Mr. Congressman, so that the estate or the widow would have sufficient opportunity to take someone in and keep him there, because if he simply has to wait a 1-year period, there is no reason for him to go in and pay anything for this practice when he only has to wait for a year and take it over without paying for it, because at that point the widow can no longer operate it.

Mr. HARSHA. What would you suggest?

Dr. Rowe. I would say it should be at least 3 years. In other States, this varies from 2 to 5 years.

Mr. SISK. Are you familiar with the Texas provision on this? Dr. RowE. No, I am not, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. SISK. I think if you were, you might be interested. Texas has this provision in their law which simply states that until the estate has been adjudicated and settled, which might be 6 months or 6 years. I only ask you for your comments, but since you are not familiar with it, go ahead.

Dr. RowE. As far as can be determined, the District of Columbia Optometric Society represents approximately 50 optometrists out of a total of 94 registered optometrists in the District. This was 1964 information, and information presented in previous testimony indicates that perhaps it is 33 members out of 74 registered optometrists. It has been previously stated that the membership of the American Optometric Association is somewhat over 13,000 members. In the 1964 issue of the Optometric Blue Book, published by the Professional Press in Chicago and on file with the Congressional Library, the total number of optometrists listed was 20,800. We might at this point ask why membership in the American Optometric Association and its affiliated State associations is so unattractive that from 30 to 50 percent of the practitioners do not choose to become members.

At this time, I would like to submit a memo which discusses in detail certain provisions of the proposed bill and points up the negative

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 some 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.

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.