| Greensheet – August 2000
- Table of Contents -
DR. FRANK SALIMENO IS ELECTED ARBO PRESIDENT 2000-2001 In an interview held shortly after the ARBO Annual Meeting concluded, Dr. Salimeno noted the beginning of a new administrative year for ARBO and stated his goals for the coming year. The full text of the interview follows: How did you get involved with ARBO and or your state
Board? How has ARBO changed over the years since you joined the
Board? We have also enjoyed increased attendance at our annual meetings, a reflection that we are providing important information to the State Boards and to the profession as a whole. I wouldn't call this "change," so much as "growth" of ARBO Board and State Board members. Any organization that is viable must grow and I see nothing but positive growth in ARBO. What do you see as the primary role for ARBO? How can ARBO ensure that it stays relevant to its
members? What are your main goals for your year as
President? What do you think your biggest challenge will be? How would you like to be remembered after your term is over?
Tell the members a little about yourself. What do you do to
relax? Is there anything you'd like to say to the members? DELEGATES VOTE "NO" TO ABOP Shortly after the conclusion of a panel discussion that considered the pros and cons of the Board Certification program developed by the American Board of Optometric Practice (ABOP), a contentiously debated resolution was adopted opposing the controversial program. The strong discontent over ABOP was palpable during procedural wrangling that ensured a torturous route to adoption for the resolution. The panel discussion on the Board Certification program developed by the American Board of Optometric Practice (ABOP) was unquestionably the key topic of the conference. The voluminous and heated discourse that had occupied much of the optometric press over the six-month period leading up to the ARBO Annual Meeting had clearly placed the controversial program before any other issue. The ARBO Board of Directors, on record as opposing ABOP, sought to present a balanced view of the program to attendees to permit as open a debate and vote as possible, though many came to the meeting clearly prepared with their own positions and opinions, both for and against ABOP. Dr. John McCall, ABOP President, and Dr. James Sandefur, Secretary of the Louisiana Board of Optometry, represented the pro-ABOP argument. Drs. Linda Casser, NBEO Board Director, Dr. Janet Carter, President of the Nevada Board of Optometry, and Mr. Dale Atkinson, ARBO Legal Counsel, presented opposing opinions, before the whole panel fielded questions from a voluble audience. Shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion, a resolution (reproduced below) was presented to the House describing ARBO's opposition to ABOP, and which, after much discussion and attendant input from the Parliamentarian, was adopted. Immediately thereafter, a second resolution was presented that declined the offer of a board director position on the ABOP Board that had been verbally extended by ABOP; this also was adopted, albeit with less turmoil. Other Highlights The three-day meeting opened on Sunday, June 18 with two unique workshops. The morning session saw the repeat of the popular National Board Workshop, presented by the staff of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry. This interactive presentation allowed the delegates to gain a first hand look at the workings behind the organization that administers the primary licensing exam for optometrists in the U.S. The NB Workshop gave attendees a chance to question NB staff on the 'mechanics' of exam construction and testing techniques while also engaging in lengthy discussions on the future of the "National Boards". Executive Director Norman E. Wallis, Ph.D., O.D., and NB Director of Psychometrics and Research Leon J. Gross, Ph.D., represented the National Board at this workshop. The Sunday afternoon session began with lunch-time speaker, Mr. Clinton Patty, Legal Counsel for the Kansas Board of Examiners in Optometry providing a presentation on "Mail Order Contact Lens Litigation Update." The State Board Executive Directors/Administrators Committee then took over the remainder of the afternoon to address "Codes of Conduct" for Board Members and Staff, a particularly well-received discussion. The latter part of the afternoon, hosted by the Information & Data Services Committee, featured a report on the continuing development of the Health Care Integrity & Protection Data Bank (HIP-DB), and a review of ARBO's own National Optometric Data Bank (NODB). Mr. Raymond Conner, Diversion Program Manager at DEA's Los Angeles Field Division, highlighted a discussion on DEA policy on impaired practitioners. The ARBO House of Delegates convened on Monday, June 19, and began two days of discussions and presentations that addressed the issues that currently impact licensing jurisdictions, and the laws and regulations that govern the scope of optometric practice. In addition to the business of the association, the House of Delegates heard presentations from several allied organizations, including the Association for Schools and Colleges of Optometry (ASCO); the American Optometric Association (AOA) State Government Relations Center; the AOA's Licensure & Regulation Committee; and the American Optometric Student Association (AOSA). As opposed to the debate on ABOP, much of the remainder of the meeting followed a predictable routine of business until the last major presentation of the conference, a panel discussion on Delegation of Authority, hosted by ARBO's Contemporary Issues in Optometry Committee. Dr. Louis Catania, the well-known CE lecturer, was a special guest speaker during the panel discussion and presented his rationale on the necessary function of delegating authority within the clinical setting, based on continuing technological innovations that he felt were certain to impact the mode of practice for most optometrists. Dr. Ken Johnson, Chair of the AOA's Licensure & Regulation Committee, presented the AOA's views on the issue, while Dr. Steve Grant, Contemporary Issues Committee Chair, and Dr. Russ Jones, Board Liaison, also shared their views from the state board perspective. The House of Delegates chose this occasion to recognize out-going ARBO President James W. Hartzell, O.D., who passed the gavel to incoming President, Frank L. Salimeno, O.D. Dr. Hartzell, who remains on the ARBO Board as immediate past president, was presented with a handsome wall plaque recognizing his contributions to ARBO and commemorating his service as President. Donovan L. Crouch, O.D. and Robert L. Sorrell, O.D., were elected as Vice-President and Secretary-Treasurer respectively for the 2000-2001 term (see related story below). The House of Delegates also passed four resolutions (synopsis below), which the Judicial Council has yet to review. The full text of all resolutions follows the synopsis:
The 2001 Annual Meeting will be held in Boston, Massachusetts, on June 24-26, 2001. After fifteen years of service to ARBO, Mary Lou Freitag, O.D., attended her last ARBO Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, NV, on June 18-20 in her capacity as an Ex-officio Board Director. Dr. Freitag continues to serve as a director on the National Board of Examiners in Optometry until October, when she will complete her tenure and pass the baton to incoming director, Steven Eyler, O.D. At the Las Vegas meeting, Dr. Jim Hartzell, ARBO President, praised her exceptional work and outstanding service as a very active director with ARBO. Dr. Hartzell informed the delegates that Dr. Freitag was ARBO's first female Secretary-Treasurer (1986-88) and President (1989-90) and guided the organization through a difficult period during her tenure. Besides her exceptional contributions to ARBO, Dr. Freitag was known for her resourceful and thrifty skills, risking all to sneak bags of pretzels and chips, and bottles of wine past hotel staff and into President's Receptions of yore, when ARBO had little money to spend. To make up for past deficits, ARBO, with the gracious and generous assistance of the Nevada Board of Optometry, hosted a reception, heartily attended by delegates, none of whom were required to bring a bag of pretzels or a bottle of wine to enjoy themselves. Dr. Freitag received a commemorative plaque from the Board of Directors acknowledging her services to ARBO, and a gift certificate. Thereafter, the House of Delegates passed, in a unanimous proclamation, a resolution recognizing Dr. Freitag and re-affirming her Life Membership in ARBO (see earlier story above for the full text of the resolution). SORRELL, SALIMENO CROUCH ASSUME OFFICE Utah-based private practitioner Frank Salimeno, O.D., was elected to the office of President at the June 2000 ARBO Annual Meeting. Dr. Salimeno was elected to the ARBO Board in 1994, and ran unopposed at the Annual Meeting for a final term of four years on the ARBO Board. Iowa practitioner Donovan Crouch, O.D., moved into the position of Vice President, while Ohio practitioner Robert Sorrell, O.D., now occupies the position of Secretary-Treasurer. Drs. Crouch and Sorrell are also in private practice. Like Dr. Salimeno, Dr. Sorrell ran unopposed for re-election to a four-year term on the ARBO Board. DOCTORATE-LEVEL DEGREE NOW REQUIRED FOR ALL
INSTRUCTORS SUBMITTING COURSES TO COPE The Council on Optometric Practitioner Education (COPE), a service of the Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry (ARBO), has announced that it will no longer accept courses presented by instructors who do not hold at least a doctorate-level degree or its international equivalent. The policy change, announced at the recently concluded ARBO Annual Meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, June 18-20, is effective immediately. Over 1,600 instructors are registered with COPE and just over 10% are expected to be impacted by the policy change. Fifty (50) North American boards of optometry (forty-seven U.S. states, plus the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam and Puerto Rico) currently accept COPE. COPE is a national clearinghouse designed to relieve the duplication of optometric continuing education review from boards of optometry, while simultaneously creating uniform standards for CE administration, submission for CE approval, and reporting of CE data to boards. COPE was created as a service for participating boards of optometry, and is designed to reduce or eliminate the costly resources expended by boards of optometry when reviewing and approving courses that have already undergone the same process in other states. Dr. Barry Schneider, COPE Chair, stated, "The policy change is necessary for two reasons: one, to maintain the credibility and quality of COPE's standards; and two, in response to feedback from state boards who accept COPE but have asked for this change to meet existing rules and regulations. "COPE is designed to act on behalf of state regulatory boards of optometry to standardize and make uniform the process of submitting and reviewing continuing education courses on behalf of the licensure renewal process. Consequently, COPE's filing requirements are based entirely on the rules and regulations promulgated by state boards, and we are required to adapt our filing requirements to match any rule changes that are forthcoming from participating boards. "COPE carefully studied this issue before making this decision, well aware of the impact it may have on some CE providers who rely on non-doctorate level instructors. However, our constituents are still able to obtain credit for these courses directly from state boards, and we are strongly encouraging them to do so. This change only means that COPE is not the appropriate venue through which to seek credit for courses presented by non-doctorate level instructors." The new policy reads in full: Effective immediately, COPE no longer accepts for review courses submitted by Primary Instructors who do not hold at least a doctorate-level degree (i.e., O.D., M.D., Ph.D., etc.) or its international equivalent. Individuals who do not hold at least a doctorate-level degree may only be listed as Adjunct Instructors for courses submitted for review, and only when the Primary Instructor holds a doctorate-level degree. All courses currently registered with COPE that are taught by instructors who no longer meet the new policy are now considered ineligible for CE credit with states, and will not be considered COPE Approved for any meetings filed after August 1. The new policy will not affect courses that have already been given, or meetings/conferences that are already on file with COPE. However, COPE will no longer accept for review courses taught by instructors who do not meet this policy. COPE has already informed instructors of the new policy and is offering a refund of fees to those affected. COPE has processed over 4,500 courses since it's inception on January 1, 1995; has granted the COPE Qualified Administrator designation to over 250 organizations/individuals; and approved over 1,500 programs. ANNUAL MEETING BUSINESS ROUND-UP Stoppel Re-Elected to COE Board by House of
Delegates House Adopts $415,725 Budget; Dues Unchanged for Twelfth Year;
Board to hold Strategic Planning Session in Fall
During the presentation on the budget adoption, Dr. Crouch also noted that the Board of Directors would be holding a strategic planning session in the fall. The last strategic planning session was held in April 1998. Bylaws Amendment Changes Basis of Allied Membership The Council on Optometric Education (COE) now has a web site established with general information on its accreditation process, its mission and related functions. The site address is http://www.aoanet.org/accreditation.html. FARB ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION COURSE The date to mark on calendars for this year's Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards (FARB) Attorney Certification Seminar is Nov. 2-5, in Lake Tahoe, CA. The seminar, especially for regulatory attorneys, will be held at the Resort at Squaw Creek, 400 Squaw Creek Road, Olympic Valley, CA 96146. The hotel phone number for accommodations reservations is (530) 583-6300. Brochures will be mailed out in early summer for this interactive learning experience. This will be the first course to be presented under the guidance of Dale Atkinson, who is legal counsel for ARBO and the new executive director of FARB. For more information, contact FARB at (847) 328-7909, or send a request for registration information by fax to (847) 864-0588. FARB SELECTS EGOVNET TO PROVIDE PLATFORM FOR NATIONWIDE ONLINE LICENSE RENEWALS The Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards (FARB) recently announced that it has selected eGovnet.com (eGovNet) to provide a nationwide web-based platform for electronically accepting and disseminating licensure and renewal application information to participating FARB member organizations. FARB, based in Evanston, Illinois, is a not-for-profit organization whose membership consists of associations of professional licensing boards (such as ARBO). Columbus, Ohio-based eGovNet provides Internet products and solutions to government agencies, public schools and publicly supported institutions that wish to deliver services and transactions to taxpayers, customers and vendors online. The company's products allow web users to access government portal sites for a variety of services, such as licenses, permits, applications, renewals and payments. According to a signed letter of intent, eGovNet will contract with FARB to build the web-based platform that will allow professionals to submit online application and renewal information to jurisdictions where they are licensed or wish to be licensed. FARB's membership includes associations of regulatory boards in many professions, so millions of professionals could one day use the service. eGovNet will also build a data warehouse for FARB that will reduce the manual processing of information submitted for licensure applications and renewals, and will create a new tool for law enforcement and fraud tracking. The system will electronically provide state licensing boards with the important information necessary to make licensure decisions. "FARB will provide regulatory boards with a uniform system to electronically accept information from the practitioners and disseminate the data to the boards to allow the boards to make important licensure decisions and protect the public. At the same time, practitioners will have the opportunity to provide this important information to the boards online," said Dale Atkinson, executive director of FARB. "By building one uniform web-based platform, rather than having each state build their own, the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards will save government resources and significantly cut down on the duplication of work," said Tim Bartlett, CEO of eGovNet. FARB's member organizations include the American Association of State Counseling Boards, the Association of Social Work Boards, the American Association of Veterinary State Boards, the Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry; the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards; the Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards, the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, the National Association of Boards of Accountancy and the National Association of Boards of Examiners of Long Term Care Administrators. FARB also maintains associate members, which consist of over 60 individual regulatory boards. "The system will be entirely voluntary," said Atkinson. "We look forward to providing participating associations and their member boards, at no charge, with the opportunity to enhance their data through an online system." Participating boards will benefit from the program through a decrease in administrative costs and error rates incurred through data re-entry by board personnel. "Furthermore, boards will be provided with fresh, accurate data and the flexibility of a system that will be tailored to the needs of each particular regulatory board and profession, resulting in increased public protection," Atkinson emphasized. Practitioners will have 24-hour access to the system and can enter their own demographic data, insuring more accurate information. The system will be fully secure and password protected. COUNSEL'S CORNER - Court: 30 Days To Pay - No Way! A physician was charged with allegations of dishonorable, unethical or unprofessional conduct relating to boundary violations with at least six female patients. After a formal hearing, the hearing officer issued a report recommending to the board certain findings of fact, conclusions of law and sanctions. After certain modifications, the board eventually adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the hearing officer. The sanctions imposed included the indefinite suspension of his license for a minimum of five years; the payment of a $30,000 fine within 30 days of the entry of the final order; and the successful completion of a special purpose examination prior to petitioning for restoration of his license. The board also held that the physician must, as a condition of reinstatement, submit a psychiatric evaluation indicating his ability to practice medicine with reasonable judgment, skill and safety. Finally, the board required that restoration of his license would be conditioned upon the physician not being allowed to examine or treat female patients. The findings of the board were affirmed by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The physician appealed the matter to the Appellate Court of Illinois. After outlining the standard of review on appeal, the appellate court addressed the contentions of error set forth by the physician. First, the physician argued that the indefinite suspension for a minimum period of five years was unduly harsh, effectively ending his medical career. Giving deference to the expertise of the board, the court summarily rejected this argument. The physician next argued that the board was without authority to
set a definite term for the suspension. In so arguing, the physician
cited the Medical Practice Act, which provided in pertinent
part: "at any time after the suspension, revocation … or taking disciplinary action with regard to any license, the [board] may restore it to the accused person, or take any other action to reinstate the license to good standing …". The physician argued that the language referring to "at any time" prohibited the department from a time-certain period of suspension. The appellate court rejected this argument citing the fact that the authority of the board would be severely undermined if, as the physician urges, the relevant section were read to allow a physician to petition for restoration the day after the entry of the order suspending the license for a period of five years. Next, the physician argued that the board exceeded its authority
by imposing a limitation upon his ability to examine or treat female
patients. The physician argued that the board's authority to limit
the scope of practice is triggered only where disciplinary action
other than a suspension or registration is taken. That is, licensure
suspension or revocation is mutually exclusive to licensure
limitation. The appellate court agreed with this argument. The court
stated: "… suspension/revocation, or other disciplinary action (meaning the accused would still retain his or her license), are mutually exclusive with respect to [the board's] authority to impose additional limitations. The logic is apparent, as there would be little need to limit the scope of practice of a medical professional whose license has already been suspended or revoked. [The court] accordingly determined that this sanction is unreasonable." Finally, the physician argued that a board has no statutory authority to mandate payment of a fine within a 30-day period. The appellate court also agreed with this argument stating that although the "harshness" of the amount of fine shall be deferred to the expertise of the board, the requirement of a prompt payment is not within the authority of the board under the Medical Practice Act. Based upon these findings, among others as well, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded the matter to the board for entry of an order consistent with the judicial opinion. This opinion illustrates the importance of the language contained in both statutes and regulations. Without careful drafting, the important power to "limit" or "restrict" practice may not be exercised, as illustrated in the current case, producing an undesirable result. Furthermore, boards should be empowered to not only assess costs/fees, but also to place payment parameters upon such sanctions. Boards of optometry are encouraged to understand the authority granted to them under the practice acts and other relevant legislation. A detailed understanding of such legislation is critical in fashioning sanctions and reinstatement rights upon disciplined practitioners. While boards are encouraged to be aggressive in enforcement of the practice act to further public protection, board authority is not unfettered. Albazzaz v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 2000 WL 571917 (Ill.App.Ct. 2000) |