| Greensheet – December 2000
- Table of Contents -
With the ink now dry on the AOA amendment to cease implementation of ABOP, the AOA in good faith has started the process of preparing for a "Summit on Continued Competency." The summit is tentatively scheduled for late April 2001, around the time of the AOA Spring Planning meeting in St. Louis, MO. To begin the process, the following organizations have been invited to provide a representative to help in the planning phase: AAO, AOSA, ARBO and ASCO. While only a select group of organizations are involved in the planning phase, all interested organizations will be invited to participate in the summit. ARBO's representative to the planning group will be Dr. Don Crouch, our current Vice President. The AOA has selected two trustees, Dr. Kevin Alexander and Dr. Pat Cummings, to oversee the event. Both are excellent choices. The AOA is making it quite clear that there will be NO discussions on the pros or cons of ABOP; the summit is intended to focus solely on continuing competency in Optometry. A complete report on the meeting will be presented to the House of Delegates at the AOA Congress in Boston. A decision will also be made at the summit as to whether further meetings on this subject are warranted. My impression is that it will be almost a continuation of ARBO's National Optometric Continuing Education Conference (NOCEC) held in April 1999. ARBO will be at the table representing the interests of state regulatory boards, who obviously have a key role to play in continued competency. We will be watching closely to assess the possibly impact on you, our Member Boards, of any initiative arising from the summit, and you can be sure that we will keep you informed on developments, and ask for your input as needed. ARBO will fully represent your state board interests' in the public safety. In another area, during our fall ARBO Board meeting, it was suggested that we make contact with the five remaining Member Boards that do not accept all of the National Boards Part III exam. The AOSA representative to the ARBO Board, Austin Marolla, suggested that ARBO should be more assertive on this issue, and so we proceeded to contact the Member Boards concerned and encouraged them to reevaluate their position, specifically on the Clinical Skills section of Part III. Since that time, we are pleased to hear that Michigan and West Virginia are now working on a rule change to accept, or have already done so, all parts of Part III for licensure. The three remaining Member Boards not accepting all sections for licensure are: Florida, North Carolina and Louisiana. We hope that, in the future, further evaluation of the high quality of the Part III exam will result in acceptance by these Member Boards as well. How things have changed relating to initial licensure! In the not too distant past, a new graduate would have to travel to several states to take independent written and clinical exams to be licensed. This, of course, required travel and a stay in each state one wanted licensure. You would then hope that one individual state examination did not overlap with another. It seemed that the whole summer, following graduation, was taken up in this endeavor. With acceptance of the National Board's, today's graduate has a much more open, credible and convenient course for licensure, not to mention the cost savings in not being required to take individual State Board examinations across the country. This has been achieved through the cooperation of our Member Boards of Optometry, ARBO, ASCO and NBEO. Oh yes, how things have changed! SIGHTSTREET.COM SUPPORTS ARBO AND FAMILY OF WEB SERVICES Sightstreet.com is proud to be a partner with ARBO and its family of online web sites and services: arbo.org, copeopt.org and OptometryCE.org. We feel that this relationship is a great fit because we are ultimately striving to achieve the same purpose-to improve the educational standards of the ophthalmic profession and assist doctors in improving the quality of their medical practices. Sponsoring ARBO's Web site, http://www.arbo.org/, is just one of the ways that Sightstreet.com is working to help doctor's improve their practices in the era of e-commerce and the Internet. The ophthalmic community can now turn to a single source for online information, continuing education and e-commerce transactions. That source is Sightstreet.com. Sightstreet.com, developed and launched by Jobson Publishing, was designed specifically to meet the needs of doctors in the ophthalmic community. Sightstreet.com has positioned itself as the only neutral source for the exchange of information and e-commerce transactions within the industry. We offer three key ingredients required by practitioners: continuing education, information and commerce. In fact, we continue to build partnerships and alliances with outside vendors, manufacturers and laboratories so that we can be the single source for all the needs of doctors in the ophthalmic community. And Sightstreet.com intends to be the catalyst to bring electronic efficiencies to the ophthalmic practice. The COPE Committee met on October 21 in Bethesda, Maryland, and addressed a range of issues that had been placed before the committee by the ARBO Board of Directors, participating state boards and meeting administrators. Here is a summary of the committee's actions: New COPE booklets COPE to start on-site reviews COPE agrees on mechanism to review AAO Symposia and Scientific
Program research lectures COPE on new drive to increase reviewer pool COPE fees increased New CEE Policy Unveiled "An extremely productive session," said COPE Chair, Dr. Barry Schneider, when asked to describe the results of the COPE meeting. "We feel we've made great strides in developing COPE into a useful, credible tool for state boards, while solidifying our relationship with the meeting planners and CE instructors who use the service. It's a great time to be involved with COPE and I encourage our readers to get involved by calling the COPE office and becoming a course reviewer."
BOARD COMPLETES STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION: A NEW WAY FORWARD The ARBO Board of Directors met in Scottsdale, Arizona, on September 1-2 to conduct a strategic planning session. ARBO President Dr. Frank Salimeno described the strategic planning session as, "a necessary and valuable exercise for the ARBO leadership, that helps lay down the foundation for our future direction and gives guidance on new policy initiatives and development." Noting that the ARBO Board undertakes a strategic planning exercise every few years, Dr. Salimeno said, "it's a critical, consensus-building process that ensures that the Board is operating as a team. Afterwards, we're all on the same page, pulling together in the same direction." The Board outlines the following broad initiatives for the next three years, with specific objectives related to each:
The Board also directed the Finance Committee to investigate a dues increase and an increase in the Annual Meeting registration fee. A report on these two income increases will be presented for action by Delegates at the Annual Meeting in June. SHERATON BOSTON HOTEL IS CHOSEN AS HOST FOR 2001 ANNUAL MEETING For detailed information, please click here. REGIONAL MEETING DATES FOR 2001 ANNOUNCED Details on ARBO Regional Meetings scheduled for 2001 are below. These meetings are open to anyone, however, specific invitations to attend are mailed only to those optometry boards in geographic proximity to the meeting site. If you wish to attend a meeting for which your board would typically not receive an invitation, please contact the ARBO office and we will be glad to register you for the meeting. The schedule for 2001 is as follows: Southern Regional Meeting Southwest Regional Meeting Northeast Regional Meeting Mountain West Regional Meeting COUNSEL'S CORNER - Boards In Bounds - Court Out Of Bounds A psychology board issued an order to show cause against a practitioner alleging various breaches of the practitioner's professional duty. Specifically, the allegations alleged that the psychologist misrepresented his degree in qualifications on his letterhead and in his testimony during insurance litigation. Furthermore, the complaint alleged that the psychologist overstepped the boundaries of his competence in providing treatment to various individuals rising out of insurance claims. A formal hearing was held and the hearing officer issued a proposed adjudication order recommending that all charges be dismissed. On review of the proceedings, the board sustained six of the thirty-three violations alleged and imposed sanctions consisting of a reprimand and a $3,000 civil penalty against the psychologist. The violations found by the board essentially held that the psychologist overstepped the boundaries of his competence in that the psychological reports submitted to the insurance company evidenced that he did not possess the requisite competence to administer certain tests or to render psychological evaluations consistent with the applicable and acceptable standards of the profession. Upon appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the findings of the board and held that the record did not support the determination by the board of such violations. The court also held that the board improperly substituted its own independent judgment for the expert testimony presented before the hearing officer. The board appealed the matter to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The first issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether the psychology board may substitute its own independent judgment for that of the expert witness who testified at the hearing. In its own analysis, the court reviewed the make up of the board, which consisted of five members, three of which were psychology professionals holding valid licenses to practice psychology and representing a broad spectrum of the practice areas. Additional members included a public member and the Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs. In reversing the Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court held that an independent review of the evidence of record by the board, which has the requisite qualifications in the profession, is proper. In holding that the psychology board could substitute its own judgment for that of the expert witnesses who testified before the hearing officer, the court analyzed the factors considered by the board in making its determination. In fact, the Supreme Court held:
The Supreme Court was also confronted with the issue of whether the Commonwealth Court exceeded its scope of review by re-weighing the evidence rather than determining whether substantial evidence supported the findings of the board. It is generally understood that an adjudication made by an administrative agency must be affirmed on appeal unless constitutional rights have been violated, an error of law had been made, rules of administrative procedure had been violated or a finding of fact necessary to support the adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, absent proof of fraud, bad faith, capricious action or abuse of power, it is not within the purview or scope of review of an appellate court to change the adjudication of a regulatory agency merely because it would have done it differently or because it disagrees with the philosophical approach of the agency. Based on these general rules, the Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth Court impermissibly reweigh the evidence and, thus, exceeded its scope of review and substituted its own opinion for that of the board. Accordingly, and based upon these two general principles, the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Commonwealth Court and reinstated the decision of the board. Therefore, the practitioner was subject to a reprimand and $3,000 civil penalty. Boards of Optometry are encouraged to understand their authority and exercise such authority accordingly. Obviously, reviewing courts must also work within the parameters of the law when reviewing administrative decisions. Administrative boards must recognize whether expert testimony is required or necessary in an administrative proceeding and how to apply board member expertise. Batoff v. State Board of Psychology 750 A. 2d 835 (PA 2000). |