Orange County Register

A high-ranking state official indicated that California may have erred when it tried to implement Orange County State Sen. Lou Correa’s controversial bill allowing optometrists to treat glaucoma patients.

As The Watchdog reported last month, the state hired a consultant with an apparently glaring conflict of interest to draft regulations to implement Correa’s legislation. For years, optometrists — that is, the people you go to for eye exams and glasses — have been trying to convince state lawmakers that they have the training and skill necessary to work as eye physicians and surgeons, despite the fact that they receive far less schooling than ophthalmologists, who are actual medical doctors specializing in the human eye.

Correa’s legislation, Senate Bill 1406, attempted to balance optometrists’ desires with ophthalmologists’ concerns over patient safety by appointing a six-person committee to draft regulations: three optometrists and three ophthalmologists. The committee deadlocked, however, and the state hired Tony Carnevali to work out the kinks.

Carnevali (left) is an optometrist, a past president and long-time member of the Board of Trustees of the California Optometric Association and an employee of the Southern California College of Optometry, which presumably would benefit financially if the state changed the career prospects of optometrists.

Rising in protest were the California Academy of Eye Physicians & Surgeons, the American Glaucoma Society and the California Medical Association. And in a Nov. 10 letter to them, state Department of Consumer Affairs Director Brian Stiger wrote, “I understand your concern with the process by which the recommendations were made.”

Stiger goes on to request that the state Board of Optometry “re-evaluate its decision to proceed with these regulations. If the board agrees to postpone its efforts, I will immediately direct (the Office of Examination Resources) to secure a consultant who has not been an advocate with respect to the issue of glaucoma and the scope of practice of optometry.” Read the rest of this entry »

The state of California appears to have made, at the very least, a major public relations boo boo when it sought to implement Orange County State Sen. Lou Correa’s controversial bill to allow optometrists to treat glaucoma patients.

As we reported earlier, the California Medical Association, the California Academy of Eye Physicians & Surgeons and the American Glaucoma Society all want the state to suspend Correa’s law, which is set to take effect in January, because a recent investigation has uncovered eight veterans who suffered preventable blindness while under glaucoma treatment administered by optometrists at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Palo Alto.

What the world looks like with glaucoma

For years now, optometrists — that is, the people you go to for eye exams and glasses — have been trying to convince state lawmakers that they have the training and skill necessary to work as eye physicians and surgeons, despite the fact that they receive far less schooling than ophthalmologists, who are actual medical doctors specializing in the human eye.

Correa’s legislation, Senate Bill 1406, attempted to balance the optometrists’ desires with ophthalmologists’ concerns over patient safety. The bill explicitly called, in Section 2, for the State Board of Optometry to appoint a six-person “Glaucoma Diagnosis and Treatment Advisory Committee” to hammer out a compromise on the clinical training necessary for optometrists to treat glaucoma. To ensure that both sides of the controversy were fairly represented, the bill says that the committee is to be composed of three optometrists and three ophthalmologists and that both sides must come together on a single recommendation.

Would you be surprised to hear that didn’t quite work out? Read the rest of this entry »

At precisely the time when a faltering economy means cities and schools need to save money, the state of California has decimated one of the very programs that helps local governments cut costs.

For decades, schools districts like the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Anaheim Union High School District have depended on an obscure program that allows nonprofits, small businesses and local governments to acquire surplus federal equipment at dramatically reduced prices.

Under the Federal Surplus Personal Property Program, you can get a$15,000 forklift for $1,000, an $8,000 Dodge van for $750.

“That’s how we’re sending money to the classroom. We don’t have to buy a $60,000 truck,” said Steve Bradford, fleet manager for the Huntington Beach district. He said his district has acquired staff cars, trucks, vans, electric carts, forklifts, trailers and portable lights through the program.

“It’s been a life saver for us,” said Scott McDonough, garage supervisor for the Anaheim district, who estimates that 35 to 40 percent of the 150 vehicles in his “white” fleet (non-school buses) were obtained through the program.

To cut costs, however, the state recently closed the program’s headquarters in Santa Ana and moved the operation to Sacramento. That might not sound like a big deal, but McDonough and Bradford say it’s been a disaster. They say the program doesn’t work now and they can’t figure out what equipment is available.

“Basically, they’ve taken our teeth out and we can’t chew anymore,” Bradford said. Read the rest of this entry »