I think the proof in the Sterling Regents case indicates that under the most adverse circumstances, paid detectives giving false symptoms were properly prescribed eyeglasses by Sterling, indicates that it is not the length of the examination that controls. It is the ability of the examiner and his desire to give proper and appropriate service. There was not a single one of those 21 examinations which were proven in any way to have been inaccurate, inappropriate, or harmful to the public or any of the patients who came in to be examined. What better proof could there be that we are rendering good, accurate, careful service to the public than that?

Mr. SISK. You heard me cite an excerpt from a case where an individual was recently fitted. I am not picking on Sterling. I might say that, frankly, I have had it said to me that among the corporate setups locally, there are some that, let us say, do not measure up to even Sterling's standards. Certainly we know of some, and because of experiences with the law and otherwise.

Were you in the room when I cited the case with reference to Sterling? The patients when dissatisfied were told they have to go to New York. This is a normal procedure for Sterling. If I go back and complain I can not get a recourse here in Washington. It has to go through the channels in New York?

Mr. STEIN. Congressman Sisk, let me say that as a lawyer I find it rather difficult to respond to a claim without having all the facts. I can tell you, however, that if any patient has any problem in any one of the 13 stores, the professionals in charge of that store have complete and absolute authority to deal fairly with that patient and are instructed to do so.

There is absolutely no practice requiring that person to go to New York. I might say that in this instance I should point out that the optometrist who did or does the contact lens work case in Sterling in the District of Columbia is probably the most competent contact lens specialist of any optometrist in the District of Columbia. He does that. He does that only. He does that every day.

I might also say that this person is entering private practice now. His standards, I assure you, will not be any different in private practice than they were in the course of his employment. He is highly qualified, highly competent, and no one else tells him how many contact lens cases he must do a day. He does as many as he can completely do in the light of the requirements of the patient and his concern about giving that patient the best care possible.

Mr. SISK. Would you agree with me probably he will be in a much better position to serve the public in private practice than he would in, say, the employ of a corporation where profit is the only motive?

Mr. STEIN. Quite the contrary. In Sterling he has the aid and assistance of competent opticians, dispensers, laboratory personnel. He does not have to concern himself about paying next month's rent. Mr. SISK. Those are available to all of them?

Mr. STEIN. If they can afford it. If they can afford it. That may be the reason why some privately practicing optometrists tend to overprescribe so they can meet obligations of rent, meet their obligations to satisfy the payroll that they have, or need to provide adequate service.

82-754-67—15

Mr. SISK. Those are the types that we are trying to weed out.
Mr. STEIN. The bill does not do that, Congressman Sisk.

Mr. SISK. We think it is a big step in that direction because if we can weed out the profit motive I think we will have made some gain in this area.

Mr. STEIN. We have not weeded it out under this bill.

Mr. SISK. Counsel, do you have any questions?

Mr. GARBER. Mr. Stein, one or two questions here along the line that we have been discussing.

Any corporate group that is engaged in the practice of optometry, they are in business to make a profit primarily, isn't that right? Mr. STEIN. As the private practice optometrist, yes, sir.

Mr. GARBER. In other words, if the corporation did not make a profit it would go out of business and there would be no reason for existence?

Mr. STEIN. That is true.

Mr. GARBER. Do you make a profit off of your examinations as a corporation profit?

Mr. STEIN. I do not know.

Mr. GARBER. Has it ever occurred to you that is a pretty important thing for a corporation to know, whether it is making a profit or not? Mr. STEIN. I think it is certainly important to know that the bottom line is in the black, yes.

Mr. GARBER. Would you say that the principal profit made by the corporation is derived from the sale of glasses, frames, and lenses? Mr. STEIN. I don't know that but I would suspect that is true in the private practicing optometrist.

Mr. GARBER. If the corporation could exist and do very well on the profits it makes from the sale of

Mr. STEIN. No, let me answer that. Fifty percent of our business, or perhaps 35 percent of our business is derived from prescriptions emanating from persons other than optometrists which we employ. Almost all of that comes from ophthalmologists, prescriptions.

Ophthalmologists don't issue prescriptions. If we did not have ophthalmologists performing examinations, the only business we would get would be the 35 percent which we now derive from prescriptions emanating from ophthalmologists. That is the reason why I say that the crux of this matter is whether or not privately practicing opticians should sell eyeglasses.

If they were not permitted to sell eyeglasses, we would be able to fill their prescriptions and remain in business.

Mr. GARBER. Mr. Stein, you say that you fill prescriptions for ophthalmologists?

Mr. STEIN. Yes.

Mr. GARBER. You fill prescriptions for optometrists, too, do you not? Mr. STEIN. If we can get them. The only ones we would get are optometrists that we employ.

Mr. GARBER. Is there in this bill anyplace that precludes you in any respect from selling glasses, lenses, frames, in any respect whatsoever?

Mr. STEIN. Yes, in this sense

Mr. GARBER. Where is the language?

Mr. STEIN. If we can not employ optometrists.

Mr. GARBER. I am asking you whether or not there is anything in here that precludes you from selling frames and glasses.

Mr. STEIN. Just the pragmatic workings of the bill. If we do not employ optometrists, if optometrists privately practicing can not sell eyeglasses that they prescribe, our business will be cut back 65 percent. We will be limited to the sale of glasses upon prescriptions from ophthalmologists.

Mr. GARBER. In other words, your bread and butter depends on the employment of an optometrist in order to enable you to make a profit on the care of eyes of the community?

Mr. STEIN. As the matter now stands in the District of Columbia, in order for us to continue in business it is necessary for us to employ optometrists, yes. I might also say in regard to a matter that was brought up this morning, this question of patient referral. I believe that the evidence given by Dr. Albert indicates the rate of referral for commercial establishments, commercially or employed optometrists, or ophthalmologists, is considerably higher than that of the privately practicing optometrist.

Mr. SISK. If the gentleman will pardon me, I questioned Dr. Albert at some length and he did not say that. He said that it might be about fifty-fifty. He did not state it would be higher. And upon further questioning he said he didn't know.

I asked the medical people if they could get some figures. They would be interesting.

Mr. STEIN. If we take his figures at 50 percent, then the referral rate from the employed optometrists has to be greater. There are, we are told, approximately 70 privately practicing optometrists in the District of Columbia. I would say there are perhaps only 20 percent of that employed or 20 percent or 14 or 15 percent employed optometrists in the District of Columbia. If those 14 are making 50 percent of the referrals and the seventy are making 50 percent of referrals, I think it stands to reason that the rate of referrals by the employed optometrists is considerably higher than the privately practicing optometrists.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Stein, I do not wish to pursue this further but that brings up another question. Do I understand from you that there are only some 15 employed optometrists by corporate interests here in the District?

Mr. STEIN. I would suspect there are perhaps that number. Less than twenty in the District of Columbia. Yes.

Mr. SISK. How many corporate optical places are there in the District? Do you know any by chance?

Mr. STEIN. I do not know. The reason I have a problem ascertaining that is that many of the so-called privately practicing optometrists also apparently own opticianary establishments. If I looked at the phone book I would see an opticianary establishment or an optometrist's phone number at the same address or the same phone number and the same address. I would not know whether that was a truly employed optometrist or whether that was a so-called privately practicing optometrist who is his own opticianary corporate establishment

there.

There is a considerable amount of that in the State of New York and I suspect it is true down here. I might say when it serves the purposes of the privately practicing optometrist, they seem to countenance corporate employment.

Mr. SISK. Where the law is as lax as it is here, I can understand that.

Mr. STEIN. It is not that lax in New York and it still continues. As a matter of fact, we proved in that case that the New York State Optometric Society itself organized a corporation known as Vision Services, Inc. That corporation employed lay persons to solicit business for the corporation so that members of the Optometric Association could perform optometric services for a fee. That is as close to corporate employment as I can imagine.

I also discovered that the New York State Optometric Society had a contract with the Teamsters Union to provide optometric services. That is pretty close to employment. I also discovered that the Optometric Center in the City of New York, which is sponsored by the New York State Optometric Society and manned by prominent members of the New York State Optometric Society, performs optometric services and sells eyeglasses to the public. The optometrists who perform those services get paid a fee. That is pretty close to corporate employment. Yet the optometric societies countenance that kind of practice.

As I say, it depends on whose ox is gored.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Gude from Maryland just came in.

This is Mr. Stein representing Sterling Optical. Do you have any questions?

Mr. GUDE. Not at this time.

Mr. SISK. All right, Mr. Stein, thank you for your statement. The committee appreciates your testimony.

I believe we have gentlemen from the Board of Trade whom we have promised to hear this afternoon, Mr. Becker and Mr. Weir. If they will come forward to the witness stand, we will hear them now.

I might say to other witnesses, upon the conclusion of this testimony the committee will have to adjourn for tonight and unless otherwise notified the committee will reconvene at ten o'clock next Friday morning.

STATEMENT OF OSBY L. WEIR, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON AREA, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, AND SECRETARY OF THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE

Mr. WEIR. Mr. Chairman and members, I am Osby L. Weir, General Manager, Washington Area, Sears, Roebuck and Company. I appear here today as the Secretary of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, to voice that organization's opposition to H.R. 595, H.R. 732, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 10075, also H.R. 12276 and H.R. 12297-all bills to amend the Optometry Law of the District of Columbia.

In the interests of time, if you prefer, I will summarize it very quickly. If you have any questions I will be glad to answer them. Mr. SISK. Your entire statement will be made a part of the record. If you can, please summarize it.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF OSBY L. WEIR FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON BOArd of Trade BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 5, HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, AUGUST 14, 1967

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I am Osby L. Weir, General Manager, Washington Area, Sears, Roebuck and Company. I appear here today as the Secretary of the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade, to voice that organization's opposition to H.R. 595, H.R. 732, H.R. 1283 and H.R. 10075 also H.R. 12276 and H.R. 12297-all bills to amend the Optometry Law of the District of Columbia.

These bills, except for slight variations in phraseology and punctuation, are similar in effect. The stated purpose of these bills is to re-write and up-date the Optometry Law of the District of Columbia. This would be accomplished by the repeal of the existing provisions of the Optometry Law and the enactment of an entirely new law within the District.

At previous hearings the Medical profession, the Guild of Prescription Opticians of America, the Guild of Prescription Opticians of Washington, D.C., the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians, as well as the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade have opposed the proposed re-writing of the Optometric Law-on the grounds that it deprives the public of freedom of choice in the selection of optical aids, at considerable expense and no corresponding benefit.

The Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade directs its opposition to one particular effect of these proposals, if enacted.

The existing Optometric Law of the District of Columbia provides in Section 20

“That the provisions of this Act shall not apply—

(b) To persons selling spectacles and (or) eyeglasses and who do not attempt either directly or indirectly to adapt them to the eye, and who do not practice or profess to practice optometry."

Bills H.R. 595, H.R. 1283, and H.R. 10075, on the contrary, not only eliminate this provision, but provide, in Section 8(a), subdivision (4).—

"It shall be unlawful for any person * * * with the exception of nonprescription sunglasses or nonprescription protective eyewear, to sell or offer to sell to the public eyeglasses, spectacles, or lenses to fit or duplicate lenses, without a written prescription from a licensed physician or optometrist." (H.R. 732 has a similar provision, Section 8(a) (4), but requires that the prescription come from a physician or optometrist licensed to practice in the District of Columbia.)

POINT ONE. THE PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THE SALE OF READY-TO-WEAR READING GLASSES IS DESIGNED BY ORGANIZED OPTOMETRY TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION It seems quite illogical that men who seek to insure for themselves a "professional" status should consider magnifying spectacles a source of competition. The usual cry of "pro bono publico" has been raised by the American Optometric Association, sponsors of these bills. In order to maintain this position, they would have to show (1) that the sale of these glasses is injurious, or (2) the public was deceived, or (3) that the public could obtain better or equal service from them at lesser cost.

In none of these instances can they maintain their position. In fact, the contrary is true. The public's purchase of ready-to-wear reading glasses serves a great human cause. First, these simple ready-to-wear magnifiers in convenient frames are aids to old-aged vision. Second, the cost is nominal, from $1.50 to $3.95 per pair as against purchasing the same from an optometrist for five to ten times more. Third, there is authoritative medical testimony that they "cannot effect any change in your eyes, let alone 'ruin them.'"

POINT TWO. READY-TO-WEAR MAGNIFYING SPECTACLES PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE COMFORT OF MANKIND

Middle-aged farsightedness is as natural as gray hair. With the advancing years, the eye gradually loses its powers of accommodation for near vision because the eye lens becomes progressively harder. From the age of forty on, most people just cannot seem to hold things far enough away to see them clearly. Years of research have produced the simple answer for farsightedness. It is a pair of magnifying glasses for reading and close work. These magnifying