tices and the quality of eye care received in some instances. The files of these complaints indicate use of unethical practices and revolving door techniques which were outlawed many years ago in connection with other health related professions. The public is enticed into some eye care establishments on representations of high professional skills, excellent quality of optical goods, and refunds or adjustments if the patient cannot be fitted or is not satisfied with the service. When these inducements are not realized by the patient, and he is entitled to a refund or an adjustment, he may be advised by the local establishment which extracted the fee for service that he will have to arrange for any refund or adjustment with the home office in New York City. The patient is astonished that such practices exist in the District of Columbia-he is more astonished when he finds that the officials of the District of Columbia, the Board of Optometry, and the prosecuting officers of the District are powerless to act. Yet, this has been and is now going on in the Nation's Capital. The Congress has recognized Optometry as one of the health professions which is critically short of manpower by including it in the Health Professional Educational Assistance Act in 1963, and again in the Allied Health Professions Personnel Training Act of 1966, which provided for the training of medical technologists, optometric technologists, dental hygienists, the three types of health auxiliaries most needed for health care of the Nation's population. Following the action by Congress this year in extending the Universal Military Training Act, the President singled out optometric students along with medical and dental students for special deferments from the draft in an executive order to implement the draft extension. Further, the Armed Services recently issued a special call for optometrists to serve the vision needs of our fighting forces. It is the hope of the Committee that we may be able to complete the receiving of testimony on the pending bills today. If not hearings will continue tomorrow. To accomplish this I am asking witnesses to limit their oral testimony to ten minutes per witness and to file any longer and more amplified statements with the Committee if they do so desire. Your cooperation in this respect will be appreciated. I might say there are several members of Congress who have introduced legislation on this subject, so at this time it is the Chair's intention to recognize any Member of Congress for such brief statement as he might desire to make. I believe the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fuqua, who will be sitting with us part of the time, though not a member of the Subcommittee, does have a statement to make. The Chair recognizes the gentleman at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. FUQUA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this committee is starting work on this bill to regulate optometry in the District of Columbia. I for one agree wholeheartedly with you that such regulation is indeed a matter for careful consideration by this subcommittee and the House District Committee. As you know, I have had concern in this area for some time, and introduced a bill last year, as well as H.R. 595 in this Congress, for the purpose of correcting the present antiquated 1924 District of Columbia Optometry Law. My bill, I might add, Mr. Chairman, is virutally identical to your bill, H.R. 1283. I asked the Library of Congress to supply us with a point by point comparison of H.R. 595 and the existing District Optometry Law. Careful study of that comparison has convinced me of the need for passage of a revised optometry law at the earliest possible moment. Our foremost consideration should be the good of the public. I would like to submit for the record the Library of Congress analysis of H.R. 595 for the Committee's reference. To quote briefly from this analysis: H.R. 595 would substantially modify the present provisions of 2-501-522 of the District of Columbia Code. The purpose of the modifications is the imposition of exacting requirements over the profession and practice of optometry in the District of Columbia. The comparison further points out that the present law concerns itself primarily with establishment of a Board of Optometry whose principal functions are the conduct of examinations for licensure to practice optometry and the conduct of hearings to revoke, cancel or suspend licenses. The Library of Congress report also states, "H.R. 595 makes substantial improvements on a Code which has not been significantly amended since its enactment on May 28, 1924 (43 Stat. 177)." The comparison notes, one of the effects of these various amendments, particularly the definition of the term "the practice of optometry", is to take the adaptation and fitting of contact lenses out of the hands of opticians and placing it exclusively in the hands of physicians and licensed optometrists. The Library of Congress summarizes the need for a new law. It says: Significant effects of the bill's provisions setting up a code of conduct and defining unlawful acts with respect to the practice of optometry are: (1) the elimination of price-cost and other bait advertising techniques and practices; (2) the elimination of fee-splitting, rebating or other commission arrangements offered as inducements to obtain patronage; (3) the guarantee of an absolute freedom of choice of a practitioner on the part of the person needing the services of an optometrist with respect to the administration of any law of the District of Columbia; (4) the confinement of advertising of professional services to modest professional cards and announcements, and to modest street or window signs at the place of business; (5) the confinement of the practice of optometry to a professional office by prohibiting its practice in retail, mercantile or commercial stores or premises that are not exclusively devoted to the practice of optometry or other health professions. This general description clearly outlines the need for and intent of H.R. 595 or similar legislation which we will consider today. The comparison also points out that no provision in the bill would work to abolish the Board of Optometry. The District Commissioners could continue to delegate all or any part of their powers and authority to such a Board upon whatever terms and conditions as may appear necessary and proper. The proposed bill clearly spells out what constitutes the practice of optometry, by defining under Section 3 a number of terms used in the Act. These specifics reflect the wide range of procedures for examination and correction of conditions of the eye as currently taught in recognized schools and colleges of optometry and as described in State laws governing the practice of the profession. Section 4 of the bill establishes much more stringent requirements for licensing to practice optometry in the District of Columbia. The existing law fails to set forth many of the necessary requirements. To mention just one or two for which the new bill provides, the applicant for a license must be mentally competent; must have completed a twoyear pre-optometric course at the college level; must pass a written, oral and practical examination in five different fields of scientific knowledge and skills. . . three of which are not spelled out in the present law. These are just a few points which will work to improve the practice of optometry in the District if this bill is enacted into law. There are some 41 additional points in the bill which are not contained in the existing law. I will mention at this point, that in the Great State of Florida, the profession of optometry is held in high regard. The continuing legislative improvement of our State laws governing the practice of optometry helps to maintain the high quality of the professional practice. It is usually agreed that Florida has one of the better optometric laws in the United States, and we are proud of it. By comparison with Florida optometric laws, the District of Columbia is far behind in proper control of the practice of professional optometry. Action can and should by now have been taken to clear for passage a vastly-improved optometric law for the District. I would like to ask permission at this time to make the analyses by the Library of Congress part of the record, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SISK. Without objection, the request is granted and it will become part of the record following your remarks. Mr. FUQUA. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it has been since 1924 that there has been any change in the law of optometry in the District of Columbia. The present law provides mainly for the establishment of a Board of Optometry and that is about the extent of its procedure. One of the things that I think the new bill provides is the elimination of the price, cost, and other bait advertising techniques and practices, and the elimination of fee splitting and rebating, and other commission arrangements as an inducement to obtain customers, and it also provides for the guarantee of absolute freedom of choice of a practitioner on the part of the person needing the services of an optometrist with respect to the administration of this proposed law. Then there are changes in advertising and other things. It provides and clearly spells out what constitutes the practice of optometry and also relates to contact lenses. I think it is very significant that we have this legislation. (The Library study and analysis referred to follows:) THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, D.C. June 8, 1967. To: House District of Columbia Committee, Attention: Honorable Don Fuqua. Pursuant to your request, there is enclosed herewith a section analysis and comparison of H.R. 595, 90th Congress, with comparable provisions of the District of Columbia Code. As constructed, H.R. 595 would substantially modify the present provisions of §§ 2-501-522 of the District of Columbia Code. The purpose of the modifications is the imposition of exacting requirements over the profession and practice of optometry in the District of Columbia. Under the present provisions of the D.C. Code, the concern is primarily with the establishment of a Board of Optometry whose principal functions are the conduct of examinations for licenses to practice optometry in the District of Columbia, and the conduct of hearings to revoke, cancel or suspend licenses for any of the following causes: (1) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (2) habitual use of narcotics, or other substances impairing the intellect and judgment to an incapacitating extent with respect to optometric duties; (3) a conviction for falsely representing oneself as a licensed optometrist; falsely representing oneself as capable of examining the human eye; and, the impersonation of, or claiming to be, a person duly licensed under the Code. H.R. 595 makes substantial improvements on a Code which has not been significantly amended since its enactment on May 28, 1924 (43 Stat. 177). In this latter regard, section 2 of the bill declares optometry to be a profession subject to regulation in the interest of public health and welfare, and limits its practice to persons meeting the substantial qualifications and requirements prescribed in the bill. From this declaration, the bill naturally progresses to a definition of the key term "practice of optometry", the educational prerequisites for taking the prescribed written, oral and practical examinations (the latter two being not presently required), and, an outlining of the code of conduct, and the prohibitions, which must be strictly adhered to, and followed, under penalty of revocation, suspension or cancellation of a valid license. One of the effects of these various amendments-particularly, that of the definition of the term "practice of optometry"-is to take the adaptation and fitting of contact lenses out of the hands of opticians and placing it exclusively in the hands of physicians and licensed optometrists. Significant effects of the bill's provisions setting up a code of conduct and defining unlawful acts with respect to the practice of optometry are: (1) the elimination of price cost and other bait advertising techniques and practices; (2) the elimination of fee-splitting, rebating or other commission arrangements offered as inducements to obtain patronage; (3) the guarantee of an absolute freedom of choice of a practitioner on the part of the person needing the services of an optometrist with respect to the administration of any law of the District of Columbia; (4) the confinement of advertising of professional services to modest professional cards and announcements, and to modest street or window signs at the place of business; (5) the confinement of the practice of optometry to a professional office by prohibiting its practice in retail, mercantile or commercial stores or premises that are not exclusively devoted to the practice of optometry or other health professions. While the bill speaks in terms of vesting powers and authority in the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, nevertheless, there appears to be no provisions therein that would work an abolishment of the present D.C. Optometry Board, nor is its abolishment likely in view of the fact that specific provisions in the bill authorize the Commissioners to delegate all or any part of the powers and authority therein granted to said Board upon any terms and conditions as to them may appear necessary and proper. There follows a comparison of the bill with its corresponding provisions, if any, of the D.C. Code. ROBERT M. UJEVICH, Sec. 1-cites the Act as the "District of Columbia Optometry Act". Sec. 3-defines certain terms used in the Act. The most significant TITLE 2, D.C. CODE |