12–2664. Severability provision. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or Section of these Regulations shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, repeal, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph or Section thereof so found unconstitutional or invalid. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. I draw these regulations to your attention because we feel it highly desirable that opticians be regulated. We have made substantial progress. While we have no objections to updating the existing optometry law, we do strongly object to having the practice of the opticianry controlled by an optometry law which virtually monopolizes the field. We strongly object to defining optometry and regulating it as though it and it alone bears the sole responsibility for the eyecare of the people of the District of Columbia. We strongly object to the bill treating dispensing opticians almost as though they did not exist, while taking away from opticians much of their essential and traditional practice under the guise that all the areas I have discussed are solely optometric in character and subject solely to optometric regulation. Opticians are proud of their heritage. They are proud of the service they have rendered in the District of Columbia. They want to be able to continue this service, and improve this service if and as necessary, but they want it done under their own regulations or law. Opticians must and will oppose these bills and any other bills which contain the proposed all-encompassing definition of optometry in Section 3, and which contain the inadequate language of the non-applicability clause in Section 9 (c). We had submitted amending language to both sections with my letter of March 31, 1966, and we respect fully request the adoption of such amendments should the Committee decide for any reason to take favorable action on any of the pending bills. Iwant to single out for your special attention our proposed amendment to Section 9 paragraph (c). It reads: This Act shall not apply to any person who as a dispensing optician fills the prescription of a physician, surgeon or an optometrist for eyeglasses or spectacles, or to any person who fits contact lenses only on the written prescription and at the direction of a physician or surgeon, or to any person who duplicates, repairs, replaces or reproduces previously prepared lenses, eyeglasses, spectacles, or appurtenances thereto, including their adaptation to the wearer, and who does not practice or profess the practice of optometry. In conclusion, there are three reasons why H.R. 12276 and other substantially identical bills should not be reported out of this Subcommitte: 1. They would substantially change the traditional pattern of eyecare of this city-without sufficient justification; 2. They would-again without justification-place unbearable hardships on dispensing opticians forcing some of them either out of business or into the suburbs; 3. Instead of being in the public interest, the bills would place unreasonable and ridiculous burdens of expense and inconvenience upon the general public. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Miller. You spoke for about 30 minutes, thus you received 10 minutes for each one of your organizations. What organization besides the Guild in the District do you represent? 82-754 0-67-19 Mr. MILLER. The National Association of the Guild of Opticians of America, Incorporated, the Washington Guild of Washington, D.C., and the District of Columbia Association of Dispensing Opticians. I am sorry that the president of that organization was not able to be here this morning, because I know he wanted to says a few words to the Committee about the statement that I made, endorsing the statement, and about the constitution of that organizaion. Mr. SISK. Is that practically the same group that is represented as the United Optical Workers? Is that the union under which your group generally operates? Mr. MILLER. On the contrary. Mr. SISK. I beg your pardon? Mr. MILLER. No, the answer is "No". The Optical Workers Union? Mr. SISK. Yes. The United Optical Workers Union, I believe that is the correct name. Mr. MILLER. The members of the Guild are primarily employers, and this is the major group that I represent. We are not related to the union in any way. Mr. SISK. In other words, you say that you represent the corporate part? Mr. MILLER. No, we represent the opticians who may practice either as individuals or partners some of them do practice, do have a corporate setup. Mr. SISK. The United Optical Workers Union which testified earlier represented a considerable number of opticians. I am curious to learn where the conflict is. I do not quite distinguish between who you represent and who the Union represents. Mr. MILLER. If there is such conflict in your mind, let me state that there is not any conflict. Mr. SISK. I am not saying that there is any conflict. I am seeking information for the record, to clarify it as to whether or not we are talking about the same group of people. Mr. MILLER. Our members are men who are in business in the field of dispensing opticianry for themselves, and they practice dispensing opticianry, either as an individual-I mean, the legal setup does not make for any business. Basically, they are independent businessmen who do not perform any functions-rather, whose primary function is the filling of prescriptions for eyeglasses. Mr. SISK. In other words, you are saying that the members of the Guild who are prescription opticians in the District of Columbia or in the national organization are not members of the United Opitical Workers Union-none of them? Mr. MILLER. No. The union represents primarily the wholesale optical workers and the retail optical workers, but they do not represent, to my knowledge at least, the dispensing opticians. And when we say "dispensing opticians", we are referring to the persons who actually deliver the glasses to the customers, the one who determines what the specifications of these glasses should be and who writes the work order for the optical worker and who delivers the glasses to the customer when he returns to the place of business. Mr. GUDE. Will you yield? Mr. SISK. Yes. Mr. GUDE. Would it be correct that the members of the union would be employed by the members of the Guild? Is this the case? Mr. MILLER. It is possible. That is true; it is possible. Mr. GUDE. In other words, the union represents the actual workers, the technicians? Mr. MILLER. Yes, the technicians, but it is, again, Mr. Gude, a difference. If I understand and recall correctly the union's testimony the other morning, they have one place in the District of Columbia. The only place is in the American Optical Company which is a wholesale laboratory and distributor. The type of people that would be in the wholesale laboratory doing the mass production, the actual grinding and polishing of the lenses is not the same type of persons, necessarily, who would be the actual dispensing optician. Mr. GUDE. Thank you. That is all. Mr. MILLER. Frequently, they graduate from this area and become dispensing opticians. Mr. SISK. Let me ask you one other question, and then I will be finished. My question concerns the Hart bill, which deals primarily with the same subject. Other subjects are covered which seek to eliminate the dispensing of eyeglasses by optomologists and the like. As I understand it, in reading the testimony, that bill was supported by the opticians. This was done on the basis that the job of a doctor was, of course, with the patient relationship and that the writing of the prescriptions and the optician's job was to do the technical work. I am curious. Were you in support of the Hart bill? Mr. MILLER. We did not support the Hart bill. Mr. MILLER. We did not oppose it. Mr. SISK. You had no position on the Hart bill? Mr. SISK. Those are all of the questions I have. Mr. Gude? Mr. GUDE. I have no further questions. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your appearance. Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much. Mr. SISK. The next witness is Mr. Bernard J. Englander, President, Group Optical Consultants, Inc., of New York City. Is Mr. Englander present? (No response.) Mr. SISK. All right. Our next witness, Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi, Citizenship-Director, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, is not here today and has requested that his statement be made a part of the record. Without objection, the prepared statement of Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi will be included in the record at this point. The prepared statement of Mr. Anthony Mazzocchi is as follows:) STATEMENT OF ANTHONY MAZZOCCHI. CITIZENSHIP-LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Organized labor is strongly opposed to the proposed legislation now before this subcommittee which would: prevent the employment of optometrists by corporations, lay persons, health and welfare plans and unions; prevent truthful, informational or pure advertising of services or materials; prevent the display of optical materials to the public; and prevent the practice of optomet including the sale of optical materials in any commercial location. The effect of such legislation would be to give the high priced privately practicing optometrist a monopoly in the area of eye care and the sale of optical merchandise and thereby greatly increase the cost of eyeglasses to the public. It is a known fact that these individuals mark up optical merchandise from 200 to 300%. The average working man cannot afford these exhorbitant prices and should not be forced to either pay luxury prices or go without such vital needs as eye care and eyeglasses. In light of the fact that such legislation would in no way benefit the public, its adoption would clearly be to the detriment of the public welfare. By prohibiting the optometrist from advertising or displaying his merchandise, the consumer is denied the opportunity to compare products and to select the most desirable and economic sources of optical merchandise. Especially in light of the wide price range of these products and the style and fashion aspect of selecting eyeglasses, denying the public an opportunity to obtain relevant information is a serious disservice. In addition, there are hundreds of labor unions, trust funds, and health and welfare plans throughout the nation, which, for decades, have satisfactorily and economically utilized the services of corporate sellers of eyeglasses to provide eye examinations and eye care for these members. Such corporations would no longer be permitted if this legislation were to be adopted. Further, these bills would prohibit a labor union, trust fund or health and welfare plan from directly employing an optometrist to provide their members with eye care and eyeglasses. During the final days of the recently concluded session of the New York State Legislature, a bill was passed without hearings or investigation, which would have had achieved substantially the same purposes and had the same effect as the proposed legislation now before this subcommittee. Immediately after the legislative approval of the New York bill (Senate Bill 3335-A) scores of labor unions, trust funds and health and welfare plans joined news media, retail and merchant organizations and government agencies in advising the Governor of the evils of that bill and in requesting his veto. After receiving the relevant facts and arguments, Governor Rockefeller vetoed the bill on May 2, 1967, quoting the memorandum of the Insurance Department to the effect that the bill would result in increased costs "with no increase in the quality of service." The Governor indicated in his veto message that disapproval of the bill was also recommended by the New York State Department of Commerce, the New York State AFL-CIO, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians, "among numerous others." The following statements are quoted from a few of the scores of letters, memoranda, and telegrams which were sent to Governor Rockefeller by well-respected labor leaders, requesting his veto of the New York Optometry bill. In a telegram of April 3, 1967, Louis Stulberg, President of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, speaking about corporate retail sellers of eyeglasses who employ optometrists, said: "By restricting the continuance of this useful social service the bill would automatically raise the cost of necessary eye care for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who could ill afford this sort of increase. The bill is pure special interest legislation. It is an attempt on the part of individual practitioners to strike a blow at low-cost optical care so that they may continue their private practice unsupervised and unregulated." In a letter of April 4, 1967, Kolodny, Secretary of the United Federation of Teachers said: "This bill is clearly not in the public interest. The only effect enactment of this bill could have would be to increase the income of single proprietor optometrists at the expense of the public, by limiting the number of optometrists serving the public. The legislature must protect the public welfare, and not the selfish interests of a small group. "The retail sale of eyeglasses by corporations has been practiced in New York State for a great many years, with great benefit to the public. The public is assured of proper optometric care because the optometrists who are employed by corporations, many of whom are union members, are fully licensed by the State and are as competent to treat the public as are optometrists in individual practice. Even group plans such as HIP and GHI would be prohibited from employing optometrists by this bill, to the public detriment. . . . "The purpose of this bill is purely economic-namely, to corner the market for the individual optometrists. The purpose is not to raise professional standards. because otherwise optometrists would discontinue the commercial sale of eyeglasses." A telegram from the New York City Central Labor Council dated April 11, 1967, sent by Harry Van Arsdale, President, Jay Rubin, Chairman of the Hospital and Medical Care Committee and Walter J. Sheerin, Coordinator, states that: "The effect of this bill would be to outlaw corporations, now providing low-cost optometric services to the public and employees covered by union health and welfare plans. "It would affect low-income workers and their families. And would not improve upon the quality of service. It is discriminating against group practice, which has proven successful and beneficial to millions of people in our state and would deny many of these people needed eye care while inflating costs." In a communication dated April 11, 1967, Raymond R. Corbet, President of the New York State AFL-CIO stated: "The result of this bill would be that these individual optometrists would corner the market on the sale of eyeglasses, thus driving up the cost of eye care for the public as well as increasing welfare and medicaid costs. "For many years New Yorkers have benefited from group or corporate practice of optometry, which provide eye examinations by fully licensed and qualified optometrists and which are able to provide the necessary eyeglasses at reasonable price. Many union health and welfare plans have arrangements with such groups or corporations to provide glasses to their members and their families at low cost. Under this bill, group corporate practice of optometry would be prohibited. "In addition, employees of presently existing corporations in the optical field, many of whom are union members, would suffer layoffs and unemployment. This bill would serve only the special interest of the private optometrist who would have his competition eliminated and thus be assured of greater profits." A telegram dated April 11, 1967 from James Trenz, President, Local 463 IUE, AFL-CIO, states that: "If this bill is signed eye-care and eyeglasses generally available to everyone at modest cost will be lost to many union health and welfare funds as well as to the public at large. We request you veto this bill as not in the public interest." These statements are representative of those made by scores of unions and union leaders who are deeply concerned with the public welfare. These statements clearly reflect labors' position on the proposed legislation now before this subcommittee. In the interest of the thousands of workers and members of the general public, I urge that the proposed legislation now before this subcommittee not be adopted. Mr. SISK. The next witness is Mr. Galen E. Rowe, Jr., on behalf of the National Association of Optometrists and Opticians. We will be glad to hear from you now, Dr. Rowe. Are you a doctor? Dr. Rowe. I am an optometrist, yes, sir. Mr. SISK. Do we have a copy of your statment? Dr. RowE. I gave it to the Clerk of the Committee. Mr. SISK. Again, in the interest of time, I would appreciate it, if you would conform as much as possible to the time allowance. Dr. Rowe. If I could be assured that the prepared statment would, with some additional comments, be made a part of the record, I would forego the reading of my statement and submit it for the record. Mr. SISK. Without objection, your entire statement will be made a part of the record, and of course, any of your oral remarks will also become a part of the record. STATEMENT OF GALEN E. ROWE, JR., O.D., PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS AND OPTICIANS Dr. Rowe. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I will forego the reading of this statement and will attempt to give some answers to some of the questions that have been raised by various members of the Subcommittee during the course of the testimony here. |