{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"The News Journal","provider_url":"https:\/\/qa.thenewsjournal.net","title":"Eye bill's focus: Keep online examiners out &ndash; The News Journal","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zcW53RzHY9\"><a href=\"https:\/\/qa.thenewsjournal.net\/eye-bills-focus-keep-online-examiners\/\">Eye bill&#8217;s focus: Keep online examiners out<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/qa.thenewsjournal.net\/eye-bills-focus-keep-online-examiners\/embed\/#?secret=zcW53RzHY9\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Eye bill&#8217;s focus: Keep online examiners out&#8221; &#8212; The News Journal\" data-secret=\"zcW53RzHY9\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/qa.thenewsjournal.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Jim-Waters-beacon.jpg","thumbnail_width":234,"thumbnail_height":84,"description":"As House members struggle to unite on serious issues involving public-pension reform and budget cuts, they\u2019ve had no problem coming together with shutter-speed agreement to pass legislation protecting the powerful optometric industry from online innovators. One reason \u2013 and it\u2019s not the first time we\u2019ve seen this \u2013 is lots of cold hard cash. Optometrists\u2019 political action committees in 2010 alone gave $141,700; individually, they gave a whopping $253,323 to get controversial legislation passed the following year letting optometrists perform surgeries previously \u2013 and strictly \u2013 limited to ophthalmologists, including injections and laser procedures. Ophthalmologists claimed the legislation put patient safety at risk. After all, they noted, ophthalmologists must have 17,000 hours of surgical training and perform hundreds of surgeries before being allowed to perform on their own while only 32 hours of training is required for optometrists, who simply must show they can do the procedure once before being allowed to use lasers. However, the optometrists poo-poohed such concerns. It\u2019s just the ophthalmologists protecting their turf, they claim. Optometrists stressed incessantly in their lobbying efforts that two-thirds of Kentucky\u2019s counties don\u2019t have an ophthalmologist and that the legislation meant rural Kentuckians who otherwise would be left in the dark would gain access to affordable eye care. But let\u2019s not play make-believe. The bill didn\u2019t pass because optometrists made the right policy argument \u2013 that government shouldn\u2019t use its power to deny Kentuckians access to care or a choice of how and where they\u2019re treated. It passed rapidly because, as Kentucky Health News describes it, \u201coptometrists have long been major financiers of legislators\u2019 campaigns.\u201d But there\u2019s also the matter of wanting to keep out innovative competitors. To accomplish that, the powerful optometrists\u2019 lobby has adopted the same approach of protectionism and fearmongering during this year\u2019s legislative session that they condemned in 2011. They\u2019re pushing House Bill 191, which would prohibit Kentuckians from being able to spend $50 to get their prescriptions for glasses or contacts renewed through a reliable online exam and instead forces patients to shell out $100 for an in-office visit to an optometrist. Primary sponsor Jim Gooch, R-Providence, misrepresents the bill by claiming \u201cit permits the use of safe technology.\u201d Conveniently missing from his statement is the fact that HB 191 effectively bans the use of online providers like Opternative or Simple Contacts, which provide eye exams to renew prescriptions for contact lenses and glasses for healthy Kentuckians with a computer and smartphone, by burdening them with impossible-to-meet, medically unnecessary regulations. Forbes contributor George Leef wrote that optometrists \u201csee phone apps for eye prescriptions the same way the Luddite hand-weavers saw the development of power looms \u2013 they must be shut down.\u201d Even though more people who never have or would go to a doctor\u2019s office will likely get care? Even though it would lower health-care costs for poor rural Kentuckians? Even though Simple Contacts only gives exams to healthy people who have received an in-person exam in the last four years? Even though these online providers deny exams to as many as 30 percent of applicants, requiring them \u2013 based on their extensive questioning \u2013 to physically see an eye specialist, demonstrating patients\u2019 health is a high priority? Even after the same this-is-about-turf arguments made by the optometrists themselves a few years ago? Yep, yep, yep, yep and yep. With open eyes, state senators, who now must consider HB 191, can clearly see: it has little to do with public health and everything to do with protecting established businesses from economic competition. \u201cWhen you look at these fights, it\u2019s always the same underlying phenomenon,\u201d said Robert McNamara, a senior Institute for Justice attorney, who\u2019s fighting South Carolina\u2019s ban of online eye-exam providers. \u201cIt is always a legislature kowtowing to a powerful, private interest group at the expense of some new entrant, some entrepreneur, some innovator.\u201d Jim Waters is president and CEO of the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Kentucky\u2019s free-market think tank. Read previous columns at www.bipps.org. He can be reached at jwaters@freedomkentucky.com and @bipps on Twitter."}