- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Optometry: LA HB 1065/SB 568: What if your Louisiana Eye Surgeon is NOT an MD?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:37 am to G Vice
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:37 am to G Vice
quote:
So the optometrists have not successfully made the case for it being an issue of access.
I do agree that the "access" appeal was a vague, unquantified one as well.
That said, if it doesn't improve access by either alleviating a shortage somewhere or by offering a reduced price, the optometrists stand to gain nothing. No customer or payer will utilize an optometrist for the same price as an ophthalmologist, and any attempts to "trick" customers or payers into doing so would fail or be very short-lived.
In this case the issue solves itself, unless there actually is some access issue or the procedures will be cheaper when provided by optom's.
0
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:48 am to guttata
quote:
I guess a dentist isn't a doctor either.
No one is suggesting that. They perform dental surgeries, which aren't performed by another group, so there are no standards to compare.
I am pretty against the idea of them doing Botox for non-dental related pathologies (cosmetic being the number one, there).
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:15 pm to Hopeful Doc
Who keeps bringing up dentists?
First off, they extract teeth. One could argue that that's extraction and not surgery.
Surgery being defined by Webster as "medical treatment in which a (gonna delete the word doctor from here so you all don't freak out) cuts into someone's body in order to repair or remove damaged or diseased parts".
Maybe semantics but you could argue we're not even arguing surgery on tooth extraction.
Now I know they do other stuff too. And a lot of it is surgical in nature.
But anyway, a dentist has a pretty long history of being the go-to person on the extraction of teeth (and other tooth-related work/surgical work / etc).
The go-to person for eye incision/burning/etc has traditionally been an MD ophthalmologist. I guess that would be why these are different topics and to quote Herman Cain, you're mixing apples with oranges.
First off, they extract teeth. One could argue that that's extraction and not surgery.
Surgery being defined by Webster as "medical treatment in which a (gonna delete the word doctor from here so you all don't freak out) cuts into someone's body in order to repair or remove damaged or diseased parts".
Maybe semantics but you could argue we're not even arguing surgery on tooth extraction.
Now I know they do other stuff too. And a lot of it is surgical in nature.
But anyway, a dentist has a pretty long history of being the go-to person on the extraction of teeth (and other tooth-related work/surgical work / etc).
The go-to person for eye incision/burning/etc has traditionally been an MD ophthalmologist. I guess that would be why these are different topics and to quote Herman Cain, you're mixing apples with oranges.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:21 pm to LATigerdoc
Hey fellas, glad you're back.
Sky fallen yet?
Sky fallen yet?
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:24 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Now, I assume that you didn't actually mean "eye care" in general, and instead meant something like "eye surgery."
Can't speak for GVice, but I meant "eye care." Ophthos train 4 years in all facets of treatment of the globe and the surrounding orbit. They then spend and entire year of sub-specialized training in one of the multiple arenas of ophthalmologic surgery.
There is no single "eye surgery" fellowship. The organ is so complicated and delicate, that eye surgery is split into 3 sections (basically): Retina, cornea, and oculoplastics
You won't find retina surgeons lobbying to perform cornea operations (and vice versa) because they realize that they are unqualified.
On that note, it's laughably dense, not to mention unsafe, to propose that optometrists-who are trained in a narrow scope of overall "eye care"-make the leap from their limited expertise into operating.
This post was edited on 6/3/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:59 pm to Traffic Circle
Traffic Circle
Optometry: LA HB 1065/SB 568: What if your Louisiana Eye Surgeon is NOT an MD?
Hey fellas, glad you're back.
Sky fallen yet?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's clever, when it does, you'll hear about it
Optometry: LA HB 1065/SB 568: What if your Louisiana Eye Surgeon is NOT an MD?
Hey fellas, glad you're back.
Sky fallen yet?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's clever, when it does, you'll hear about it
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:02 pm to jamarkus
quote:
jamarkus
Helpful hint: highlight the words you want to quote, then tap "quote"
If that's not what you're trying to do, forgive the insult to your intelligence.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:12 pm to Hopeful Doc
quote:
jamarkus
Helpful hint: highlight the words you want to quote, then tap "quote"
If that's not what you're trying to do, forgive the insult to your intelligence.
Is that a penguin?
jamarkus
Helpful hint: highlight the words you want to quote, then tap "quote"
If that's not what you're trying to do, forgive the insult to your intelligence.
Is that a penguin?
This post was edited on 6/3/14 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:19 pm to jamarkus
1000th poster gets a free laser surgery..
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:19 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
Can't speak for GVice, but I meant "eye care." Ophthos train 4 years in all facets of treatment of the globe and the surrounding orbit. They then spend and entire year of sub-specialized training in one of the multiple arenas of ophthalmologic surgery.
There is no single "eye surgery" fellowship. The organ is so complicated and delicate, that eye surgery is split into 3 sections (basically): Retina, cornea, and oculoplastics
You won't find retina surgeons lobbying to perform cornea operations (and vice versa) because they realize that they are unqualified.
On that note, it's laughably dense, not to mention unsafe, to propose that optometrists-who are trained in a narrow scope of overall "eye care"-make the leap from their limited expertise into operating.
All of this.
I am friends with 4 opthamalogists: 2 general, 1 pediatric, 1 retina.
I have had an enormous amount of contact and conversation with these guys over the last 15 yrs., and I can tell you that they know their stuff like no one else can know it.
This is why I have supreme confidence in optham.
As a PT, they have similarly entrusted me to their families, spouses, aunts, kids, etc. I seek not to take from MD practice, but to supplement and support with the best scientific evidence available.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:23 pm to jamarkus
quote:
Is that a penguin?
It's Tux, the Linux Mascot
Alternately, if you have trouble doing it that way, you can highlight, then copy what you want to quote, click "quote," then click "paste" In the box that pops up.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 1:07 am to 90proofprofessional
Medical training is not about "paying dues".
It's about training and learning so as to be competent and well-versed in the practice of medicine.
It's about training and learning so as to be competent and well-versed in the practice of medicine.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 9:00 am to LATigerdoc
quote:
Medical training is not about "paying dues".
If not, then perhaps you should be more aware of how you come across. In regards to this particular debate, it absolutely appears to be to you and to some others.
To whoever said something I suggested was dangerous and "laughably dense", laugh on. That vague, scary-sounding shite wasn't compelling at all the first time it was said, and it still isn't.
Now, as I asked before: since the thing is now official policy, how should the policy outcomes be evaluated? Are none of you willing to answer that?
This post was edited on 6/4/14 at 9:17 am
Posted on 6/4/14 at 5:35 pm to 90proofprofessional
Ok, did not mean to come off judgmentally. However, going to medical school and doing residency training should certainly be a prerequisite for being a surgeon. If you believe otherwise, I'm not sure how you can back that up. The whole body really is inter-related.
Posted on 6/4/14 at 6:04 pm to LATigerdoc
quote:Herman. Cain?!
Herman Cain
Posted on 6/4/14 at 7:31 pm to LATigerdoc
quote:
The whole body really is inter-related.
I understand that this fact adds much value to the training of an ophthalmologist, which has far more breadth.
It is also true that this fact makes the time and effort of an ophthalmologist more valuable and rightfully more expensive. I remain unconvinced that their level of training is truly necessary for sufficient safety for every single surgical procedure. But whether I or you or anyone is convinced of that is not really relevant any more.
We now have this law. Since all interested parties are concerned with patient health, safety, access, and price fairness, how should we be evaluating the outcomes from this policy to see if it was worthwhile?
Posted on 6/4/14 at 7:48 pm to Patrick_Bateman
LINK
This post was edited on 6/5/14 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 6/4/14 at 11:56 pm to LATigerdoc
What you got against Herman??
Posted on 6/5/14 at 9:49 pm to LATigerdoc
Where are the opticians in all of this? I wonder how they feel..
Posted on 6/5/14 at 10:09 pm to LATigerdoc
quote:
Where are the opticians in all of this? I wonder how they feel..
Probably the same as all the ocularist..
Page 42 of 43
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News