The 2011 American Optometric Association House of Delegates in Salt Lake City was anything but quiet. With 14 resolutions proposed, the HOD had a lot of work to do. Of the 14, only a few came before the house for discussion and a vote. The others were all withdrawn by the sponsors for various reasons. As you may recall, the AOS was in favor of several of the resolutions and opposed to one in particular. Below is the highlight of these specific resolutions and their eventual outcome.
Resolution B Optometric Education Curriculum The resolution was looking at a 3 year accelerated OD program. Earlier in the week Linda Casser, OD, Dean, PCO, had educated many on the current accelerated program that already exists at PCO. The sponsor withdrew the resolution.
Resolution E NBEO Clinical Skills Exam Testing Site The NBEO put on a full court press to explain their decision of a single testing site. The resolution was first introduced by Optometry students at the 2011 California House of Delegates meeting. The NBEO was encouraged to have face to face meetings with the students to work out their differences. The sponsor withdrew the resolution.
Resolution F Call For The American Optometric Association To Complete An Independent Feasibility Study Of Member Representative The resolution was to explore the possibility of a more modern voting system with greater participation of the members. The resolution was amended as there was significant concern about the cost. The amendment basically would have asked for all affiliates to return next year with ideas to discuss a new process. Discussion on the floor basically reiterated that the current delegates and leadership like the way things are now. One delegate even commented that we have always done it this way. Both the amendment and the resolution were defeated.
Resolution G The American Optometric Association Withdraws Support For ABO The resolution created significant discussion, almost all in opposition to the resolution. Unfortunately, the leadership and their representatives were able to turn the resolution into a referendum of Board Certification. The AOA general counsel was even called in to speak about the anti-trust potential. He too commented that BC is legal. Of course, this was not what the resolution was challenging. So no real discussion except for the opening statement addressed the resolution’s concerns that the endorsement of the ABO is both harmful to the AOA and is a potential avenue for future anti-trust litigation. The resolution was defeated.
Resolution I Eligibility for Active Candidate Status for Board Certification The resolution called for the removal of the sunsetting of points for passed experience when applying for BC candidacy. The ABO, earlier in the meeting, had explained that they had applied for CMS MOC Board approval. They, the ABO, would not be able to make any changes to the program as written at this point. The sponsor withdrew the resolution.
Resolution K Call For The American Optometric Association To Evaluate Optometric Workforce Statistics The resolution was to ask the AOA to perform workforce studies on a regular basis and to use that information to help influence Optometric Workforce ratios. The AOA is currently performing a Workforce Study in conjunction with other organizations. The current study will be completed in another 18 months. The new study format has been designed to be plastic (ongoing), allowing for continual and regular updates. The current study will also reside with the AOA. It appears that this was the intent of the resolution. The resolution was withdrawn by the sponsor.
Resolution L Maintenance of Licensure The AOA board introduced this resolution. It appeared as if the AOA was trying to mandate, all be it voluntary, a life long learning program. The resolution was presented to the floor amended from its original format. The portion removed was the most controversial, and the portion that we vehemently opposed. The request of the HOD to approve support for a voluntary lifelong learning program for the profession had been removed. The resulting resolution only asked for state affiliates to fight any attempt to mandate testing for licensure. The resolution passed without any real discussion.
Resolution M Amendment to the Initial Requirements for Certification by the American Board of Optometry The resolution called for the removal of the initial board test replacing it with the NBEO. The ABO, earlier in the meeting, had explained that they have submitted for CMS MOC Board approval. They, the ABO, would not be able to make any changes to the program as written at this point. The sponsor withdrew the resolution.
There were several other resolutions, some of which were withdrawn and others that were passed. The biggest surprise at the 2011 HOD was a substantive motion that was introduced by the Oklahoma delegation. Although not made by the AOA Board, there is no doubt that they were behind the motion. Essentially, the motion would cripple ARBO. The AOA would like for the ACOE to begin an accreditation program for Optometric CE providers. ACOE, under the AOA umbrella, would potentially control CE. This motion although initially tabled, was amended to allow for a plan to be designed and brought back to the 2012 AOA HOD in Chicago.
Very unlike the 2010 HOD in Orlando, there were significantly more resolutions to be discussed. There seemed to be a few more delegates in opposition to the AOA’s continued push of the ABO. But very much like the 2010 HOD, delegates continue to support the AOA leadership and their agenda.
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form