Minutes. August 27, 1999.

              Page 1, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
REGULAR MEETING
Albuquerque, New Mexico
10: 00 a. m. Friday, August 27, 1999
Real Estate Commission – 1650 University Blvd. Suite 490
12: 30 p. m. Sunday, August 29, 1999
Omega Eye Care Center – 1600 University Blvd.
FINAL AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES – April 8, 1999
IV OLD BUSINESS
A. ILLEGAL CONTACT LENS SALES FOLLOW- UP REPORT
1. FDA Position Statement Letter
2. Presentation to District Attorney Association
3. Deposition for Johnson and Johnson Lawsuit
4. DATELINE NBC Contact Lens Broadcast Copies
5. Kansas Board vs. Mail Order CL Distributors
6. Correspondence on Lens Express Advertising Materials
B. June IAB Meeting Report
C. Healthcare Integrity Protection Databank ( HIP- DB) Update
1. Data Bank Information from U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
2. Registration Information
3. Authorized Agent Designation
D. 1999 Licensing Exam Report
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. LensCrafter Vision Van Program
B. Correspondence: Eye Associates
C. Annual Election of Officers
VI. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
A. FY99 Year- end Report
B. FY2000 Budget Status Report
C. 1999 Renewal Report
1. Licensee Update
2. License Retirement( s)
D. RLD Update
Page 2, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
1. Board Member Training – November 15, 1999
2. Optometry Internet Website Launched
3. Management Information Systems Division News
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION
A. OPT # 97- 11 – John R. Davis, O. D.
B. OPT # 99- 08 – Jack Battin vs. Artesia Headstart Program
C. OPT # 2000- 01
D. OPT # 2000- 02
VIII. RECESS ( Meeting to Reconvene Sunday, August 29, 1999)
IX. MEETING RECONVENED AND CALLED TO ORDER
X. EXAM FOLLOW- UP
A. Exam Review
B. Exam Results
C. Appreciation Letters to Exam Participants
XI. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING
XII. ADJOURN
Page 3, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
REGULAR MEETING
Albuquerque, New Mexico
10: 00 a. m. Friday, August 27, 1999
Real Estate Commission – 1650 University Blvd. Suite 490
12: 30 p. m. Sunday, August 29, 1999
Omega Eye Care Center – 1600 University Blvd.
MEETING MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT: Donald B. Leach, OD and Chairman
James Simnacher, OD, Vice- Chairman
Dana L. McQuinn, OD
Timothy L. Salazar, Public Member
MEMBERS ABSENT: Charles Forest Wade, Public Member
Yvonne A. McCloskey, O. D., Secretary/ Treasurer
STAFF PRESENT: Carmen E. Payne, Board Administrator
OTHERS PRESENT: Alvin R. Garcia, Assistant Attorney General
James Cutler, O. D.
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 10: 05 a. m., the regular meeting of the New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
was called to order by Dr. Donald B. Leach, Board Chairman. The meeting had been
properly noticed and there was a quorum present to conduct business. Dr. McCloskey was
not present due to an unexpected illness in the family. Dr. Simnacher explained that Mr.
Wade didn’t realize a board member continues to serve until replacement or resignation
takes place, so he thought he was no longer on the Board after his term expired on June
30, 1999. Dr. Simnacher said Mr. Wade had plans to be in Colorado when he received the
Board meeting packet.
II. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Dr. McQuinn MOVED for the Board to accept the agenda as proposed. Mr. Salazar
SECONDED the motion, which was PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES – April 8, 1999
Dr. McQuinn MOVED for the Board to approve the minutes of the April 8, 1999 meeting as
submitted. Dr. Simnacher SECONDED the motion, which was PASSED by UNANIMOUS
APPROVAL.
Page 4, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
IV OLD BUSINESS
A. Illegal Contact Lens Sales Follow- up Report
1. FDA Position Statement on Contact Lens Regulation, Dispensing & Sale
The Chairman reported that he submitted a letter on behalf of the Board to Dr.
James Saviola of the Food and Drug Administration respectfully requesting the
FDA’s position on the regulation, dispensing, and sale of contact lenses.
Dr. Saviola is the Chief of the FDA’s Vitreoretinal and Extraocular Devices Branch,
Division of Ophthalmic Devices, Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices
and Radiological Health. Dr. Saviola’s response follows:
“ Contact lenses are classified as medical devices under 21 CFR
886.5916, Rigid gas permeable contact lenses and 21 CFR 886.5925,
Soft ( hydrophilic) contact lenses. If the lenses are intended for
extended wear, they are Class II. If they are intended for extended
wear, they are Class III. By policy, FDA has defined extended wear to
include a single, closed eye period while sleeping overnight. Daily
wear is defined as lens wear during waking hours. Some products
are indicated for both extended wear and daily wear and are,
therefore, regulated under both Class II and Class III.
Both daily wear and extended wear contact lenses are restricted to
prescription use. The prescription labeling requirements in 21 CFR
801.109 state that prescription devices are to be sold by or on the
order of a licensed practitioner. If a vendor sells a lens without
receiving a valid prescription from the eye care practitioner,
regardless of whether the lens has any dioptric power, it would be a
violation of the restriction for prescription which was placed on the
device when it was cleared for marketing by FDA. Distributors or
dispensers that do not adhere to that regulation misbrand the device.
This regulation also applies to mail order dispensing.
Generally FDA has deferred the enforcement issues concerning
dispensing to the individual State’s authority since professional
licensing laws differ between the States. Therefore, your State law
best answers the question of whether a contact lens may be sold by a
pharmacy rather than an optician, optometrist or ophthalmologist.
The sale of a prescription medical device in a manner that violates the
Federal prescription device restriction may also be a violation of your
State law regulating the practice of medicine, optometry, or pharmacy.
The colored contact lenses with no dioptric refractive power, known as
plano power, are also regulated as medical devices. They fall within
the same regulatory authorities as any other contact lens including the
restriction for prescription use. Therefore, a prescription from a
licensed eye care provider is necessary for the purchase of this type
of device. Plano powered contact lenses are not exempt from federal
medical device regulation.
Page 5, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
The decision that cosmetic contact lenses, whether for correcting
visual acuity or for changing the apparent color of the eye, are
considered medical devices dates back to July 1985. Please note
that the word apparent is used to describe the iris color change since
tinted contact lenses do not actually change the color of the wearer’s
eye.”
2. Presentation to District Attorney Association
The Chairman reported that he made a presentation to approximately eighteen of
the State’s District Attorneys at a monthly DA’s Association meeting on June 4,
1999. He said he made the 15- minute slide presentation in an effort to help these
law enforcement officials better understand the safety issues and health risks
posed by the illegal sale and distribution of contact lenses occurring statewide.
He said he emphasized the increasing problem of illegal sales at flea markets,
dress and beauty shops, garage sales, etc.
The Chairman said the DAs were receptive and their confusion regarding plano
and prescription contact lenses was cleared up after they read copies of the letter
sent to the Board by Dr. Saviola of the FDA ( see above). The DAs finally
understood that plano is just ‘ no vision’ correction and that they are ALL
prescription. The DAs were very agreeable to helping the Board solve the
problem. They asked that the Board copy the local DA with any cease and desist
letters sent to alleged violators so that the DA’s office( s) can notify local law
enforcement officers to assist the Board in stopping this illegal activity.
Dr. Simnacher said that Dr. Cox notified him that illegal contact lens sales are
occurring again at the flea market on the State Fair grounds in Albuquerque. Ms.
Payne said she couldn’t send a cease and desist without the perpetrator’s name
and address.
3. Deposition for Johnson and Johnson Lawsuit
The Chairman reported that, as the Board’s Chairman, he was deposed by
Johnson and Johnson’s ( J& J) attorneys with regard to the class- action anti- trust
lawsuit filed by approximately thirty- six states against J& J, the American
Optometric Association ( AOA) and a few other contact lens distributors.
Mr. Garcia said that the plaintiff states allege that the defendants conspired to limit
the distribution of contact lenses by eliminating alternative channels of distribution
of replacement contacts in order to keep contact lens prices high. He said he
thought they were in the damages phase of the lawsuit and that what this
deposition related to was they wanted to know how New Mexico’s Board enforces
regulations that would restrict the distribution of contact lenses. He said he
thought they related to damages that could potentially be awarded to New
Mexicans that could be part of the class- action lawsuit. They wanted to figure out
what the impact would be to New Mexicans.
The Chairman said that J& J wanted to establish that the New Mexico Board had
made attempts in numerous circumstances over the years to stop the illegal sale
Page 6, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
of contact lenses in New Mexico. J& J subpoenaed from the Board documents
related to the illegal sale of contact lenses that established that very fact.
Mr. Garcia commented that the Board also received notice from the plaintiffs’
attorneys that challenged whether or not Dr. Leach’s deposition was appropriate
given the time frames for discovery and whether or not the evidentiary discovery
was admissible, and a motion had been entered to quash the deposition.
4. DATELINE NBC Contact Lens Broadcast Copies
At the last meeting, Dr. Simnacher had asked Ms. Payne to obtain copies of the
two DATELINE programs that featured contact lenses. Ms. Payne provided the
copies for the Board’s information, as requested.
In November 1995, DATELINE ran an investigation report showing how at least
one contact lens manufacturer was selling the exact same lens at three different
prices, ranging from $ 10 to $ 90 a pair.
On the March 1, 1996 segment, DATELINE investigated where to get the best
deals when purchasing contact lenses. “ In an unscientific survey, DATELINE
visited 20 optometrists in Texas and Virginia, called dozens of discount stores and
chain pharmacies and mail- order houses.” They compared prices and found that
“ Lens Express” was rarely the best deal”. DATELINE concluded, “ if you want the
convenience of mail order, you’re more likely to pay more. If you want the security
of an optometrist, know that the prices may be competitive, but not always. If you
want the lowest price, discount and drug chains are the answer. No matter where
you decide to buy your replacement lenses, remember that it all starts with an eye
exam, and doctors point out that proper care and timely replacement of your
lenses is important. Wearing the same lenses for too long, they say, can be
dangerous to the health of your eyes.”
5. Kansas Board vs. Mail Order CL Distributors
The Board received a letter from the Kansas Board of Optometry asking the Board
to provide it with any information on ongoing investigations or litigation the Board
might be pursuing with any of the mail order contact lens companies. The letter
advised that the Kentucky Board has filed suit in the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas against LENS EXPRESS ( Case No. 98- CV- 1022), National
Vision ( Case No. 98- CV- 1414), and 1- 800 CONTACTS ( Case No. 99- CV- 464).
According to the letter, the plaintiff claims “ that these companies continuously
engage in the practice of selling contacts by telephone or Internet without a valid
prescription or verification thereof. In addition, one or more of these companies
has substituted lens brands without doctor authorization.”
6. Correspondence on Lens Express Advertising Materials
Ms. Payne received a letter from Dr. Anatole Gutowski asking her for clarification
on a Lens Express claim. He submitted a copy of Lens Express’ sales materials
that state that “ There are no laws in any state which prevent the doctor from
giving you your contact lens prescription.” He also submitted a copy of the
Board’s Contact Lens Release, which states, “ New Mexico Optometrists may
Page 7, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
only release a current contact lens prescription to another licensed
optometrist or ophthalmologist after a trial fitting period of successful
wear” [ see Board Rule part 19, Section 11]. Dr. Gutowski asked, “ is anything we
can do to eliminate this misrepresentation” by Lens Express.
Ms. Payne’s said she drafted a response to Dr. Gutowski, which Mr. Garcia
reviewed, before she sent it to Dr. Gutowski. In her response she noted that it
appeared that the Lens Express advertisement was generic material released to
anyone who requests it regardless of the State they live in; that professional laws
differ between states and many states do allow the release of contact lens
prescriptions to the patient; and that the FDA generally has deferred enforcement
issues concerning contact lens dispensing to the individual state’s authority. She
did, however, advise that concerns about possible false advertising should be
referred to the Federal Trade Commission or to the New Mexico Attorney
General’s Consumer Protection.
Ms. Payne said she also informed Dr. Gutowski that the provisions dealing with
contact NMSA 1978, § 26- 1- 3.1 of the New Mexico Drug, Device, and Cosmetic
Act, which states clearly that “ no person except a licensed optometrist or
physician can prescribe, dispense, adopt, employ, modify, provide, sell or fit
contact or corneal lenses”; that this law specifically excludes any person, any
entity, any company, etc. other than an O. D. or an M. D. from performing, in New
Mexico, the contact lens activities listed; and that this provision precludes Lens
Express from dealing in contact lenses in New Mexico by reason of the fact that
Lens Express is not a New Mexico licensed optometrist or physician.
B. June IAB/ NBEO Meeting Report
Ms. Payne presented the Board with a written summary of the highlights of the
National Board of Examiners in Optometry ( NBEO) Workshop and the Annual
Meeting of the International Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry ( IAB)
held in San Antonio, Texas in June 1999. The specific points of interest for the Board
presented by the NBEO were as follows:
v The NBEO Exam Guide and sample exam items can now be found on the Internet
at www. optometry. org;
v The NBEO is taking a cautious look at future administration of parts of its exam by
computer based testing;
v The VRICS and Patient Management ( PMP) sections of Part III will be merged in
2000. The resulting exam would then have more photos and more diagnosis than
either of the current VRICS or PMP exams;
v The PMP exam will eventually be on the Web so that candidates can test
themselves;
v Administration of the TMOD is going to be dropped down from three to two times
a year;
v Scores for Part III are not released until the NBEO receives proof of graduation
from the optometry schools;
v The NBEO exam scores are not time- restricted;
Page 8, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
v The potential merger of Parts I and II was not recommended as a result of the
survey conducted of member states;
v The Part I Basic Science exam may eventually become a 3rd ( academic) year
exam, which would allow for a more clinically based exam;
Ms. Payne reported the major highlights and discussion items at the IAB meeting:
Ø The member states voted almost unanimously for the IAB to change its name to
the Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry ( ARBO);
Ø The IAB/ ARBO’s National Optometric Data Bank ( NOBD 2000) was officially
unveiled;
Ø IAB/ ARBO announced its knowledge- based Website www. optometryce. org. It
provides a venue for optometric- related continuing education to be listed by the
CE providers and for optometrists to access;
Ø IAB/ ARBO announced the development of a credential verification service that will
be available to all optometrists. “ Credentials- On- Line” service will collect data by
electronic means from any optometrist who becomes a member and will use the
data to fill out ANY credential verification forms required for the member
optometrist by any managed care organizations specified by the optometrist.
Ø Any licensed optometrist interested in practicing as an optometrist for the
Olympics in the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Games in Utah will be able to practice in
Utah for that specific purpose without a Utah license.
Telepractice
Ms. Payne said presentations were given on Telepractice. The major dilemmas and
some of the still unanswered questions on this topic were,
¨ “ What state will have jurisdiction?”
¨ “ What constitutes ‘ practice’?”
¨ “ Why do we distinguish “ telepractice” from “ practice”?
Furthermore, Ms. Payne said, the issue of how “ telepractice” will affect
licensing/ regulatory boards was discussed and many questions arose, such as:
¨ Won’t jurisdictional confidentiality laws have to be examined?
¨ Who disciplines? What jurisdiction applies? Which states’ law applies?
¨ Where will the funds to investigate out- of- state telepractice complaints come
from?
¨ Will your board have subpoena powers in another jurisdiction?
¨ Will your board be able to send out cease and desist letters to optometrists not
licensed by your board?
Ms. Payne said that licensing/ regulatory boards were advised by AOA legal counsel
to scrutinize their practice acts to ensure that they have statutory authority to enable
them to stop unlicensed practice of optometry in their individual states. They were
encouraged to enforce their laws as currently written; to insist on receiving
information, particularly disciplinary information; and to participate in national
disciplinary databases.
Page 9, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
Contact Lens Lawsuits
Another major topic of discussion was on the various lawsuits related to illegal contact
lens sales. Many of the states reported that their Executive Directors and Board
Chairs had been deposed for the Johnson and Johnson and 1- 800- CONTACTS
lawsuits. Ms. Payne said more information on these lawsuits can be found on the
Internet at the following sites:
¨ www. visioncare. com/ css/ lawsuit
¨ www. visioncare. com/ css/ moss/ Antitrust. htm
¨ www. visioncare. com/ css/ moss/ Comments. htm
Health Integrity Protection Databank
Ms. Payne told the Board that HIPDB was also a major discussion topic with a
presentation by a representative of the Health Resources and Services Administration
( HRSA) of the U. S. Department of Health. The IAB attorney, Dale Atkinson, hotly
debated the HIPDB requirements after the HRSA presentation, Ms. Payne said.
COPE Reviewers Sought
Ms. Payne said that IAB/ ARBO is seeking Board- recommendations of licensed
optometrists to review continuing education submitted by providers for approval by
COPE ( Council on Optometric Education). COPE reviewers do NOT have to be
Board members, but they DO have to be recommended by a member board.
C. Healthcare Integrity Protection Databank ( HIPDB) Update
1. Data Bank Information from U. S. Department of Health & Human Services
The Board received a packet from the U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services announcing the implementation of the Healthcare Integrity and
Protection Data Bank ( HIPDB). Ms. Payne said the HRSA spokesperson at the
IAB meeting told them reporting would begin in October. She said she has
relayed the information to the Department’s Management Information Systems
Department Director so that he can make whatever preparations are necessary
for the affected boards to begin reporting electronically over the Internet.
Ms. Payne said that the proposed HIPDB rules can be found on the Web at
www. npdb- hipdb. com. The final rules are supposed to be released in October
1999. The NPDB- HIPDB help line is 1- 800- 767- 6732.
2. Registration Information
The Board was sent a form to register with the HIPDB. The materials stated
that an entity’s responsibility to report and eligibility to query HIPDB are based
on the agency’s function or service as defined by its enabling statutes. Each
entity is responsible for determining its legal obligation or eligibility under the
applicable laws and to register accordingly.
3. Authorized Agent Designation
The Board IS required to report to HIPDB and is eligible to query the databank.
However, the $ 4 fee for each query must be either by credit card payment or by
electronic transfer, neither of which the Board is capable of doing. Therefore, it
Page 10, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
will not be possible, at this time for the Board to query the HIPDB. However,
Ms. Payne continued, if IAB/ ARBO agrees to act as Authorized Agent for the
Board, the Board can pay IAB/ ARBO, through a purchase document, for any
queries it makes on the Board’s behalf. She asked the Board to consider using
ARBO as its authorized agent if ARBO agrees to act in that capacity for member
boards.
Dr. McQuinn MOVED for the Board to designate ARBO as its “ Authorized Agent”
if ARBO agrees to act in that capacity for the state optometry boards that
choose to report to HIPDB through an authorized agent. Mr. Salazar
SECONDED the motion, which PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
D. 1999 Licensing Exam Report
The Chairman announced that sixteen candidates completed the application to sit for
the Board’s 1999 exam, which the Board will begin to administer later this afternoon.
The candidates are as follows:
Candidate’s Name School of Optometry Degree
Jennifer Blaurock University of California @ Berkeley May 24, 1998
Michelle Sara Cohen New England June 6, 1998
Raymond R. Daub Indiana University May 4, 1996
Nima N. Desai Southern California College May 15, 1998
Jason Harold Juba Southern California College May 21, 1999
Gary Alan Klein Pennsylvania College May 22, 1983
Betsy E. Kline New England June 29, 1994
Christine M. Kniffen Pacific University May 22, 1999
Wm. Bruce Laurie, Jr. Illinois College May 22, 1999
Robert Lionel Lavoie Illinois College May 23, 1993
Deegan M. Lew University of California May 23, 1998
Linda Hyunae Song University of California May 22, 1999
Chris P. Swanson Northeastern State University May 8, 1999
Noelani Malia Tam Sing Southern California College May 15, 1998
Melanie J. Tarutani Illinois College May 22, 1999
Adrian Tenorio Illinois College May 23, 1998
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Lenscrafter Vision Van Program
This was an informational item presented to the Board at Dr. McCloskey’s request,
and since she was not present, the Board only discussed it briefly. Mr. Salazar
MOVED for the Board to TABLE this item until Dr. McCloskey is present to discuss it.
Dr. McQuinn SECONDED the motion, which was PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
B. Correspondence: Eye Associates’ Question Re: Business Relationship
The Board received a letter from Stan Betzer, attorney with the firm of Rodey,
Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, requesting that the Board comment and advise them if
it has concerns over the business arrangement described in the letter. Briefly stated,
Eye Associates plans to convert itself from a “ professional corporation… for the
practice of medicine” to a business corporation, New Eye Associates ( NEA), primarily
“ to render a broader range of eye care services and enable it to issue capital stock to
non- physician licensees. The letter stated that
Page 11, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
· “ Some of the potential shareholders in NEA are optometrists… others are key
management/ administrative personnel;”
· “ The purposes of this corporation are to provide medical services and services
ancillary thereto to the general public through employed physicians and others…”
· A majority of the shareholders must authorize the issuance of shares of capital
stock if such issuance would mean that more than 20% of the total number of
shares issued and outstanding would be registered in the names of persons other
than licensed physicians.
· “ Ownership control of NEA by physicians, rather than lay people, would be
assured by its By- laws”
The Board stated that it does not have the authority to approve organizational actions
and cannot give its “ blessing” in these types of matters. However, they did DIRECT
Ms. Payne to advise Mr. Betzer, that optometrists ARE physicians and to refer him to
16 NMAC 16.7.13 and 16 NMAC 16.17.9.3, as it is apparent from the letter that Eye
Associates’ definition of physician refers only to M. D. s. They also DIRECTED Ms.
Payne to refer Mr. Betzer to 16 NMAC 16.8.4, which states that “ No optometrist shall be
employed in practicing optometry by anyone other than an optometrist or ophthalmologist licensed and
practicing in the State of New Mexico.”
C. Annual Election of Officers
The Board decided to TABLE election of officers until Dr. McCloskey is present.
VI. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
A. FY99 Year- end Report
Ms. Payne said she has not received a reconciled budget status report from the
Department yet. Following is a report based upon the internal accounting records she
maintains in her office. Ms. Payne said she could not say what the Board’s cash fund
balance was at the end of the fiscal year because she did not receive a General
Ledger Report from the Department either.
Approved Line Item Category Balance
Category/ Line Item Budget Expenses Expenses Amount
Personnel Services $ 23,300 $ 21,910 $ 1,390
Employee Benefits 7,700 7,321 379
In- State Travel 3,256 3,256 - 0-
Supplies 1,375 887 488
Contractual Services 10,359 10,358 1
Operating Costs: 9,585 9,556 29
Printing/ Photo $ 297
Postage/ Mail 1,237
Rent/ Office Space 3,997
Equipment Rental/ Copier Costs 1,323
Telecommunications 1,399
Registrations/ Dues 1,025
Education/ Training 200
Advertising 78
Operating Transactions 6,384 6,384 - 0-
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 61,959 $ 59,672 $ 2,287
Page 12, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
Revenues: Ms. Payne said the Board’s revenues for FY99 totaled $ 72,472.25. This
was nearly $ 20,000 more than projected when the budget request was prepared in
July 1997, and due to the increase in the renewal fee from $ 150 to $ 225 that went
into effect for the 1999 renewal period.
B. FY2000 Budget Status Report
The Board reviewed the Approved FY2000 Budget with Ms. Payne. The Board
requested a total of $ 68,400 and received a $ 56,600 budget. $ 11,800 less than
requested. The Board asked Ms. Payne to explain the budget process to them. The
Board specifically wanted the name of the person who makes the decision to
recommend budget cuts for the Board to the Legislature.
Ms. Payne explained that the budget requests were sent to the Legislative Finance
Committee and were reviewed by LFC Senior Fiscal Analyst, Mark Valdes, who
recommended the budget cut for the Board. The budget was also sent to DFA and
was reviewed by the DFA Senior Fiscal Analyst, Bridgette Trujillo, who recommended
a larger budget than the LFC recommendation. Mr. Valdes’ recommendation was
apparently the one submitted to the Legislature and approved in House Bill 2.
The Board was very concerned that its letters justifying the requested increase for
investigations was obviously not considered by Mr. Valdes, nor was the fact that the
Board raised its fees specifically to cover investigations. Ms. Payne explained that
the budget review process for FY2000 took place nearly a year before the fee
increase went into effect. Ms. Payne suggested that the Board consider sending a
representative to the LFC budget hearings to argue for its FY01 budget request. Mr.
Garcia advised that contact with the analyst prior to the hearing is very important
because the analyst has a great influence on the Committee.
The Chairman asked Ms. Payne to draft a letter for his signature to Mr. Valdes. He
also advised the Board members to contact their individual legislators regarding the
budget.
C. 1999 Renewal Report
1. Licensee Update
Ms. Payne said she mailed out 272 renewals in May, and as of August 25, 1999,
244 licensees renewed and one retired, leaving 27 as yet not renewed. The
Board reviewed the licensee statistics:
Current
Licenses
Oral
Certification
Topical
Certification
Diagnostic
Certification
No
Certification
Total Renewed
As of 8- 25- 99
244 181 51 4 8
New Mexico
Addresses
180 152 23 3 2
Out of State
Addresses
64 29 28 1 6
Page 13, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
Expired
Licenses
Oral
Certification
Topical
Certification
Diagnostic
Certification
No
Certification
Total Not Renewed
As of 8- 25- 99
27 15 8 2 2
New Mexico Addresses 12 8 3 1 0
Out of State Addresses 15 7 5 1 2
Total Retired in 1999 1 1
2. License Retirement – E. K. Ragsdale, O. D.
Ms. Payne reported that Dr. E. K. Ragsdale, an optometrist from Raton, New
Mexico, notified the Board of his intention to retire. His retirement is effective
July 1, 1999. Dr. Ragsdale has until July 1, 2004 to reactivate his license or it
will lapse in accordance with the Board’s rules and regulations, Section 15 of
Part 12 of 16 NMAC 16.
D. RLD Update
1. Board Member Training – November 15, 1999
Ms. Payne announced that Governor Johnson’s Office is planning a Board
Member Training in Albuquerque on November 15, 1999, and board and
commission members will be notified of the specific time and place at a later
date.
2. Optometry Internet Website Launched
Ms. Payne said that the Board’s Homepage was launched in July 1999. The
site is located on the Regulation and Licensing Department’s Website at
www. state. nm. us/ rld.
3. Management Information Systems Division News
Ms. Payne informed the Board that the Department conversion to the License
2000 database has been announced to take place in October.
The Board’s exam will be backed- up by the Department’s MIS Staff, Ms. Payne
said that MIS’s Systems Analyst Supervisor will be working with Ken Yow during
the clinical exam tomorrow to learn how to operate the exam software program.
Mr. Yow is also preparing a software instruction manual for the Board.
VII. EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ACTION
The Board was still hoping Dr. McCloskey would be able to make it for the Executive
Session, so they took a short break at 11: 55 a. m. The Board reconvened at 12: 00 noon
and decided to go ahead with the meeting.
The Chairman asked for a motion to enter into Executive Session. Dr. McQuinn MOVED for
the Board to enter into Executive Session to discuss licensing matters, specifically OPT
cases # 99- 08, # 2000- 01, # 2000- 02 by the authority for closure found in § 10- 15- 1 ( H) ( 1)
pertaining to the issuance, suspension, renewal, or revocation of licenses, and OPT Case
# 97- 11 by the authority in § 10- 15- 1 ( H) ( 3) pertaining to deliberations in connection with an
Page 14, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
administrative adjudicatory proceeding. Dr. Simnacher SECONDED the motion and there
being no discussion, the Chairman asked for a roll call vote.
A roll call vote was taken and Mr. Salazar, Dr. McQuinn, Dr. Simnacher, and Dr. Leach
voted to enter into Executive Session. The motion PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
The Board entered into closed session at 12: 02 p. m.
At 1: 22 p. m., the Board came out of Executive Session. The Chairman announced that
during closed session, the Board discussed only matters pertaining to the optometry cases
specified in the motion. The following actions were taken during open session.
A. OPT # 97- 11 – John R. Davis, O. D.
Mr. Salazar MOVED for the Board to TABLE discussion on OPT # 97- 11 and DIRECT
the Board Administrator to obtain the additional information for the consideration by
the Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Dr. Simnacher SECONDED the
motion, which was PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
B. OPT # 99- 08 – Jack Battin vs. Artesia Headstart Program
Mr. Salazar MOVED for the Board to prepare a letter to the optometrist complainant in
OPT # 99- 08 informing him that information has been brought to the Board’s attention
that his conduct and comments to patients, if true, would constitute unprofessional
conduct in the opinion of the Board pursuant to NMSA 1978 § 61- 2- 13. J. of the
Optometry Act; and further, that the Board remind this optometrist that his conduct
and comments toward patients should at all times be professional; and that the Board
will not hesitate to conduct a formal investigation should any future complaints of this
nature come to the Board’s attention. Dr. Simnacher SECONDED the motion. There
was no discussion and the motion PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL
C. OPT 2000- 01
Dr. McQuinn MOVED that the Board DIRECT the Board Administrator to write the
respondent a letter reminding him of the provisions in the Board’s contact lens
prescription release regulation. Mr. Salazar SECONDED the motion. There being no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
D. OPT # 2000- 02
Dr. McQuinn MOVED that the Board DIRECT the Board Administrator to write the
respondent a letter reminding him of the provisions in the Board’s contact lens
prescription release regulation. Mr. Salazar SECONDED the motion. There being no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
VIII. RECESS ( Meeting to Reconvene Sunday, August 29, 1999
The Board recessed the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. in order to administer the
Jurisprudence and Clinical Practicum exams to the scheduled exam candidates.
IX. MEETING RECONVENED AND CALLED TO ORDER
On Sunday, August 29, 1999, after the Board concluded the administration and scoring of
the exam, the Chairman reconvened the Board meeting at 12: 22 p. m. Present were Dr.
Leach, Dr. McQuinn, Dr. Simnacher, Dr. McCloskey, and Ms. Payne.
Page 15, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
X. EXAM FOLLOW- UP
A. Exam Review
The Chairman noted that the exam went off without a hitch and said he was very
pleased with the entire administration. The software program worked perfectly and the
Department’s MIS system’s analyst worked with the programmer and commented that
the program was a very good one.
B. Exam Results
The Chairman announced that ten of the sixteen candidates that took the exam were
successful for a 63% pass rate. For the record, he announced the exam results:
Pass Candidates:
Jennifer Blaurock, O. D. Linda H. Song, O. D.
Michelle Sara Cohen, O. D. Chris P. Swanson, O. D.
Raymond R. Daub, O. D. Noelani Malia Tam Sing, O. D.
Jason Harold Juba, O. D. Melanie J. Tarutani, O. D.
Robert Lionel Lavoie, O. D. Adrian Tenorio, O. D.
Failed Candidates
Nima N. Desai Gary Alan Klein
Betsy E. Kline Christine M. Kniffen
Wm. Bruce Laurie, Jr. Deegan M. Lew
Dr. McCloskey MOVED for the Board to approve the licensure of the successful
candidates upon completion of the licensure process. Dr. Simnacher SECONDED the
motion, which was PASSED by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
The remaining licensure process constitutes of each candidate being notified in
writing of individual exam results, and in accordance with the Board’s regulations, the
successful candidates will have ninety ( 90) days to submit the licensure and
certification fees in order to be issued a license.
C. Appreciation Letters to Exam Participants
The Board approved and signed letters of appreciation to the clinical examiners and
to Omega Eye Care Center for use of its facility. The Board Chairman signed
Continuing Education Certificates for the clinical examiners for use toward their 2000
renewal.
XI. SCHEDULE NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board was scheduled for Saturday, January 8, 2000, in
Albuquerque.
Page 16, Approved August 27 and 29, 1999 Meeting Agenda and Minutes
New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry
,
XII. ADJOURN
There being no other business to come before the Board, Dr. Simnacher MOVED for the
Board to adjourn the meeting. Dr. McCloskey SECONDED the motion, which was PASSED
by UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
Submitted by: Carmen E. Payne, Board Director
Approved by the Board on January 8, 2000