Eye care proposal worthy of support
EYE care is an issue few people think about until they need it, so State Question 793 may not be a top-of-mind issue for many voters. But most families will need such services sooner or later, and passage of SQ 793 on Nov. 6 could increase access and lower prices.
It is illegal in Oklahoma for eye clinics to operate inside retail establishments like a Walmart or Target. That’s not the case in most states, and SQ 793 would remove that barrier via constitutional amendment.
The ballot language of SQ 793 declares that “no law shall infringe on optometrists’ or opticians’ ability to practice within a retail mercantile establishment, discriminate against optometrists or opticians based on the location of their practice, or require external entrances for optometric offices within retail mercantile establishments. No law shall infringe on retail mercantile establishments’ ability to sell prescription optical goods and services.”
Opponents criticize SQ 793 as a Walmart takeover of health care. Yet while big-box retailers are major boosters of the state question, they aren’t the only supporters.
Tim Tippit, chairman of the Yes on 793 campaign, is an Oklahoma resident whose company is an optical retailer with vision care centers in Michigan and Ohio. Tippit’s businesses are not in big-box stores, but in stand-alone facilities. Yet Tippit says the current restrictions in Oklahoma law still make the state unattractive for investment by his company. That should get voters’ attention.
Some restrictions targeted by SQ 793 make little sense from a public health standpoint. Currently, eye care facilities not owned by optometrists cannot provide optometric exams and eyewear under the same roof. This is why when you visit an optometrist at the mall, you must walk to another store to be fitted for glasses. The consumer benefit of those extra steps appears nonexistent.
Opponents of SQ 793 object to one provision that allows retailers to restrict some aspects of an in-store optometrist’s practice, but this appears designed mostly to ensure laser surgeries are not conducted in a Sam’s or a Costco, partly because that produces medical waste and larger retailers don’t want the associated regulatory hassles. This isn’t an issue in many other states, because Oklahoma law provides optometrists one of the nation’s most expansive scopes of practice.
Otherwise, there’s little reason to expect any major difference in service from an optometrist operating within a large retail operation and one who doesn’t. Such arrangements will mostly be landlord-tenant relationships with optometrists free to run their businesses however desired.
Even if SQ 793 becomes law, optometrists will still be subject to state licensure, and health and safety standards will remain in place. This undermines claims that SQ 793 will lower overall quality.
Furthermore, consumers don’t have to go to an optometrist at Sam’s, and no optometrist will be forced to operate from a big-box location. We trust consumers’ ability to judge quality; a lack of horror stories from states with laws similar to SQ 793 validates that assumption.
SQ 793’s main impact will be to increase market competition, increase consumer access and lower prices for eyewear. Those reasons alone justify voting “yes” on SQ 793.