AB 684 — State Board of Optometry: optometrists: nonresident contact lens sellers: registered dispensing opticians.

Summary

Existing law prohibits a licensed optometrist and a registered dispensing optician from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form, directly or indirectly, with each other. Existing law prohibits a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, landlord-tenant relationship, or any profit-sharing arrangement in any form, directly or indirectly, either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, trust deed, or otherwise with any person who is engaged in the manufacture, sale, or distribution to physicians and surgeons, optometrists, or dispensing opticians of lenses, frames, optical supplies, optometric appliances or devices or kindred products. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions by a licensed optometrist and any other persons, whether or not a healing arts licensee, who participates with a licensed optometrist, subject to a crime. Under existing law, the Medical Board of California is responsible for the registration and regulation of nonresident contact lens sellers and dispensing opticians. Existing law requires fees collected from nonresident contact lens sellers to be deposited in the Dispensing Opticians Fund, and to be available, upon appropriation, to the Medical Board of California. Existing law requires fees collected from registered dispensing optician to be paid into the Contingent Fund of the Medical Board of California. Existing law makes a violation of the registered dispensing optician provisions a crime. Existing law, the Optometry Practice Act, makes the State Board of Optometry responsible for the licensure and regulation of optometrists. A violation of the Optometry Practice Act is a crime. Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. This bill would repeal those prohibitions. The bill would prohibit a licensed optometrist from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, or any profit-sharing arrangement, either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, or trust deed, with any registered dispensing optician or any optical company, as defined, except as otherwise authorized. The bill would authorize a registered dispensing optician or optical company to operate, own, or have an ownership interest in a health plan, defined as a licensed health care service plan, if the health plan does not directly employ optometrists to provide optometric services directly to enrollees of the health plan, and would also provide for the direct or indirect provision of products and services to the health plan or its contracted providers or enrollees or to other optometrists, as specified. The bill would authorize an optometrist, a registered dispensing optician, an optical company, or a health plan to execute a lease or other written agreement giving rise to a direct or indirect landlord-tenant relationship with an optometrist if specified conditions are contained in a written agreement, as provided. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry, to inspect, upon request, an individual lease agreement, and the bill would require the landlord or tenant to comply. Because the failure to comply with that request would be a crime under specified acts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would prohibit a registered dispensing optician from having any membership, proprietary interest, coownership, or profit sharing arrangement either by stock ownership, interlocking directors, trusteeship, mortgage, or trust deed, with an optometrist, except as authorized. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a crime. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would instead make the State Board of Optometry responsible for the registration and regulation of nonresident contact lens sellers and dispensing opticians. The bill would direct fees collected from registered dispensing opticians and persons seeking registration as a dispensing optician to be paid into the Dispensing Opticians Fund, and to be available, upon appropriation, to the State Board of Optometry. The bill would make various conforming changes in that regard. Existing law requires each registered dispensing optician to conspicuously and prominently display at each registered location the name of the registrant's employee who is currently designated to handle customer inquiries and complaints and the telephone number where he or she may be reached during business hours. This bill would instead require specified consumer information to be displayed. Because a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes it unlawful to, among other things, advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of a refractionist, an optometrist, or a physician and surgeon, or to directly or indirectly employ or maintain on or near the premises used for optical dispensing, a refractionist, an optometrist, a physician and surgeon, or a practitioner of any other profession for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes. This bill, except as specified, would make it unlawful for a registered dispensing optician to, among other things, advertise the furnishing of, or to furnish, the services of an optometrist or a physician and surgeon or to directly employ an optometrist or physician and surgeon for the purpose of any examination or treatment of the eyes. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry, by regulation, to impose and issue administrative fines and citations for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would require all licensed optometrists in a setting with a registered dispensing optician to report the business relationship to the State Board of Optometry. The bill would authorize the State Board of Optometry to inspect any premises at which the business of a registered dispensing optician is co-located with the practice of an optometrist for the purposes of determining compliance with the aforementioned written lease agreement provisions. The bill would also authorize the State Board of Optometry to take disciplinary action against a party who fails to comply with the inspection and would require the State Board of Optometry to provide specified copies of the inspection results. Because would be a crime a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program This bill, until January 1, 2019, would prohibit an individual, corporation, or firm operating as a registered dispensing optician before the effective date of the bill, or an employee of such an entity, from being subject to any action for engaging in that aforementioned unlawful conduct. Because a violation of the registered dispensing provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require any health plan subject to these provisions to report to the State Board of Optometry in writing that certain percentages of its locations no longer employ an optometrist by specified dates. The bill would require the State Board of Optometry to provide those reports to the Director of Consumer Affairs and the Legislature. Under existing law, the State Board of Optometry consists of 11 members, 6 licensee members and 5 public members. This bill would require one of the nonpublic members to be a registered dispensing optician and would require the Governor to make that appointment. The bill would establish a dispensing optician committee to advise and make recommendations to the board regarding the regulation of dispensing opticians, as provided. The bill would require the advisory committee to consist of 5 members, including 2 registered dispensing opticians, 2 public members, and a member of the State Board of Optometry. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

• Chaptered 10/01/15 - Chaptered Current pdf October 01, 2015
• Enrolled 09/16/15 - Enrolled pdf September 16, 2015
• Amended 09/04/15 - Amended Senate pdf September 04, 2015
• Amended 09/01/15 - Amended Senate pdf September 01, 2015
• Amended 06/30/15 - Amended Senate pdf June 30, 2015
• Amended 05/11/15 - Amended Assembly pdf May 11, 2015
• Amended 04/30/15 - Amended Assembly pdf April 30, 2015
• Amended 04/23/15 - Amended Assembly pdf April 23, 2015
• Introduced 02/25/15 - Introduced pdf February 25, 2015
• AB684 View text html

Action History

1. October 01, 2015

   Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 405, Statutes of 2015.

2. October 01, 2015

   Approved by the Governor.

3. September 23, 2015

   Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

4. September 11, 2015

   Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 3204.).

5. September 11, 2015

   Assembly Rule 63 suspended. (Page 3194.)

6. September 11, 2015

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

7. September 11, 2015

   Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2755.).

8. September 10, 2015

   Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

9. September 10, 2015

   From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (September 10).

10. September 09, 2015

    Re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

11. September 09, 2015

    Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6. Page 2646.)

12. September 09, 2015

    Joint Rule 61(a) suspended. (Ayes 27. Noes 6. Page 2645.)

13. September 04, 2015

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on RLS.

14. September 01, 2015

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

15. August 31, 2015

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (August 27).

16. August 24, 2015

    In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

17. August 17, 2015

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

18. July 07, 2015

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 6). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

19. June 30, 2015

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

20. June 16, 2015

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

21. June 04, 2015

    Referred to Com. on B., P. & E.D.

22. May 26, 2015

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

23. May 26, 2015

    Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 1594.).

24. May 21, 2015

    Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

25. May 20, 2015

    From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 20).

26. May 12, 2015

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

27. May 11, 2015

    Read second time and amended.

28. May 07, 2015

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 7).

29. May 07, 2015

    Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 1320.)

30. May 07, 2015

    From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on B. & P. Re-referred. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (May 7). Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.

31. May 04, 2015

    Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.

32. May 04, 2015

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

33. April 30, 2015

    Read second time and amended.

34. April 29, 2015

    From committee: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (April 29).

35. April 27, 2015

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

36. April 23, 2015

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Read second time and amended.

37. April 14, 2015

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

38. March 09, 2015

    Referred to Com. on B. & P.

39. February 26, 2015

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.

40. February 25, 2015

    Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

• Alejo · Primary
• Bonilla · Cosponsor

Votes

Subjects