Forgot username or password? You do not have access to this content. Join the AOA today! The leader in eye health and vision care. Advance your profession and your career with the AOA. We promote doctors of optometry through advocacy, professional development, practice management tools and more. AOA Focus Magazine. AOA Focus delivers a blend of updates, in-depth analysis and personal stories from doctors of optometry across the country on topics that matter most to the profession.
Contact Lens Rule Compliance Toolkit. License Requirements. Rules in Progress. Continuing Education FAQs. We can help you: Change your contact information Find application status Renew your license File a complaint More resources for health professionals Verify your license Provider Credential Search.
Related links Apply for a license License requirements Current Topics Information for providers whose credentials have been affected by a drug conviction New! These amendments require that prescribing eye care practitioners obtain a confirmation of prescription release from patients after releasing a contact lens prescription and maintain each such acknowledgment for a period of not less than three years.
Please see the news release and rule language for more information. Twitchell, 59 Wn. Thus, failure to assign error to any of them has no effect on plaintiffs' case. Under the terms of RCW Defendant-bureau is one such health-care service contractor, and no question is raised concerning compliance by defendants with the provisions of RCW The issue before us revolves solely around the relationship of RCW All agencies of the state and its subdivisions, and all commissions, clinics and boards administering relief, public assistance, public welfare assistance, social security, health insurance, or health service under the laws of this state, shall accept the services of licensed optometrists for any service covered by their licenses relating to.
None of the said governmental agencies, or agents, officials or employees thereof, including the public schools, in the performance of their duties shall in any way show discrimination among licensed ocular practitioners. In essence, plaintiffs are arguing that this statute prohibits governmental bodies, such as the city and county, from entering into contracts with health-service contractors, such as the bureau, which discriminate against licensed optometrists.
Unfortunately, RCW It provides no ready solution to the question before us. Nevertheless, there are certain aspects of it which suggest whether plaintiffs' position is correct. Finally, the clinics, commissions, and boards discussed in the statute are for the most part explicitly limited to those engaged in welfare administration. Based upon the foregoing references, as well as upon our views on the import of the statute as a whole, it is our judgment that RCW More specifically, under our interpretation the contracts ill the instant case are affected by the terms of the statute only if the city, county, and bureau are engaged in administration of some form of at least partially.
In this case, the city, county, and bureau are not involved with administration of or with individual beneficiaries of partially or wholly unremunerated public assistance. The employee benefits under the health contracts represent payment for services rendered and as such can hardly be classified as gratuitous.
Thus the contracts are not affected by the terms of RCW However, judging from the record before us, none of these arguments were ever raised before the trial court and we will not consider them on appeal. State ex rel. Cosmopolis Consol. School Dist. Bruno, 61 Wn.
0コメント