If you need laser eye surgery in the state of Kentucky, or a little cosmetic work around the eyelids, it now behooves you to ask your prospective surgeon the following question before signing the operative consent form:
"Say doc, did you go to medical school?"
Kentucky joined the company of Oklahoma last week as the second state to conflate optometrists and ophthalmologists. Only ophthalmologists are the sort of doctors who graduated from medical school, did an internship, completed a three-year residency in eye surgery, possibly a fellowship after that, and have achieved and maintained national board certification through a program of lifelong learning in their specialty.
Optometry schools (four-year programs focused on optics to prescribe glasses and contacts and the diagnosis and management of certain eye-related diseases) have a tough application process too, and many of the same students going into optometry could have chosen medicine. But nobody ever really faces a clear-cut choice of going into optometry or ophthalmology. Even if you do exceedingly well in medical school, you could easily miss out on an ophthalmology residency slot. Ophthalmology is among the most selective specializations in medicine. Yet despite having earned a reputation within medical science as one of its most advanced and storied fields, these days ophthalmology is challenged with its branding, of all things. Perhaps it's the funny spelling?
Nationwide, about 30 percent of consumers don't know the difference between the two types of eye doctors, according to a survey conducted by the National Consumer's League (the NCL designed the study independently, then applied for and received unrestricted funding from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, which did not commission the study). Ninety-five percent of the 600 Americans surveyed wanted an M.D. wielding the scalpel or the laser if they needed eye surgery. Regular everyday people seem to sense that the eyes are part of the body, that serious disease might have something to do with the whole, and that at the very least, you might want a full-service clinician involved if something becomes complicated enough for an invasive procedure.
Proponents of optometry's expansion argued that having optometrists perform in-office laser eye procedures, inject medications into eyes, and cut out "lumps and bumps" around the eyes increases health care access for Kentucky's rural citizens (Kentucky's Medicaid program can spend $150 in transportation credits for a $50 ophthalmology check-up). Optometrists outnumber ophthalmologists by a ration of four to one and can be found in most Kentucky counties.
But while you could easily be forgiven for imagining that Kentucky's leadership must now be hot on the trail of other ways to foster health care accessibility, like chiropractic spine surgery or cosmetic surgery parlors, do not expect the complete democratization of medicine until back adjusters and cosmetologists can pay to play with the same skill as optometrists. Mistaking optometry for ophthalmology was no Mr. Magoo moment.
"If you go back and look at our involvement in politics in terms of contributions, we've always been involved," says Dr. Ian Benjamin Gaddie, president-elect of the Kentucky Optometric Association. "We work hand-in-hand in the community with these people and that makes a huge difference."
Efforts included lobbying state legislators while they were immobilized in the optometric examining chair, reports indicate.
"In many states it's just how the stars line up, and how your luck goes as you run the gamut through the political process," Dr. Gaddie told me.
The Louisville Courier-Journal's Frankfort bureau chief Tom Loftus followed the blue grass stardust:
"Kentucky optometrists and their political action committee have given campaign money to 137 of the 138 members of the state legislature and Gov. Steve Beshear, contributing more than $400,000 as they push for a bill to expand their practices.
Members of the Kentucky Optometric Association and its PAC have given at least $327,650 to legislative candidates in the last two years alone and have hired 18 lobbyists to help them make their case.
They also gave a total of at least $74,000 more to Beshear's re-election campaign, the Republican gubernatorial campaign of Senate President David Williams and the House and Senate political caucuses."
Optometry waged state-by-state expansion of practice battles for four decades on its way to where the profession stands now, which is increasingly nebulous. The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Medical Association have challenged optometry every step as optometry blurs its boundaries with medicine. A patchwork quilt of legislation around the country variably delineates optometric practice. Now two patches have little pockets for scalpels and lasers.
For optometrists, serving us as the "primary health care professional for the eye" means what the state says it does, and that can vary widely, creating confusion among patients and the rest of the medical world. Citing how in some states optometrists must obtain certifications for medications they have no intention of ever using, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists pointed to optometrist licensure as an example to avoid.
Optometrists have been dilating eyes since the 1970s to better diagnose eye diseases, and have been using local medications in most states since the 1980s. They no longer face opposition from ophthalmology on these fronts. "We draw the philosophical line in the sand with surgery," says Dr. David Parke, chief executive officer of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Ophthalmologists have successfully fought back in 25 other state battles where optometrists asked legislatures to let them perform surgery, he says, by pointing out the difference in quality of training and management of adverse events.
While chair of the University of Oklahoma's Department of Ophthalmology for 17 years, Dr. Parke dealt with the aftermath of upgraded optometric licensure in that state. He says the problems he saw were the result of "not knowing what you don't know."
Dr. Parke's experience included treating a man whose "skin tag" was excised by an optometrist. Nine months later the patient came to the university medical center with an invasive, substantive squamous cell carcinoma that required a massive reconstructive surgery. "We asked the patient, 'Why'd you let him do that?' He replied, 'Well he's a doctor, he had on a white coat and he said he could.'"
In another case, an elderly patient with severe end-stage glaucoma could only be controlled surgically through a technique called filtering blebs. "She went to an optometrist who said to the patient, 'Mrs. Jones, you have cysts on your eyes, I should take care of those now,' and he proceeded to excise them, completely undoing the surgery."
"In the end it scares me, quite frankly," says Dr. Parke.
The most common laser procedure Kentucky optometrists will perform involves using a YAG laser to clear a membrane that becomes cloudy in some patients after lens replacement surgery (it's something ophthalmologists do as needed on post-cataract surgery follow-up appointments). The procedure may take only 20 minutes to learn and looks as simple as a video game. But complications can occur.
"You can be a pilot, and say, 'I'm just going to fly in good weather' -- but you never know when it's gonna get dark, or when the storm's gonna come up," says Dr. Woodford Van Meter, president of the Kentucky Academy of Eye Physicians and Surgeons. "You can go get an amateur pilot's license, but that doesn't mean you should fly a jetliner full of passengers down to Florida."
But ophthalmologists can only convey their concerns when they're given enough time. By the immaculate design of 18 lobbyists, the ophthalmologists knew about the Kentucky bill just 12 hours before it entered a Senate committee (bypassing a customary 72-hour holding period), and sailed through that committee to the Senate floor the next day. The whole process, from the bill's first public posting to the Governor signing it into law, took 17 days, bypassing hundreds of other bills filed well before it. "It was a juggernaut. It was an advancing force that seemed to crush everything under its path," Tom Loftus said on the KET program Comment on Kentucky.
Dr. Van Meter says he and his colleagues got 10 minutes total to make their case at an informational hearing put together at the last minute in the Kentucky Senate.
"The people pushing the bill to me looked like your dog when you come into the kitchen and he's taken a piece of meat of your plate," Dr. Van Meter told me. "He just looks guilty as sin, but he's sitting there smiling with big eyes like nothing in the world ever happened."
The bill itself looks like a rush job. It even includes an anatomical error. It prohibits optometrists from injecting into the posterior chamber of the eye (nobody can, it's too small a space). Presumably that line meant to state that optometrists cannot inject into the posterior segment of the eye, which includes the vitreous. Because of the sloppy writing, now optometrists can inject into the posterior segment, using drugs like Lucentis to treat macular degeneration. The bill also excludes optometrists from performing two common excimer laser corrective vision procedures, LASIK and PRK, but leaves out another common procedure, LASEK.
Dr. Ben Gaddie admits the LASEK loophole exists, but he expects the optometry board won't allow excimer laser procedures at all, following the spirit of the legislation if not its wording. However, he's not on the optometry board.
Dr. Van Meter and other state ophthalmology leaders sat down with Kentucky's governor to make their case as he weighed whether to sign the bill that had arrived on his desk with such urgency. They were a little flummoxed when it became apparent the governor had little issue with the idea that providers who didn't go to medical school would be doing surgery. "He seemed to think that was okay," Dr. Van Meter observes.
I asked the governor, who was on the road attending the National Governor's Association Winter Meeting in D.C. this weekend, whether he was now pioneering the way for other states in redefining optometry. He's making no such stand. Beshear based his decision "solely on what is best for the people of Kentucky. Under that framework, improving access to health care of all kinds is a priority for Kentuckians. Other states must make their own determinations for what is best for their citizens," he wrote in an email.
Elaborating on the access issue, Beshear wrote, "there are fewer ophthamologists in Kentucky than optometrists, and at times, it may be easier for residents (especially in rural areas) to get access to an optometrist for needed eye care. There will be times when citizens will require the services of an ophthalmologist; however, this legislation will allow Kentuckians to have more options in accessing proper eye care."
Naturally I wanted to know whether the governor would choose the care of an ophthalmologist or an optometrist should he need an eye surgery now in the optometry's purview. Maybe he'll simply pick the geographically closest provider, like he expects the disadvantaged Appalachian citizens of his state will do? He didn't answer that one.
What's optometry's end game, if the field sees itself as the primary care providers for the eye? "It's hard for me to fathom that the end goal of the organized profession of optometry is to go in and do routine intraocular surgery like retinal disease or cataract surgery or incisional glaucoma surgery," says Dr. Ben Gaddie. He believes that the minor surgical procedures with scalpels and lasers Kentucky now allows fit into the "primary care" mold.
It sure sounds specialized to me. The eye is part of the central nervous system. I don't know too many primary care docs who do a little bit of neurosurgery or plastic surgery on the side. There's a reason the rest of medicine organizes itself into cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons, neurologists and neurosurgeons, and so on. There's a reason you want a surgeon to do surgery. They do a lot, and they do it well. It's worth a little drive.
"I give the optometrists an A+ in politics," says Dr. Parke of the ophthalmology association. "I may give them an F in being an effective advocate for patient safety and quality of care."
“I hope that my story will help you understand the methods of Russian operatives in Washington and how they use U.S. enablers to achieve major foreign policy goals without disclosing those interests,” Browder writes.
The financier Bill Browder has emerged as an unlikely central player in the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Sergei Magnitsky, an attorney Browder hired to investigate official corruption, died in Russian custody in 2009. Congress subsequently imposed sanctions on the officials it held responsible for his death, passing the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government retaliated, among other ways, by suspending American adoptions of Russian children.
Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who secured a meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, was engaged in a campaign for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, and raised the subject of adoptions in that meeting. That’s put the spotlight back on Browder’s long campaign for Kremlin accountability, and against corruption—a campaign whose success has irritated Putin and those around him.
Even prominent right-wing populists are beginning to worry that they invested their faith in an unstable leader.
This week, as Donald Trump publicly attacked Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an assault one restrained observer described as “a multitiered tower of political idiocy, a sublime monument to the moronic, a gaudy, gleaming, Ozymandian folly,” even David Horowitz, the anti-Leftist intellectual and author of Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America, felt compelled to admit something to his Twitter followers: “I have to confess, I'm really distressed by Trump's shabby treatment of Sessions.”
Trump has always been vehemently opposed from the left and distrusted on the right by Never Trump conservatives, who continue to be dismayed by his behavior. But this week as never before, public doubts surfaced among Trump boosters and apologists, prompting Jay Cost to quip, “at the end it's just gonna be Sean Hannity huddled in a corner, quietly whispering to himself that Trump is a great American.”
One of Trump’s top aides viciously attacks the others, even as the president lambastes his own attorney general. Is there any limit on this administration’s dysfunction?
If Anthony Scaramucci is conducting an experiment in radical transparency at the White House, then things are going well. Otherwise, his tenure as communications director might not be off to a great start.
Thursday began with Scaramucci giving a preposterous interview to CNN—cutting off a segment with New Yorker journalist Ryan Lizza—in which he accused White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus of leaking to the press, suggested he is trying to “save America from this president,” and likened his own relationship with Priebus to that of the biblical figure Cain and to Abel, the brother he slew.
The day closed with Lizza writing his own, devastating account of a deranged conversation he’d had with Scaramucci Wednesday night, after Lizza reported on a dinner Scaramucci had with Fox News personalities past and present. Politico had also published Scaramucci’s financial disclosure, obtained by a routine public-records request, but which Scaramucci was for some reason convinced had been leaked. (One fascinating lesson of Scaramucci’s appointment is how fast the debilitating paranoia of this White House can infect a new hire.)
Trump says that he surrounds himself with “the best people”—but too often, that means people like himself.
The world’s best Donald Trump impersonator is now in charge of White House communications—and if nothing else, it’s making for great television.
For evidence, look no further than Anthony Scaramucci’s mesmerizing Thursday morning interview with CNN. “The Mooch”—as he is known among his friends and admirers (a group that seems to include a growing number of reporters)—was coming off a late night spent waging a bitter and outrageously public battle against White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, when he called in to CNN’s morning show New Day. For the next 30 minutes, he put on a compulsively watchable performance that so precisely captured his boss’s style that it seemed designed to demoralize Alec Baldwin.
What Russian officials mean when they talk about “adoptions”
Let’s get something straight: The Magnitsky Act is not, nor has it ever been, about adoptions.
The Magnitsky Act, rather, is about money. It freezes certain Russian officials’ access to the stashes they were keeping in Western banks and real estate and bans their entry to the United States. The reason Russian (and now, American) officials keep talking about adoption in the same breath is because of how the Russian side retaliated to the Magnitsky Act in 2012, namely by banning American adoptions of Russian children. The Russians vowed they were punishing Americans who violated the human rights of Russians, after an adopted Russian toddler died of heat stroke in a Virginia family’s car. But the only Americans the bill directly targeted were the ones involved in putting the Magnitsky Act together.
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is no vulnerable GOP squish—she wields significant power over the Interior Department and once won her seat as a write-in candidate.
Updated on July 27 at 1:22 p.m. ET
It’s arm-twisting time in the Senate as Republicans close in on a decisive health-care vote, and the arm President Trump has decided to wring hardest belongs to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Murkowski, a former member of the party leadership now beginning her third six-year term, angered the president by defying him on a key procedural vote to begin debate on Tuesday. Along with Senator Susan Collins of Maine, she was one of two Republicans voting against the motion, which succeeded only when Vice President Mike Pence broke a 50-50 tie. Trump ignored Collins but assailed Murkowski in a tweet on Wednesday morning, saying she “really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday.”
A new study finds that believing society is fair can lead disadvantaged adolescents to act out and engage in risky behavior.
Brighton Park is a predominantly Latino community on the southwest side of Chicago. It’s a neighborhood threatened by poverty, gang violence, ICE raids, and isolation—in a city where income, race, and zip code can determine access to jobs, schools, healthy food, and essential services. It is against this backdrop that the Chicago teacher Xian Franzinger Barrett arrived at the neighborhood’s elementary school in 2014.
Recognizing the vast economic and racial inequalities his students faced, he chose what some might consider a radical approach for his writing and social-studies classes, weaving in concepts such as racism, classism, oppression, and prejudice. Barrett said it was vital to reject the oft-perpetuated narrative that society is fair and equal to address students’ questions and concerns about their current conditions. And Brighton Elementary’s seventh- and eighth-graders quickly put the lessons to work—confronting the school board over inequitable funding, fighting to install a playground, and creating a classroom library focused on black and Latino authors.
It was clearly the right answer, if a scary one. Many people are nervous about the prospect of Donald Trump controlling nuclear weapons—Marco Rubio, for example—and everyone should be scared of a nuclear war with China, but the idea that the military follows orders from civilian leadership is appropriately sacrosanct. (The equally well-named Captain Charlie Brown, a good man, conceded dolefully that perhaps Swift should have questioned the premise of the question more aggressively.)
Three Republicans issued an unusual demand on Thursday, saying they will only vote for Mitch McConnell’s latest proposal if they are assured it won’t become law.
Updated on July 27 at 7:45 p.m. ET
Is the “skinny repeal” of the Affordable Care Act that is nearing a vote in the Senate a means to an end, or the end itself?
That is the crucial question that GOP senators are facing as they consider Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s latest—and likely final—proposal for rolling back Obamacare. According to an email McConnell sent to Republicans, shared with me by a Senate aide, the current plan under discussion—dubbed the “Freedom Bill” by the White House—would repeal the ACA’s individual insurance mandate permanently and its employer mandate for six years, defund Planned Parenthood for a year, and allow states at least some flexibility to opt out of Obamacare’s requirement that insurers cover certain essential health benefits.
More than two years ago, soon after Donald Trump entered the presidential race, I noted online that no one like him—with no political, military, judicial, or public-service experience, with no known expertise on policy matters, with a trail of financial and personal complications—had ever before become president. Therefore, I said, it wasn’t going to happen this time.
Quite obviously that was wrong. Penitent and determined to learn from my errors, I’ve avoided any predictions involving Trump and his circles ever since.
But a few days ago, I edged back into the danger zone, after my very first look of the just-named White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, on TV. Via the ever-perilous medium of Twitter, I observed that he seemed more at ease on camera than Sean Spicer ever had, and less committed to flat-Earth stonewalling denials than Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Maybe his smooth-schmoozy approach would be what the Trump team needed? Maybe the press should get ready to be handled by a pro?