Charles F. Mullen’s Speech at the Kennedy Library

Thank you, Barry, for the warm welcome and your kind remarks. It is a pleasure to be back in Boston to celebrate a commitment to excellence in community collaboration and the creation of the New England Eye Institute.

Honored guests.

This morning, I would like to share with you the beginnings of optometry’s first program to collaborate with community health centers to improve access to eye and vision care services and enrich optometric clinical training.

I will attempt in my brief remarks to relate the common elements of the initial program to the new corporate structure and community governance model of the New England Eye Institute. I plan to outline the challenges which, I believe, still lie ahead for the new organization and finally, with your permission, offer a few observations or suggestions from my years of experience in interprofessional cooperation.

In the late 60′s and the early 70′s, the New England College of Optometry decided to expand and enrich the clinical training environments to which its students had access.

We knew that optometry students would benefit from health care environments in which the optometrist was one of many health care professionals contributing to the care of the patient.

Inner-city demographic data suggested that students would have the opportunity to participate in the care of patients with serious eye and vision problems unlike the university students they typically examined at the College’s Kenmore Square Clinic.

We wanted students to learn in a quality health care environment and not a teaching clinic as was customary at that time. Quality clinical training could only be achieved in a quality health care setting.

Coincident with our educational mission and not at all incompatible with it was a commitment to providing eye and vision care services to inner-city residents who were unable to meet this health care need in their own communities.

We concluded that the most promising scheme for fulfilling both our educational and community service objectives was to form an innovative network of affiliations with existing health care centers. Innovation was an important element in the development of the clinical network as it is today for the New England Eye Institute.

As we began to develop the program, any illusions we may have had about the ease of executing our new strategy were quickly dispelled. We learned a lot about skills we thought had nothing to do with eye care or optometric education: about convincing skeptics, compromising, introducing safeguards, planning, and negotiating.

In the first place, there was a reluctance on the part of health center administrators to permit students to participate in their programs.

Historically, the health center community was disenchanted with receiving its health care in the emergency rooms of large teaching hospitals and our proposed program, they thought, was precisely what they were seeking to escape.

Our second problem revolved around the reluctance of medical staffs at some health centers to work directly with optometrists, since the physicians had little experience working with us.

It was necessary to convince the medical staff at a very fundamental level of the ability of optometrists to function in and contribute to an interdisciplinary environment.

We also encountered considerable political pressure from the ophthalmological society which opposed cooperation between optometry and ophthalmology in the new eye and vision care model to be developed in the community health centers.

I am always reluctant to single out individuals for fear of omissions, but I would be remiss without citing the bold leadership of a few who were responsible for the success of the 70′s community eye care initiatives: Health Center administrators, Jim Hooley, Dorchester House, Mel Scovell and Tris Blake of the South End Community Health Center and Bob Morgan of the Dimock Community Health Center in Roxbury. Bill Baldwin, President of the New England College of Optometry for granting me the opportunity to participate in the development of the clinical network.

The optometrists who were willing to pioneer a new approach to interprofessional collaboration: faculty from the New England College of Optometry–Ralph Levoy, Jerry Selvin, Matt Garston, Jeff and Neal Nyman and the young Barry Barresi.

And, three courageous ophthalmologists, David Miller from Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard and Marc Richman and Andre Quamina from Boston University, who believed in the new model and were committed to providing comprehensive eye and vision care to the community health center clients. They withstood the persistent political pressure and the new optometric-ophthalmological interactional model was implemented at the South End and Dimock Community Health Centers and the Dorchester House for the first time in the United States. Bold leadership was as important then as it is now.

This eye care protocol has now evolved throughout the country, more recently into a comprehensive affiliation among the Illinois College of Optometry, the University of Chicago Medical School and its University Hospital System for the provision of ophthalmic care, medical and optometric education and research.

And, the fourth problem had to do with the antagonism our new eye care model aroused among private optometric practitioners, many of whom were our own alumni and friends. They felt that we were intruding into an area that is rightfully theirs.

I was pleased to learn that this issue has been largely resolved through the leadership of the Massachusetts Society of Optometrists.

The common element that emerged throughout the development process was the importance of effective collaboration among all of the constituencies. Community health center boards and community advocacy groups at first were skeptical, then later became strong supporters of the effort. Their support was critical to the success of the program.

The College and health center collaboration soon began to develop into a successful story of mutual respect and aligned missions. These were the key ingredients in improving community access to eye and vision care services in the 70′s, as they are today.

After successfully negotiating a mutually acceptable agreement with the Dorchester House Multi-Service Center and after strengthening our affiliation with the U.S. Public Health Services Hospital in Brighton, we went on to develop additional relationships in Boston. The South End Community Health Center, Dimock Community Health Center, Eye Research Unit of the Joslin Diabetic Foundation, the Kennedy Hospital in Brighton, Cotting School for Handicapped Children, Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic, and the Gundersen Eye Clinic at Boston University.

Other institutions, upon hearing of the success of our collaboration and new eye care model, asked for assistance in establishing eye and vision services. These included: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard Community Health Plan and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

All of these organizations were willing then to take the risks of new programs and innovative approaches to community eye and vision care as the New England Eye Institute member organizations are willing to take the risks of new programs and innovative approaches in this exciting new venture.

In 1976, upon leaving for Philadelphia, I wrote in an article later published in the Journal of the American Optometric Association on my assessment of the initial phase of the program.

We have reason to believe that we have achieved most of our clinical development goals to a greater degree than we ever could have anticipated.

Over 45,000 eye visits were provided to community residents in 1976. Many community residents had never before received eye or vision care.

Our students are seeing more challenging patients than their predecessors saw.

They have learned from and worked effectively with ophthalmologists and with professionals in pediatrics, internal medicine, nursing, psychology, and low vision.

Faculty and students were successful in convincing many that optometrists can make an important contribution in an interdisciplinary health care setting.

A very workable eye care protocol involving technicians, optometrists and ophthalmologists was developed and implemented.

Our graduates have very different professional aspirations as a result of their community health center experience. Some went on to work in community health centers and some have become deeply involved with the whole issue of public health and some are seeking to broaden their education and assume roles in health care policy. We have a living example here today in Barry Barresi.

A new level of innovation and collaboration has been introduced in the 21st century to build on a program created in the 70′s.

A major step was taken by the New England College of Optometry by reallocating its clinical assets into a community governed organization. Even with a history of over 30 years of collaboration, much work is still needed to be done to truly transform the New England Eye Institute into a leading community services organization for Greater Boston and a model for other cities around the country. Several challenges can be identified.

Educational programs need to be expanded to include trainees not only in optometry, but also ophthalmology, medicine, nursing, and other health care professionals, such as occupational therapists, social workers, low vision and blind rehabilitation specialists.

It will not be sufficient to provide only eye and vision services, for the New England Eye Institute needs to embrace a community oriented approach to health promotion and prevention.

The new organization must be flexible and integrated to truly meet the public need. It must position the Institute to meet the needs of special populations – the homeless, the frail elderly, the home bound, the developmentally disabled, the severely visually impaired, and others.

The quality of care must be monitored and maintained with appropriate mechanisms and oversight.

And, development efforts need to be aggressive in seeking the necessary operating and capital funds to support the Institute.

Finally, I would like to conclude with a few observations based on my many experiences in interprofessional collaboration that could be applied to the New England Institute.

The key ingredients in any successful collaboration are mutual respect and aligned missions.

Innovation must be proceeded by careful planning and boldness tempered by fiscal reality.

There are few cities better positioned than Boston to achieve excellence in collaboration to meet the public need in eye and vision care services, in health professions education, and health promotion and prevention.

I urge the many collaborators in this new initiative to reflect on the approaches and successes of a few bold individuals who in the 70′s were willing to take risks of new programs and innovative approaches and apply the same persistence, commitment and risk taking to the New England Eye Institute.

Thank you for remembering me.

Dr. Charles F. Mullen
Kennedy Library, Boston, MA
May 14, 2003

The Past, Present and Future of Externships in Clinical Education

I believe that the future of Optometric externships in clinical education is of the greatest importance to us as educators, and to the future direction of the profession of optometry. I would even venture the opinion that where, and under what circumstances, clinical experience is gained by optometry students will determine the direction of clinical optometry.

Before presenting my thoughts on the future of externships, it might be useful to review where we are, and how we got here.

The Past
Community based clinical education – commonly referred to as externships – has its roots in the late 1960’s. Several factors coalesced at that point in time to create the impetus for what was then a new direction for optometric education.

First, faculty and administrators had become increasingly aware of the need to enhance student-patient encounters, both in terms of quantity and in diversity of experience. This impetus was bolstered by increases in class size at several institutions. Space and patient volumes at many college-operated clinics simply were not adequate to meet student needs.

Second, and closely connected, there was a growing recognition that student-patient encounters would be more beneficial to the students’ education if they took place in an environment outside the traditional academic environment. Supporting this view was the awareness of the need to train optometry students to interact with other health care disciplines.

Third, pressure was coming from practicing optometrist to expand the scope of our profession. Those of you who were in the service as optometrists in those days many recall that military protocols allowed optometrists greater latitude in treatment options, particularly in regard to pharmaceutical agents, than did state regulations. Having expanded their practice while in the Military, these optometrists were reluctant to step back into the more restrictive guidelines of civilian practice. They realized that optometry students, as well as the faculty, needed training in the use of pharmaceutical agents.

Fourth, several colleges of optometry had urban campuses, often in areas with significantly undeserved populations in terms of health care. These institutions had a strong commitment to provide eye care to those residing in proximal neighborhoods.

As a result of these concurrent pressures, several institutions, acting independently of one another, came to the conclusion that the most promising avenue for meeting these needs was to form networks of clinic affiliations with existing health care institutions. However, any illusions regarding the ease with which this strategy would be executed were quickly dispelled.

Those attempting to create externships encountered reluctance on the part of health center administrators to permit students to participate in their programs. Medical staffs were unfamiliar with Optometry, and the benefits optometry students could provide. Ophthalmologists did not have a history of interacting with Optometrists, and were often reluctant to do so. The new model of community based clinical education also aroused antagonism among community optometric practitioners who perceived it as an unwanted competitive threat.

Nonetheless, the need for externships was too great to be denied, and the creation of externships proceeded. These first externships shared several characteristics. Criteria for site selection and evaluation were ill defined. The terms of the affiliations themselves were not always well drafted. Student selection/assignment processes lacked consistency. The length of student rotations varied widely, from a half a day in some to a year in others. In too many instances there was little staff support from the parent institutions.

The first externships were located in a variety of settings, but primarily they were in community health centers, nursing homes, prisons, military facilities, public health facilities, the VA, university student health services, and even in some private practice settings.

Fortunately, many of these facilities encouraged, or even required, the use of pharmaceutical agents by optometrists. This experience would prove invaluable as optometry faculty were called upon a few years later to provide instruction in diagnostic and therapeutic agents as state practice laws changed.

Despite a rather awkward beginning, and with all the missteps and mistakes notwithstanding, the movement towards community based clinical education in the late 1960’s had a profound impact on our profession, and must be considered one of the most important innovations in the development of optometric education. It was through the creation of these external affiliations, and the availability of large patient volumes, that the base was established for the subsequent growth of optometry into a true primary care profession.

The Present
Today community based clinical education has expanded dramatically in terms of the quantity and quality of externships. A recent ASCO survey found that all the schools and colleges of Optometry responding reported that they had externship programs. The number of sites per institution ranged from 25 to 200.

While great progress has been made, it has been uneven. In some areas the problems experienced by those early externships continue. However, most externships enjoy strong support from their parent institutions. Today’s students typically serve two rotations of twelve weeks each. Student preference is an important consideration in the assignment process; housing, meals, and a stipend are provided on a limited basis.

Today site selection and evaluation procedures are in place. Formal affiliation agreements provide guidance and define and expand responsibilities – but with varying degrees of thoroughness. In general those affiliations that include a government entity tend to be better defined than those that do not.

Externship preceptors are recognized with some form of faculty rank, often an adjunct appointment. Externships are predominantly located in government health care facilities, such as those operated by the VA, the Indian Health Service or the Military. They are also found in public and private hospitals, rehab centers, and referral centers. They continue to be found in private practice arrangements, nursing homes, prisons, special needs schools, and university student health clinics. They are also located in community health centers and facilities operated by HMO’s.

In general, the overall state of the national externship program is strong, significant in its impact, well managed and improving. It is firmly established as an essential component in the education and training of today’s optometry student.

The Future
What is the future of externships? As important as the externship has become, I would suggest today that its role is about to increase significantly. Once again forces are coalescing to create a climate conducive to, and even more demanding than the 1960’s.

Today’s health care environment is being driven by the demands of managed care and government that costs be reduced while quality and efficiency are increased.

In this environment I believe externships will become the primary source of clinical experience for optometry students. And while there will always be a need for some sort of sheltered workshop for clinical training of first and second year students, such as college operated campus clinics, the role of these clinics will be correspondingly diminished as the role of the externship grows in importance. Campus based clinical education will be limited to special emphasis areas such as pediatrics, vision rehabilitation and advanced ophthalmic care, while primary care education will be delegated to multiple affiliated health care facilities.

Just as several unrelated and related forces combined in the ‘60s to created externship, a combination of forces at work in the ‘90s will once again drive their expansion.

The large numbers of close-at-hand underserved patients, once the backbone of institutionally based clinics, have become attractive to managed care providers as government units have turned to managed care to administer health care. Once spurned by third party payers as a burden, they are now sought by those who, unencumbered by an educational mission, are able to respond rapidly, efficiently and cost effectively. The ability of large single purpose eye clinics, such as those operated by most schools and colleges of optometry, is now seriously compromised.

Forced to allocated scarce resources to market to what was formally a virtually reserved patient base, such clinics are finding it even more difficulty to be cost effective, if indeed they ever were. As patient numbers decline, educational inefficiencies increase, and operating deficits increase.

Externships, by contrast, are highly cost effective, offer a challenging clinical environment, and are often staffed by seasoned preceptors. This nicely compliments the basic clinical training provided by college faculty. The clinical experience gained at externships is both progressive and stimulating for students.

I believe, therefore, that the demand for more externships, geographically distributed, will increase in the years ahead. Longer rotations, and more rotations, will be the standard. Advances in communication, such as telemedicine and the internet, will make it easier for institutions to effectively manage a widely distributed network.

There exists today a vast, and largely untapped, potential within the federal sector for externships in optometry, where the growth will take place.

However, I must raise a cautionary note. We learned a great deal from the mistakes that were made in the ‘60s in the creation of externships, and we have benefited from that knowledge. However, that does not mean we must continue to rely on trial and error as the path to wisdom. To the extent that we are able, we must anticipate the problems that will inevitably arise from the creation of a national network of externships.

The Challenge to Optometry
A significant challenge to us all will be the efficient and equitable use of this national network of externship sites by the schools and colleges of optometry. If we follow the competitive model of the past, some schools will find they have a surplus of externships, zealously guarded as a resource, while other schools will find they have an unmet need for student placements.

We must begin to work together to establish a national clearing house and placement service for externships in optometry. Through such a clearinghouse all institutions of optometric education will fully share in this enormous national resource, and each site will be appropriately and fully utilized. The clearinghouse could facilitate the development and implementation of national standards for externships, possibly leading to some form of accreditation for participating sites.

Our purpose, after all, is not to compete with one another, but to cooperate in the advancement of optometric education and the profession. By so doing we not only assure an efficient and effective use of the opportunity that is being presented to us, but we also best serve the needs of our students, the affiliated facilities, and the patients they treat.

I realize this will not happen over night. It will require much discussion and a decision to accept challenges and make compromises. It will require a recognition of the fact that the traditional environments in which we have lived will not be the models for tomorrow. It will require change. It will not be easy. It will be necessary.

Acknowledgements
The author thanks Drs. Daniel Roberts and Stephanie Messner of the Illinois College of Optometry who assisted in the preparation of these remarks.

These remarks were originally delivered to the Optometric Education Section at the December 1997 American Academy of Optometry meeting.

The Journal of the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
Optometric Education. Volume 24, Number 1. Fall 1998.
Charles F. Mullen, O.D., Guest Editorial

Changes in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Their Implications for Optometric Education

In the coming years the veterans’ health care system will be affected by powerful societal and health care industry dynamics. These factors will influence the manner in which the VA accomplishes its mission and they provide the context in which it must operate.

My discussion of the future of the veterans’ health care system is based on the following assumptions:

  • The role of the federal government in American society will continue to be reevaluated, and competition for federal government funding will become even more intense.
  • Most health care in the United States will continue to be provided by the private sector.
  • There will continue to be marked turmoil among and consolidation of medical groups, hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and other elements of the private sector.
  • Managed care within integrated delivery systems will become the most common mode of health care delivery in the United States.
  • Medical and scientific information will continue to grow at an astonishing rate.
  • Technological innovations will continue to revolutionize clinical practice. In addition, the trend of providing care in nonhospital settings will continue, and even accelerate, as concern about health care costs continues.
  • Advances in information and communication technology, and imaging systems in particular, will open up many new opportunities for improving the delivery of health care.
  • Integrated information systems will be the key to success for future health care systems.
  • Nonphysician providers will be increasingly used in health care systems of the future.
  • Health care organizations will be increasingly expected to prevent disease and promote community wellness, in addition to treating individual cases of illness.
  • There will be increased demand for accountability in health care and increased emphasis on health care outcomes and measurements.
  • While the rate of increase of health care costs has diminished in recent years, health care costs will continue to be a major driving force in the industry. Nonetheless, quality of care and customer service will become more important issues.
  • The veteran population eligible for care at VA facilities will continue to age and decrease. However, the need for both acute and long-term care services for this aging population will rise disproportionately to the decrease in users due to greater health care needs associated with aging.
  • In addition to the “macro” issues, there will be local and regional dynamics impacting individual VA facilities and networks.

In envisioning the veterans’ health care system of the 21st century, it is assumed that the future is unpredictable and that the VA must be flexible enough to rapidly respond to unforeseen circumstances.

The mission of the veterans’ health care system is to serve the needs of America’s veterans by providing specialized care for service-connected veterans, primary care, and related medical and social support services.

To accomplish its mission, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) should be a comprehensive, integrated health care system that provides excellence in health care value, excellence in service as defined by its customers, and excellence in education and research. It also should be an organization characterized by exceptional accountability.

There are numerous changes underway in the VA which specifically affect optometric education and they present both challenges and opportunities – opportunities for significant gains if optometric institutions are proactive and significant losses if they are passive. The VA is currently:

  • Reengineering the operational and management structure of the veterans health care system.
  • Implementing the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) management structure. This new structure has resulted in a shift of operational control and some policy development to the local level.
  • Management Assistance Councils consisting of external advisors are either operational or being established in all Networks.
  • Restructuring VHA headquarters.
  • Implementing multidisciplinary “service line” rather than discipline-specific clinical care in recognition of the Transdimensional nature of health care today. Optometry and ophthalmology have been placed in the HQ Primary and Ambulatory Care Strategic Health Group forming the eye care program. This is likely to be emulated in VA field facilities.
  • Standardizing clinical processes (e.g., with nationally developed clinical guidelines) and delegating clinical care responsibility to nonphysician providers.
  • Exploring ways of improving the accessibility, quality, and cost-effectiveness of VA’s special emphasis programs, e.g., VICTORS.
  • Increasing the proportion of the VA’s work force providing primary care.
  • Developing tailored training/retraining programs in primary care.
  • Reducing the variation in professional staffing that exists among facilities and services having similar missions and work loads.

Although we may experience reductions at certain facilities, overall continued growth in optometry is projected. Since 1990, VA Optometry Service has added 86 FTEE staff and residents. This growth has facilitated our involvement in the following activities:

  • Increased sharing of activities with academic affiliates and the Department of Defense.
  • Promoting a VHA culture of ongoing quality improvement that is predicated on providing health care value.
  • Establishing a VA clinical “Centers of Excellence” program to celebrate and disseminate best practices and to foster studies that identify organizational characteristics that lead to performance excellence.
  • Promulgating customer service standards and ensuring that they are known by both staff and patients, e.g., 30 days maximum wait for eye care.
  • Decreasing waiting times for appointments. Although reduced from over 100 days in 1990 to the current level of 47, it still is far from acceptable.
  • Ensuring the VHA’s educational offerings emphasize areas of greatest societal need and are responsive to the needs of veterans today and in the future.
  • Convening Residency Realignment Advisory Committees for physicians and other health professionals to provide guidance in ensuring the VA’s postgraduate training programs are responsive to the needs of the VA and the nation. Possible overall reduction in optometry positions could result from general downsizing. Also, the lack of formal requirements for optometric residency training increases the vulnerability of the program. Most likely there will be a reduction in multiple resident placements.
  • Increasing the proportion of trainees in primary care disciplines.
  • VA facilities are reevaluating their affiliation(s) in light of VHA’s restructuring and vision of the “new VA,” and the present educational role of VA. Affiliation agreements should defend the prerogatives of VA, control the use of VA resources, and protect the interest of VA patients.
  • Initiating review and renegotiation of all academic affiliation agreements.
  • Reassessing the role and function of Deans Committees in light of today’s changed health educational environment and effect changes where needed.
  • Academic affiliations and residents are likely to be negotiated on a Network basis.
  • Clinical credentialing and privileging will probably be conducted on a Network basis.

The VA’s Current Contributions to Optometric Education
There are currently 155 academic affiliation agreements at 103 facilities. Five hundred thirty optometry students annually rotate through VA facilities. Seventy-five residents and 9 WOC are currently funded at 44 program sites. A significant increase in requests for “without compensation placements” (WOC) has been noted. There is a potential of 400,000 annual clinical teaching encounters. Research opportunities abound with currently over 7.0 million in funded optometric research.

There is a corps of well-qualified clinical preceptors with some VA optometrists released to teach at affiliates. VA clinicians are also active contributors to the literature and national continuing education programs.

What Can Individual Schools and Colleges Do to Preserve VA Affiliations?

  • Above all, be an active partner.
  • Assist VA facilities with Quality Improvement activities.
  • Assist VA facilities in improving staff productivity and reducing waiting times for appointments. Low productivity will likely result in loss of residency funding and possibly staff FTEE. Chronic long waiting times could result in local frustration and contracting out to commercial providers. This is already a reality in one Network.
  • Seek appointment of school-based optometric faculty as consultants at VA facilities.
  • Enter into contractual “sharing’ arrangements, e.g., VICTORS, Eye Care Centers of Excellence.
  • Seek appointments to Network Management Assistance Councils. Already, Drs. Haffner, Hopping, and Walls have been appointed and I have received positive feedback on their contributions.
  • Increase awareness of VA affiliations by publicizing your institution’s activities.
  • Seek new academic affiliations within your Network.
  • Prepare thoroughly for COE accreditation visits and address problems before COE visits. Less than full accreditation will likely result in loss of VA funding.
  • Seek cooperative research projects with VA affiliates.
  • Consider WOC residency programs as a means to initiate new programs.
  • Understand the new JCAHO accreditation standards and survey process and their implications to optometry.

What Can ASCO Do Collectively?
ASCO should implement the recommendations agreed to in the 1992 AOA/ASCO/NAVAO Strategic Plan. For example:

  1. In cooperation with the VA, assist in the development of and implementation of a system wide Total Quality Improvement Program.
  2. Improve management of affiliations programs by: participation on Network Management Assistance Councils. (Originally the Deans’ Committees.)
  3. Stimulate research proposals in cooperation with VA medical centers.
  4. Review faculty appointment procedures and benefits for VA preceptors and enhance them wherever permitted by institutional governance.
  5. Residency expansion in VA should be carefully managed to assure well-balanced clinical educational programs nationwide.
  6. ASCO should endeavor to publicly promote its relationship with the VA, increasing positive support of VA activities and accomplishments and increasing the public and the government’s knowledge of optometry.
  7. Monitor affiliations through the ASCO Committee on Residencies and Externships and through COE reports.

This is a time of great change in the VA. It presents many challenges, but also many opportunities. The shift of control to the Networks (local) level makes it more important than ever that every affiliated optometric institution be an active partner with its VA affiliated facilities and Network leadership. There is the possibility for significant gains if there is local initiative and likewise the possibility for significant losses if the schools and colleges of optometry are inactive.

At the time this article was written, Dr. Mullen was Director of the Optometry Service, Veterans Health Administration. This article is based on the VA’s new strategic plan entitled Prescription for Change. Dr. Mullen is currently the president of the Illinois College of Optometry.

The Journal of the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
Optometric Education, Volume 22, Number 3. Spring 1997.
Charles F. Mullen, O.D.

Optometry’s Role in National Health Care Reform (Video)

This speech was delivered during Graduation Ceremonies at the Southern College of Optometry, June 1994. See also the previously published article Optometry’s Role in National Health Care Reform.