• Home
  • Signature Papers
  • Presentations
  • Videos
  • Archives
  • Resources
  • About
  • Curriculum Vitae
  • Contact

Charles F. Mullen

Challenges and Opportunities in Optometry and Optometric Education

Testimony in Support of Senate Bill 1255, An Act Relative to the Modernization of Optometry

I am Charles Mullen. I am a graduate of the University of Virginia and received my Doctor of Optometry degree from the New England College of Optometry. I have over 36 years of experience in optometric education at three institutions. I am the former President of the Illinois College of Optometry and former Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs Optometry Service, the largest optometric patient care and clinical training program in the Nation. Currently I serve on the Board of Trustees of the Pennsylvania College of Optometry and the Board of Directors of the New England Eye Institute. I am also an Adjunct Clinical Professor at the State University of New York.

My remarks today pertain to the impact that the current restriction on Massachusetts optometrists treating glaucoma has on the clinical education of students enrolled at the New England College of Optometry. From a national perspective, this restriction places the College and its faculty at a competitive disadvantage for the best and brightest applicants for admission. Upon learning of the restriction in the treatment of glaucoma, many highly qualified applicants and, for that matter, many highly qualified optometrists seeking a faculty appointment at the New England College of Optometry choose other Colleges of Optometry – simply because Massachusetts cannot offer the comprehensive opportunities they are seeking. No other optometry school across the country faces this problem.

Forty-nine states permit optometrists to treat glaucoma. It is now the national expectation; if not the standard. Students of the New England College of Optometry are expected upon graduation to be fully prepared to treat eye disease; including, the management of patients with glaucoma. Yet, without the ability to practice in Massachusetts, the New England College of optometry must seek training venues outside the Commonwealth or in federal facilities where the treatment of glaucoma is permitted. This is ironic given that Massachusetts is known to be a world leader in health care education. Forty-nine states and the federal system allow for optometrists to treat glaucoma, but the home state of one of the best optometry schools does not. Again, no other optometry school in the Nation is so limited.

Nationwide, optometrists provided $846 million in eye care services to Medicare beneficiaries in 2006. As the incidence of glaucoma increases with age and with the onset of the “baby boomer” retirement, graduates of the New England College must be fully prepared to meet the health care needs of the rapidly growing elderly population. This means they must be able to treat glaucoma.

I can assure you that optometric education and the profession of optometry are constantly evolving. Advances in the biomedical and visual sciences impact both the methods of treating patients and the methods of educating students. Given this quickly changing environment, it is essential that optometrists in Massachusetts be granted the authority to treat glaucoma – allowing both the New England College of Optometry and its students to remain competitive on a national level.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Joint committee on Public Health. Accordingly, I respectfully request that this Committee release SB 1255 with a favorable report.

Testimony of Charles F. Mullen, O.D.
Delivered May 2, 2007

May 2, 2007 by Charles F. Mullen

My Best Day in Optometric Education: Signing the Affiliation Agreement Between the Illinois College of Optometry and the University of Chicago

In 1996, I accepted the position of president, Illinois College of Optometry (ICO) and brought with me nearly thirty years of experience in collaborative relationships between optometry and ophthalmology. My conviction of the importance of cooperation between the two professions began at the New England College of Optometry in Boston’s community health centers, was carried forward at the Pennsylvania College of Optometry with the affiliation with Hahnemann University’s Department of Ophthalmology. It was tempered by my federal government experience as the director of optometry service at the VA and was fully realized with the signing of a comprehensive patient care, education and research affiliation between ICO and the University of Chicago (UofC).

Thus, October 16, 1997 was my best day in optometric education and reinforced my conviction that cooperation between the two disciplines presents numerous opportunities for enhancing patient care and clinical training for students and residents, and for fostering a better understanding and respect between the two professions, while reinforcing their natural synergism. The affiliation continues to this day, as a vibrant patient care and clinical education collaboration.

Although I remain convinced that affiliation with academic medicine will significantly enhance both clinical education and patient care for both optometry and ophthalmology, there are other challenges that also need to be addressed before optometric clinical education can reach its full potential. Some schools and colleges of optometry have addressed several of these challenges, but much still needs to be done. With continued support from the American Optometric Association (AOA) and the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry (ASCO), many of these objectives can be achieved within the next five years.

  • Include optometry in the federal programs of Graduate Medical Education (GME) and the National Health Service Corps (NHSC).
  • Increase collaboration with community health care programs and increase commitment to public health responsibilities.
  • Downsize large single purpose and costly campus-based clinics and replace with smaller referral centers and community-based training sites.
  • Achieve Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) accreditation for campus-based and college-operated clinical facilities.
  • Reorganize the colleges’ clinical programs into separate legal entities with their own administrations and governing boards.
  • Implement incentive-based compensation (IBC) plans for faculty that integrate student and resident training.
  • Develop and operate ophthalmic surgi-centers in partnership with medical school affiliates.
  • Establish a national clearinghouse and placement service for optometric externships.
  • Fund the Regional Centers of Eye Care Excellence (RCEE) within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and expand the Vision Impairment Centers to Optimize Remaining Sight (VICTORS).

Dr. Mullen was president of the Illinois College of Optometry from 1996 to 2002. He is currently on the Board of Trustees at the Pennsylvania College of Optometry and on the Board of Directors of the New England Eye Institute.

Journal of Optometric Education, 2006

September 30, 2006 by Charles F. Mullen

Evolution of the Relationship between Academic Ophthalmology and Optometric Educational Institutions

Evolution Began in Boston Community Health Centers in Early 1970’s

My experience with academic ophthalmology began over 50 years ago in Boston with David Miller MD from Harvard, and Marc Richman MD from BU in the Community Health Centers where we developed a model of cooperative patient care and clinical training between optometry and ophthalmology.

Speech at the Kennedy Library: Development of NECO’s Community Based Education Program

NECO/Tufts New England Innovative Residency Training for Optometrists (1974)

Bernard Schwartz MD, PhD, Chairman, Department of Ophthalmology, Tufts University, and I developed a trial program to place two NECO graduates in the medical component of the ophthalmology residency program at Tufts. If the optometrists passed the medical portion of the Ophthalmology Certification Board, they would be granted an MD degree by Tufts. I selected two graduates of NECO for the Tufts residency program. The trial program was opposed by the NECO President and never implemented.

First Affiliation Between a Medical School and Optometry College in Philadelphia (1980’s)

Then in Philadelphia, Myron Yanoff MD, and I developed an affiliation between Hahnemann University and the Pennsylvania College of Optometry. This affiliation included both a strengthened educational component and patient care program.

Affiliation Between Hahnemann University and Pennsylvania College of Optometry

Cooperation Between Optometry and Ophthalmology on National Level in Washington, DC (1990’s)

During my tenure as National Director, VA Optometry Service in Washington, DC I interviewed and recommended for appointment the first senior level ophthalmologist as my counterpart in VA Central Office. James Orcutt MD, and I worked on collaborative projects including development of clinical practice guidelines, completion of an inventory of all VA eye care resources and subsequent recommendations to Senior VA Administration and a Special Advisory Board on VA Eye Care regarding improvements to optometry and ophthalmology patient care and training programs. Overall, we advanced cooperation and collaboration among all VA eye care providers.

NAVAO Founding Member Spotlight: An Interview with Dr. Charles Mullen

An Affiliated Educational System for Optometry with the Department of Veterans Affairs

Affiliation Between Illinois College of Optometry and University of Chicago (1997)

Upon my arrival in Chicago as the President of ICO, Terry Ernest MD, Chairman Department Ophthalmology and Visual Science, University of Chicago asked to meet with me. He had read my article in the Archives of Ophthalmology about the Hahnemann Affiliation with PCO and thought there was an opportunity to develop a similar arrangement between ICO and the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science at the University of Chicago. We decided to incorporate the best aspects of my years of experience in the affiliation agreement. I met with President Hugo Sonnenscheim of the University, and described the synergism of the proposed arrangement, and a signed affiliation agreement was completed within weeks.

The University of Chicago/ICO Affiliation was implemented in 1997 as a model of cooperation in education, patient care and research between the disciplines of academic optometry and ophthalmology.

Illinois College of Optometry and University of Chicago Affiliation Agreement

My Best Day in Optometric Education: Signing the Affiliation Agreement Between the Illinois College of Optometry and the University of Chicago

April 28, 2006 by Charles F. Mullen

Charles F. Mullen’s Speech at the Kennedy Library: Development of NECO’s Community Based Education Program

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

May 14, 2003 by Charles F. Mullen

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • …
  • 20
  • Next Page »

Signature Papers

  • Optometry Specialty Certification Boards Provide a Uniform Indicator of Advanced Knowledge and Skills
  • A New Paradigm for Optometry
  • Optometric Education in Crisis
  • Opportunities Lost – Opportunities Regained
  • Mergers and Consolidations of Optometry Colleges and Schools
  • Transformation of Optometry – Blueprint for the Future
  • Required Postgraduate Clinical Training for Optometry License
  • Why Optometry Needs the American Board of Optometry Specialties (ABOS)
  • The Future of Optometric Education – Opportunities and Challenges
  • A Strategic Framework for Optometry and Optometric Education
  • Changes Necessary to Include Optometry in the Graduate Medical Education Program (GME)
  • Unresolved Matters of Importance to Optometric Education
  • Illinois College of Optometry Commencement Address (Video & Transcript)
  • Charles F. Mullen’s Speech at the Kennedy Library: Development of NECO’s Community Based Education Program
  • Illinois College of Optometry Presidential Farewell Address (Video & Transcript)
  • Commitment to Excellence: ICO’s Strategic Plan
  • Illinois College of Optometry and University of Chicago Affiliation Agreement
  • An Affiliated Educational System for Optometry with the Department of Veterans Affairs

© 1978-2025 · Charles F. Mullen, O.D. · Terms of Use