Under SB 492, optometrists would diagnose and treat any disease relating to the eye or any medical condition with and ocular manifestation, essentially allowing optometrists to practice ophthalmology. The California Medical Association opposes SB 492.

Naturally, the California Optometric Association is thrilled with the bill and has commensurately made significant contributions to legislative committee members of the committees responsible for hearing and passing the bill.

And now, with SB 492 in the Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection committee Tuesday, the campaign is plastering the airways with new radio spots, paid for by the  California Optometric Association.

As the ad opens, a woman says “it’s time for other health care specialists to step forward and be allowed to deliver… so your neighbors have access to the health care they have been promised.” She says go to www.bridgingtheprovidergap.com, and says the ad is paid for by the California Optometric Association.

So I went online to find out who Bridging the Provider Gap was. The website says, “Californians for Accessible Healthcare is a coalition dedicated to filling the ‘provider gap’ in California’s health care system. It includes the California Association for Nurse Practitioners www.canpweb.org, California Society of Health-System Pharmacists www.chsp.org,California Optometric Association www.coavision.org and California Pharmacists Association www.cpha.com.

But the real shocker was when I saw the News / Press Contact for Bridging the Provider Gap:

“Steven Maviglio, Forza Communications, 916.607.8340.”

Yup, the same Steven Maviglio who works as a Political consultant, and is currently serving as spokesman for Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, for $9,500 a month, paid by the Legislature and taxpayers.

In March when he announced the job with Perez, Maviglio said he didn’t have any clients involved in Assembly matters.

“It seems like he’s serving two masters,” said Jessica Levinson, an expert in political ethics at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, in a recent story about Maviglio, by the Sacramento Bee.

“He may be doing a great job serving both of them, and he may not be doing anything improper,” Levinson said. “But at the very least it feels uncomfortable and improper because he is serving a legislator and serving clients who seek to influence that legislator.”

Campaign contributions

Hernandez has also accepted more than $140,000 in campaign contributions from optometrists, optometry businesses and the California Optometric Association, according to the California Secretary of State, and reported by CalWatchdog contributor John Hrabe.

This is how politics works in the world of special interests. And according to  Hrabe, “Maplight, a nonprofit research organization that reveals money’s influence on politics, reports Hernandez’s single largest contributor over the last four years has been the American Optometric Association, which has donated $33,700 to his campaign committees.”

By John Hrabe

When he isn’t in Sacramento, state Sen. Ed Hernandez is busy treating patients at his five-star rated optometry practice, Hernandez Optometry, in La Puente. The nearby picture is of him on the front page of his Web site.

For most people, it might be a challenge to balance two full-time jobs. Hernandez, though, has found a novel way to solve the problem: he’s merged his obligations as a state legislator with his profitable optometry practice.

This session, the West Covina Democrat has introduced controversial legislation that would greatly expand the scope of practice for several medical professions, including optometrists. Senate Bill 492, which is opposed by the California Medical Association and other physician groups, would give your local eye doctor the power “to perform vaccinations and surgical and non-surgical primary care procedures.”

Such a major expansion in the scope of practice would financially benefit the state’s 9,000 optometrists, including Hernandez and his wife, Diane, who also is an optometrist at Hernandez Optometry. In return, optometrists throughout the state, who under normal circumstances might be his competition, have supported Hernandez with gifts and more than $140,000 in campaign contributions.

As WebMD makes clear, although doctors, optometrists are not physicians; which is how they differ from opthalmologists, physicians who went to medical school. So Hernandez’s bills effectively would allow optometrists like himself to do many procedures currently allowed to be performed only by ophthalmologists.

Hernandez’s profitable optometry business

According to his most recent financial disclosure statement, Hernandez and his wife each received more than $100,000 in gross income from their optometry clinics. The businesses, listed with separate addresses on the Form 700 disclosure statement, are valued between $100,000 and $1 million.

But Hernandez doesn’t believe it’s a conflict of interest to introduce legislation that would benefit these family businesses.

“There is no conflict here, many Senators have careers other than politics and that makes us a stronger and more thoughtful body,” Hernandez said in an email to CalWatchdog.com. “I fully disclose all my income and political contributions because I have nothing to hide.”

There’s no evidence that Hernandez has broken any of the state’s conflict of interest laws, which do not forbid legislators from carrying bills or voting on issues that would benefit themselves. Under state law, measures that are general in nature and affect an entire industry are not considered a conflict of interest. Campaign finance watchdogs say that, even though the practice is legal, it raises ethical concerns.

“California’s conflict of interest laws deems this activity 100 percent legal, but the court of public opinion should find this 100 percent reprehensible,” said Phillip Ung, a policy advocate with California Common Cause. “It is this type of activity that leads voters to lose faith in their Legislature.”

Hernandez has accepted $140k+ in optometrist contributions

Hernandez’s broad support for the entire optometry industry explains why so many of his competitors have donated to his political campaigns. In recent years, Hernandez has accepted more than $140,000 in campaign contributions from optometrists, optometry businesses and the California Optometric Association.  In 2009-10, Hernandez O.D. Democrat for Senate 2010 accepted $81,799 from 78 campaign contributors that are directly associated with the optometry field.

The committee to fund his 2014 reelection has already accepted another $23,797 from 32 optometry-related campaign contributors. As recently as February 8, the California Optometric PAC contributed $35,000 to a campaign committee controlled by Hernandez. The committee was established “to qualify a measure to create a special healthcare district in San Gabriel Valley.”

According to Maplight, a nonprofit research organization that reveals money’s influence on politics, Hernandez’s single largest contributor over the last four years has been the American Optometric Association, which has donated $33,700 to his campaign committees. “Health Professionals,” a broad industry category that includes optometrists, contributed $129,793 to Hernandez’s campaigns, more than any other industry or profession, according to Maplight.

Optometrists’ generosity to Hernandez has also included a pair of gifts. In 2012, Hernandez reported on his financial disclosure statement two dinners, worth $131, from the California Optometric Association.

California Medical Association opposed to SB 492

Hernandez, who serves as the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, introduced SB 492 as a part of a legislative package to address the looming health care provider shortage brought about by the Affordable Care Act, also called Obamacare. The series of bills, Senate Bills 491, 492 and 493, would expand the scope of practice for optometrists, pharmacists and nurse practitioners.

“SB 492 is part of a package of bills that was drafted to ensure the people of California have meaningful access to a qualified health care provider,” Hernandez said in an email. “The bill is designed to help optometrists better serve the needs of their patients; if anybody stands to benefit from the provisions of this bill, it’s consumers.”

The California Medical Association, along with several other prominent health care associations, are opposed to the bills that they say would compromise patient safety.

“[Optometrists] do not have the training and experience necessary to provide comprehensive primary care,” the California Medical Association wrote in their opposition to the bill. “In addition, SB 492 would allow optometrists to practice medicine without being subject to the Medical Practice Act.”

For his part, Hernandez has made no secret of his financial connections to the bill. A March 2013 press release about the legislative package referenced that he is “an optometrist himself.”