Disruptive innovation isn’t just about changing how we tie our silky neck adornments, or even how we survive the terrible task of cutting onions (though an invention for that has sold around 1 million pairs). Disruptive innovation is sometimes about taking on an entrenched crony group that’s more worried about protecting their unfairly-won market share than actually competing for your money.
Disruptive innovation upsets cronies. They don’t like being disrupted. They like it when things stay the same. Because of some new disruptive innovations in optometry, the cronies are on full alert.
Unsurprisingly, cronies never approach politicians and ask for more freedom. Cronies ask for more protection from their competitors: more regulations, more licensure, etc. This is one of the best ways to identify them. Right now, despite the new innovations, an entrenched crony group is trying to make it harder and more expensive for all of us to get eyecare.
There are currently bills in a number of states, including one in Virginia and another in Indiana that has already passed, defining telehealth in a way that would require face-to-face encounters. That means that even if “there is an app for that,” which there is in this case, you still need to go to an optometrist — by law.
That is kind of like forgoing the use of your home’s electricity and instead relying on candles. That’s like forgetting that you have a microwave and just going ahead and eating the pizza while it’s frozen. That’s like shuffling your feet on the ground to move a bike instead of using the peddles.
This is moving backwards. It doesn’t make sense. However, this is what the American Optometry Association is lobbying for.
Of course, their lobbyists don’t just march in and say “PLEASE HELP.” They use the excuse of health and safety concerns. But I haven’t seen data to back them up, and every crony throughout history has made similar claims. (At least these guys aren’t screaming, “Won’t someone think about the children!”)
The investors in direct current electricity lobbied against alternative current based on safety, even financing the construction of the first electric chair and making sure that it used alternative current to do its job and aid theirs. Taxi drivers fight against ride-sharing even though companies like Lyft track every user and taxis track none. Cronyism is about a lot of things, but it isn’t about safety.
Big Optometry’s lobbying effort won’t be easy to stop. However, the federal government is looking at getting involved in the way it should. The new head of the Federal Trade Commission, Maureen Ohlhausen, recently said in Politico:
One area in particular really fascinates me and that’s actually telehealth, and some of the issues there where you have state licensing requirements or state limits on how nurse practitioners can practice, or where the doctor has to be to allow telehealth to happen.
Telemedicine isn’t the answer to everything, but a lot of app developers think it can do a lot when it comes to optometry, including providing triage like walk-in clinics or even providing in-home (or anywhere else) eye appointments. Merely asking the government to allow us to use telemedicine in order to get cheaper and more accessible eyeglasses should be a no-brainer. In fact, fighting about it makes me even more anxious about the larger version of health reform that Congress is currently working on.
However, if the federal government does decide to get involved they shouldn’t go the opposite direction and mandate the use of apps. The federal government should just make it clear that consumers should have the choice. Consumers should be able to use an app if that’s what they want, just like they should be allowed to eat frozen pizza, if that’s what they want.
Disruptive innovation is about changing the status quo in a way that benefits consumers. Cronyism is about manipulating the status quo to benefit groups that couldn’t win otherwise. Ride-share apps have already revolutionized the way that we get around. Optometry apps might do the same for eyeglasses and maybe even more, and the apps might not. But what the government shouldn’t do is make the decision of the market: that lets cronies cancel the revolution.
Charles Sauer (@CharlesSauer) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Market Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill, for a governor and for an academic think tank.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
