Advertising, Fee Splitting, and Professional Conduct
Advertising and professional-conduct questions test honesty and independence of judgment. The Board polices misleading promotion, improper financial incentives, and conduct that undermines public trust.
Advertising
Advertising must be truthful, not deceptive, and not likely to create unjustified expectations. Do not claim superiority, 'best,' or guaranteed results without substantiation; do not omit material limits such as extra fees, exclusions, or provider qualifications. Use the correct license designation and do not imply specialty certification you do not hold. Discounts and coupons are permissible if accurate and not bait-and-switch. Patient testimonials require privacy compliance and cannot be presented as typical if they are not.
Fee splitting and conduct
Oregon prohibits paying or receiving compensation for patient referrals in a way that unlawfully divides fees. A per-patient 'referral fee' to another optometrist, physician, or marketer is a red flag. Paying bona fide employees, rent at fair market value, or licensed co-providers under a lawful arrangement is different from paying for the referral itself. Professional conduct includes accurate billing, no fraud, no exploitation of patients, no practicing while impaired, and cooperation with the Board. Unprofessional conduct can include dishonesty, incompetence, confidentiality breaches, and failure to maintain records.
Worked example
An optical shop agrees to pay an OD $25 for each patient the OD refers for LASIK. The OD calls it 'marketing.' The payment is tied to the referral, not to a legitimate service or fair-market rent. That is an unlawful fee-splitting or kickback risk. A flat, fair-market advertising fee unrelated to patient volume would be analyzed differently.
Traps
Thinking a disclaimer cures a misleading headline. Calling a referral payment 'consulting.' Assuming the Board only reviews clinical care. Overlooking privacy in testimonials.