Oh brother...

[Shwing]

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154123419061&call_pageid=1024322466723

[Shwing]

and more..


http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=1014656316146&c=Article&cid=1154123419068

[mlm]

Oof...I'm so confused...is that guy for real??

[Framebender]

Do you think they're actually going to do anything to this guy?? Also, how does he do 3 for 1?? Does he charge $300.00 fpr the first pair??

[Ory]

Do you think they're actually going to do anything to this guy?? Also, how does he do 3 for 1?? Does he charge $300.00 fpr the first pair??

Closer to $400 but that's Canadian. Safilo's also after them because they're selling Safilo brands but don't have an accout with them nor do they have any records as to where these Armani frames came from....

And I really liked the 1.5 CT "safety glasses that a patient brought in from them.

These guys are remarkable. The court ruling in 2003 was a slap on the wrist (he wasn't fined, just told to stop), he's had his license suspended a couple of times....but they just keep doing what they're doing.

Maybe I should start giving out prescription medications from my office. There's obviously no penalty for it.....:hammer:

[Dave Nelson]

Prescription medicine from your office? You may as well do cataract surgery if they can't stop this embarrassment. Hell, I may as well do the surgery. Note the newspaper caption refers to the "eye examination" he is conducting. I laughed when I read the part where he seems confused about going to jail. "Am I going to jail?" Uh well...Yeah.
My fix? Actually put him in jail for a while, that may clear up his confusion.(am I going to jail?:confused: )

[Ory]

My favourite bit is when they figured out his dog owns the company. I wonder if the dog filed a tax return.

[mike.elmes]

Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.:confused:

[Jedi]

I would hope Eyelogic would go in and pull the plug on his software to prevent their name being associated with this tool.

[optigrrl]

ok - I'm confuzed...this guy's dog owns the company (although the dog might be his wife's mom???) and he is certified to give exams in Canada but yet he issues prescriptions? Oh - and this is a charity? No one works for free....

[Dave Nelson]

Can't resist..."You're going to jail...and your little dog too..."

[Ory]

Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.:confused:

You do realize this is the next logical step from what you're doing, right Mike? You have an off-site MD authorize you to create prescriptions. So did he, at least 3 years ago he did. How much longer until you allow a "technician" to do the test under your authority? But then, why does the technician need an optician?

This may become the norm for refractions and I fail to see how it benefits anyone except the MDs who get paid to give out a rubber stamp.

[Chris Ryser]

This is all only a preview of what is in the soon to come future................when the lens corporations dominate through the aquisition of most or all the optical labs......................and the frame corporations own the majority of retail stores.

[mike.elmes]

I suggest you or anyone unfamiliar with this advanced refraction system refresh yourself by reading what they offer...www.eyelogic.com (http://www.eyelogic.com)
Our setup is NEVER going to be compared to what is happening in this thread. Speaking of technicians, many Opthalmalogist's practices use technicians with training to do the refractions. The doctor does recheck at the end to verify results.I have found using the eyelogic system that the consumer LOVES the acuity. After all, that is what they are after....sharp vision. In a typical dispensary, I would say that as many as 10-20% of customers have some issue with the RX....and I'm not talking about the ones that are dealing with base curve, or seg hight issues.It gives us a tool as Opticians to help deliver improved customer satisfaction....That is the next logical step.You do realize this is the next logical step from what you're doing, right Mike? You have an off-site MD authorize you to create prescriptions. So did he, at least 3 years ago he did. How much longer until you allow a "technician" to do the test under your authority? But then, why does the technician need an optician?

This may become the norm for refractions and I fail to see how it benefits anyone except the MDs who get paid to give out a rubber stamp.

[Ory]

I suggest you or anyone unfamiliar with this advanced refraction system refresh yourself by reading what they offer...www.eyelogic.com (http://www.eyelogic.com)
Our setup is NEVER going to be compared to what is happening in this thread. Speaking of technicians, many Opthalmalogist's practices use technicians with training to do the refractions. The doctor does recheck at the end to verify results.I have found using the eyelogic system that the consumer LOVES the acuity. After all, that is what they are after....sharp vision. In a typical dispensary, I would say that as many as 10-20% of customers have some issue with the RX....and I'm not talking about the ones that are dealing with base curve, or seg hight issues.It gives us a tool as Opticians to help deliver improved customer satisfaction....That is the next logical step.


Trust me Mike, I know about the eyelogic system. It is the system that these guys (Great Glasses) use to give out their "free eye test." It is an automated system that is run by untrained technicians. These technicians are "self employed" and are trained with a manual written by Mr. Bergez. Last I heard there was an MD in Hamilton who "authorized" the prescriptions generated but who never actually saw the prescription.

Whether the eyelogic system is the best thing since the retinoscope or not is irrelevant. My point is these people are doing exactly what you are doing to determine a "prescription" and then making glasses.

We already know that throughout much of the US there are no prerequisites for being an optician. Canada almost invariably follows the US eventually. So at some point I forsee the title of optician being unprotected. In Ontario HPRAC recently recommended that eyeglass dispensing be kept regulated but eventually it will likely change.

So what I'd like you to explain to me is how you think this "Great Glasses" situation is not what is going to happen elsewhere? We've already seen it with opticians using the eyelogic system....you find a questionable loophole in the delegation rules and keep using it (despite many being challenged successfully) until eventually the government lets you keep doing it. This company has been doing the same thing since 2001 I believe and only now does it seem they might be stopped.

I truly think that unless a big message is sent now we will see opticians refracting, then we will see non-opticians refracting and dispensing, and I still fail to see how this benefits our healthcare system or our patients.

And one final point. If the eyelogic system is really so much better than a person at refracting, why can I not think of a single OD who is using it? If I could find a way to speed up my exam and do a better job of it I'd be all over that.

[The Critical Eye]

You do realize this is the next logical step from what you're doing, right Mike? You have an off-site MD authorize you to create prescriptions. So did he, at least 3 years ago he did. How much longer until you allow a "technician" to do the test under your authority? But then, why does the technician need an optician?

This may become the norm for refractions and I fail to see how it benefits anyone except the MDs who get paid to give out a rubber stamp.

There are actually a number of benefits to basic sight testing
with eyelogic other than MD's profiting:

- the owner of the dispensary offering this service (as well as staff) will also benefit when a pair of eyeglasses or contact lenses are dispensed after the Rx has been signed off by the MD. This is similar to an OD refracting their patient and then recommending various ophthalmic appliances that are readily available within their own dispensary.. rather than handing the Rx to the patient and letting them go to their dispensary of chose.
- it eliminates time and frustration attempting to get a clients Rx released from the prescribing Dr. who is trying to keep their clients from shopping around.
- it can help reduce redos when receiving scripts from certain Dr's offices that have difficulty on certain days refracting
- ... and more

To my understanding with changes being made to the health act... the next wave of health care could easily weigh heavily towards delegation. There have been groups in the past (ie:The Vision Council of Canada) that have suggested that dispensaries only require one licensed Optician on premise and the rest of the workers could be less than experienced = nonlicensed.

Over the years Ophthalmologists have delegated numerous technical tasks to their staff which includes refraction... and I know of Optometrists who have built their practices on the same type of philosophy.. meaning nonlicensed employees who are delegated to.

Also...those that use the eyelogic system (mike) don't actually create the Rx...... the client along with a software program produces the Rx...Mike is just the licensed operator of the equipment.

As far as I know... talk has it that in certain provinces those that fall under the Health Professions Act may be able to run eyelogic systems. This means that nurses as an example could set up an eyelogic system if they chose to under the direction of an MD.

Sight testing is like going to Mr Lube for an oil change. Once upon a time people took their cars to a full service garage where licensed mechanics were responsible for everything. Now ..when people want to maintain their vehicle on an ongoing basis they look for alternative quick fixes for basics like oil changes. Sight testing in order to maintain continual crisp vision without getting a complete comprehensive Eye Exam is similar.

When associations allowed frame stylists to become part of the optical scene due to poorly written bylaws...the doors were opened to the large corps to change the playing field.

By the way... I am for licensing 100%.

[The Critical Eye]

Whether the eyelogic system is the best thing since the retinoscope or not is irrelevant. My point is these people are doing exactly what you are doing to determine a "prescription" and then making glasses.


Ummm.... Mike is doing things differently.... it sounds like he is
having his results signed off by an MD... which seems to be legal.
Sounds like telemedicine to me.

I truly think that unless a big message is sent now we will see opticians refracting, then we will see non-opticians refracting and dispensing, and I still fail to see how this benefits our healthcare system or our patients.

Many clients seem to be VERY pleased with the visual results produced by this system. They also save $$'s by not paying the escalating non insured price of eye exams. It was only a few short years ago that OD's lobbied in Canada to receive the right to prescribe TPA's. Why can't Opticians add to their skill set as well?
Having Dr in front of ones name doesn't mean that the person
has good refracting skills.


And one final point. If the eyelogic system is really so much better than a person at refracting, why can I not think of a single OD who is using it? If I could find a way to speed up my exam and do a better job of it I'd be all over that.

I think if OD's embraced the eyelogic system it would send a clear message that the equipment works and is reliable. This would only
widen the road towards Opticianry using the same equipment.

Please keep in my mind that we are discussing simple Sight Testing..
.. not exams. The sight test is only one component of a comprehensive eye exam.

[The Critical Eye]

Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.:confused:


Like the Mounties...Revenue Canada always gets their man... and taxes owed. They're probably sitting back and watching him...letting him accrue more and more interest owed on back taxes.... then they'll really sock it to him... and they get more bucks in the end.

[C-10]

like anything else there will aways be someone out there who will abuse the system. Keeping our image high in regards to the public is our job and to put pressure on our governing body's to seek out these individuals and prosecute them

[Ory]

Ummm.... Mike is doing things differently.... it sounds like he is
having his results signed off by an MD... which seems to be legal.
Sounds like telemedicine to me.


Actually, so are these guys. Really, other than the shady business practices and the fact that Mike is a licensed optician, I'd like you to point out what difference there is between Mike's setup and this one.

They use an offsite MD to sign off on prescriptions.
They use the eyelogic system.

My point is not whether opticians should be allowed to stand-alone refract. I don't think they should but we've beaten that horse to death previously. My point is, if telemedicine in this form is allowed, why should a company even have an optician working for them. An MD is not restricted to delegating only to other regulated health professionals, they could delegate to some guy who just walked in off the street. So paying the premium for an optician suddenly becomes pointless because the MD will delegate the act of refracting and the act of dispensing. Therefore, no optician is necessary.

Mike is independant so he won't be delegated out of the picture but many others will. Please explain to me how my logic is flawed.

[The Critical Eye]

Actually, so are these guys. Really, other than the shady business practices and the fact that Mike is a licensed optician, I'd like you to point out what difference there is between Mike's setup and this one.

They use an offsite MD to sign off on prescriptions.
They use the eyelogic system.

The way I read the article it sounds like there is a phantom Dr. signing off for the prescriptions.

What do you mean by "other than" ? In my books... shady business practices and a license are more than enough to differentiate one business operation from another. Mike is working within the guidelines set before him by his association and the laws of the land. Yes... agreed ...they both end up with a Rx to sell glasses to a client. That is the point of the exercise. Mike is not doing anything illegal though. I also have not had the opportunity to actually examine both businesses so it is difficult to give a fair comparison.

My point is not whether opticians should be allowed to stand-alone refract. I don't think they should but we've beaten that horse to death previously. My point is, if telemedicine in this form is allowed, why should a company even have an optician working for them. An MD is not restricted to delegating only to other regulated health professionals, they could delegate to some guy who just walked in off the street. So paying the premium for an optician suddenly becomes pointless because the MD will delegate the act of refracting and the act of dispensing. Therefore, no optician is necessary.

Some people would fully agree with your above statement. If the MD feels that it is in everyones interest to use non licensed people in his/her practice... and stays within the guidelines set out by his assocaition... then so be it. If the public feels they are being well served and are happy...then great.
Not every optician working can be paid a premium for their talents... and if a Dr. decides to use non licensed people to run his business then perhaps those licensed individuals will have to seek self employment or employment with a dispensary that believes in using a license. I surely wouldn't rely on just MD's to be a source of employment for myself. Thank goodness that there is some diversity in the marketplace.


Mike is independant so he won't be delegated out of the picture but many others will. Please explain to me how my logic is flawed.

I don't see your point... take refracting out of the picture and the scenario you are painting has always existed... and licensed opticians are still in existence. There are MD's .. OD's .. and retail dispensaries that do see the advantage to having licenses on premise. I'm not going to list them at this point in time.
I really don't see the logic in your statement or the point you're trying to make. McDonalds uses kids to flip burgers... there is still a need for qualified chefs. Jiffy Lube uses whomever to do oil changes... garages still use licensed mechanics.

I don't see why this has now turned to opticians being employed and paid a premium by MD's ?


...

[Ory]

I'm not trying to disparage Mike's business in any way. What I'm trying to convey is that these people are using the same prescription-generating paradigm. The only difference is that Mike is a licensed optician (and I'm assuming he is the one to run the equipment).

Direct from the eyelogic website, they claim the system shows an absence of operator influence on the results. Meaning anyone can run the system.

How did opticians in some areas of the country get to refract? They just started doing it and waited for the laws/regulations to catch up.

Great Glasses have done the same, they just don't have onsite opticians. Are you aware the college of opticians in Ontario wouldn't even support the college of optometrists' court challenge initially? They thought what Bergez was doing was just fine, until the court ruled against him.

Great Glasses will likely fold when the owner (the real one, not the dog) goes to jail and is bankrupt. But others will start to do the same thing. I'm not saying it will lead to the end of opticianry as a career just as I don't think opticians refracting will be the end of optometry. I just think it will spread the consumer dollar that much thinner and some places (corporate optical?) will ditch both ODs and ROs.

I still don't see how that can be good for any of us.

[The Critical Eye]

I'm not trying to disparage Mike's business in any way. What I'm trying to convey is that these people are using the same prescription-generating paradigm. The only difference is that Mike is a licensed optician (and I'm assuming he is the one to run the equipment).

Holding a valid license to dispense is a big enough difference for me.
I certainly don't go around saying the only difference between myself and an optometrist is that they have a license to practice optometry. A valid license IS what makes the difference.

Direct from the eyelogic website, they claim the system shows an absence of operator influence on the results. Meaning anyone can run the system.

Ummm.... I think what this refers to is that the results are subjective based as opposed to a more objective refraction.
The system relys heavily on the clients responses as opposed to the refractionists ability to properly use a retinoscope... as well as their
own philosophies on what constitutes a suitable/proper Rx

How did opticians in some areas of the country get to refract? They just started doing it and waited for the laws/regulations to catch up.

... and your point is ? Sometimes for there to be change one must take a chance... step out and test the system. This seems to come naturally to man.
Mail order contact lens companies did something similar.

Great Glasses have done the same, they just don't have onsite opticians.

What do you mean by "just don't have onsite opticians" ? This is against the law as things stand right now... that's a pretty big "just".

Are you aware the college of opticians in Ontario wouldn't even support the college of optometrists' court challenge initially? They thought what Bergez was doing was just fine, until the court ruled against him.

I did not realize that the college of Opticians looked the other way in this case. If I was a member of this group... I would have been in their office demanding that they take immediate action and if they chose not to...then I guess they'd need to be reported to the proper government body for not carrying out their responsibilities in the best interests of firstly the public and secondly their membership.

Can you tell me why the college of Optometrists across Canada have looked the other way when OD's rather than have two separate entrances in their business...(one to the exam room...and one to the dispensary) have instead made a common passage from the exam room into the dispensary. I believe this is against the Optometrists bylaws .. but is allowed so as to try and keep the client in the office. Very good marketing technique.

It's a shame that by the sounds of it... colleges on both sides are into political games.


Great Glasses will likely fold when the owner (the real one, not the dog) goes to jail and is bankrupt. But others will start to do the same thing. I'm not saying it will lead to the end of opticianry as a career just as I don't think opticians refracting will be the end of optometry. I just think it will spread the consumer dollar that much thinner and some places (corporate optical?) will ditch both ODs and ROs.

I still don't see how that can be good for any of us.

Good or not... it's the way of the land. Outlawing something doesn't stop people from still carrying out an illegal act.. though it will deter some. Just look at prohibition.
I think what you are actually saying is that there will be increased competition. That's what happens in a capitalistic country. Viva the almight dollar and so called free enterprise.

Unfortunately it seems that in the modern world... when it comes to business ethics... there aren't any.

..

[Ory]

Holding a valid license to dispense is a big enough difference for me.
I certainly don't go around saying the only difference between myself and an optometrist is that they have a license to practice optometry. A valid license IS what makes the difference.


Are you deliberately misreading what I've written? I'll restate what I said in different terms: The way in which these two opticals are creating a prescription is the same - the eyelogic system.


Direct from the eyelogic website, they claim the system shows an absence of operator influence on the results. Meaning anyone can run the system.

Ummm.... I think what this refers to is that the results are subjective based as opposed to a more objective refraction.
The system relys heavily on the clients responses as opposed to the refractionists ability to properly use a retinoscope... as well as their
own philosophies on what constitutes a suitable/proper Rx



Actually, shows an absence of operator influence on the results is a direct quote from their site. Their site is really annoying, using images instead of text so I'm not going to quote any more but they specifically say untrained personnel can learn the system in a couple of hours. They are not talking about the patient, they are specifically saying it doesn't matter if a trained monkey runs the system, you will get the same result.


How did opticians in some areas of the country get to refract? They just started doing it and waited for the laws/regulations to catch up.

... and your point is ? Sometimes for there to be change one must take a chance... step out and test the system. This seems to come naturally to man.
Mail order contact lens companies did something similar.

Great Glasses have done the same, they just don't have onsite opticians.

What do you mean by "just don't have onsite opticians" ? This is against the law as things stand right now... that's a pretty big "just".



No. Opticians who started refracting (and the MDs working with them)took a very liberal view of the powers of delegation. They argued that the MD did not have to be on-site. This is the same, just also delegating the ability to dispense.

Read Justice Harris' decision (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html)) you'll see that they had an MD. You'll also see a few bits where the college of opticians argue against the optometrists' right to bring this to court (as the college of opticians had been ignoring the situation and there was no other recourse.)

I did not realize that the college of Opticians looked the other way in this case. If I was a member of this group... I would have been in their office demanding that they take immediate action and if they chose not to...then I guess they'd need to be reported to the proper government body for not carrying out their responsibilities in the best interests of firstly the public and secondly their membership.


Please correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that some of the western colleges of opticianry were advocating their members refract using the eyelogic system while the legality of it was being questioned. This does not seem to be "protecting the public" as the college is supposed to do but instead "advancing the profession" which associations are supposed to do.

Can you tell me why the college of Optometrists across Canada have looked the other way when OD's rather than have two separate entrances in their business...(one to the exam room...and one to the dispensary) have instead made a common passage from the exam room into the dispensary. I believe this is against the Optometrists bylaws .. but is allowed so as to try and keep the client in the office. Very good marketing technique.


Ummm...we have no such restriction in Ontario. You may be thinking of how optometrists and opticians are allowed to associate. An optician is not allowed to work for an optometrist and there must be a separate entrance for an optician-run dispensary.

Anyway, this thread is just getting redundant. I can tell I won't convince you, which is how any argument of opinion goes. When you start seeing opticals full of highschool dropouts pushing buttons and dispensing glasses under the "supervision" of an offsite MD maybe you'll remember this thread!
:cheers:

[The Critical Eye]

Are you deliberately misreading what I've written? I'll restate what I said in different terms: The way in which these two opticals are creating a prescription is the same - the eyelogic system.


Oh... I see what you're saying... I did misinterpret.


[/QUOTE]
Actually, shows an absence of operator influence on the results is a direct quote from their site. Their site is really annoying, using images instead of text so I'm not going to quote any more but they specifically say untrained personnel can learn the system in a couple of hours. They are not talking about the patient, they are specifically saying it doesn't matter if a trained monkey runs the system, you will get the same result.
[/QUOTE]

I haven't been to the eyelogic website in quite sometime. I'll have to go have a look.
I know how frustrating it can be having a machine seemingly replace ones years of training and talent. It can't... IMO.... I guess it's up to Optometry to convince Mr and Mrs Joe Public that they are not being served in their best interests. I think the majority of the public who have had eyeglasses made from an Eyelogic Rx have been exceptionaly pleased with their visual results. This has nothing to do about eye disease... just refraction.


[/QUOTE]
No. Opticians who started refracting (and the MDs working with them)took a very liberal view of the powers of delegation. They argued that the MD did not have to be on-site. This is the same, just also delegating the ability to dispense.
[/QUOTE]

I believe I did state in a previous post within this thread that delegation was
a word used liberally under the proposed health act. Let them delegate away. If that's what the public thinks they want ...good luck to them.

[/QUOTE]
Read Jusice Harris' decision (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html)) you'll see that they had an MD. You'll also see a few bits where the college of opticians argue against the optometrists' right to bring this to court (as the college of opticians had been ignoring the situation and there was no other recourse.)
[/QUOTE]

Very interesting. There's no doubt that the college seems to be self serving
at times.



[/QUOTE]
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that some of the western colleges of opticianry were advocating their members refract using the eyelogic system while the legality of it was being questioned. This does not seem to be "protecting the public" as the college is supposed to do but instead "advancing the profession" which associations are supposed to do.
[/QUOTE]

There are still associations in the west.... they have not separated into colleges and associations yet.
Hmmm... the act of providing a simple sight test for an individual is not harmful to the public. It may actually be helpful in several ways. The public does need protecting..from themselves.... because they are and will get what they want. Looks like whomever was in charge of educating the public about proper eye healthcare... fell a bit short of their goal.


[/QUOTE]
Ummm...we have no such restriction in Ontario. You may be thinking of how optometrists and opticians are allowed to associate. An optician is not allowed to work for an optometrist and there must be a separate entrance for an optician-run dispensary.
[/QUOTE]

You're right... the cobwebs are clearing... it's been so long since I've thought about this.

[/QUOTE]
Anyway, this thread is just getting redundant. I can tell I won't convince you, which is how any argument of opinion goes. When you start seeing opticals full of highschool dropouts pushing buttons and dispensing glasses under the "supervision" of an offsite MD maybe you'll remember this thread!
:cheers:[/QUOTE]

Are you sure you won't convince me ? I can find fault with using an eyelogic system as opposed to conventional means. There are pros and cons as in most things. At present though I tihnk the pros outweigh the cons... unless someone can convince me otherwise. I have not heard of any cases where the public was harmed by the use of Eyelogic.
If the system fails to work.. then the public can vote with their wallets and feet. If the public in general truly wants and accepts or lacks the desire to seek out better venues for obtaining eyewear... then so be it.

I appreciate what you're saying here Ory.. however the degradation of this industry started way before these issues of delegation and sight testing
ever came about. Do I like it what's been going on ? :angry:
I saw the buses being built years ago to transport the new wave of ophthalmic providers to their respective businesses.

[Ory]

My personal opinion is there should be no refraction without an eye health examination. The average adult will not have significant refractive changes over the 1-2 year space between eye exams (with the exception of add powers.) Even over the 5 years on many waivers there should be little change. If the change is significant in this timeframe there is likely a reason for it that will not be picked up using the eyelogic system. Diabetic refractive change, macular edema, central serous chorioretinopathy, and nuclear sclerotic cataract are all possibilities here. All of these conditions can cause a refractive change but still allow the patient to see 20/20 with the right correction.


I have not heard of any cases where the public was harmed by the use of Eyelogic.



Sure. I've also never harmed anyone by using a retinoscope. It is a diagnostic test with zero risk of harm. It is the omission of subsequent testing that creates a risk of harm. An educated judge or an educated ophthalmic professional knows an optician will not be doing this testing, but the public doesn't. I've been called optician, optometrist, ophthalmologist, ofmalogost, oculist, ocularist, op-whatever. The average consumer doesn't understand the difference. They also don't get it when there is not even an optician on site, which is why this place has been around for so long and is making so much.

This is all my opinion but by allowing independent refractions we are taking a step backwards in our healthcare system. There is no lack of access to comprehensive eyecare in Canada, and hence no need for it. As I said before though, this has been dissected over and over in other threads.

[Dave Nelson]

Do you really think we have given no consideration to unusual refractive changes? We realize what constitutes an unusual refractive shift and make appropriate referrals. We are also aware of disorders which may present with no reduction in acuities, and with consultation with ophthalmology, set protocols to mitigate any risk. We also do indeed require any one sitting in for a sight test to have had an eye examination within a reasonable period, and advise eye examinations according to the American Academy of Ophthalmolgy, which are endorsed by the Canadian Ophthalmological society. Anyone sitting for a sight test is advised very clearly what the difference is.
"comparing an eye exam to a sight test is like comparing a thorough physical at the doctor's office with a blood pressure test at the local pharmacy." B.C. Association of Optometrists, public education brochure.

[Ory]

Who is not eligible for a sight test?
Under the existing COBC guidelines, those who are ineligible for sight testing by an optician, who instead will be referred for an eye health exam by an optometrist or ophthalmologist, are individuals who:
·Are over the age of 65, since the leading causes of visual impairment are age-related.
·Have specific illnesses and health condition such as diabetes, macular degeneration, cataracts and cardiovascular disease, unless already under a doctor’s supervision for their condition.
·Have high risk health conditions for retinal detachment such as hypertension, recent trauma to the head, recent pain in the eye, or people with lens prescriptions of greater than + 8.00 diopters or –10.00 diopters.
·Have specific visual symptoms such as recent onset of floaters, haloes, distortion, double vision, flashing lights etc.
·Have a history of any eye surgery.
In addition, individuals who meet the screening criteria will be referred to an ophthalmologist or optometrist for an eye health exam if after receiving a sight test they cannot achieve 20/30 or better vision or if their vision shows a change of more than plus or minus 1 dioptre in a six month period or total change of more than 2 dioptres from the original prescription.
These screening criteria, which are currently being followed by opticians, along with a focus on the effective training and communication of opticians, and the regulation by the College, will ensure that sight testing is conducted in B.C. in a safe and effective manner that benefits all B.C. residents.


All the conditions I listed above would pass these requirements and have a good chance of being asymptomatic otherwise.

I'm also worried to see no mention of children being unsuitable. Is this an oversight or a recent change?

[Ory]

Dave,

Getting back into the spirit of this original debate, could you please explain the following to me:

1. The COBC required opticians to undergo a course in automated refraction.

2. Eyelogic systems claims their product is independant of operator bias

Therefore, why is this education necessary? Why not just allow anybody to perform the refraction? My understanding is (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that most/all opticians are using the eyelogic system. None are manually refracting. What is being taught, when not to push the big red button? I'm not trying to belittle your courses but I really don't see what training is necessary if the machine is self contained and the patient has filled out the forms satisfactorily.

[Dave Nelson]

First concern, children under 19 are excluded from the sight test. Second, yes you are correct, there are conditions not detected by a sight test: thats why it is not an eye examination! Those conditions are often, but not always, detected by an eye examination, not by a refraction. In the same manner, the previously mentioned blood pressure test is considered an essential part of a routine physical examination, but can also be conducted in isolation. It is not intended to replace a physical examination, and there are any number of ailments that same physical exam could disclose, that the blood pressure measurement will not. I could list a number of diseases that will go undetected by the blood pressure measurement, but it would be an exercise in futility: the machine is only intended to measure blood pressure. At the same time, a physician conducting a blood pressure measuement during a routine physical examination also has a duty to perform other tests which may disclose the presence of disease: that duty does not extend to the blood pressure machine or the pharmacist who may assist a client in obtaining the reading. Optometrists are bound by a duty of care to provide a refraction and eye examination, and, unless clinically justified, cannot seperate the two. Opticians can, providing that they advise the client of the limitations, in the same manner the pharmacist can assist in the blood pressure measurement. In the manner of the course in automated sight-testing, even the Eyelogic people have a course they have always given to opticians who use the system. It is geared towards people who have an understanding of the principles involved, and relies on a refracting physician to interpret the data and confidence limits the eyelogic system prints after a subjective refraction. As you may be aware, the proposed regulation in B.C. allows the optician to perform the test independantly, and thus we felt more training would be appropriate. We also responded to ophthalmology in expanding the training in referral criteria, and the course emphasizes this. We continue to work with ophthalmology to insure any concerns are met, and have several times, approached optometry to seek input: the result has always been the same: input could be miscontrued as consent so optometric input has been limited to an all out effort to stop opticians from sight testing in any manner. Some optometrists have approached "under the table" but fear universal condemnation from their colleagues. Sales reps quiver with fear, lest they be seen, even slightly, favouring one group over the other.

[Ory]

Thanks for that reply Dave. I still don't have answers to a couple of questions:

1. What is being taught in these refracting courses? NAIT is the only western college I could find that lists the refracting course online, and they give a minimal description of what it entails. (Also: Is this course a distance ed course?)

2. Why is this training necessary if the system is self contained? I've read your college's bylaw amendment that has the new forms. They seem pretty thorough for ruling out most people who shouldn't have this test done. What value-added service is there in having a trained optician running a self-contained machine? Going back to your example, why have a pharmacist help with the BP measurement instead of the cashier?

Regarding the eyelogic system:
http://www.eyelogic.com/software.htm
Look at point number 2 - the machine is designed for untrained personnel who can learn to use it in a few hours.

I will admit I've never used an eyelogic system, but does it not give you a refraction and a confidence level? Would an optician or ophthalmic technician not already be able to look at this, know what it means, and make glasses from it? I'm still trying to figure out what the additional training is for.

Again, the next step I forsee in this process is non-licensed individuals "refracting" and dispensing. I know you may argue they are not allowed, but here's a scenario:

Customer sits in front of eyelogic system and results are generated. Results faxed overseas. Customer picks out glasses. Frame info faxed overseas. 2 weeks later customer gets new specs in the mail. Technically no laws have been broken - no diagnosis was given and the glasses were made in a different jurisdiction.

This would be the first step. As the opticians who are sight testing have shown there is no risk of harm so eventually someone (likely with money) gets the ear of a politician. Eyeglass dispensing becomes deregulated.

Sure, maybe its a little far fetched but then so is this situation in Hamilton...and it is for real.

Edit: After further looking on the COBC website I eventually found reference to the under 19 group not being eligible. You may want to fix the info that is most easily accessible to the public.
http://www.cobc.ca/sighttesting.htm#5

[mike.elmes]

Ory, you can not debate the eyelogic system's ability to provide the consumer with an alternative means to provide an accurate refraction....we're not talking medical exam here. Just as they can have the glasses duplicated for ten years in a row if they decide.We guarantee satisfaction, whether the prescription is written by you or any other doc, right or wrong. It is my company the bears the cost of the redo....and a chance to fix the problem if they can't see with a new RX.

I bought an eyelogic system to expand my scope of practice. I intend on using it to provide a service to my customers at no cost to them. I invested the money in part because a doctor or two in our city refract very poorly and my redo's were getting out of hand.The consumer will ultimately decide...all I can say is the results are enthusiastically happy customers. We do screen everyone and refer many to the optometrist down the hall....

[Ory]

Actually Mike I was not questioning the accuracy of the eyelogic system. What got this post spinning out of control was my assertion that it will be non-opticians running the eyelogic system soon.

I don't get how opticians can start refracting when the laws are questionable, and then not expect the same thing to happen with untrained staff. What possible benefit is there to having an optician run the automated machine? It will still give the same result. (Yes, I know there is a benefit in having an optician make/dispense the glasses, but that's not my point.)

On a slightly different topic: Mike, you said you use the system free of charge. I know AB is different but the proposed BC regulations will require opticians to give out a written prescription after performing a sight test. I wonder how long it will take the online shoppers in BC to figure out they can avoid the "costly" eye exam too! As discussed in other threads, perhaps you should start charging for all your services, including the sight test.

[890890]

Safilo's also after them because they're selling Safilo brands but don't have an accout with them nor do they have any records as to where these Armani frames came from....


Those brands or Salfilo's whatsoever are easy to obtain on internet in low price nowadays. How come they need an account to sell it? does internet brand seller have account?

[Ory]

Those brands or Salfilo's whatsoever are easy to obtain on internet in low price nowadays. How come they need an account to sell it? does internet brand seller have account?

1. They are using safilo brands in their advertising. These brands and their logos are copyrighted and they do not have permission

2. They are selling frames that can only be purchased from Safilo. They did not purchase them from Safilo. Safilo wants to know where they came from and are suspicious these are counterfeit.

And yes, I would assume any online retailer selling brand name frames acquired them legally or the company licensed to produce those frames will bring legal action against them.

[mike.elmes]

Can anyone find a follow up to this?? Surely this fiasco isn't still happening.

[Ory]

Nothing has been updated. The college of opticians has it listed on their site as all set to go sometime in August (link (http://www.coptont.org/current/current.html))

I've sent an email to the ontario association of optometrists so I will let you know when/if I hear anything.

[LKahn]

If frames or anything else for that matter is counterfeit, contact the US Customs Department. You can find them on the web. They will pay a reward. They also destroy the goods.

[Ory]

The College was informed yesterday that the matter against Great Glasses is being heard today and tomorrow in Hamilton at the John Sopinka Courthouse. The address and telephone number of the Courthouse is:
45 Main Street East
Hamilton, ON.
905-645-5252
Please ask for the Ontario Superior Court


We'll see what happens....

[samuelson]

thanks for the site.

[mike.elmes]

A couple more updates from the Hamilton Spectator.

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=1014656316146&c=Article&cid=1161814214431

and...

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=1014656316146&c=Article&cid=1161899444694


Still no conclusion though...

[mike.elmes]

http://www.hamiltonspectator.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=hamilton/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1162335013289&call_pageid=1020420665036&col=1014656511815

His empire is in big trouble, and may crumble.

[Ory]

I wonder if Steve Buist (the author) was burned by them, is related to an optical professional, or just loves the "My dog signs the cheques" defence.:hammer:

[Bill West]

Looks to me like MIke is being used as a test for this system. I think MD's and OD's will be using something like this in the near future. People trust computers and they will even more one day. Don't fight it just learn to survive.:cheers:

[Oedema]

Wow, this guy really is out to lunch... So now we can all just make ourselves and our licenses into machines...:hammer:

From another article:
The Eyelogic machine was invented by Alberta ophthalmologist Dr. Alan Dyer.
Bergez said that because the machine was invented by a doctor, the printouts it generates can be
considered proper prescriptions from a physician.
By extension, Bergez argued, Dyer has delegated his authority to prescribe to the people at Great
Glasses who use the Eyelogic machines.
"He is allowed to reproduce himself in the form of a computer program," Bergez told Ontario Superior
Court Justice David Crane.

[Dave Nelson]

Since we are so short of ophthalmologists here in B.C. ant technology that allows them to reproduce themselves would be welcome. We have the eyelogic here, but I can't find the damn button that would make a replical of Dr Dyer appear.
Wow. Dogs that can sign cheques, ophthalmologists that can reproduce themselves... you guys in Ontario are way ahead of us technologically.
At the very least, your'e giving B.C. a run for the money as the wack-job capital of Canada.;)

[Oedema]

Since we are so short of ophthalmologists here in B.C. ant technology that allows them to reproduce themselves would be welcome. We have the eyelogic here, but I can't find the damn button that would make a replical of Dr Dyer appear.
Wow. Dogs that can sign cheques, ophthalmologists that can reproduce themselves... you guys in Ontario are way ahead of us technologically.
At the very least, your'e giving B.C. a run for the money as the wack-job capital of Canada.;)

I can't wait to buy myself one of those instruments that some cataract surgeon make himself into! :bbg: Imagine how fast that surgical waitlist would disappear!

[Leslie]

Does anyone know any of the companies that are supplying Great Glasses?

[Gary]

..

[Gary]

]]

[Leslie]

Ali Khan has put together a group for Ontario Opticians called The Society of Eye Care Professionals. This group plans to tackle the new delegation laws, illegal dispensing, and the mutual reconition act to allow a student enrolled at any opticianry school in Canada to practice in Ontario. This group sounds like they will do more than the College or the Association. I'm sure if you call this number 905-731-6022 they would be happy to send you a registration form.

[mike.elmes]

Is this group trying to complete what the Canadian Opticians Association started??

[Truth]

--

[Golfnorth]

Leslie, THE REAL THREAT to Ontario opticians AND OD’s is this “society of eye care professionals that’s popped up in the last few days. This “society” is run by Mr. Khan who if you didn’t know also runs the “Academy” of ophthalmic education and also runs the “Khan group” and he was the chairman of the former board of ophthalmic dispenser until 1985 and was instrumental in implementing the mandatory continuing education for opticians (education is a good thing, but follow the path that this has taken him).

To elaborate, he’s a huge fundraiser for the PC party in Ontario, which may not seem like much to anyone but follow the progress of his career for a moment. Back in the ‘80’s he was the chairman of the board, which gave him endless opportunity to “rub” elbows with the politico’s at Queens Parks (remember the “big blue machine” that ran Ontario until 1985). Like the PC party, he fell off the map for a few years until 1995 (same year as the Mike Harris “common sense revolution” came into power) when his “Khan Group” started offering educational courses to opticians across the province.

Since then his “Khan Group/Academy” has offered continuing education to opticians, his only competition, the provincial & national Associations. I say associations because the “Academy” is now providing continuing education to OD’s as well.

He’s also had a beef with the College of Opticians of Ontario for some time now, look back at the newsletter that was published earlier this year. If you’ve ever attended an “Academy” education day you’re probably on the mailing list and would have received this newsletter in the mail, newsletter was more of a slag on the College and not so much a newsletter.

But wait, it gets better. If you go on the Ontario Association of Optometrist website (www.optom.on.ca) (http://www.optom.on.ca%29), it’s hard to find it, but his son Farooq is a director on the OD’s association. Wait there’s more, now go to the College of Opticians of Ontario website (www.coptont.org) (http://www.coptont.org%29), and look up the current council members, his other son Fazal is on the College council. So dad is criticizing decisions that the his own son had a hand in crafting(?) as well as competing again his other sons organization for continuing education dollars. Continuing education that was mandated by the board, when you-know-who was the chairman.

Here comes the punch-in-the-mouth. Go to the “Academy” website (www.aoece.com (http://www.aoece.com)) and look up the faculty, both of his sons are board members, never mind that the entire board of the “Academy” is completely family, no that’s not a concern at all.

So lets recap for a moment, you have the former chairman of the board who implemented continuing education 20 years ago now running a business who’s sole business is providing continuing education and his only competitors are the OD’s association (which his son serves on as a director) and the opticians association. Also, he’s blatantly criticized the College infinitely about everything under the sun (a College which has one of his sons on the board) and now he’s started a “Society of Eye Care Professionals” which will be the “voice of opticians in Ontario.”

Notice the words “Eye Care Professionals.” Not optician, “Eye Care Professionals.” My friends this is what its come down too. Within a few years you will see the “society” attempt to expand its memberships base to include not only opticians, but OD’s as well. This is something that not a lot of us have been paying attention to, but we should. Why, because this is his endgame. A “society” that represents opticians & OD’s, not so much an association or College, but an amalgamation of the two. How you ask, look to our neighbours to the south for the answer. In the US, opticians and OD’s are regulated for the most through professional trade society/boards that have no status as health care providers but are on par with trades people for the most part.

You’ll see in a few years if/when the next PC party governs Ontario that the issue of deregulation will come forward yet again, same as it has for the past 20 years. Its no coincidence that deregulation rears its ugly head every time the PC party is in power. THINK ABOUT IT. Who’s whispering this idea of deregulation in the politicians ear? The difference this time is that there will be a new player on the field claiming to be the unified “voice of opticians & OD’s,” a player who will make the proposal that his organization is not only a feasible “society” but also a capable regulator of OD’s and opticians. The catch, neither one of the professions OD’s or opticians will be seen as health care providers, but will be looked upon as trades people governs, regulated and controlled by their “society” a “society” solely owned & operated by one man, his sons and their cronies.

The worst part of this whole thing is that the funds the “society” will use to promote deregulate will come from “society” membership fees paid by ill-informed members of both professions.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. - Socrates
So you believe that the "Scoiety of Eyecare Professionals" will want deregulation? Why would that be so? Wouldn't Ali Khan want to keep things regulated so he could continue to offer his continuing educational seminars?

Regards,
Golfnorth

[Truth]

Doesn't matter if the professions are deregulated continuing education is a cornerstone of any profession, regualted or not. Accountant, mechanics, councillors, teachers, most professions have continuing education in some form or another.

The difference is that the "society" will benefit twofold, one from the education dollars, two from the membership fees.

Go to any of the US society/regulator websites, they provide their own education to their own members. You think that's a good thing? The "society" could/will charge whatever it wants for education, nevermind membership fees. The "society" could dictate how much education you need and how much you'll have to pay for it. And where would the money go? Back to the professions? I don't think so, it would go to the board of directors and the CEO's of the "society."

Worst part, there wouldn't be any legislation governing the "society." At least now if the College does something wrong you can complain to the Ministry of Health that the College has violated its bylaws, policies, regulations etc. What recourse will you have if the "society" or its board does something wrong.

Cheers

[Ory]

Just received a phone call; Bruce Bergez was convicted. There will be a large article in the Hamilton Spectator tomorrow with all the details.

[DrummerBoy]

Yeah, I got that phone call too.

He was fined $1,000,000
He has to post a record of all his illegal activities in all his stores
No eyelogic in any of his stores

He must comply with the RHPA, if he doesn't it is a $50 000 a day fine. All stores must have licensed professionals on duty to be open. If anyone has a store in there area they should report it.

WHOOOOHOOOOOO

[Excalibur]

[87] On the evidence of the Record, I make the following findings:
· That the three respondent Great Glasses stores have had average gross revenues from the time of the subject Judgment to the present of not less than $190,000.00 per month, ($2.28 million per year). The gross revenues may well have been significantly greater – see Beaudry affidavit, para. 15.
· That approximately 80 per cent of the gross revenue is earned from customers who are dispensed eyewear without having a prescription.
· That the business volume of Great Glasses at the respondent stores has been at an annual increase and that the profit margin is at a minimum 50 per cent of gross revenue.
· That the calculation of the impugned income is not less than $900,000.00 per year ($2,280,000 x 80% x 50%) times three and a half years from the Judgment to the present, yielding approximately a sum of $3,000,000.00 as rounded. In addition, Mr. Bergez has now sold 14 franchises. The building of the franchise business has been over a period of time between the time of the Judgment to the present. I accept the evidence that in addition to a very substantial purchase fee of a franchise, the franchisee pays to the franchisor, whom I have found to be Mr. Bergez, seven percent of gross sales. I therefore impute a relatively modest gross revenue of each franchise store at $50,000.00 per month or $600,000.00 per year, yielding an annual royalty fee at seven percent, to be $42,000.00 per year. Given the progressive building of the franchise empire, I assess to Mr. Bergez, royalty income for one year and accordingly I make the sum to be ($42,000.00 x 14 x one year) ≠ $600,000.00 as rounded.
[88] I conclude that the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Bergez, have obtained through unlawful business activity of the enterprises known as Great Glasses, not less than $3,600,000.00 in revenues. It is appropriate and a just result that they be required to disgorge the profit by way of a fine. Generous allowance is made for the costs of doing business, including income tax.
[89] I impose a fine of $1,000,000.00. This Court orders the respondent, Bruce Bergez, to pay the aforesaid fine of $1,000,000.00, by cheque or other financial instrument, payable to the Minister of Finance of Ontario by deposit with the Registrar of the Superior Court, located on the first floor of the John Sopinka Court House, within 14 days of the date of this judgment.
[90] Following the 14 days, should the fine not be paid as above ordered, enforcement will be by the Attorney General of Ontario pursuant to s. 143(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 C.43, as against each respondent, jointly and severally, including warrants for committal to each of Bruce Bergez and Joanne Marie Bergez. The Registrar will deliver a copy of this Order to the Director of Provincial Offences Act and Strategic Planning, 2nd Floor, 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.
[91] I further order that the corporations SHS Optical Ltd., Dundurn Optical Ltd. and Plains Road Optical Ltd. and Ontario Optical Development Corp., all corporations controlled by the named respondents Bergez, are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforesaid fine.
[92] The respondents, Bruce Bergez and Joanne Marie Bergez, will jointly and severally be accountable to this Court to purge their contempt by forthwith doing the following:
(i) The respondents shall permanently post a prominent sign in all of their stores, in a form to be approved by the Court, stating that customers must have a prescription from an optometrist or a physician before Great Glasses can dispense subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eyeglasses and that these items cannot be dispensed on the basis of the Eyelogic test performed by Great Glasses.
(ii) The respondents shall run a prominent notice in the Hamilton Spectator once a week for four weeks, in a form to be approved by the Court, to the same effect as the notice requested in subparagraph (i) above.
(iii) The respondents shall permanently refrain from advertising in any form to the public in such a way as to lead the public to believe that subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eyeglasses can be dispensed to them on the basis of the eye tests performed by Great Glasses and all Great Glasses advertisements shall contain a specific prominent statement that glasses cannot be dispensed on the basis of the Great Glasses eye tests and that customers must have a prescription from an optometrist or a physician.
(iv) The respondents shall give to any person who has purchased a Great Glasses franchise or who inquires about purchasing such a franchise:
(a) a true copy of the Judgment; and
(b) a true copy of the contempt order issued by this Court.
(v) The respondents shall insert into all their franchise agreements a specific term that the franchise operation must be operated in strict accordance with the Judgment.
(vi) The respondent, Bruce Bergez, shall personally ensure through the institution of appropriate business practices, mode of business and instructions, that dispensing of subnormal eyewear is in accordance with a prescription written by an optometrist or qualified physician specifically for that patient and for the time of dispensing.
[93] The applicant is granted leave to motion this Court for such Orders as may be required to carry out these mandatory Orders.
[94] In order that the respondents comply with the Judgment, going forward there will be a fine of $50,000.00 for each and every day that the respondents are not in compliance with the Judgment.

[Ory]

Full text of the decision can be found here:

link (http://www.collegeoptom.on.ca/College%20of%20Optometrists%20v.%20Great%20Glasses%20et%20al .%20-%20Reasons1.pdf)

[ConcernedPatient]

Wow, all I can say is that this is about time.

As a past employee (not independant contractor) of this company, it is finally nice to see this case come to a close.

I truly hope deep down, that they close this clown down for good.

It has been a while since I worked for this company, but man you may want to re-think who you all get your frames from.

Here is a letter I sent to lens suppliers last week
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Centennial Optical and Optik K and R,


Seeing you are a supplier to Great Glasses stores, you may not be aware that they operating illegally at this moment.

None of their locations have a Registered Optician in their stores, and the so called Optician who gives a blanket delegation has had his license suspended.

Therefore in reality you should not be supplying optical goods to these locations period.

I am writing as a concerned patient, and believe me, if something goes wrong with my glasses or contacts, I know who to contact.

Read article below from College of Opticians Website

Interim Suspension

On November 16, 2006, the certificate of registration of Bruce Bergez R.O. C-1192 was suspended by order of the Executive Committee under section 37 of the Health Professions Procedural Code. The suspension is effective immediately and will remain in place until the matter of the allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Bergez are disposed of by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College.



I think that if anyone falls victim to health issues relating the these people still operating, a class action law suit should arise, and consist of the colleges and suppliers for allowing them to continue to stay in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry I did not join this forum sooner, but the time has come, this joker will not comply with this judgement, they will continue their eye testing as always (if he doesnt skip the country)


Suppliers for lenses include:
Global Eyewear, Centennial Optical, I'N'Vision, Imperial

Frame Suppliers Include:
Vista Eye Wear
Global Eyewear (Armani, Nike etc)
Wei Mei (Armani)
Keideso
On Guard Safety
Vision O
Gogetr
Fashion Excellence

I bet tomorrow you will find every single store open, and I would suggest finding a way to close them down, they will continue testing eyes, guarnteed

Best part of this is, I just saw this jackass driving a new Audi SUV the other day, cannot believe people have paid for his lifestyles.

Hope this was an interesting read.

Concerned Patient
aka Former Employee....Bruce, your going down Buster:confused:

[Gary]

[[

[ConcernedPatient]

they hire off the street, which doesnt say much for me, but just the same. he told us no need to worry about WSIB, but time will tell, just a matter of time before the doors close for good. funny thing, the eye testing training is a joke, anyone can push buttons, lots of redos over this system, eye testing will continue, he likes the attention, needs to go to jail, if memory serves me right at a "round table" meeting he called it derugulated health care in ontario, whatever that means, i guess he thinks eye tests are deregulated or something......shut them down

[Gary]

]]

[ConcernedPatient]

Optik K and R emailed me back saying they were in the process of giving them until Dec 1, to prove they have someone on premise to dispense and need to prove who it is, and provide their name and license, in the email they said they would send each store the letter. No manual, they use a an employee as a mobile trainer. They lost Cooper Vision and Ciba Vision as suppliers this past summer, doesnt like to pay his bills, cant even sell acuvue (johnson and johnson products)

[Gary]

[[

[RuleTheWorld]

:rolleyes:

[Golfnorth]

:rolleyes: Do you really think this case has come to a close?
Do you really think that that their doors will be closed?
Perhaps you should spend less time writing to suppliers and following the "jack ***" around in his SUV, and more time in the unemployment line....
Your last post was not very nice. The poster in question appears to be a professional concerned optician. He/she was not following him around....it was just a chance meeting.

[Excalibur]

although the defendant has a right to appeal, the likelihood that the two judge's decisions (2003 and 2006) will be overturned are next to zero. This whole charade is coming to close -- and not soon enough. :bbg:

[Gary]

[[

[ConcernedPatient]

i just heard from a friend of mine who still works with these people, that apparently everything is business as normal due to an appeal, they think the order is stayed.

[ConcernedPatient]

i have tried the unemployment route, not eligable, they have every avenue covered in this illegal operation

[ConcernedPatient]

he should teach marketing, he is/was a very smart man, brilliant to speak with, amazing how big of a hole was dug though, sad sad sad, great life lesson

[Gary]

[[

[Excalibur]

he should look at hiring opticians, but how sound is his business model? As part of the justice's findings it was determined that a majority of orders 'dispensed' at these locations was without a valid prescription.

[Gary]

[[

[RuleTheWorld]

So what are you? The "nice police"?

[mike.elmes]

So what are you? The "nice police"? You are definitely not the "smart police" or you would realize that the concerned patient is obviously not and optician..... Post comments that are constructive and not aggressive or your life here will be short.:finger:

[DrummerBoy]

What does it matter if he is an Optician or not. He seems to know the difference between whats right and wrong.

I paid a visit to my local Great Glasses and found that it was still open. When I questioned them they said that they were going to let customers pick out frames but none would be made. I also asked if they were going to dispense the glasses that were already done and they said they were allowed to. A friend that works in Hamilton said that he was still able to get an eye test from the King St. store. I have tried calling the College of Opticians to see who I could report this to but I wasn't able to speak with anyone. Could anyone tell the appropriate people to contact about this????

[Gary]

]]

[DrummerBoy]

I can understand why young opticians question the morality of college of opticians and the ontario opticians ***. 17 stores for five years without any licenses and not one charge. The association has never mentioned what is going on in any newsletter or on the website. And now the two of them are going to give us delegation. This will cost jobs. Do you think that the big chains that have to have two or three opticians on at peak times.
will cut back to only one and have them delegate all dispensing.
The vision council of canada has been trying for this for years.
As an owner of many stores I can benefit from this legislation and as an optician I can talk from both sides. This delegation legislation is plain wrong.
great glasses has been one of the worst things to happen to this industry in all the years I have been in it, and that is very long time.
The failure of the colleges to protect the public is terrible. We all should be asking why.

[Gary]

]]

[Excalibur]

Great Glasses continues to advertise sight-testing on their web site at www.greatglasses.ca

The judgement last Friday stated that contravening the court's orders were subject to a 50k/day fine. That being the case, the total fine to day would now be $250k. Ouch. :eek:

If Bergez wishes to appeal the decisions, does he honestly think the Supreme Court of Canada will hear his case? Fat chance.

[DrummerBoy]

A friend of mine got a hold of this. It was a letter that was sent to all Great Glasses employees after the article about the judgement was printed in the Spectator on Tuesday.

Hi Everyone

Great Glasses has hit a major bump in the road to offering the public a free eye test. The Optometrists in their attempt to take more money from the public have effectively stopped us from administering our free eye test via our eyelogic, for the time being. In an attempt to meet all of Justice Crane's requirements, we have decided to no longer use the eyelogic. (On a side note this system is used legally in several provinces & countries). Obviously it is a huge threat to the Optometrists, they charge the public between $75 to $100 for what we offer for free. We still intend to offer a free eye test, however we will not do it in house. We can still dispense glasses legally as we have Licensed Optician on staff, a few actually.

We will now send people to Optometrists to get their eye exam. However, first we will pick out the best selection of current frames, sunglasses or contacts and then take the fee of the attending Optometrists off.

While this has initially looked bad on our part, the spin from our side will begin to unravel. We offer great customer care at an unbelievable price, the public should not have to pay for an eye test and we will continue to make sure of that.

I will include Bruces email to the Spectator that they so conveniently chose not to print. Your support to date has been overwhelming, thanks from Carla and me. Anything you can do to keep a good word about us out there would be appreciated. Passing this email on to as many people as you can would be a a tremendous help.

In closing, think of the blood pressure machine in Shoppers, it was once done by an attending physician, dentists were initially not allowed to be in malls, they fought hard to keep them out of them but now they are no longer just in Medical facilities but also where the public wants them. Pioneering is hard but eventually the public will win.


Sorry for burdening you with this lengthy email.
Regards,
Scott


From: Bruce
To: Buist, Steve
Cc: bbrown@thespec.com ; Kevin Brittain
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Interview request - Nov. 27, 2006

Hi Steve

I have asked you to provide ample time to elaborate on this later, but given your presure to proceed, on behalf of Great Glasses I suggest you print the following in its entirety.


The decision will be appealed, and Great Glasses will conform with the legislation.


In using the courts as they did, what the College of Optometrists have done to the citizenry of Ontario is effectively tried to force everyone to buy an eyetest from them, at a cost of $80 to $100 per visit, when there is a safe, reliable computerized alternative available to the public.

When OHIP was paying optometrists for eyetests, the Government paid $40. How do you explain the increase that the average optometrist now charges to the citizens of Ontario?

Once I have the opportunity to properly elaborate on this subject, I will show you compelling evidence that the Ontario Government wanted the outcome to be different. The Ontario Government wants the consumer to have a choice in health services, and the Ontario Government wants to reduce the cost of all healthcare to its citizens, including making the purchase of eyeglasses more affordable. This is what is meant by "serving the public interest".

Now, you must ask "Who is not acting in the public interest?"

Given this, as always, the consumer has the ultimate choice in where they want to obtain health care services. Consumers have expressed thanks to Great Glasses by voting with their feet.

The smart consumer will continue to purchase their glasses from Great Glasses, tomorrow, and in the future as they always have. Great Glasses will conform with the legislation.

In paragraph 88 of the decision, Justice Crane describes "Great Glasses as a business activity that is economically harmful to the professionals who are providing health care services in accordance with the law in the fields of optometry and opticianry. It is a predatory practice on the health of the public and on the legitimate and economic interests of professional competitors."

From time to time, technologies do emerge that change industries. Would you, as a reporter, want to revert back to a day of the typewriter versus using your wordprocessor?

What was missed in the decision was subsection 3 (2) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which states that the College has a duty to serve and protect the public interest.

Great Glasses has always acted in the interests of the public, providing free eyetests, seven days a week, and offering three pairs of glasses for the price your optometrist charges you for one pair.

The appeal process must be respected.


Bruce Bergez

[Excalibur]

Very interesting letters. Clearly GG's standards for an 'eye test' differs (and frankly is much lower) than the standards defined by the professions and the courts.

Optometrists do not charge $75-100 for just an 'eye test', or what GG refers to as a refraction. In fact, in my practice a consultation consists FAR more than just a refraction for this fee. Our consultation involves numerous phases -- history, data gathering-- acuities, binocular vision testing, refraction dilation, anterior and posterior segment examination, retinal imaging, etc etc etc. The consultation meets the standard of care and aids in detecting asymptomatic disease.

If the GG standard for 'eye testing' were applied to medicine and pharmaceuticals, birth control pills and viagara would be found in vending machines! :finger:

[RuleTheWorld]

Thanks Mike

[DrummerBoy]

I think we are all really curious to know who you are "RuleTheWorld"? You wrote that the Concerned Patient is obviously not an Optician when you yourself aren't an optician. You've put that you just work in retail optical. Your positioning on this argument about Great Glasses leads me to believe that either you work for the company or you work for a company that is illegally dispensing. You have the same arrogance as Bergez. One creep like that is enough.

[RuleTheWorld]

Just because I work in an optical doesn't mean that I work for Bergez. I don't. And I don't dispense illegally. I just think it is funny that people worry so much about what he and Great Glassses are doing and not thinking about how they can increase their own market share.

[DrummerBoy]

I'm sure you increase market share by being so nice.

[ConcernedPatient]

Here is an email this Guy sent to staff back in September of 2006

----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce (bruce.bergez@sympatico.ca)
To: GreatGlasses@googlegroups.com (GreatGlasses@googlegroups.com)
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 11:26 AM
Subject: Annual Report (from Bruce)



Hello Everyone

The end of August marks the end of the twelve month cycle for Great Glasses bookkeeping.

Great Glasses originally opened September 1st of 1993, on James Street in Hamilton, with a first month gross sales of $8692. At the time, it was trying to regain its position in the marketplace as a high end, one-for-one optical.

We were trying to revisit the glory days of the old Spectacle Gallery, which was sold in 1989 to forge ahead with Balloon-A-Rama.

There was quite a bit of scrambling in the early years, as Joanne and I still were involved with the balloon business. My focus then was not really the optical business, and during the years 1994 to December 1997 I had a business partner who was, by our definition of today, a “piker”.

In January of 1998 Great Glasses re-marketed itself under its current format, with the piker partner gone, and under the marketing promises of “three-for-one”. By March of that year, we were the first in Ontario to receive the Eyelogic System, and began marketing our second promise, the infamous “Free Eye Test”. It must be remembered then that OHIP covered the eyetest, and for everyone, the test was free. We were pioneering a change well in advance of the eventual delisting of the eye-test. The delisting came in November of 2003.

We also began to **** of some optometrists, but in our infancy, we were too small for them to worry about.

Sales began to esculate in those early days of our rebirth. The first month of our rebirth we did a paltry $5,500. Yes, you read that correct. Only five-grand. However, by the end of August of 1998, the little store on James Street did the average of $25,000 during the months of June, July and August.

Then came the move to the plaza on Dundurn Street.

There was to be a two week time frame for the move, but my eager friends at the time decided to move the location over the labor day weekend. Of those friends, Chris Borgerink of the Cambridge location deserves a thank you.

Most notably in the move were these highlights. For the first two weeks in September, we operated;
(a) without a sign,
(b) without a telephone,
(c) without a paintjob,
(d) without a debit machine,
(e) without a fax machine,
(f) without any advertising and
(g) until Fran Osborne (now of Etobicoke location) walked in, without any “partners”.

During that first month, we managed to pull off $37,000 in gross receipts, despite the “withouts” mentioned above. For the next few months, Fran and I floundered about with a few pikers for partners, and then, in walked Kevin Brittain (now of Thornhill and Richmond Hill).

The enthusiasm for Great Glasses demonstrated by Kevin has never waivered. Despite having a few pikers around at the time, it was the triumvirate created by Kevin, Fran and myself that ensured that everyday, no matter if one of us was off, would be a day filled with energy, organization, and effort to the max. We played hockey, even if it wasn’t identified as hockey back then. We even had time for the occasional game of checkers every once in a while!!

The month before we opened the Mountain location, which was August of 2001, we had expanded our team to include Anna Mifsud (now of Brampton) and concluded the single store chapter in Great Glasses history with August gross sales of $105,000. We were proud of ourselves to say the least.

Once the Mountain location opened, Kevin and Anna departed to chart new grounds at that location. Out into the parking lot went Kevin, and within the store stayed Anna. Then, on the 11th day of the month, a few guys from the other side of the world decided to knock down the twin towers in New York. Quite frankly, and with all due respect, they did a damn good job. Not only did they accomplish their mission, they sent shock waves of fear into the world. Suppliers even called me to warn me that our expansion was ill timed, and that we should retract.

Not being one to be easily dissuaded, and having Kevin prodding us along, Great Glasses moved forward and opened the Ikea location as scheduled, two months after the towers came down. Once again, with any expansion, comes disruption to the team, as new teams need to be forged. We managed to complete our expansion, and essentially the first year of operations, until August 2002, the average monthly gross for the three locations went like this;
(a) Dundurn averaged $65,000
(b) Mountain averaged $41,000 and
(c) Ikea averaged $48,000.

Early the following fiscal year, in October of 2002, Great Glasses entered another phase of its life. A few guys from Toronto, known as the College of Optometrists, decided that they would have to take out the triple towers of Great Glasses. Try hard they did, but to no avail. Many of us suffered at the hands of the abuse of the optometrists, but none stayed more positive than Anna and Karen Easlick, (now of the Oakville location). Other notables who remain within Great Glasses today from that period, include Ashley Haughen, Mike Cairns, Renee Willis, Bettyann Barnard. All have been troopers in keeping up the faith. I thank you all.

That year between August 2002 and September 2003 was a crazy year. For one, the ships sailed leaderless, as I took on a new role of learning the legal profession. Then, virtually each and every day some disrupting person from the College would phone, or enter the store, causing a nuisance and attempting to send fear into Great Glasses. “You’ll be shut down in months” we were constantly told. Those fires were always put out by reason and logic, and everyone in the know then understands what we at Great Glasses are all about.

We concluded that twelve month period almost the same as the year before. Collective average sales the year before saw the three stores doing and average of $147,000, and for 2002-2003 we raised the collective by a few thousand to $153,000.

While those numbers may not seem stellar by today’s standard, they were fundamentally great considering the amount of disruption in our lives caused by the optometrists.

However, as the saying goes: “whatever doesn’t kill ‘ya, makes ‘ya stronger”. We were not shut down, and in fact, the judge ruled we could keep on using the Eyelogic System. Five years had gone by since that damn system came to Ontario, and the optometrists did not achieve their goal. We were then, as we are today, permitted to use the Eyelogic System.

The first newspaper article hit the streets. Everybody called me concerned. Little did they know, sales actually increased. The marketplace is not stupid. People see through the bull****.

Half way through that year, we created something entirely new. On the last day of February, notably that year was a “LEAP YEAR” we unveiled hockey, in its formal state. Hockey was explained, teams were reshuffled, and Dora Baner joined Karen and Anna at the Mountain store to redirect its course, [and Kevin went off to have the first of his nervous breakdowns caused by me]!!

While it took a few months to get things right, the time between September 2004 and August 2005 saw the greatest improvements, largely due to a committed and focused group of individuals. For that time frame alone, each of the three locations averaged almost $100,000 per month for the entire year!!!

The Dundas location opened, and in its first four months did an average of $46,000 per month. Mike Kelly and Renee moved from their locations to Dundas, and Mike eventually went on to pioneer Milton.

Highlights of that year were these sales figures;

(a) $128,000 for Dundurn in April; and
(b) $122,588 for Mountain in October; and
(c) $119,003 for Ikea in October.

Our hockey formula was working. We now had a reproducable selling system.

Couple those numbers, and the lineups to get into a Great Glasses location, and the increased exposure Great Glasses received by expanding its logoed car program from just associates to strangers, and you can see why the optometrists are ****** off. The logoed car program is one fundamental aspect to our system. Do not let it die!!

As I drive from location to location, especially in this area, I am amazed. I see one car everyday at least. It is quite an impressive program.

During that time, I had the pleasure to meet another group of people who had the necessary “stickwithitness” at Great Glasses. Notably;
(a) Mark Brunette who left with Anna to forge Brampton, and
(b) Michael Curic who left with Karen to forge Oakville; and
(c) Dora Banner who left to join forces with Scott and Carla Arsenualt to secure another spot in Burlington; and
(d) Michael Friday and Aunty Pam who convinced his dad Glen to soak his life savings into Upper Stoney Creek; and
(e) Lillian Cicotti who convinced her husband Al, the Elvis impersonator, that she could still be successful if she told all her customers that “itsa****in o.k.”
(f) Poala Rogano who convinced her dad Fabio to soak his life savings into St. Catherines; and
(g) Kim Borgerink who, after meeting me in 1995 in a mall in Burlington, watched on as the plans for the rebirth of Great Glasses were drafted, finally convinced Chris to take the plunge; and
(h) Carol Mullen who heads up Dundas now; and
(i) Chelcia and Vasa, who after being part of the instrumental group who headed up the big changes in the Hamilton locations are forging forward in the heart of Toronto; and
(j) Bill Duncan and Jeff Buss who are fighting the good fight in Brantford; and
(k) Jeff Shiekh, who is Anna’s protégé from Brampton, is heading up Clarkson Village; and
(l) Those at the corporate stores which, as of late, seem to have taken the brunt from having my life turned upside down by the optometrists.


Well, you can imagine how ****** off the optometrists were before hand, after not being able to knock down the original three locations. Now the expansion to seventeen locations surely has set them off. Although not everyone has reported their August sales as of yet, it would be safe to say that the store that started with a five grand month has now effectively grown to an enterprise taking in over fifteen million dollars on an annualized basis.

While the road has been long and fraught with many people wanting to put obstacles in our way, the true measure of success comes from associating with people who are not pikers. Many individuals have been enriched by Great Glasses, and many more can be. To effectively achieve this, we need people who believe. The new phrase for this year is “believe or leave”.

There are so many things I have been teaching people over the past few years. Too many to mention here. However, some of the key themes have been;

(a) see yourself as successful, and work to achieve that success; and
(b) you can become the best person to test eyes and sell eyeglasses; and
(c) understand this equation, opportunity plus ability equals success.

Despite the onslaught by the optometrists this year, 2007 will be another successful year. Great Glasses already has seven additional locations that will open in 2007. We will be expanding broader and further from the home base of Hamilton.

This provides many of you the opportunity to one day become the operators of your own locations.

I thought I might share a photograph with you!!


http://by124w.bay124.mail.live.com/mail/SafeRedirect.aspx?hm__tg=http://207.46.11.249/att/GetAttachment.aspx&hm__qs=file%3d460cd375-b628-42fc-8b55-feb0059d1fd5.jpg%26ct%3dimage%252fjpeg%26name%3dclip_image00 2.jpg%26inline%3d1%26rfc%3d0%26empty%3dFalse%26shared%3d1&oneredir=1&ip=10.1.106.222&d=d3305&mf=20


One of the worlds leading sports car makers phrases success this way;

Find the line, and never stop perfecting.

Which simply means, take what has worked, stick with it while enhancing it. Change for changes sake is unnecessary.

Another business person stated;

‘tis not the winds, but the set of the sail, that determines where you go

The winds don’t always blow right, and often lately the winds have been set against us by the optometrists, but if we set our sails correctly, and believe me, they are set firmly in place, we will go where we want to go!!

I asked everybody this question once “DO YOU WANT TO GO ON AN ADVENTURE?”

I think those who answered yes a few years ago will categorically agree that we have accomplished greater things that originally planned for. Now is the time to supercede those accomplishments.

Build your teams, logo your cars, advertise wisely and continually practice good hockey. Believe me, five thousand dollar days can be the norm!!!, not the exception.

Great Glasses is just simply that: GREAT. I thank every one of you for that.

Take care

Have a nice labour day weekend.

Bruce

[The Critical Eye]

Just because I work in an optical doesn't mean that I work for Bergez. I don't. And I don't dispense illegally. I just think it is funny that people worry so much about what he and Great Glassses are doing and not thinking about how they can increase their own market share.

It's becoming quite obvious...especially by your last comment that your interest in opticianry ... how opticianry is viewed by the public at large... how the public is being swindled..and where opticianry may be headed... is of little interest to you. By the sounds of it you're not looking to stay in this industry for any great length of time.

Put your life into this so called career... better yet open a store...run it within the proper guidelines and then stand there with your mouth taped shut when Bergez or others like him open up around you and steal your clients by NOT operating within the guidelines.
This is a discussion board... so this is where people in the industry come to discuss their concerns...etc. If you find this amusing (funny) perhaps you would be better served at www.thejokesonme.com (http://www.thejokesonme.com)

Bottom line this man Bergez was/is operating illegally... and that is where the concern is coming from. The mans market share is not the issue... it is how he has hood winked the public into thinking they are getting a legitimate service for their dollar. This is bad publicity for opticianry... and if not tended to will only open the flood gates for others to attempt to operate in the same fashion.

p.s.: I find it funny that you have the time to read and post your comments... shouldn't you be spending you precious time figuring out how to sell more glasses ?

[DrummerBoy]

Anyone see how quick "RuleTheWorld" was to change his replies......mmmmmm

[DrummerBoy]

Anyone see how quick "RuleTheWorld" was to change his replies......................mmmmmm I wonder why