How do you respond?

[braheem24]

Will everyone else who does NOT WORK WITH A DOCTOR join in and give the OP your unsolicited commentary...

[MikeAurelius]

Will everyone else who does NOT WORK WITH A DOCTOR join in and give the OP your unsolicited commentary...

So what you are saying is that unless we work with a doctor, we are not allowed to express our opinions?? Is that what you are saying?

[Oedema]

Many of you here are getting your panties in a twist. Eyeglass 1 only states that a patient must be provided with a copy of their Rx following an exam. It doesn't say anything about the doctor literally having to hand over the paper the moment they pull the phoropter away, it doesn't say anything about the doctors employee not being allowed to touch or see the Rx.

Especially with the advent of EMR it is normal for the Rx to be printed at the front desk as the patient pays for their exam. Even when using paper charts and handwritten prescriptions the Rx should not be handed to the patient until they've settled their bill at the front desk.

[braheem24]

So what you are saying is that unless we work with a doctor, we are not allowed to express our opinions?? Is that what you are saying?

You can express your opinion all you want in your thread, unsolicited commentary is called hijacking.

[chip anderson]

Oedema: The law says: Must be given to the patient at the time of exam. It does not say after he pays the bill. Or after some party pays the bill. It says: In his hand at the time of exam. I can guess what you do at your office. But then you aren't in the US so you don't have to be ethical even by law.

[braheem24]

I'm in the U.S. therefore I'm ethical.

Here's the brief explanation of the law as interpreted by the California board of optometry

http://www.optometry.ca.gov/lawsregs/eyeglass-pript.pdf

States nothing about Hands, Phalanges or Tarsals.

for those that believe they can interpret a law better then the optometry board's lawyers here's the full law

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/06/040629...ensrulefrn.pdf

I will pay anyone $1000 who can find the word "HAND" in the above law.

[Oedema]

Oedema: The law says: Must be given to the patient at the time of exam. It does not say after he pays the bill. Or after some party pays the bill. It says: In his hand at the time of exam. I can guess what you do at your office. But then you aren't in the US so you don't have to be ethical even by law.

How did you know? I never give patients their Rx, and they all buy glasses in my non-existant dispensary whether they like it or not. :hammer:

I'm not tying to defend aggressive capture tactics, I find them tacky and extremely distasteful, but you can't seriously think we're supposed to hand over the Rx literally at the moment the exam in competed. Sorry, but that is a stupid interpretation.

[Uncle Fester]

;)Razzle dazzle'm;)

[Bejeezus]

You can express your opinion all you want in your thread, unsolicited commentary is called hijacking.

Thank you!!! I've been watching the hijack all day and chuckling to myself. There's ALWAYS at least 1 person on EVERY internet forum who takes it upon themselves to
derail a thread. Be it a "professional" forum, a gaming forum or a general discussion forum. Usually it's me though! lol

Back to the original subject again... Thanks for the responses folks!!! Great to see so many differing opinions. :)

... ok.. continue discussing amongst yourselves!

[fjpod]

EG1 does not say that an examiner cannot introduce a patient to an optician. I agree with Oedema that it is distasteful when somebody tries to hardsell you, and I would never want my practice to get this reputation. But some folks have to get over the fact that, by law, ODs are allowed to sell glasses, just like dentists are allowed to fill cavities, and that this is not inherently unethical. It is the honesty and integrity of the individual that counts.

[Chris Ryser]

On the one hand, as a 19+ year optician, ......................................I became an optician because I hated selling cars and or vacuum cleaners...

Be jeezus.......................... at 19 and after a carier in selling cars and vacuum cleaners how much of an optician can you be.

However you got a whole group of old OB going good.

[fjpod]

A few more words about EG1... This was an unfortunate ruling forced upon the public by a special interest group so they could sell more goods. The end result was that it fragmented care among different providers while the consumer had a single goal in mind. Everybody knows it pays to get all goods and services from a single provider once you have chosen your source. Do you go to a dentist to see if you have cavities and then go somewhere else to get them filled? Do you go to an ophthalmologist to find out if you have a cataract then go somewhere else to have them removed? No. You select the practitioner you have trust in and expect them to satisfy your needs. Who wants to go round and round if something is wrong and one blames the other. With a single provider, the buck stops there. I'm tired of hearing that any practice that prescribes and sells product is inherently unethical. In my mind, it is unethical to use government regulation for the economic gain of a single class of provider.

[Wes]

Be jeezus.......................... at 19 and after a carier in selling cars and vacuum cleaners how much of an optician can you be.

However you got a whole group of old OB going good.

Hey Chris, I think he meant he's been an optician for 19+ years...
And you're right, he sure did whack the bee's nest on this one.

[chip anderson]

EGI doesn't say the prescriber can't introduce the pt to the optician. It does say he can't hand off the Rx to the optician. It says: The Rx must be given to the patient in his hand at the time of examination. And Eye Glass One was not established for the reasons stated above. It was created to try to create the same "forced sense of honor" that exhist for physicians prescribing drugs. A Restriction that seems to be oddly overlooked in the case of optometrists prescribing (selling) drugs.

[braheem24]

It says: The Rx must be given to the patient in his hand at the time of examination. And Eye Glass One was not established for the reasons stated above.

$1000 to show me the word hand in the law


Here's the law...

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/06/040629...ensrulefrn.pdf

[MikeAurelius]

$1000 to show me the word hand in the law


Here's the law...

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/06/040629...ensrulefrn.pdf

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you were complaining about hijacking??? So why continue the hijack???

(And btw, it wasn't a hijack, this is part of the discussion. If you go back and look at bejeezus original post AND his follow up, you will see that HE first brought it into the discussion, therefore not a hijack.)

Also, FYI, that's not Eyeglasses 1, that's the contact lens rule. Want to try again?

[braheem24]

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title16...6_main_02.html

456.2 Separation of examination and dispensing. top
It is an unfair act or practice for an ophthalmologist or optometrist to:
(a) Fail to provide to the patient one copy of the patient's prescription immediately after the eye examination is completed. Provided: An ophthalmologist or optometrist may refuse to give the patient a copy of the patient's prescription until the patient has paid for the eye examination, but only if that ophthalmologist or optometrist would have required immediate payment from that patient had the examination revealed that no ophthalmic goods were required;
(b) Condition the availability of an eye examination to any person on a requirement that the patient agree to purchase any ophthalmic goods from the ophthalmologist or optometrist;
(c) Charge the patient any fee in addition to the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's examination fee as a condition to releasing the prescription to the patient. Provided: An ophthalmologist or optometrist may charge an additional fee for verifying ophthalmic goods dispensed by another seller when the additional fee is imposed at the time the verification is performed; or
(d) Place on the prescription, or require the patient to sign, or deliver to the patient a form or notice waiving or disclaiming the liability or responsibility of the ophthalmologist or optometrist for the accuracy of the eye examination or the accuracy of the ophthalmic goods and services dispensed by another seller.


$1000 and no takers?

[NeGlassesGirl27]

From the way you are writing, it does indeed sound like it. You don't seem to understand that no means no, and yet you would keep trying (and wasting your time) with someone who has made it very clear they are not interested.

Why are you wasting your time? Aren't there other patients more important than someone who does not want to buy what you are selling?

I've been in stores with "sales people like you"...and I immediately turn around and leave, never to return. That's what happens when you force yourself on those who are not interested in what you are selling. You turn them off and they leave never to come back again.

Yep, you're right. I turn away people in droves and that's why I'm selling $500-$700 FRAMES ALONE and that's why I am the only optician selling 10 pairs of glasses a day and that's why I sold, just yesterday, 3 pairs of glasses to a gentleman and that's why I have patient's who refer their friends to me because I do such a good job. I make ZERO commission off these orders and you know what? That's OK with me because I enjoy helping people look and feel better. Then again, you probably think I'm holding a gun to their heads...:hammer::hammer: *insert eye roll here*

This is why it's left up to us OPTICIANS to sell the product. Mike, I don't degrade your work ethics so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't degrade mine. I take personal pride in the way I operate and the way I sell glasses.

Now, once again, back to the subject at hand...

[NeGlassesGirl27]

Thank you!!! I've been watching the hijack all day and chuckling to myself. There's ALWAYS at least 1 person on EVERY internet forum who takes it upon themselves to
derail a thread. Be it a "professional" forum, a gaming forum or a general discussion forum. Usually it's me though! lol

Back to the original subject again... Thanks for the responses folks!!! Great to see so many differing opinions. :)

... ok.. continue discussing amongst yourselves!

I'm glad I addressed what you originally asked about :bbg:

[rep]

A few more words about EG1... This was an unfortunate ruling forced upon the public by a special interest group so they could sell more goods. The end result was that it fragmented care among different providers while the consumer had a single goal in mind. Everybody knows it pays to get all goods and services from a single provider once you have chosen your source. Do you go to a dentist to see if you have cavities and then go somewhere else to get them filled? Do you go to an ophthalmologist to find out if you have a cataract then go somewhere else to have them removed? No. You select the practitioner you have trust in and expect them to satisfy your needs. Who wants to go round and round if something is wrong and one blames the other. With a single provider, the buck stops there. I'm tired of hearing that any practice that prescribes and sells product is inherently unethical. In my mind, it is unethical to use government regulation for the economic gain of a single class of provider.

This was all about consumer choice just as the ruling stated.

For Release: May 3, 1996
Dallas Eyecare Center Agrees To Settle FTC Charges That They Failed To Give Consumers Copies Of Their Eyeglass Prescriptions

Doctor's Eyecare Center, Inc., of Dallas, Texas, and its president, have agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they failed to provide many patients with a copy of their eyeglass prescription after completing an eye examination and that they unlawfully included on their prescription forms a waiver of liability as to accuracy. These practices violate the FTC's Prescription Release Rule. In addition to paying the civil penalty, the settlement would prohibit the defendants from further violating the Rule.
This is the first case alleging violation of the FTC's Prescription Release Rule. "The purpose of the rule is to provide consumers with a choice of eyeglass providers and an opportunity to shop around for competitive prices," said Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Without a copy of their prescription, consumers are forced to purchase their eyeglasses from the examining ophthalmologist or optometrist."
The Prescription Release Rule, originally promulgated in June 1978, requires an ophthalmologist or optometrist to give a copy of the patient's eyeglass prescription to the patient immediately after the eye exam is completed. To fully protect consumers, the Rule requires that eyeglass prescriptions be automatically released rather than given out only after a request from the patient. Armed with a copy of their prescription, a consumer can go to any eyeglass provider, including opticians, to purchase their eyeglasses.
Doctor's Eyecare Center offers eye exams and sells eyeglass frames and lenses in the North Texas area. Daniel B. Shropshire, president of the Center, is a licensed optometrist.
According to the FTC complaint detailing the allegations, after completing eye examinations, the defendants failed to provide many patients with a copy of their eyeglass prescriptions, unless a patient specifically requested it. When they did provide a copy of the prescription, the FTC alleged, the prescription form they used contained a waiver notice that implied that the examining doctor was not liable for the accuracy of the prescription and that the dispensing optician assumes the responsibility for lens power adjustments and remakes due to inaccuracies in the prescription. Such a disclaimer also violates the Rule.
The proposed consent decree settling these charges, subject to court approval, would require the defendants to pay the $10,000 civil penalty within 10 days and would permanently bar the defendants from future violations of the Prescription Release Rule. In addition, the order would require the defendants to give a copy of the consent decree, the Rule and its Statement of Basis and Purpose to each of its employees and get back from them a signed statement acknowledging receipt of the above documents.
The proposed settlement also contains various reporting provisions designed to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants' compliance.
The Commission vote to authorize filing of the complaint and proposed consent decree was 5-0. They were filed on May 2, 1996, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Dallas, by the Department of Justice at the request of the FTC.
NOTE: This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Consent decrees have the force of law when signed by the judge.
Copies of the complaint and consent decree are available from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202-326-2222; TTY for the hearing impaired 1-866-653-4261. To find out the latest news as it is announced, call the FTC NewsPhone recording at 202-326-2710 FTC news releases and other materials also are available on the Internet at the FTC’s World Wide Web site at: http://www.ftc.gov

[cwinma]

In our office we have an OD who rents a lane from us a few days a week. In regards to the OP question we do a few things that seem to help us and inform the patient as well. We have signage and pamphlets through the shop and lane that not only state policy but prominently state we match 1800-contacts pricing and get the product to them faster, in regards to eyeglasses we example the cost if purchased from us.
So, the OD hands off the RX plus our pamphlet and the patient has it in hand if they decide to walk, either way we have informed the 'no's' with non verbal communication.

[Jana Lewis]

From the way you are writing, it does indeed sound like it. You don't seem to understand that no means no, and yet you would keep trying (and wasting your time) with someone who has made it very clear they are not interested.

Why are you wasting your time? Aren't there other patients more important than someone who does not want to buy what you are selling?

I've been in stores with "sales people like you"...and I immediately turn around and leave, never to return. That's what happens when you force yourself on those who are not interested in what you are selling. You turn them off and they leave never to come back again.

Why are you being so rude? Is it possible to have a discussion without this nastiness? You have no idea how Kerri operates, she sounds to me like she's a go getter...more than I can say for many lazy opticians I've come across over the years. I know that I wouldn't have a job if I didn't sell glasses.

Your rudeness here is not wanted or needed.

[NeGlassesGirl27]

Why are you being so rude? Is it possible to have a discussion without this nastiness? You have no idea how Kerri operates, she sounds to me like she's a go getter...more than I can say for many lazy opticians I've come across over the years. I know that I wouldn't have a job if I didn't sell glasses.

Your rudeness here is not wanted or needed.

Thank you :D

[MikeAurelius]

This is why it's left up to us OPTICIANS to sell the product. Mike, I don't degrade your work ethics so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't degrade mine. I take personal pride in the way I operate and the way I sell glasses.

Now, once again, back to the subject at hand...

As I read the question, it isn't about being an Optician (I know that's what you want it to be about) but more about sales tactics. I *AM* sorry if you took away from comments that I was denigrating your work ethics, far from it. I was questioning why you would waste time (which I repeated at least 3-4 times) on some who is obviously NOT INTERESTED in buying new eyeglasses.

Does being an optician give you the "right" to abuse politeness and civility and try to sell someone something they don't want? If so, I'm glad I'm NOT an optician. I wouldn't want to be if those are the rules. I wouldn't work for anyone who forced me to behave like that. I'd much rather flip burgers than what you do.

[Jana Lewis]

As I read the question, it isn't about being an Optician (I know that's what you want it to be about) but more about sales tactics. I *AM* sorry if you took away from comments that I was denigrating your work ethics, far from it. I was questioning why you would waste time (which I repeated at least 3-4 times) on some who is obviously NOT INTERESTED in buying new eyeglasses.

Does being an optician give you the "right" to abuse politeness and civility and try to sell someone something they don't want? If so, I'm glad I'm NOT an optician. I wouldn't want to be if those are the rules. I wouldn't work for anyone who forced me to behave like that. I'd much rather flip burgers than what you do.

abuse politeness and civility

What's your excuse?