when does an eyeglass rx expire?

[Barry Santini]

But Barry, the way you put this makes it sound like the purpose of Eyeglasses 1 is to protect the economic interests of the "independant" opticals. Everybody knows this law was passed to protect the consumer.

I know you are probably the last person I should pick on, but Eyeglasses 1, in it's present form, in the present marketplace, does neither.

I agree, Fjpod. It was to protect the right to choice for the consumer, and prevent steering and other manipulations. In the end, what with how incredibly uncredible so much of government and politics are today, I think it would be nice and refreshing for the average US citizen to really not have to deal with having the spirit of laws circumvented. Just hand them their Rx when they leave the exam room, and think twice before using expiration dates to police an individual'a visual health when the emmetropes (and near emmetropes) can do as they please. Last time I looked, "plano" was an "Rx" too.

B

[chip anderson]

Anyone wonder why emmetropes don't need UV protection. Ain't they succeptable to catarcts and MD too?
Dey sho' gonna git a lot mo' UV than those folks wearin spectacles, whether the spectacles have UV filters or not.

Odd I've never seen an Rx specifiying UV unless the doctor owned a dispensary.

Chip

[RIMLESS]

..

[RIMLESS]

..

[Barry Santini]

Anyone wonder why emmetropes don't need UV protection. Ain't they succeptable to catarcts and MD too?
Dey sho' gonna git a lot mo' UV than those folks wearin spectacles, whether the spectacles have UV filters or not.

Odd I've never seen an Rx specifiying UV unless the doctor owned a dispensary.

Chip

Chip:

Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?

And an expiration date?

B

[fjpod]

Chip:

Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?

And an expiration date?

B

I'll let you handle Chipper...LOL

[optical24/7]

BTW - IMHO, staff hand-offs are fine. "Rx" hand-offs are not. Period.

B

I agree about the Rx "hand-off". It's akin to car dealers who don't give your keys back when they are evaluating your trade-in. You almost have to demand they return them if you decide to shop elsewhere.

Chip:

Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?

And an expiration date?

B

It would depend if the Rx was written by an OD or MD. MD's virtually never put an expiration on an eye glass Rx. I guess they don't care about their patient's health.

[Barry Santini]

I agree about the Rx "hand-off". It's akin to car dealers who don't give your keys back when they are evaluating your trade-in. You almost have to demand they return them if you decide to shop elsewhere.



It would depend if the Rx was written by an OD or MD. MD's virtually never put an expiration on an eye glass Rx. I guess they don't care about their patient's health.

+1!

[AustinEyewear]

Here we may disagree. Yes, business aspects are important. But freedom of choice is too. And in the good ol' USA, there are only TWO laws regarding prescription eyewear:

1. FDA: Lenses dispensed must meet impact rseistantance standards.
2. FTC: Rx Release rule - patient MUST be given their RX as they leave the exam room.

There are state laws that pertain to this subject as well. i.e. Rx released when exam paid for.

BTW - IMHO, staff hand-offs are fine. "Rx" hand-offs are not. Period.

+1 Rx should happily be provided once exam fees are paid.

All indie opticals desire is a reasonably-level playing field, and a chance to prove their worth. The FTC law was enacted to serve freedom of choice, which helps keep the field near level. Insurance, that's another matter.

No offense meant here, and certainly not its not personal. But having seen what practice's are exposed to, and the kool-aid they drink, I think it may be refreshing to see it from another ECP's perspective.

B

Here is our perspective on the issue:

The terminology "hand-off" is a play on words and an misleading description of what occurs on most O.D. oriented offices. I'm not saying there are not offices that don't try to do this sort of thing. But I think it is unfair to make a federal case out of this when it is simply part of the normal office flow, and rather than accepting it as that, the word "hand-off" was devised to "demonize" the O.D. In our office, patients come to us because of the world class customer service we provide and selection we offer. They would be offended if we acted any differently. "Oh, see ya later, don't let the exam room door hit you in the .... on the way out". That is not the level of customer service we wish to provide and I don't think any entity has the right to tell us what level of customer service we are allowed to provide.

As far as the issue with capture ratios goes, we use that data to decide what products to offer. I don't want any entity telling me what products to offer either - I think that is up to us, its our investment. We have every right to measure this data and tweak our inventory accordingly, so that we can offer the products our customers want. Capture ratios are just one small component of what we measure, it just happens to be part of the data. Any successful business owner with a business background is going to measure this data. It would be imprudent to do otherwise.

Believe it or not, most patients like to purchase from us. They may go price shopping around, Rx in hand, but they'll be back. We work very hard to make that happen, and its not because of the so called "hand-off".

[Barry Santini]

Austineyewear: I think your points are well taken, and I was not tryin' to demonize all OD's. And I agree with your in office business metrics. Let's just agree that although your office sees these issues clearly, many others don't. And many others DO believe the rhetoric they're being fed. And countless others are still into the whole Rx/eyewear *control* thing.

Thanks for your feedback and willingness to engage is this discussion.

B

[AustinEyewear]

Austineyewear: I think your points are well taken, and I was not tryin' to demonize all OD's. And I agree with your in office business metrics. Let's just agree that although your office sees these issues clearly, many others don't. And many others DO believe the rhetoric they're being fed. And countless others are still into the whole Rx/eyewear *control* thing.

Thanks for your feedback and willingness to engage is this discussion.

B

I understand where your coming from and probably have the same concern if I was in your position. Just not sure how much of this is really taking place. I often thought on the contra ire there are lots of O.D.'s that don't concern themselves with this issue (a good thing for you) - but that was just my observations, no data to back that up. But until the pt pays for the exam, there really is nothing to complain about, and most exam rooms don't have cash registers. I feel like your real argument should be that all Rx's should be provided as part of the exam receipt. The hand-off that gets spoken about quite often on this board really isn't part of that process. The exam has many faucets to it, you can't cover everything in one fell swoop, so its really hard to argue for the Rx to be provided immediately upon doctor and patient parting ways. Sometimes the patient asks the doctors opinion in eye wear and no Rx has been provided yet. I don't think this should be considered illegal and putting laws in place could cause this to become illegal. That's just more barriers to an already struggling business.

In my opinion, (looking from the outside looking in to your business model), your biggest concern should be online retailers and the "next door" corporate type operations. I would think these are your main competitors, not private O.D.'s. People in general trust their private O.D. and prefer to purchase from them all things being equal. So your odds of getting that business from the ones that rigorously pursue it and make it a great optical are pretty slim anyway. And if they are not rigorously pursuing it, then they probably hand off the Rx no problem anyway. For example, by the time the few stragglers that leave a good O.D. with a good optical to shop elsewhere start shopping, they could go to any number of the places that I just mentioned, so statistically, your odds of getting that client are pretty low. They may go to LC or shop online. That seems like it would be your real issue. I guess you would know by the number of people who walk into your place who have no Rx and are having trouble getting it from their provider. We see that occasionally, but most of the time they have Rx in hand, I don't feel like there is an industry problem with that issue, at least not in this part of the U.S.

[Barry Santini]

I guess its only about the specifics for me and others when the specifics and the spirit of the FTC Rx release law are being disrespected.
In my store, *many* people will NOT return to their ECP DR. if they have had a hard time obtaining their RX after exam. They hate it! THIS is what I'm talking about.

And if you ever attend many of the DR practice management seminars, as I do (I speak at them), you'll see how the mantra of "THEY'RE YOUR Rx's!" can get out of hand.

B

[chip anderson]

Austin:

Patients don't even trust thier MD's anymore. They never did trust O.D.'s. Especially if they feel the doctor is trying to capturethem.

Second or third opinion anyone?

[Barry Santini]

Capture? Hand-off? "Prescribe" Sun or computer glasses? Maximize profit?
Maybe it should be renamed "Occupy ECP Street"
B

[AustinEyewear]

And if you ever attend many of the DR practice management seminars, as I do (I speak at them), you'll see how the mantra of "THEY'RE YOUR Rx's!" can get out of hand.

B

Been to a few live ones and read some online - I know what you're referring to, but honestly, I've never heard them talk about holding the Rx back from the patient. The spirit of the discussion (on the ones I've been to or read) is how to do a better job of presenting eye wear. Something that I'm sure you strive for as well....

[chip anderson]

A year or two ago I ran into (and still do occasionally) a number of OMD offices that held the premise that refraction and spectacle Rx providing were not part of a complete eye exam and therefore did not provide an Rx. This appearently being due to some insurance companies providing a separate code for same.
These MD's appearently did not comprehend that unless the patient had pain, trauma, or sudden loss of vision, a glasses exam is why they called the doctor and made an appointment to see them. Of course the patient was displeased when he left the office without an Rx and more displeased when the optician called for the Rx (sometimes getting the answer that this was not done, but oddly if the opticians office insisted stringently enough they always seem to be able to come up with one.) And yes I do understand if the patient was in and and piece of steel was removed, or an infection was treated, it was not a good time to do a refraction.
But almost always when a routine exam is done, the patient scheduled this primarily for a refraction. Not to discount all the other good things the doctor checked for, but the patient doesn't even know all these things, they just want to see better with a new pair of glasses. Even if the doctor is a world renouned surgeon, they called for a general exam with a refractive result.

Chip

[Barry Santini]

Been to a few live ones and read some online - I know what you're referring to, but honestly, I've never heard them talk about holding the Rx back from the patient. The spirit of the discussion (on the ones I've been to or read) is how to do a better job of presenting eye wear. Something that I'm sure you strive for as well....

They dont advocate holding back...just 'controlling' it.

[regional_manager]

How could an eyeglass rx expire if you can neutralize and duplicate a pair of existing glasses?

[jediron1]

Steve's right! When I was in school we knew the laws for optical. Barry is right concerning contacts. But as far as I have seen its up too the OD or OMD to whether they want to put an expiration date down. If they do you can't use but you can neutralize old glasses and use that, at least in NY that's allowed.

[jediron1]

How could an eyeglass rx expire if you can neutralize and duplicate a pair of existing glasses?

As I noted in post 44 if it has an expiration you can't use rx but can neutralize and you should write some where on patients info you neutralized glasses!

[NJEyeGuy]

You can't really hold back much, as the law requires not even 1 but 2 copies be given to each patient. I do agree with the fact that patient flow often prevents the doctor from waiting there until the patient pays for their exam. As for feeling uncomfortable just make sure you have the patient sign an "against advice" for the exam and make the glasses.

For the contacts I wouldn't hesitate to mention the FDA's recommendation of 1 year but in NJ there needs to be more than an "I didn't feel like it was a good idea" to cut the expiration. However, like I said you can make a business decision not to fill the prescription after 1 year if it makes you uncomfortable. I agree there should be a better standard to protect stupid people from themselves but until the law changes to back your decision you still have to give them 2 years.

[LandLord]

As I noted in post 44 if it has an expiration you can't use rx but can neutralize and you should write some where on patients info you neutralized glasses!

What if the Rx is expired and the patient has their old glasses with them? Can I copy the glasses if I don't peek at the Rx?

[regional_manager]

What if the Rx is expired and the patient has their old glasses with them? Can I copy the glasses if I don't peek at the Rx?

Yep, that's why I don't get how an eyeglass rx can expire. I feel like it would be better to go off of the written rx instead of a neutralization. Just my opinion.

[Judy Canty]

Not every state allows duplication of eyeglasses. You need to check with your state regulations, if applicable.

[thedjc01]

No one really cares what they do in Canada here in the United States. Opticians are now doing eye exams in Canada instead of optometrists, right?