I think it also depends on the state that you are in. In north Carolina we make scripts expire after 1 year. It is really the doctors discretion.
I think it also depends on the state that you are in. In north Carolina we make scripts expire after 1 year. It is really the doctors discretion.
They're doing refractions, not exams. There's a difference.
Wesley S. Scott, MBA, MIS, ABOM, NCLE-AC, LDO - SC & GA
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Albert Einstein
Today, my partner, in an extremely inciteful (!) piece of original thinking, put this whole expired Rx/duplicate thingy in proper perspective:
Said he: "If a person's glasses are broken, and the Rx connected to them has surpassed its expiration date, and I know that others say we shouldn't duplicate them...but...should we repair them....or not?"
Which, he asks, would be more consistent with our duty to protect people's health? Which would be more consistent with those who say "No!" to using an expired Rx?
Me? "Expired Rx, my ***!" One of the all-time, biggest waste-of time and mental effort discussion points I can imagine in eyewear. Really really just plain silly.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 11-21-2011 at 09:42 PM.
Senario for expiration: Patient has one pair of glasses, many years old, broken. Rx is + or - 8 diopters. His eye doctor can't see him for 6 weeks (not unusual among OMD's around here). Now do you make him a new a new pair of glasses, now in his old Rx. Or do you start with a diatribe: "The law says ....."
Chip
And once again, negating his impetuous for seeing his eye doctor. With that logic, he'll never need an eye exam.Originally Posted by chip anderson
Go to Lenscrafters, Eyemasters, Visionworks, Wal-mart, Sears, JC penneys, Heck walk into any mall and get a walk in refraction from a business that's ready to take business from all of the ill-prepared independents.
And if the person in the above scenario happens to be an emmetrope, with no Rx eyewear, just what is their impetus to see an eye doctor or need aneye exam? Shall we now regulate OTCs, to protect these people's eyehealth? Further with this reasoning, sunwear?
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 11-22-2011 at 06:44 AM.
That's the most ridiculous argument yet. Where is the urgency in replacing non-rx eyewear? BTW, yes I do believe that OTC readers should be regulated, if not outlawed altogether.
Let's keep the discussion on an "apples to apples" basis. No "red herrigs", please.
Well that's my point. Without prescription eyewear, non-wearer's aren't being subjected to what I feel is an arbitrary condition to *mandate* have an eyexam to ensure/ protect their eye health through a gatekeeping function such as eyewear Rx expiration. The point is that whether or NOT they have an Rx, I'm not sure why vision health should have a lawful protective/prophylactic mandate tied to fulfillment of a low risk item (eyewear has been declared as such by the FDA). I can't think of any other related aspect of healthcare that similarly does. Help me, I'm listening.
I think we have too much tendency to confuse medical eye health with refractive clarity. Yes, they're related, but the use of Rx expirations is not consistent with eye health risk management for all individuals.
So either everyone has to get an eye exam every year or two, or logically, we should stop discriminating in favor of ammetropic eye health only.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 11-22-2011 at 09:21 AM.
We all read and see pts who have adapted to improper Rx and/or fitting's / measurements. The same thing could occur with an old Rx. A great example is when a pt is first prescribed for reading zones and does not "take" the Rx prescribed. The pts continues to age, continues to "get by" w/o taking their prescribed Rx until one day they just can't read, and now have difficulty adapting to a perfectly fitted progressive. What an injustice the pt has done to themselves for not taking their prescribed Rx. This is why Rx's should probably expire. An expired Rx prevents an unscrupulous eye glass vendor from never mentioning that maybe they should at least get a refraction, before the pt ends up adapting to something they should not adapt to. It is essentially a pt protection mechanism. It protects their eyes, and it protects their wallet from having to pay for lenses that don't work or at least don't work as well as they could.
Very True, AustinEyewear. But, IMHO, a bit oversimplified in the prognosis of ezpected consequences.
B
Are you serious?
Courious and others: My senario mentioned an Rx of Plus or Minus 8.00 diopters. To me this would imply that the patient needs something now. Generally folks with this much correction, aren't very functional without glasses. Not after waiting to see the doctor for any length of time. Couldn't bring myself to get a patient to change doctors, unless he didn't like the one he had or the condition needed immediate medical attention.
Chip
Isn't it about time that this thread expires?
It would seem most pt that depend on an Rx of this magnitude typically have multiple pairs of backups already.
Perfectly stated.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
To expand on Barry's argument:
If NOT having a full oculo-visual exam every 2 years is so dangerous then why don't we have laws preventing people from renewing their license plates until they have seen an optometrist?
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Austin: A very high percentage of those with Rx's of this magnitude are either poor or cheap, or unwilling to pay for two pair of ugly thick glasses. They don't have back-ups.
Chip
I think that we all must at least agree, that the Rx definitely expires..................................................... ..................... when the patient does.
If a customer presents an Rx that has an expired date on it then I could not fill it. If a customer presents a pair of glasses without an Rx and asks that they be duplicated then I would do so but with a recommendation that an exam be done. If a customer presents a broken pair of glasses I would do a repair if a repair was possible. It seems fairly simple.
You've never repaired a pair for an open casket?I think that we all must at least agree, that the Rx definitely expires..................................................... ..................... when the patient does.
Yes, it does. Yet it appears to my mind that *not* filling it is discrimintory to the first case, since their is very low risk of harm FROM EYEWEAR. This is, however, very different from the harm that can arise frokm NOT having and eye exam, which should apply equally to all, regardless of vision error. The truth is that epiration dates are really a covert way of trying to ensure the person comes back. It is a very thinnly-veiled manipulation by the offices that employ it. I for one, would NOT want to be on a TV panel discussion where I'm asked "why only Rx wearers with expiration dates are being directed to an exam every two years...or whatever time frame stated on the Rx.
B
Only from a training viewpoint. Not from an education standpoint. You can be trained to follow simple rules about when to fill an Rx. Using your judgement to decide when to fill it takes education.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
Our practice does not see this poor/cheap trend, I'd have to disagree that you can categorize a persons income by their Rx. Most high Rx we see have multiple pairs of glasses simply because they have been in glasses for so long. I'd have to say this is a small corner case of this discussion and does not warrant making the case against Rx expiration. (Someone has to have the other side of the position......)
There should be, its too easy to cheat on these exams and our requirements for getting a license in US are way too lax - way too many bad drivers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks