AOA Study Cites Safety and Compliance Issues for Rx Eyeglasses Ordered Online

[AustinEyewear]

ST. LOUIS—Consumers who order prescription eyeglasses online often receive glasses that fail to comply with optical tolerance and impact resistance requirements, according to a newly released study conducted by the American Optometric Association in conjunction with the Optical Laboratories Association and The Vision Council.

The study, which was published in the September issue of Optometry: Journal of the American Optometric Association, found that nearly half of the prescription eyewear ordered online in the U.S.—44.8 percent—had incorrect prescriptions or did not meet physical parameters to provide sufficient protection to the wearer.

Over a two-month period in 2010, 10 individuals from across the U.S. ordered two pairs of glasses, including pairs for both adults and children, from each of 10 of the most visited online optical vendors, for a total of 200 pairs of glasses. Frame styles were chosen from the mid-range options offered by each vendor, in varying frame materials, lens styles and prescriptions. The AOA's published article did not identify the online optical vendors/retailers selected for the study.

Of the eyeglasses ordered, 154 pairs were received. After they were received, lens analysis included measurement of sphere power, cylinder power and axis, add power (if specified), separation of distance optical centers and center thickness.

Several pairs were provided incorrectly such as single vision instead of bifocals, or lens treatments that were added or omitted, the AOA reported. In 29 percent of glasses received, at least one lens was not within the parameters of the prescription. Nearly 23 percent of the lenses failed impact testing, based on center thickness and lens treatment. Of the children's glasses tested, 29 percent failed impact testing.

Karl Citek, OD, PhD, a lead study author from Pacific University College of Optometry, noted that patients who purchase eyewear without the assistance of a trained professional may not receive a product of equal performance, value or safety. “Patients do not receive the benefit of ensuring an accurate prescription and a proper fit,” he wrote.

Sam Pierce, OD, trustee for the AOA, said consumers should be cautious when ordering any medical devices online. "Although online retailers may effectively market cost savings associated with online purchase of eyewear, consumers should beware, as this study points out, that the lack of oversight and quality control can lead to inferior products that could be harmful," Pierce said.

Click here to download a PDF file of the study.

[wmcdonald]

Notice it was the ODs, not the Opticians who did such a study, which is the norm. I guess the majority of Opticians did not learn to conduct research in their apprenticeship/cheap labor program of study.

Also note that in many cases, TV stations who do investigative reporting have also found many of the eyeglasses fitted and dispensed by Opticians have not met standards either. So before you get all excited about this, just know that as we scrutinize online folks (and we should) we better live up to our own standards, or we will be embarrassed (again!). People who live in glass houses........well you get the drift!

[optical24/7]

The AOA did this study. Instead of asking why individual opticians didn't do this study, we should ask why none of our opticianry organizations didn't conduct one.

[CCGREEN]

Why is it that the AOA study, television reports, and our own, wmcdonald, in his own above article, fail to mention the tolerances tables that we are allowed?

We all know that in the field of optics very few things are black and white.....very few things are wright or wrong, what works for one may not work for the next. Thats why we have tolerances, variables, what is acceptable and what is not. Remember go to one Dr get a Rx for glasses leave his office go next door and get another exam and another Rx for glasses and you will find they are very much similar. Now neather Dr is wrong it is just a diffrence in what their eye saw and the opinion they concluded and could also be in equiptment used.

The consumer needs to know and understand that as long as their glasses fall within those guidelines all is well but when there is a gross diffrence then someone has dropped the ball.

It seems to me before someone startes stating right or wrong they should also refer to avaliable tolerances.

[wmcdonald]

I did not say an individual Optician, but Opticians, George. You are making my point. Opticians need to be proactive.

[Barry Santini]

The public doesn't give a hoot about tolerances. They just want to see they way they want. Unfortunatley, that is commonly a complex recipe that the media tries to reduce to "right/wrong" with fabrication tolerances.

If you believe in ANSI as the sole, great determinant for predicting satisfaction in eyewear, I've got some children that have been "left behind" for ya...!

B

PS - This is *exactly* what my ABOM paper was on.

Why is it that the AOA study, television reports, and our own, wmcdonald, in his own above article, fail to mention the tolerances tables that we are allowed?

We all know that in the field of optics very few things are black and white.....very few things are wright or wrong, what works for one may not work for the next. Thats why we have tolerances, variables, what is acceptable and what is not. Remember go to one Dr get a Rx for glasses leave his office go next door and get another exam and another Rx for glasses and you will find they are very much similar. Now neather Dr is wrong it is just a diffrence in what their eye saw and the opinion they concluded and could also be in equiptment used.

The consumer needs to know and understand that as long as their glasses fall within those guidelines all is well but when there is a gross diffrence then someone has dropped the ball.

It seems to me before someone startes stating right or wrong they should also refer to avaliable tolerances.

[wmcdonald]

I did not say an individual Optician, but Opticians, George. But even then, the authors names are noted......all 4 excellent educators and researchers. I do not see AOA listed as an author, only that it was published by them. But you are making my point, really. Opticians need to be proactive. As to standards, this was a well-developed study with specific parameters described. I have only read it once, but the research appears upon that read to be tight regarding the specified tolerances. Rather than complaingin about someone else's research here, do a study yourself. Write a paper.....do something proactive, which was my first point. Let me know if you want to write. I will make sure we get you in a journal!

I know you all must remember the TV shows (multiple) that visited the large chains and found most of the eyewear dispensed did not meet those ANSI standards CCGreen is describing. My second point is that if we are going to complain about online providers, we better be sure we meet them ourselves. To do that menas we must be able to know what the standards are, and most offices do not have an ANSI table on the premises.

[optical24/7]

From the paper;

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Optometric Association,The Vision Council, and Optical Laboratories Associationfor support of this project and funding to purchase andevaluate the eyewear. The authors appreciate the assistanceof Natalie Marquis and Chris Bowers with the optical and

thickness measurements and cataloging of the eyewear.


This was my point Warren. The researchers had funding. I'll be happy to do/contribute to a research paper. Can you help get me funding from the OAA or other optician's organizations?

[Roy R. Ferguson]

So before you get all excited about this, just know that as we scrutinize online folks (and we should) we better live up to our own standards, or we will be embarrassed (again!). People who live in glass houses........well you get the drift!

I’ve decided to sit this one out. You can only point out the obvious so many times.

[wmcdonald]

What do you need? Develop a proposal and we will see. I am sure OLA, and maybe even VCA would fund a worthy project. There is a foundation that is Optician-controlled that may be of help as well, if you develop a solid proposal. I would love to see it.

But again, the AOA did not write that paper. An Optometrist did! My entire point is that ODs are writing about eyeglasses versus us. You do not necessarily need funding to write a paper.

[AustinEyewear]

What do you need? Develop a proposal and we will see. I am sure OLA, and maybe even VCA would fund a worthy project. There is a foundation that is Optician-controlled that may be of help as well, if you develop a solid proposal. I would love to see it.

But again, the AOA did not write tha paper. An Optometrist did! My entire point is that ODs are writing about eyeglasses versus us. You do not necessarily need fundiing to write a paper.

I'm trying to understand what you mean by these points? Why are you concerned that an OD wrote the paper? The way I read this is that you don't like OD's writing papers? If so, why? Or did you mean to simply say, anyone is writing papers but opticians?

[wmcdonald]

I want Opticians to be doing more. I want us to improve.

[optical24/7]

You don't necessarily need funding to write a paper, but if your research requires comparison of products, it can be costly. I've funded comparisons of differing PAL designs for our own in office knowledge, but that was a few years ago. I'd like a new one with expanded comparisons. As example I'd like to see real life comparisons on;

*Zeiss Individual
*Hoya iDLifeStyle
*Shamir Auto II
*Seiko Supercede
*Varilux Ipseo
* IOT (designer for many private labs' FF designs).
* ShoreView (basic, traditional design)
I’d like a minimum of 7 test subjects, preferably engineers that can articulate their visual experiences. A cross section of myopes, hyperopes and emmetropes. Each fit with the same individual's frame with PD/panto/SH/ect for each design (to eliminate variables) and get an evaluation of each with a consistent form to be filled out. I can supply the engineers (this town is full of them..) But I can't supply 49 sets of frames/PAL's.

[wmcdonald]

Then do some research that does not require that kind of funding. My point is I wish Opticians would stop watching the world go by and do something themselves. If you want to learn how to conduct research, and to develop an adequate proposal, get in touch with me (if you seriously want to do some writing) and I will help you. Opticians need to do more than measure PDs and take seg heights!

[Speed]

You tell it WM.

[Speed]

At first look, this study has a funny smell. It is not only conducted by a group that has only to gain by discrediting the on line industry. (wonder what percentage of personal business they do on line. There is a study for you.) But is is conducted by a group that is scaird wittless by on line biz. I ake a close look at the document. Just want to say, I know a few guys that went out of business looking at the guy across the street. The distraction did not allow them to look with in their own business.

[AustinEyewear]

At first look, this study has a funny smell. It is not only conducted by a group that has only to gain by discrediting the on line industry. (wonder what percentage of personal business they do on line. There is a study for you.) But is is conducted by a group that is scaird wittless by on line biz. I ake a close look at the document. Just want to say, I know a few guys that went out of business looking at the guy across the street. The distraction did not allow them to look with in their own business.

Why would O.D.'s be scared wittless? Its easy to compete with online retailers. Offer junk frames and crap lenses at low prices. Eliminate opticians from the office and just mail the glasses to the patient when the are done in the lab. Still get same margin and still get to collect exam fees with less overhead. Not saying that this is good, just saying its easy to compete with online retailers by offering the same level of service.

[Speed]

Why would O.D.'s be scared wittless? Its easy to compete with online retailers. Offer junk frames and crap lenses at low prices. Eliminate opticians from the office and just mail the glasses to the patient when the are done in the lab. Still get same margin and still get to collect exam fees with less overhead. Not saying that this is good, just saying its easy to compete with online retailers by offering the same level of service.

You need to get them in your office to do that. The on liners could do a similar study on brick and mortars, with almost duplicate findings.

[Barry Santini]

My life committment demands and dictates more:
Let online compete with what we bring to the table!
B

[Uncle Fester]

You need to get them in your office to do that. The on liners could do a similar study on brick and mortars, with almost duplicate findings.

I doubt B+M businesses would have an almost 25% failure to deliver rate!

[Speed]

I doubt B+M businesses would have an almost 25% failure to deliver rate!

You can find something wrong with every pair of glasses that has ever been made. Depends who does the study. I am sighting a conflict of interest here. If you dissagree with that, we have no more to discuss on this matter.

[Barry Santini]

I doubt B+M businesses would have an almost 25% failure to deliver rate!

In my office, I average a 25% failure-to-satisfy on the first attempt. From the public's perspective, this could be construed as the same as "wrong" (Although I HATE the term wrong when applied to eyewear.)

When a client says their old, "expired" eyewear is better/more comfortable than the new ones (regardless if there is an RX change or not)...

Q: Which of these pairs of eyewear are to be termed "wrong"?

B

[AustinEyewear]

You can find something wrong with every pair of glasses that has ever been made. Depends who does the study. I am sighting a conflict of interest here. If you dissagree with that, we have no more to discuss on this matter.

Patients health is of interest to AOA, therefore this study has merit. I see your point, but I don't think they skewed the study to produce results they wanted to see. That would be bad, no one is going to risk that. Lets face it, online retailers break the rules and cut corners. No ifs/ands or butts about it. 800-Contacts is a prime example of this. Not only do they not comply with Rx's, they also put O.D.'s staff to work for their own benefit, they also burn up fax machines and ink and tie up telephone lines. They are also now directing your patients to Wal*Mart doctors, in effect, stealing them. Online retailers simply can't provide the service and health care that patients need. They skimp on every faucet. They are forced to do so, or the cheapo's wouldn't buy from them because their prices would be too high.

[DragonLensmanWV]

One thing that has been misconstrued here. They ordered 200 pairs of glasses, yet only 154 pairs were received. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd sure be in trouble if I didn't deliver 25% of the orders I get.

[Barry Santini]

Some of the orders went unfulfilled (vendor issues), some were due to participants creating an order with conflicts that was either not resolved, or the vendor simply never followed up to resolve the issues. Other stuff too. It boils down to about <25% failed due to one or more ANSI issues, and about the same due to non-compliance with impact testing. However, it was qualified that the testers did the type of destructive testing on each and every lens, including materials that we treat as exempt from the lab, so its not a complete apples-to-apples comparison with B&M.

The bottom line is a "recheck" by the ecp's office weeded out alot of ANSI non-compliance offenders. Online-direct-to-consumer has no such vetting.

B