B.C.Opticians - You can do better
B.C. Opticians If you go to your Colleges web site you will find a spot on the home page which is entitled:
THE RISKS OF INTERNET DISPENSING
and in the first opening line they say this:
" Online purchasing has made its way into virtually every aspect of life. In many cases, shopping on the Internet is easy and convenient and provides a quality, reliable service." ..... " The attraction of buying prescription eyewear over the Internet is that it may be faster or cheaper than visiting an optical store. " .....
Is this really what you want your College to say ?
Last edited by idispense; 03-05-2012 at 08:15 AM.
I hear you. Some part of this puzzle is missing.
Next thing up on the site will be: "While buying from Great Glass 3 FOR 1 is sweeping the nation and is easy and convenient and this ex convict offers ready service, we think you should check him out carefully. The attraction of buying 3 for 1 glasses including an illegal free sight test is that he is just so affordable and faster than the rest of those poor licensed Opticians constrainted by regulations that the college imposes upon them. We know this is quite a bargin but please just dont buy from him cause we dont like him." LOL sorry. Maybe not everyone gets my dark humor.
I can't imagine who writes that stuff at the College but they need to stand up in front of all the membership and have the membership pre-approve these things first before they do more damage to opticians . They have done enough damage out there already.
If they had studied their definitions of dispensing to begin with they could have avoided the mess they have created .
At least they are not alone , the rest of the Provinces will FIU too and not pay attention to the definitions and wording in their Acts .
Last edited by idispense; 03-07-2012 at 06:31 AM.
Originally Posted by inside out
In my opinion the biggest reason there was deregulation of Opticians in BC was so that companies like clearlycontacts.com (who happened to fund the health ministers at the time's political party with $10,000) could flourish without the restriction of needing actual prescriptions in order to dispense glasses/contacts. Clearlycontacts does not ask you for a copy of your Rx and does not even verify the Rx values you provide (these are traditionally major parts of an Opticians job). The rules are tailored specifically to them along with other new potential online vendors.
You may be right.
There were other factors that contributed as well. One of those major points was risk of harm. The College chose not to prove any risk of harm and that proved to be a fatal error in judgement. The transcripts clearly show that the even the original judge and appeal judges wanted to know what the risk of harm was. The College relied on the fact that it was legislated therefore there was no legal need to prove risk of harm. MOH Falcon's rebuttal to the opticians was that there was no risk of harm . That was a fatal mistake on the part of the College.
Another issue was that the College should have anticipated this by looking at the background of the MOH and his previous posts as the Minister of Deregulation and the Board of Coastal , being a public company, was transparent.
Another issue was the wording of their act and the definition of dispensing. They should have known it would not stand up . This is a huge problem even today with all of the Colleges and Associations . Refusal to look at their definitions and work towards getting them worded properly .
To this you might also add that they did not know the identity of any licensed opticians who might be working at Coastal and therefore the judges correctly pointed out that they would asssume the College was content that there were appropriately licensed opticians there as the College did not refute it. I can't imagine why they did this ?
If somebody hit your car and you take them to court for damages , how would you expect to win if you can't prove the identity of the driver ?
And then there is a thing called arrogance.
And then there is a thing called stupidity on the part of opticians to not get involved .
It is a huge mistake to not check up on the Collges and keep them in line . This is a self governing profession which means that it comes down to governance by each one of us .
The spin on this afterwards would seem to be in contrast to the way I would read the transcripts.
Last edited by idispense; 03-07-2012 at 02:13 PM.
Poppycock!! The College of Opticians of BC (COBC) didn’t allege a danger to the public from the dispensing of eyewear because they wouldn’t be able to prove this danger. In 1992 the BC Health Professions Council closely examined this ‘danger to the public’ issue regarding the dispensing of eyeglasses and found that no such danger actually existed. But they found that a danger to the public from improperly fitted contact lens fitting was a valid consideration, and so they recommended that opticianry become regulated in BC in 1995 and also included dispensing of eyeglasses in COBC’s mandate.
Insurance ‘actuaries’ are trained risk assessment professionals, and their detailed assessment of risk dictate the annual insurance rates that you and I pay for fire insurance, health insurance, Errors & Omissions (E&O) coverage, etc. In Canada, we Opticians pay a paltry $95.00/yr for three (3)-Million ($3,000,000.00) E&O insurance obtained through our optical associations, and these associations also take a cut of this $95.00/yr group premium. Obviously the insurance actuaries has determined that the risk of insurance payout for improper dispensing of eyeglasses (and CL) is essentially zero (0), and a $95.00 annual E&O coverage premium is little more than an insurance company’s file-opening fee. So you can’t fault COBC for not raising this bogus ‘dispensing eyeglasses danger’ issue.
But there are other valid reasons for maintaining regulation of ‘dispensing opticians’... setting of minimum competency standards for BC opticians, a place where the public can complain about a BC licensed opticians’ breach of ethics or bad business practices, mandatory annual continuing education requirements to stay current with technological innovations in the eyecare industry, mandatory criminal record checks, etc.
Danger to the public in the dispensing of eyewear is a canard.
Poppycock yourself good sir ! I apologize for not making this perfectly clear, but the case of which I speak was only about contact lenses,not eyeglasses. I think if you would read the transcripts yourself you would have a better idea of which I speak.
Of course I could point out to you that the word "eyeglasses" does not appear in my posting but then again neither does the word "contacts" . I never did speak of "dispensing eyeglass danger" only you did so there was nothing bogus in my posting , only yours.
Perhaps you would like to read the transcripts now ?
I shall await you apology good sir .
Could we have a non-bogus apology on one knee ?
Your first post refers to "internet dispensing of prescription eyewear", and the BC government didn't deregulate BC's Contact Lens Fitters. Our E&O liability coverage includes the fitting of CL, so these insurance actuaries have determined that little or no risk is associated with the fitting of CL by Opticians, hence the low $95.00/yr premium.
Originally Posted by idispense
No apology is warranted.
Ah but good sir , I would have to point out that your post # 9 was in response to my post # 8 and yours was not in response to post # 1 . Post # 1 is an entirely different matter . "prescription eyewear " is only mentioned in post # 1, it is not mentioned in the post that you replied to nor would it logically fit in within the context of your reply.
In respect of your agedness, a non-bogus apology on two knees with pictures of your students helping you up after will be quite sufficient.
PS : December 16th, 1994 according to the Ministry. but what is a few days amongst friends
Last edited by idispense; 03-08-2012 at 05:44 AM.
Last edited by idispense; 03-21-2012 at 07:55 AM.
OptiBoard Bronze Supporter
You're right any Joe can refract. Refraction was never a controlled activity under Health Professions Act. The controlled procedures (from and ECP standpoint) are conveying a diagnosis and writing an rx for the appliance. Now neither is required to make & sell a pair of glasses to the public! Mr Falcon's Modernization Act reders registration for optoms and opticians pointless (wrt glasses sales). That's a lot of dollars spent on association and college fees, liability insurance......hmmmm So opticians winning the right to sight-test, big woop! Optometrists being able to treat glaucoma, big woop! We've both lost big time. The ******* that did not push for refraction as a controlled procedure and allowed dispensing to remain controlled have done us a huge disservice.
Anyhow my brilliant wife borught up a point regarding insurance co's allowing Clearly CL's to direct bill: who is verifying that the actual policy holder is getting the glasses. The possibility for fraud is great. I could "sell" you my $250 coverage for $50 (if I not need eyewear) and you get a pair of glasses form CC for $200 or less and hey everyone's a winner except B&M retailers...
Some insurance companies advertise and push the on liners on their web sites so I doubt they are concerned. They seem to be bed buddies.
Last edited by idispense; 03-25-2012 at 02:03 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By icmor in forum Computer and Software Help
Last Post: 10-18-2011, 05:46 PM
By Spexvet in forum Just Conversation
Last Post: 04-09-2008, 07:57 PM
By crystaloptical in forum Optical Marketplace
Last Post: 04-04-2005, 10:49 PM
By chip anderson in forum Just Conversation
Last Post: 03-20-2003, 09:25 AM
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by: