Calling AR "Anti-Glare" is just so lazy. Using 1.56 is also lazy.
You sound like another lazy optician. There's already enough of those.
But we've all under-charged accidentally somewhere down the line, and it's a horrible feeling, so I do understand you're just trying to cover your costs.
Best to just do what you know is right.
Ansi makes us use a 2.0 min ct and hey it kinda worksActually, the only reference that ANSI Z80.1-2010 makes about impact resistance for general purpose eyewear is"...All lenses must conform to the impact resistance requirements of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, 801.410 (CFR 801.410)."ANSI doesn't make you do anything. ANSI is voluntary. However, ANSI standards are a part of the VA Opticianry Regulations, so the VA Regs make you meet them
21 CFR 801.410 does not specify lens thickness, it specificies a referee test (the dropball test) that determines if a lens has been made impact resistant. Neither "ANSI" nor 21 CFR 801410 require a 2.0 mm CT for anything (other than the ANSI addendum that air tempered glass should have a minmum of 2.0 mm CT).
The original post asked:The "A" in "ANSI" stands for "American", meaning that ANSI Z80.1-2010 is probably an inappropriate place for a Toronto based optician to be looking for standards advice. Having said that, the word "polycarbonate" does not appear in Z80.1-2010, nor does Z80.1-2010 suggest that there is any different impact resistance standard for kids than any other group. So the answer is "No, there are no ANSI requirements to use polycarbonate for kids for general purpose eyewear."is there any ansi requirements for poly instaed of other lens for kids or its generally recommendede poly for kids
It has been generally accepted in the US that kids should receive lenses with high impact resistance. The legal notion of "Duty to Warn" recognizes that there could be potential liability on the part of the ECP if a lens of lesser impact resistance was sold without a warning that higher impact resistant materials exist. As noted by several other posters, 1.56 material is one of the least impact resistant materials, and application of some coatings can reduce the impact resistance even more. As such, 1.56 would not be generally accepted in the US for children. Although not illegal if it passes the dropball test, use of 1.56 could leave the ECP open from a liability standpoint in the event of lens failure. Many companies, fearing such liability, have their own standard to use high impact resistant materials for all patients under 18. In some cases, a third party payer (insurance, Medicaid) may have reimbursement policies that end up influencing the material decision for kids.
RT
Originally Posted by Robert_S
Or he's someone trying to learn something from his peers. I'm quite surprised at the amout of vitrol being thrown at this guy. No one on this forum is perfect, and not everyone has had the same oppertunities to learn. This should be a place that professionals can come together and learn from eachother, not look down our noses at someone who asks a question you feel is 'below' you. Anti-Glare and Anti-Reflection are very interchangable terms. I've heard both from Opticians, Optometrists, and labs. What people have to remember is that Optiboard is an extremely international forum. Terms will differ from place to place, and it's pretty terrible to assume that just because someone doesn't use your local term for a product that they're bad at what they do.
I agree. Some undies seriously need untwisting.
"Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened beings; only enlightened activity." -Shunryu Suzuki
You're never going to avoid the negatives on here, don't bother trying. If you ask a question you're goin to get shredded for your ignorance in not knowing everything, or being less experienced or for whatever. Calling something no-glare - glarefree - glare"whatever" is CLEARLY just a tradename they've applied to a product, but it opens the door for bashing by the self-appointed "elite".
Trust me, if you're doing your best you're doing as well or better then anyone else on here is. Do what you think is right for your business, and the patient sitting in front of you and everyone will be happy.
There is no law stating that we have to use Poly. It falls under Duty to Warn.
http://www.nao.org/cec/Online%20CECs...e%20Lenses.pdf
page 6.
For me, the cost between CR39 and Poly is so small that even on medicaid where I don't get paid for poly, I use poly since if my daughter needed glasses, that's what I would give her(well actually she would get Trivex).
We offer very little CR39 unless its VSP and they don't want to pay. But I wont let them use a semi-rimless frame since its our policy(The independent practice I work for).
In another thread ‘Torontooptician’ claims to be a recent graduate of Toronto’s Seneca College 2-year full-time opticianry program, and yet he charges extra for UV protection in polycarbonate lenses. Go figure!!
I'm actually taking the time to teach him something. You're making excuses for him. Hopefully he isn't quite as touchy as you are and he won't take it personally, and he will learn from his mistake.
This isn't an issue of semantics or terminology; to describe an AR coating as "anti-glare" is simply incorrect and misleading to the patient. But we should just let it pass for fear of offending someone?
Lastly, I have not said he was bad at what he does. You merely inferred it.
II regularly ask patients if they would like their lenses with or without glare, the response is always without. It si a powerful sales tool that ultimately leads to the client getting what they need. Don't get so caught up in nomenclature that you technical babble your clients out of products that have real world benefits for them. Since I don't sell lenses to opticians (thank God), I speak as though I am talking to a person with no knowledge. I once again asert that in school it is refered to as ARC, but on a sales floor it absolutely must move past terminology that is not easily interpreted. I spend less time educating my clients on the vocabulary of this industry which most could care less about and more time educating them about the features and benefits of the eyewear choices I am giving them.
KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.
If you're going to go down that route then I think "Improves visual clarity" is better than "Prevents glare", and has the advantage of actually being true.
In Canada you harden glass lenses for childrens frames. that is about the only rule. No rule for Polycabonate lenses.
a doctor more concerned about the bottom line than the quality of patient care...what a shock....NOT !!!!!
"Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde"
You called him a lazy optician. I don't know who you've been teaching, but no good teacher corrects a student by prefacing it with a put down. If you don't want people taking things personally, perhaps you should avoid the personal attacks.
It is exactly semantics. While it techincally may be correct, if you start talking to patients about the difference between Glare and Reflection, the vast majority of them will roll their eyes at you if only behind your back. It's the same reason I don't correct a patient when they say 'No Line bifocal' instead of progressive unless they ask the difference. Of course it's wrong, but what will correcting them gain you? Nothing. The OP knew he was talking about AR, and everyone else on the thread knew he was talking about AR. You seem to be the only one who has an issue with it. But I guess that just means the rest of us are lazy too.
Fleet Commander:
While I agree about the put-down response. But I have a real problem with calling a product somethint it is not. It seems miss-leading and bordering on fraudulent. But then what's a little deception when one is selling.
Chip
Honestly, I think everyone is overreacting. I suggest that we back off the name-calling and start acting like the professionals we claim to be.
As for 'anti-glare' I was the UTMC Director at SOLA Optical for several years and never once would we refer to an anti-reflective coating as 'anti-glare'. It is technically incorrect. As others have noted, polarized lenses are a better fit for that description.
However given that, Marketing always has different ideas on labeling and product positioning, and those ideas are not always technically correct. Nonetheless in many companies, Marketing has the last say and technicians are often left to deal with the mess. I was certainly no stranger to this, but I was fortunate to work with a group of people that deferred to the technicians in matters like this. Not everyone is so fortunate.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Ok, show me a quote from this thread where I said "Prevents glare". BTW what I did say, "would you like your lenses with or without glare" is completely and unequivocally true.
If we're going to split hairs "anti-reflective" is misleading because the lens still has some wavelength of the visual spectrum that is being reflected, it's refered to as the risidual color. Mayeb we shoudl read every client that walks into a dispensary a 50 page thesis on the technicality of a simple coating. Heck in another thread most opticians don't even have a clue how the coating works but they know what I should be calling it. Get real, the goal is to provide it to any client that would benefit, do what you need to do to make that happen.
Oh that's right your not selling products through your location, your provideing miracles. do you prefer St. Chip or St. Anderson?
The previous poster made an assumption that he proceeded to surround in quotes so that he could prove me wrong. His and your point about a made up statement are correct too bad you don't know what your talking about.
I coined a term for this condition I call it planned ignorance, it's when someone doesn't like the others opinion so they distort it just enough where their ignorance of the statement can hold true.
Last edited by MakeOptics; 06-02-2012 at 07:55 PM.
BTW to the original poster. Put your big boy pants on and call the client back to explain that you undercharged them. Then offer them the option of 1.56 if you feel that is right. Ultimately it is the clients choice to make not yours. I absolutely don't condone swapping out a different product, that is deceptive. The only time you should swap out a product is if you can provide a better product to the patient.
Your last three posts are unacceptable conduct on these forums. Continued abuse like this will not be tolerated.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
I think the goal is for the patient to appreciate the value of the product you are reccommending to them, and then nine times out of ten they will take your advice. Then, when they look back at their bill, they will be thinking of all the things you've done for them, and not all the money you've charged.
It takes a very small amount of time to take them through the features and benefits of a premium AR in very straightforward terms. High-street opticians will just take three seconds to say "would you like your lenses with or without glare?". All I can say is I know which approach sits well with my conscience.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks