Sooner or later, this disconnect was gonna happen...

[Barry Santini]

http://www.bringmethenews.com/2014/0...om-to-see-act/

The fundamental questions are:

Are ECPs overly encumbering the renewal/replacement process for eyewear?

Should traditional (eye) healthcare gate keeping be tied to mandated prophylactic screening?

Should all types of healthcare screening be mandated or tied to law?

is this one one the underlying goals of the ACA?

Will this senator's experience create a national Warby Parker law?

Discussion?

B

[m0002a]

I believe that David Senjem is a state senator in the Minnesota legislature, so not likely to become national law. I thought than in some states it was legal for an optician to replace glasses based on an existing pair, but I am not sure about that.

Also, the state senator has already backed off his original idea:

"The Minnesota Optometric Association and Senjem are teaming up to come up with a compromise that will likely allow an optometrist or physician to prescribe emergency eyeglass replacements, but not opticians and eyeglass retailers, the paper says."

[Barry Santini]

I believe that David Senjem is a state senator in the Minnesota legislature, so not likely to become national law. I thought than in some states it was legal for an optician to replace glasses based on an existing pair, but I am not sure about that.

Also, the state senator has already backed off his original idea:

"The Minnesota Optometric Association and Senjem are teaming up to come up with a compromise that will likely allow an optometrist or physician to prescribe emergency eyeglass replacements, but not opticians and eyeglass retailers, the paper says."

I can think of no reason that opticians couldn't produce an emergency eyeglass replacement. For people who are functional emmetropes, and broke their sunglasses, would you mandate the same eye exam requirement before you would allow them to believe they are still Plano?

B

[m0002a]

For people who are functional emmetropes, and broke their sunglasses, would you mandate the same eye exam requirement before you would allow them to believe they are still Plano?

That would be going a bit too far, and akin to setting up checkpoints where you had to pass an eye exam to make sure your current lenses were up to date. We are getting a little silly here.

[Chris Ryser]

would allow opticians, optometrists, physicians or eyeglass retailers to sell someone glasses based on an old prescriptio
The Freedwould allow opticians, optometrists, physicians or eyeglass retailers to sell someoneom toe

Well it fits into our new times and eyeglass politics.

[Barry Santini]

I dont think this is silly at all.

Q: what amount of amnetropia qualifies an individual for Rx expiration/mandatory eye exams before eyewear purchase or replacement?

B

[m0002a]

I dont think this is silly at all.

Q: what amount of amnetropia qualifies an individual for Rx expiration/mandatory eye exams before eyewear purchase or replacement?

B

Plano sunglasses are not the same as Rx eyewear. Not to mention that many contact lens uses wear plano sunglasses. In the same way many medications are sold over the counter (even many that once required an Rx), sunglasses are over the counter eyewear. Same applies to reading glasses.

The interesting question is, if there is no law in MN preventing an optical shop from replacing broken glasses without a new Rx (according the article):

1. Why don't opticals in MN know this?
2. Why is the state senator proposing a new law to address this issue?

[MakeOptics]

So the same people writting expiration dates on prescriptions are going to be helping to write the law that will allow only optometrists not retailers or opticians an exception to making an emergency pair of glasses. Glad I don't follow stupid laws.

[MikeAurelius]

The article is baloney.

Every optical shop in my local area here (roughly 20+) will replace lenses from a broken pair if there is enough lens left (in the frame) to read the Rx, or, failing that, a copy of a recent written Rx, provided it hasn't expired. My guess is that the dear (Republican) state senator wants to put a "No Expiration Date" clause into law, which even on the face is absolutely ridiculous. And this, from a guy whose home city and district is home to The Mayo Clinic.

I'd go political here, but I'm restraining myself (barely).

[m0002a]

The article is baloney.

Every optical shop in my local area here (roughly 20+) will replace lenses from a broken pair if there is enough lens left (in the frame) to read the Rx, or, failing that, a copy of a recent written Rx, provided it hasn't expired. My guess is that the dear (Republican) state senator wants to put a "No Expiration Date" clause into law, which even on the face is absolutely ridiculous. And this, from a guy whose home city and district is home to The Mayo Clinic.

I'd go political here, but I'm restraining myself (barely).

Obviously an optical will dispense lenses on an unexpired Rx. What does that have to do with the article or this thread?

The senator broke his glasses and could not get a timely appointment for a new Rx, and just wanted his lenses replaced. I am not sure what that has to do with politics.

[MakeOptics]

Obviously an optical will dispense lenses on an unexpired Rx. What does that have to do with the article or this thread?

The senator broke his glasses and could not get a timely appointment for a new Rx, and just wanted his lenses replaced. I am not sure what that has to do with politics.

The story is a just that, a story so a politician and his cronies can implement laws to help his financiers. If opticians and retailers were not allowed to make an emergency, why do we duplicate an Rx or edge down. Restricting emergency pairs to Optometry offices only will exacerbate the scenario the politician is complaining about.

[optical24/7]

Many state allow duplication without a limit on how old the glasses are.

Eye glass Rx's are not covered under the same laws as pharmaceuticals, thus, unless a state has a optometric law that mandates expiration, "Expires in one year" is worthless and only a suggestion.


I know of no MD that writes an expiration on an Rx. I don't know of an OD that doesn't.

[Uncle Fester]

The story is a just that, a story so a politician and his cronies can implement laws to help his financiers. If opticians and retailers were not allowed to make an emergency, why do we duplicate an Rx or edge down. Restricting emergency pairs to Optometry offices only will exacerbate the scenario the politician is complaining about.

Or...Opticians are unable to organize and tax ourselves to effectively brib...err lobby politicians so we will continue to be marginalized when ever possible by those who recognize the value of effective political reelection contributions aka lobbying.

[MakeOptics]

Many state allow duplication without a limit on how old the glasses are.

Eye glass Rx's are not covered under the same laws as pharmaceuticals, thus, unless a state has a optometric law that mandates expiration, "Expires in one year" is worthless and only a suggestion.


I know of no MD that writes an expiration on an Rx. I don't know of an OD that doesn't.

The law is nonsense and accomplishes nothing. If the senators story is true which I will assume for this scenario then he didn't get glasses because the people that call themselves opticians in MN are not educated enough to know they could DUP, or the optical was trying to drum up an exam for the man behind the curtain.

Scenario 1 just means the same thing, since any new law isn't going to force staff to learn or enforce the new law. How many years has HIPPO been around and I have only meet a hand full of people that have read the law, but a butt load of people distort it to get around customer service issues, refunds, releasing the RX, etc.

Scenario 2 what is there to say doctor writes expiration on spec prescription, expiration is a problem for one man, so to relieve the burden from the expiration the law is going to become only the OD can give permission for an emergency pair.

None of this makes sense if I lived in MN I would just write a letter explaining that I am excluding myself from such an asinine law and wait for the eyeglass police to come and take me to Gitmo in the middle of the night.

[Robert Martellaro]

Breaking news...

State senator Senjem proposes legislation to fix a problem that doesn't exist, for free publicity.

"It turns out there isn't such a law about eyeglass prescriptions"

State senator Senjem admits that he is incapable of packing a spare pair of eyeglasses in his travel bag.

Meanwhile, State senator Senjem's constituents ask why opticians in Minnesota are so ill-informed, and why the state doesn't require training or education for opticians.

[m0002a]

The story is a just that, a story so a politician and his cronies can implement laws to help his financiers. If opticians and retailers were not allowed to make an emergency, why do we duplicate an Rx or edge down. Restricting emergency pairs to Optometry offices only will exacerbate the scenario the politician is complaining about.

The state senator broke his glasses, and was told he could not get a replacement without an unexpired Rx, and he could not schedule a timely exam. He thought that was crazy and introduced a law to allow a lens to be reproduced based on an existing lens. There is nothing political about that, and it was not designed to benefit any cronies. It is no wonder that political posts have been a problem on this forum.

After he got major pushback from the optical industry on his proposed law (which may have been unnecessary because apparently in MN it is legal to reproduce a broken pair of glasses without an Rx of any kind), they came up with a compromise whereby an OD or MD could approve an expired Rx without an actual exam in an emergency. I don't see anything political about this either. But apparently all the opticals in MN he went to did not know they were allowed to replace a broken pair of eyeglasses without an unexpired Rx, and that is also part of the problem.

[Barry Santini]

Still, it leaves emmetropes and mild ammetropes out of the "present" vision-gate keeping loop.

B

[Uncle Fester]

The state senator broke his glasses, and was told he could not get a replacement without an unexpired Rx, and he could not schedule a timely exam. He thought that was crazy and introduced a law to allow a lens to be reproduced based on an existing lens. There is nothing political about that, and it was not designed to benefit any cronies. It is no wonder that political posts have been a problem on this forum.

To follow is what caught my eye and to me demonstrates what a lobbyist on your professions side can produce in initial legislation. That it now includes opticians does have me reconsidering the motives of the Senator and I congratulate him on including them.


"But there’s been some opposition from the Minnesota Optometric Association, which says eye exams are critically important to detect potentially serious medical conditions, and also to make sure a patient’s vision hasn’t changed, the newspaper says.

The Minnesota Optometric Association and Senjem are teaming up to come up with a compromise that will likely allow an optometrist or physician to prescribe emergency eyeglass replacements, but not opticians and eyeglass retailers, the paper says."

[drk]

The story is a just that, a story so a politician and his cronies can implement laws to help his financiers. If opticians and retailers were not allowed to make an emergency, why do we duplicate an Rx or edge down. Restricting emergency pairs to Optometry offices only will exacerbate the scenario the politician is complaining about.

We had the same baloney here in Ohio with the "watering down CL dispensing laws" fiasco. Ask Johns.

This is pure fiction, as you may expect, with a hidden agenda driven by money.

Period. End of story.

The only "whodunit" left is who's money is talking. And that shouldn't be too challenging.

[drk]

The "glasses expiration needed to enforce regular eye exams" is baloney, as well. It's just a stupid political argument because there is none better.

In reality, there is no valid reason for an expiration for a spectacle Rx. It expires, if you will, the day after it's written! How can you endorse a prescription for a refractive error for more than a few months, if at that?

No. While you can make a reasonable guess in some cases as to whether this Rx will be good in 11 months, it's still a guess, and it's only in some cases.

I'd be OK without spectacle Rx expirations. (CLs totally different.)

[m0002a]

This is what caught my eye and too me demonstrates what a lobbyist on your professions side can produce in initial legislation. That it now includes opticians does have me reconsidering the motives of the Senator and I congratulate him on including them.

Motives? His motives were to get a replacement pair of glasses so he could (probably) safely drive home and get around for a few days until he could find an OD to do an exam. Why do you think he has any other motives?

What he found out is that his legislation probably would not pass unless he compromised with the industry groups, that allowed only an OD or MD to grant an emergency exception without an actual exam. His initial bill was to allow opticals to remake the lenses.

But the real question (already mentioned) is that there is no law preventing opticals from remaking the lenses based on an existing lens, so who is going to fix the problem that apparently a lot of opticals in MN don't know that, or don't care.

[m0002a]

The "glasses expiration needed to enforce regular eye exams" is baloney, as well. It's just a stupid political argument because there is none better.

In reality, there is no valid reason for an expiration for a spectacle Rx. It expires, if you will, the day after it's written! How can you endorse a prescription for a refractive error for more than a few months, if at that?

No. While you can make a reasonable guess in some cases as to whether this Rx will be good in 11 months, it's still a guess, and it's only in some cases.

I'd be OK without spectacle Rx expirations. (CLs totally different.)

I am sure there are interest groups involved in this (OD's and MD's), but all Rx's (drugs, etc) expire in 1 year, so the idea of an expiring Rx is not anything special to the optical business.

The expiration of an Rx for eyeglasses and contacts varies by state (some are valid for two years), and can be different for eyeglasses versus contacts. However, per FTC regulations, they must be valid for at least a year in all states. As we all know, the FTC enforces the rule that an OD or MD hand over a paper copy of an Rx to a patient after an exam.

[MikeAurelius]

Obviously an optical will dispense lenses on an unexpired Rx. What does that have to do with the article or this thread?

The senator broke his glasses and could not get a timely appointment for a new Rx, and just wanted his lenses replaced. I am not sure what that has to do with politics.

Well, apparently you read a different article than I did. The one I read stated that the store he went to refused to make new lenses for him because his prescription was 4 years old.

I'm sorry I confused you with the politics reference, it was because in Minnesota, Republicans have a tendency to make new laws when they believe they have somehow been personally wronged.

Subnote: This is about the refusal to fill an expired prescription nothing else. The Senator is essentially asking for the removal of expiration dates from spectacle prescriptions.

[MikeAurelius]

One thing no one has brought up, which came to me while reading through the responses...

What if...the Senator came in with his senatorial attitude demanding that they fix his glasses, and because he was a jerk about it, the store staff simply said, "we can't do it because the Rx is expired". I know a bit about Senjen, and he does have a tendency to talk down to the small folk. In Minnesota right now, the Republicans are in the minority in the House and Senate, and there is a Democrat sitting in the Governor's chair. They lost big time last election and are still sorely annoyed about that. That the "good" senator wishes to exercise some political muscle does not surprise me in the slightest, it is essentially the same baloney that lost them the election last cycle.

[drk]

If indeed it was a personal vendetta (and of course this is either a pure fictional story or a set-up) how small would the legislator have to be, to re-write the laws for a state because he's ticked?