Wow. Just, wow.Originally Posted by MakeOptics
Wow. Just, wow.
Heh... He's a state SENATOR for ghod's sake....
But he had his broken pair of lenses with him, and they would not do a remake based on those, even though there is apparently no law against it. The article stated that the senator could not find an OD to do an exam on a timely basis (strongly implying that he would gladly have paid for one if he could have).
He was wronged, since apparently there is no law against a remake based on an existing lens. It is reasonable to assume he thought others might face the same problem when their glasses were broken and they needed an immediate replacement.
No, he was trying to get an emergency remake of the same lens he broke (probably just broke the frame, but not sure). Additionally, none of the first 4 optical shops he went to could do an exam for him on a timely basis. According to the article, and of some others from MN who have posted in this thread, it is actually not illegal in MN to remake a lens based on another lens presented to an optical shop, even without an unexpired Rx.
I'm the only one from Minnesota who has posted in this thread.
And for the record, it ISN'T illegal.
But my point was that he had an expired Rx.
From the article:
(italics, bold, highlight mine)The bill was inspired by his own misfortune. Last March, Senjem broke his only pair of glasses, so he went to a one-hour optical shop to get his glasses replaced as fast as possible. But, the person working at the store told Senjem that state law prohibited the sale of glasses to people with prescriptions older than two years – Senjem’s was over four years old – so he would have to have an eye exam to get new glasses, the Rochester Post Bulletin says.
“I believe I made the comment, ‘That’s a dumb law,’” Senjem told the paper.
He was frustrated because he had just passed his driver’s license eye test with his old glasses four months before they broke. Finally, after checking with three optical stores, he found one that could squeeze him in for an eye exam to get new glasses, the paper says.
It turns out there isn’t such a law about eyeglass prescriptions, but there is for contact lenses, the paper says. So Senjem set out to clear up the confusion and create an exception to eyeglass prescription expirations with a bill he calls the ”Freedom to See Act.”
Really? So you are saying those 4 opticals would have done a remake based on his existing lenses, except that he was being a jerk? I suppose you think he was lying when he said that the 4 opticals could not schedule an exam for him on a timely basis?
I said "what if..."
It was a suggestion of another scenario that might have happened.
There are stores who have policies that they don't refill expired prescriptions. Period.
I can't postulate on the exams, except to say that if it were perhaps at the beginning of a week or in the early part of the month, it would be quite possible that they could not have gotten the Senator in for an exam for at least 4-5 days. Normally that's not a problem for anyone.
I have no sympathy for this guy at all. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if his last pair of glasses came from an on-liner.
Apparently there is a statue in Minnesota that precludes dispensing opticians from performing their profession, at the retail level, independent of optometry.
Unlawful practices
(3) sell or dispose of, at retail, any spectacles, eye glasses, or lenses for the correction of vision in any established place of business or elsewhere in this state except under the supervision, direction, and authority of a duly licensed optometrist who holds a certificate under sections 148.52 to 148.62, and is in charge of and in personal attendance at the booth, counter, or place where such articles are sold or disposed of.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=148.56
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
I see the expration as a reasonable time frame to expect a normal healthy eye to see within 20/40 of examination. Lots of exceptions to the rule but good grief, this law isn't even worth discussing because like you said it's the money that talks here.
http://www.opticians.cc
Creator of the industries 1st HTML5 Browser based tracer software.
Creator of the industries 1st Mac tracer software.
Creator of the industries 1st Linux tracer software.
From the article;
"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."
I find the above ironic. And I've heard/read this before from the optometric community. Why it's ironic is that the main player in treating path, doing surgeries, ect is the Ophthalmologic community. OMD don't specify eye glass expirations (those that do would be in the vast minority.) So the experts that have the most training and see way more path than anybody, does not feel it necessary to expire Rx's after 12 months. I think we can all draw our own conclusions on the reason why, and whom does.
I may or may not like his politics. I don't know his views and frankly am not concerned with them. But on the surface, it sounds like a guy walked in, couldn't get what he wanted right away, and got frustrated. He most likely had been given advice in the past about an extra pair, backup, get a current exam, etc... Now he is in a self-imposed bind, is complaining, and happens to be in a position to effect legislation. He most likely never thought about this and never cared about this topic until he was inconvenienced- not by anybody but himself of course. Unfortunately, this happens all too often that some very simple advice that we provide is ignored. He is his own problem and is now making problems for others and wasting his legislative obligations.
(Timing is such that I had two similar conversations yesterday, one glasses and one contacts. Both situations were easily avoidable, resolvable (even at low cost), and one of them insisted that I was bilking him out of an exam. Sooo.... I don't have any sympathy for the public servant.)
Well, be careful. OMDs know doodley-squat about vision care. What they say on the matter is secondary to optometry.
Presumably, the original intent was to "guarantee" the value of a released Rx, and it was probably well-intentioned (albeit somewhat grudgingly, I'd imagine). Ergo a one-year expiration. Some states may have their own comfort level on the "guarantee".
Plus, understand ophthalmology doesn't want it's clinics cluttered with a truckload of normals or ametropes. It's a burden on their system. They for the most part don't even consider recalling normals; they just leave it up to the individual to seek routine care as appropriate. I think this is understandable from their perspective, but just because optometry is a little more interested in maintaining routine eye health screening exams, it doesn't always mean we're out for a buck.
But it is fee-for-service...
I guess the Lone Star State doesn't have many OMD's with dispensaries. Trust me it changes when they get one.
I don't know if this law is going anywhere but this proposition only highlights the fundamental flaw of most OD's mentalities. Margins have shrunk to unsustainable levels in managed vision care, the previously huge margins of the dispensary are being nibbled down everyday and the cost of running a practice are rising. The solution is for OD's to stop acting like retail "practitioners" and start acting like the doctors they are. (of optometry). The future of optometry is to focus on health and preventative examinations and bill MEDICAL insurance. This is how it should have always been by the way, the B&M retail pioneered by the big boys like luxx totally shifted the industry away from this. There are huge amounts of revenue to be made billing medically. Sure, the massive glut of patients that take all the chair time for glasses and CL exams will shrink but the huge explosion of baby boomer and other aging generations who should be walking through your doors are the profit centers. Ophthalmologists are the specialists, OD's should be the family doc or general practitioner, if you will. Refer to MD's when there is a need outside of your scope of treatment. I have worked with OD's that have the exam/glx/CL business model and some that have worked the medical model. The medical is BY FAR more profitable, income stabilized, and have growth potential without having to open up more dispensary locations to sell more glasses. There are so many opportunities to bill medically. It amazes me that so many OD's don't get it. For example, any convergence/divergence insufficiency is billable but most OD's don't want to spend the time performing those exams and/or don't feel confident dealing with prism RX's. Another example, demodex blepharitis is one of the most overlooked diagnoses which is also billable medically. Most OD's aren't even aware of this condition! Furthermore, retinal photography should be done by every OD for three reasons: First, its good medicine. Second, its a profit center and medical billable, third its going to become a liability if OD's don't catch AMD early due to a lack of modern equipment.
Anyway, my point is the OD's need to stop caring about the spec RX expiration and trying to sadly leverage that as the rope that pulls patients back in for a "health" check. Start actually comprehensively examing pts, treating pts, and bill medically like a doctor should. People see dentists at least once a year, even if there is nothing wrong, there is a preventative mentality that drives this. Most OD's have lost that but tomorrow's successful one's will provide this level of care. Glx and CL's will simply be a secondary source of revenue.
As far as opticians go and a non-expiring RX, that is another story. Like Uncle Fester talks about, we need to unite as a group and financially fund a stronger optician industry. Retail glasses sales people need to stop being called opticians. Just like OD's have a mentality and image problems so do we. Through better education and stronger rules governing our trade we can also make a positive future.
My two cents
A good value for 2 cents.
Doc, that post (#36) just gave me the best laugh in a long time!!!
Fester, vast majority of OMD's have dispensaries around here. The biggest difference is that it makes up a small percentage of their total revenue.
Based on many replies I've seen here and elsewhere, only ammetropes require screening for eye health. Plano need not apply.
B
I don't believe that is exactly correct. He was willing to pay for an exam, but he went to four opticals and could not get one in a timely basis. I understand that many would like customers to have a backup pair with them, but that is different subject.
Here in Florida, spectacle Rx's (according to Opticianry and Optometry statutes) are valid for 5 years. It doesn't say anything about if a patient has a medical condition, or that it's up to the Dr. to decide or any other specifics like with contact lenses, 5 years, period! HOWEVER, 99% of OD's still write spectacle Rx's with 2 year expiration dates, which is a violation of their own statutes, because they want patients to come back for exam$$$. This puts us Opticians in a peculiar situation sometimes when patients ask about expiration dates, when they break their glasses, when they can see better out of an old pair vs new pair, etc. To make matters even more interesting, we (Opticians) can duplicate any pair of glasses (no matter how old they are) and that duplication is considered valid for 5 years as well. We all agree that we want our patients to see well and have healthy eyes, but mandating exams by means of expiration dates for glasses Rx's should be against the law. We should all do a better job of promoting eye health awareness instead of spending money lobbying to enact all these crazy laws that only benefit a select few.
On expiration dates:
For a very long time, roughly 15 years, my rx change was negligible. I was R -1.50 Sph L -2.75 Sph.
When I hit 55 (4 years ago), my vision started to change. I went to a MD because of incipient cataracts and glaucoma risks in the family. In the past 4 years, my rx has changed roughly once per year, and I'm not talking about a little bitty .25d change. In 2012, my Rx was R -2.00x+1.00 L -3.00x+1.00, in 2013 it was R -1.00x+0.75 L -2.50x+1.25
I consider myself to be of average health with good corrected vision. I can totally understand the desire for expiration dates, if for no other reason than to check on the health of the eye. My current written Rx's do not have an expiration date, only a date of exam.
Mr. Cataract is paying you a visit.
Which is why I get annual exams.
So is the great senator from MN going to be prepossessing some type of implementation of national standards. Is the state of MN licensed? Why is the senator not requiring that all eyeglass wearers to have several pairs of glasses so we don't have to waste tax payers dollars on the,"freedom to see act" and get back to this water boarding issue. How about we institute a national health care program so we don't need to worry about malpractice insurance.
No. You apparently have not carefully read the article or followed the discussion in this thread. He is a state senator in the MN state legislature, and has nothing to do with the US Senate.
I beg to differ, nowhere in the article does it state that Mr Senjem is a representative of the state senate. It refers to him as the Sen. David Senjem. Yes, you are correct he does not seem to have any involvement with the U S Senate, and for that I thank the good Lord. Now that that has been settled can we get back to water boarding.
How should you have know he was not a US senator?
- He was identified as Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester in the article. A US Senator is a statewide office and they don't represent any one area of a state (such as Rochester).
- The optical business is largely governed by state laws (except that the federal government says Rx's must be given to consumers and they must last at least one year).
- It was mentioned in several posts in this thread that he was a state senator in the MN legislature.
- Most likely, a US senator would have had that happen (broken glasses that needed to repaired right away) in Washington DC, not in MN.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks