If a patient came in to your dispensary and asked you to forgo the distance part of an RX and fill a progressive lens with a near power only would this be allowed by law.
Thanks in advance!
If a patient came in to your dispensary and asked you to forgo the distance part of an RX and fill a progressive lens with a near power only would this be allowed by law.
Thanks in advance!
No!! Or else da GLASSES POLICE will come get you and arrest everyone involved!!!Originally Posted by LC James
--Just kidding!
Of course that's ok. Things like this are done everyday (especially by retailers).
People keep thinking that vision care regulations are some strict set rules that parallel pharmaceutical sanctions (narcotic regulations etc.) -- That couldn't be further from the truth. Aspects and components of the vision care field cannot be exploited for lucrative means as easily as other medical fields (once again, like pharmacies and narcotic dispensaries).
So in other words in the "Southwest" you are allowed to prescribe? The add power is not the only component of a reading prescription and if the patient is trying to have reading only that is incorrect. With a prescription written for bifocals there are many interpretations you can make but using the add only is not one of them. In this case they want progressives and you are not giving them their full reading power.
Anyone else?
Cindy Galloway, LDO, ABOC, NCLEC
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed they are not it.
Let me make sure I understand: The patient wants no prescription (plano) at the top, with the add power below in a progressive? Or do they just want a pair of single vision Near Vision Only?
If it's the first, then no, that would not be good, since the add power is meant to be combined with the distance prescription to get the near vision rx. If it's the second, then that would be no problem.
If all they want is the add power prescription, they can get some pre-made readers.
There are rules. Knowing those are easy. There are exceptions to the rules. Knowing those are easy. Knowing when to use them is slightly less easy. There are exceptions to the exceptions. Knowing those is a little more tricky, and know when to use those is even more so. Our industry is FULL of all of the above.
LC JAMES, I think we need a bit more clarification.. Let's say RX is -2.00 sph OU +2.50 ADD- Is the patient asking for a Plano with a +2.50 add? OR are they asking for a plano with the ACTUAL reading correction of +0.50?? Lets not even get into if there is astigmatism or not....
The only time I've ever done the plano with +2.50 add scenario, is with a Distance Only Contact Lens wearer. I can't think of a situation when the plano +0.50 add would work for this hypothetical patient...
Patient, ".. Doctor says I have a subscription for stigmata.. Can you fill that?"
Me, "..Um.. "
Would you do that so a patient could wear their distance SV contacts, and be able to put the progressives on to read?
RT
You can interpret the RX only, meaning that with that RX you can make DV, NV or Multifocal or Computer Glasses. Can you alter the basic RX? NO. Can you put a pair of glasses over a pair of contact lenses based on the RX, YES. That is a visual system anything else is unacceptable. If you are unsure call the DR. let them know what the patient wants and let them make t
the decision and DOCUMENT
Why is the patient looking for a PAL with near Rx only? That would imply a SV lens, and of course you could do it. When a prescription is written for a multifocal, the dispenser can take the numbers and convert them into DV, INT, Near, or any combination. (Think of a digressive PAL like the Access).The Rx can also be adjusted for a specialized distance by calculating the distance in meters and using d=1/f to adjust for that distance. The only circumstance I can think of is if the patient's INT. happened to be near, or at, plano.
NY Licensed dispensers are allowed by law to "fill and interpret prescriptions."
Lost and confused in an optical wonderland!
CMARX is completely correct. Couldn't have said it better myself!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks