There a millions of lenses produced for instrument and hundreds of other uses.
Originally Posted by drk
As we are on the subject, you should not say lenses are medical objects.
There a millions of lenses produced for instrument and hundreds of other uses.
At that point, if lenses medical you should use the correct term and name them the proper way: " ophthalmic lenses"
Somebody needs a beer or two and lighten up.
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.
Good lord...
I like it...
"Your medical device prescription ophthalmic lenses...FROM A RANDOM WEBSITE? Are you nuts?!"
...to correct a physical body problem such as myopia, hypermetropia, presbyopia, etc.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
I sure as hell do.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Reading the comments on the CR page via facebook is literally killing me. I'm so sad for these people who have never had a good optician educate them. Like with pretty much all products you get what you pay for. Yes you can get 2 for $xx but the quality will match. I mean its no big deal, its just your vision...
:FACEPALM
Christopher Lee
Arizona LDO
ABOC & NCLEC
So now that you have been explained the German, French, Swiss, and all other European, including Asian countries stand, on if Eyeglasses are a medical product or not, you can go and relax.
I am not on a mission to change your professional religions, i have done my research and I am fully aware that it is called "medical" in the USA.
So do not loose your sleep over it and do not become am "opticomedicaholic" because of it.
A woman came into my shop yesterday having just read that article. The "Let's Make A Deal" thing gets old quickly. She seemed inclined to go online, and she wanted me to talk her out of it. She was so obnoxious I didn't try very hard to create a convincing argument.
Did she have any particular strategy in mind?
I think she was just nervous and confused but determined to not anyone take advantage of her.
Buyer beware ethos don't belong in health care.
Now, of course, that's an ideal world, but that's what we mean by "professionalism".
Ideal world indeed. There are plenty of predators in all areas of healthcare. Buyer beware is eminently appropriate.
To the degree that professionalism is not followed, yes.
ahhhh, yes, fragmented care. Promote it to the public. But let's force the providers to put all the data into a big massive EHR computer so we can keep it all together. What a concept. What a country.
Buyer beware is eminently appropriate.............................
So what have you done over the last 10 years since this new wave of selling "medical eyeglasses" through the internet has started ?
It even has some part of origine right here on OptiBoard when "Firmoo" posted right here until he got banned, and then came back under other names.
Patient education of risk/benefit ratio. If minimal expense is absolutely necessary, the script is simple and minimal, I suggest the best online site, with absolutely all the caveats mentioned. If they want quality, I suggest they go with the best independent optician in the area, if possible. If not, then I suggest the best embedded optician in the area. That's essentially my algorithm. I don't put in-house bias into the equation (to the frustration of some). I don't bias to in-house because the patients best outcome is supreme to me. I consider patient outcome to be far superior to money. Yes, I am an oddball.
Last edited by Lelarep; 01-13-2017 at 12:18 PM.
I boo this.
So do I.
I consider it a necessary evil. If a patient can't afford more than $15 for a frame and lenses, what do you suggest otherwise? I don't know of anyone local that can do less than 3 1/3x that much. I am sure some people will vehemently disagree, but for people with the absolutely most restricted budget, I think it is tantamount to doing the patient a disservice not to mention it. Don't forget, such a population segment does exist. People that make just enough they don't qualify for help, but due to expenses (children, etc...) they basically have no budget. The so-called "gap" population.
Last edited by Lelarep; 01-13-2017 at 02:50 PM.
I call bullcrap.
Everyone can afford a pair of $69 pair of low quality glasses from a brick and mortar where they follow whatever rules of the state they're in.
And the patient gets a semblance of professional care from a semblance of an optician.
For all you know, your "simple" Rx can be made as freakishly wrong as a "complex" Rx online. For all you know, your "disadvanted" patient will data imput things way, way off and they'll make them exactly as ordered.
And maybe they'll get some degree of glasses adjustment from the cheap place, but none at all from the onliner.
You've lost your perspective, lela. And making a professional recommendation to go online is a breach of your professionalism. You'd be better off keeping your mouth shut in such a situation.
I must disagree. For a number of people $70 is a significant amount of money. What is better, recommend only local, and due to price, they don't get their Rx filled or give them an option that will allow them to fill their Rx at the price they can afford? I would argue that the far lesser evil is online over them not getting visual correction at all, and don't try to tell me it doesn't happen, I can't tell you how many people I have met over the years that have had the same glasses for 2, 5, 10 years or more, despite changes in their Rx, because they can't afford to get a new pair of glasses locally and were unaware of online. You are essentially arguing that some people are better off without glasses than going online. That's just one small increment below insanity. I would argue that you are letting your bias against online impact your ability to objectively and soundly provide an appropriate solution for a certain group of people that need care, but you want to lecture on professionalism...
Last edited by Lelarep; 01-13-2017 at 07:32 PM.
The largest owners of the most popular online opticals are still Luxottica and Essilo
Of course everybody wants quality, but is also looking for the best pricing.
The largest owners of the most popular online opticals are still Luxottica and Essilor and gaining. There is no way that they will supply lousy quality frames or lenses through their on line opticals
Don't talk about an "Rx" then, Lela. There's no point in writing a prescription that can't be accurately filled. Right? No matter how much money these poor people scrape together (yeah, right) to pay for an eye exam, it's all going to waste when the doctor's orders are improperly carried out. There's no "Rx" online.
I'm sure you think that it's A-OK for a person to type in their own "Rx" and their own "measurements" and let the "optical lab" "fill the Rx".
But in fact, it's just the opposite. These onliners are taking advantage of these "poor people" by taking their money and not giving anything in return except junk. Or maybe not. Or maybe. But no one knows, would we?
I wonder if "poor people" should be allowed to eat at restaurants that the county health inspector doesn't inspect? Sure, they could eat some spoiled meat and vomit for two days, but they're "poor" and they can't afford "regulations to keep them safe".
Are you licensed? If so, why? If not, why not?
Idiotic response, my friend.
I'm sure those high quality Luxottica frames and Essilor lenses won't matter jack squat when the patient inputs a random number for PAL height or split PD.
Or transposes it.
Or some low-ball optical lab makes the OD for the OS, etc. Happens all the freaking time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks