My problem is if WE bring up the concern. How would that work?Originally Posted by Hayde
"There's some talk in the marketplace about blue light damage. High risk...high energy...wavelengths...smartphones...your children...blindess...macular degneration...retinal damage...etc." We don't know enough yet, but if I've worried you enough by talking about it, buy this."
That's not tenable.
It smacks of scare tactics.
I think you make a good point. (As usual.)
I remember a line of polarized marketing that was hot-to-trot about driving reaction times. They really pushed the point so much it left a bruise. I wouldn't do it--even if the numbers were true-to-God accurate. I just refuse to be a part of the power play trying to overwhelm peoples' emotions. I believe patients who even say 'yes' to whatever you were selling that way have a lingering bad feeling in their gut...and at least subconsciously wish they had a different provider after they get home. Maybe I'm projecting myself onto others too much, but either way it's my attitude about 'selling' in optics. So while I may include 'reaction times' in the quick list of virtues of polarization in general, I don't dwell there for a minute or more like the vendor urged me to.
Granted a doctor's words carry very big weight, and lots of patients would just say/think 'OK' before you got to a third short sentence on the subject just because you're taking the time to say it at the chair. (Particularly the pre-boomers.) I respect your conscientiousness of that fact, and anybody working in all the keywords you mentioned into their pitch is definitely taking the low road. "High Risk" is over the top. "Blindess" is gratuitous. "High energy" I might mention if a patient were really quizzing me about EM radiation basics--which so far hasn't happened. "Smart Phones" had better come wrapped in a big bow of emphatic "unproven"/"still studying."
I do think, though, that retail opticians' language doesn't carry that same "Sruti" weight as yours, Doc. We have room for more word count before we're bypassing/overloading a patient's rational faculty. Younger patients bring more scrutiny to bear all the way around, and even those older patients who hung on every word from the doc like it was nectar from the gods usually turn into hardened, shrewd, business-like skeptics at the optical....as well they should! So patients hear the qualifiers, not just the hot-button keywords--since I emphasize the qualifiers. They're also getting a clear verbal and visual demonstration of the loss of anti-glare performance. It's not "Buy This." It's "here's how your options contrast against each other." That contrast includes the difference in provable therapeutic efficacy. With regard to bringing it up at all, a patient's AMD risk factors/relative sunlight exposure largely determine that.
We could iron out the pefect contingencies for the perfect pitches of any given ECP role, and the difference between the delivery being informative versus manipulative could come down to vocal and non-verbal behavior. The line shifts depending on who you're talking to and how they're hearing you. I'll admit intuition plays a heavy role into how I detail/simplify any feature with any given patient--and I doubt I could articulate that well enough to axiomize 'the rules.' Your burden is that much heavier than ours, so I don't fault you or anyone else for avoiding the whole Gordian knot before you're comfortable with it. Regardless of where an ECP's opinion falls on this or any other feature, I hope we all take the responsibility and public trust as seriously as you advocate here.
Last edited by Hayde; 02-28-2017 at 02:36 PM. Reason: cleaned up some bad grammar. Not all. Just some.
I'm in the same boat as most of y'all, until we have raw data this is in the realm of Helpful Voodoo. We offer the product with heavy disclaimers because the local market has expressed interest in the tech, plus Luzerne's TheraBlue lenses are pretty darn close to water white, enough that I can feel good about selling them anyway. Robertson Optical Labs has a blue-blocker lens that's pretty comparable to Luzerne's as well, though I believe one of Luzerne's people are on here and have provided pretty accurate info on the performance of the lenses.
Since I personally am new to the tech (corporate optician for four years, so a lot of things discussed here are new to me!), what I'd be more curious about is building it into the anti-reflective coatings and tackling the "problem" that way -- is this a realistic option? I ask because there's probably never going to be a lens clear enough that I won't notice the tint, so despite wanting to road-test these lenses myself I'd probably throw them across the room after a week instead. A few of our workers in our office have them and don't seem to notice a difference one way or the other, which isn't helping. How many of you out there are actively using these lenses, either in your own practice or on your own face? That's the kind of data I'd like to see, since white papers that will provide definitive evidence are ... lacking.
Thanks!
I personally do not feel a noticeable difference in eyestrain, however, I am bothered by the increased reflections during night driving with the so-called "blue-light filtering non-glare lenses." I proceeded very cautiously when these products were introduced a few years ago and decided not to recommend them except to very high risk groups (i.e., those with family history of retinal issues). I have seen many people come to me to complain about how ugly their lenses (purchased elsewhere) look, and in the great majority of cases in the past couple of years, they had a blue-light filtering AR...so I am glad we did not recommend these en masse.
The more I think about this subject, it seems like the most relevant aspect is being virtually ignored in the marketplace - blue light filtering backside AR for sunglasses....can we use Prevencia or any of its competitors backside only, perhaps with a nice blue or purple mirror on the front?
Also, what happens to blue light from the front and back sides when we add (shudder) normal AR to trans extra active?
No, because what makes Prevencia Prevencia is the coating on the front.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Even "Helpful" is a stretch with the dearth of real evidence we have. "Well-Intentioned Voodoo" is probably more accurate.
I'm Andrew Hamm and I approve this message.
Transition lenses don't need a blue blocking AR unless someone is wanting to impact their sleep cycle. Transitions function the same a material filters which actually work better (better meaning you are looking to block blue light) but in a slightly different part of the spectrum which has different benefits (if you believe in them)
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
We have had a handful of Recharge wearers come back to us wanting to downgrade the AR for cosmetic reasons, but it seems to be limited to that specific coating (we don't offer Prevencia). Personally I don't like them for night driving for that same reason. I DO love my BluTech though. These babies cut through night driving glare like no other!
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
Recharge does have a very prominent blue/purple tint to it that, depending on the lighting, shows up like a flash mirror. The shame of it is, practically speaking, it's great for relieving eyestrain on digital devices and I even had anecdotal reports from patients about their getting better sleep with it. The cosmetics, though, do leave something to be desired. I have no hands-on experience with Prevencia so I can't personally attest to any of its' cosmetics, etc.
Prevencia is much more purple than the Recharge which is one of the reasons we don't use it. We always show a sample of Recharge lenses to patients interested. Some people don't care, others go "Oh God no!" Which is fine- that's why we offer material filters as well.
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
I'd be curious to know what the ratio of blue light exposure to any given "bad" blue light frequency is in an average day, for say an average Millennial. (They seem to be the big target for this marketing push anyway right?) Versus the level of exposure the same individual experiences after exactly five seconds outside in normal daytime sunlight.
10:1? 100:1?? 1,000:1??? More?
The statistic Vision Ease gave me is: 15 mins in the sun= 13 hours of screen time. This is from their promo for Coppertone polarized lenses, which I'm not totally sold on being better than any other polarized, but I do really like having this stat to explain to people who want blue blockers that it is even more important in their sunwear.
Have I told you today how much I hate poly?
Or, to keep it simple...."bad blue light exposure" from one minute in the sun equates to roughly one hour of screen time. So much for telling kids to get off their ipads and play outside.
What screen brightness, working distance, and LCD/LED settings are they using as their baseline do you happen to know? At first blush, that seems like it would have to be an insanely bright, VERY blue shifted screen, kept VERY close to the face/eyes to meet that sort of intensity - when compared against sunlight. WOW!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks