Of course I think regulation of medical care is important. I apologize as I'm not sure where I inferred otherwise. However, trial framing a pt's SRx before you and your company invest in creating a given lens for a given patient is neither regulated, nor bad medicine wouldn't you agree?Originally Posted by drk
1. I gagged at Opternative
2. I certainly agree and think trial framing is good. Can't see how there'd be a law against it.
3. I meant that you busted Chris' chops on licensure. I think a license doesn't make the holder better than the non-holder. But I do think 100 license holders are going to be better than 100 non-license holders. That's why I like regulation. I do think the overall level of care in a licensed state is superior. Just my opinion, of course. Would have to be proven, somehow.
Last edited by drk; 06-29-2017 at 09:00 AM.
Reality proves that unless there was a meaningful singular, national educational and competence bar to be measured against (we all know the ABO is a joke), that license or no, it's the wild west. The state of licensure is no more a guarantee of quality or competence than a wink and a handshake - particularly as the requirements state to state are so insanely variable. The very fact that its so fractured, even among the few remaining states that cling to licensure, shows it still is not a viable means to show competence, or ability. Sure, I'd love to see it change overall, but consistent licensure will never happen nationwide. The public at large neither expects/demands, nor most critically, will pay for it (as it would raise the costs of goods and services). Because we all love our cheap, questionably sourced, overnight shipped internet goods too much.
So yes, I'm with you in as much as it's a nice dream. But is not, nor will ever be reality.
Agreed that trial framing can be good. However, they do not replicate the varying faceform and panto of everyday specs. The refractionist/OD/MD can adjust the vertex on the fly, but outside of that, they are at the same perpendicular angle of the phoropter. Plus, bi-concave/convex glass instead of today's common lens materials that introduce CA.
Licensure, I agree with Uilleann. No commonality between the various states. A shop only needs to have an OD or one license present to operate. The rest of the staff that does the majority of the work need not have a license. In my experience, there is no difference in quality between a licensed and unlicensed state. I see more optical issues coming from licensed states than my current unlicensed state. The paper is only as good as the person holding it.
Pshaw to vision apps. We all know that autorefractors are starting points and not the final correction. I would trust my eyes to an OD before an app any day.
That's bad news.
Big Optical has decimated opticianry.
I'm with you on the trial framing, but it comes in handy at times.
The phoroptor should be positioned for a nominal amount of pantoscopic tilt and vertexed. I think everyone does that. There is no faceform, agreed.
My trial lenses are "best form". You can get the oldies but not goodies that you speak of.
I think they're about 30 mm glass, so of course no optical issues. I think that's a good feature, though.
Similar battles over “ocular telehealth” and playing out in several states.
........and then there others like Essilor working hard to come out with perfect solution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks