New robo CL website annoyance?

[Uilleann]

So recently, we've been getting calls from a new (to our office anyway) online CL company, who starts their spiel with a ridiculously heavy (to a point it literally borders on completely unintelligible) Indian accented individual, who asks you to listen to a "pre-recorded message". Which at first sounds like a garbage sales or marketing call. Then the robot voice comes on, doesn't actually say the pt's name, but very quickly just starts spelling the name instead. From there, the call goes on to not ask for a CLRx by name, but instead lists the material instead (ie: Methafilcon A) instead of just saying Frequency 55.

They list a fax of 855-710-6590

Anyone know who these jackholes are? They make it literally impossible to respond to a request with any certainty - seemingly going out of their way to be difficult in the extreme. Just wondering, as this is a new low...even for the slimiest of the slime in the seedy, shady world of online contact weasels.

/rant

[Chris Ryser]

Anyone know who these jackholes are? They make it literally impossible to respond to a request with any certainty - seemingly going out of their way to be difficult in the extreme. Just wondering, as this is a new low...even for the slimiest of the slime in the seedy, shady world of online contact weasels.

It would have helped if there would be a link to those weasels.

[Uilleann]

I provided a link to the only intelligible info they provided - the return fax number.

[kkoogler]

This is very frustrating! It's hubble contacts and they are advertising on facebook. They have a "no brand" line of contacts, which is why they list the lens material instead of the name of the contact lens. I have gotten two calls from them and couldn't understand even the patient's name. I called the phone number they gave on the robocall and spoke to someone in the cancellation department. When I gave the 12 digit reference number and asked for them to tell me what patient I was trying to verify the prescription for, she said she couldn't give me that information and that I should just fax the number given and ask that way. Nah, I think I'll just go ahead and fax a denial...I mean, we haven't seen the no brand of contact lens on the patient's eye, so how can we possibly okay it? Is this even legal???? It sets us up for lawsuits if we allow the sneaky lens replacement...ARGH!!!

So recently, we've been getting calls from a new (to our office anyway) online CL company, who starts their spiel with a ridiculously heavy (to a point it literally borders on completely unintelligible) Indian accented individual, who asks you to listen to a "pre-recorded message". Which at first sounds like a garbage sales or marketing call. Then the robot voice comes on, doesn't actually say the pt's name, but very quickly just starts spelling the name instead. From there, the call goes on to not ask for a CLRx by name, but instead lists the material instead (ie: Methafilcon A) instead of just saying Frequency 55.

They list a fax of 855-710-6590

Anyone know who these jackholes are? They make it literally impossible to respond to a request with any certainty - seemingly going out of their way to be difficult in the extreme. Just wondering, as this is a new low...even for the slimiest of the slime in the seedy, shady world of online contact weasels.

/rant

[Uilleann]

This is very frustrating! It's hubble contacts and they are advertising on facebook. They have a "no brand" line of contacts, which is why they list the lens material instead of the name of the contact lens. I have gotten two calls from them and couldn't understand even the patient's name. I called the phone number they gave on the robocall and spoke to someone in the cancellation department. When I gave the 12 digit reference number and asked for them to tell me what patient I was trying to verify the prescription for, she said she couldn't give me that information and that I should just fax the number given and ask that way. Nah, I think I'll just go ahead and fax a denial...I mean, we haven't seen the no brand of contact lens on the patient's eye, so how can we possibly okay it? Is this even legal???? It sets us up for lawsuits if we allow the sneaky lens replacement...ARGH!!!

Bingo! Thanks. Will be on the lookout for them in future, and likely just continue to fax denials if they insist on using such blatantly shady practices. If they are purposefully obscuring and confusing information, to say nothing of the practice of changing lens brands, we certainly won't play that sort of dirty ball game.

Again, thanks!

[Bimbol]

Excellent! We got one of these calls yesterday and we were not able to get much beyond the PTs address (which doesn't match anyone in our database) the reference number and the fax number. If I fax a denial with no patient name or RX on it will it be honored?

[Uilleann]

Excellent! We got one of these calls yesterday and we were not able to get much beyond the PTs address (which doesn't match anyone in our database) the reference number and the fax number. If I fax a denial with no patient name or RX on it will it be honored?

I believe by law they are required to honor it. And in this case, they seem to purposefully be obscuring pt information to a level that makes it impossible to reasonably confirm pt data and CLRx information. I wonder if calls to our respective states AG's offices with official complaints might be a good place to start to help curb this sort of abusive practice on this company's part.

[Chris Ryser]

This is very frustrating! It's hubble contacts and they are advertising on facebook. They have a "no brand" line of contacts, which is why they list the lens material instead of the name of the contact lens.

That is why there is no website link available.

I would never do business with anybody that works incognito on the Internet, through any of these Facebook type outfits.

[rbaker]

Did it ever occur to you to just ignore these calls?

[Kwill212]

Did it ever occur to you to just ignore these calls?

Unfortunately if the prescriber does not respond within "8 business hours" of a verification request, the Rx is considered verified and valid according to the FTC.

I wonder if calls to our respective states AG's offices with official complaints might be a good place to start to help curb this sort of abusive practice on this company's part.

That is probably not a bad thing but I would start with the FTC. According the the FTC the seller is required to provide the prescriber with the following

• patient’s full name and address
• contact lens power, manufacturer, base curve or appropriate designation, and diameter when appropriate
• quantity of lenses ordered
• date of patient order
• date and time of verification request
• a contact person for the seller, including name, fax and phone numbers and
• a clear statement of the prescriber’s regular Saturday business hours if the seller is counting those hours as “business hours” under the Rule.

[Uilleann]

That is why there is no website link available.

I would never do business with anybody that works incognito on the Internet, through any of these Facebook type outfits.

The law requires that as a prescribing doctor, you do. You know that of course. The rub comes in the obscured information.

Did it ever occur to you to just ignore these calls?

Again, the law as written doesn't allow for simply "ignoring" these calls. Without a lack of response, within 8 business hours, these companies will assume the prescription is to be filled as the pt requested. Or in this case, as their people have changed it, and decided to fill with whatever they like. And they do it all in your name (the prescribing Dr anyway).

So some form of response is required if you wish to save your pt from disaster. That's the real beauty of it when 1-800 CLs is writing the laws. Its a treat.

[Uilleann]

Unfortunately if the prescriber does not respond within "8 business hours" of a verification request, the Rx is considered verified and valid according to the FTC.



That is probably not a bad thing but I would start with the FTC. According the the FTC the seller is required to provide the prescriber with the following

• patient’s full name and address
• contact lens power, manufacturer, base curve or appropriate designation, and diameter when appropriate
• quantity of lenses ordered
• date of patient order
• date and time of verification request
• a contact person for the seller, including name, fax and phone numbers and
• a clear statement of the prescriber’s regular Saturday business hours if the seller is counting those hours as “business hours” under the Rule.

I have a feeling they are "technically" providing those legally required details. The problem comes in that they are seemingly very purposefully obfusticating it beyond recognition. Which, from a legal standpoint, seems absolutely grounds for an automatic rejection from the prescribing office.

[JrFuel186n]

I've been getting these once a day!!
I get a "call" center person on the phone and there was a dog barking in the back round AND a baby crying!! I asked individual What place is this? I also said I cannot understand the automated recording and you need to fax it over to me. My Dr. requires written authentication.

Jim Cummings

[Uilleann]

I've been getting these once a day!!
I get a "call" center person on the phone and there was a dog barking in the back round AND a baby crying!! I asked individual What place is this? I also said I cannot understand the automated recording and you need to fax it over to me. My Dr. requires written authentication.

Jim Cummings

That seems fair. I haven't gotten any dogs or babies...so far. But the accent of the pre-robot speaker is so thick as to be extremely difficult to hear around! (And this from the guy who can rather easily understand every word Brad Pitt says in Snatch!)

[Bimbol]

I also said I cannot understand the automated recording and you need to fax it over to me. My Dr. requires written authentication.

Did that actually work? Do they fax you the request?

[Hayde]

1-800-Contacts with a verbal barrier AND brand obfuscation! Nice...

If I were the AOA, I'd take this development as a hopeful sign it may nearly time to try to convince the FTC they should reconsider their Utah-friendly regulations....

Notice how this brand-switching tactic gets around Unilateral Pricing?

[Uilleann]

1-800-Contacts with a verbal barrier AND brand obfuscation! Nice...

If I were the AOA, I'd take this development as a hopeful sign it may nearly time to try to convince the FTC they should reconsider their Utah-friendly regulations....

Notice how this brand-switching tactic gets around Unilateral Pricing?

Hubble contacts seems to be the perpetrator in this case. Although, it is 1-800's legislation and extreme lobbying that created the ability for companies like them to operate this way in the first place.

[drk]

The whole situation is a farce.

I tried Dick's approach: "Why bother?". Really, there is no reason I should be the regulator of other peoples' commercial transactions. I don't get paid by the government. In fact I am the one who is paying to regulate the transaction, because my staff doesn't work for free.

What's more, "why bother" when you have no assurance that your regulation will be heeded?

Why wasn't the law written that a. Active verification was mandatory, or, b. prescriptions needed to be on-file for internet companies, as they must be for traditional companies? Why the built-in advantage?

We all know why: government corruption.



But as Uilleann says, we would be in violation of the regulation if we did not respond. For what that's worth. No party involved in the transaction (the patient, the seller) really wants you involved. The need for your involvement as a prescriber was a sop or a pretense. So no one is EVER going to complain if you do not respond.


And I don't really feel like bothering to nag my patients to take care of their eyes, anymore. They should be educated, perhaps in writing when releasing a hard-copy of their CLRx (one time, and one time only at the end of their encounter). They're not children. And if they want to, they can always shop their CLRx (meaning it's not effectually an Rx at all) to buy as many CLs anywhere, anytime. (I'm sure we could test that contention in one second.)

As to verifying an unintelligible Rx request, are you damned if you do, or damned if you don't? There's liability either way. When it comes to that outfit mentioned, they are substituters to their own brand. They are methafilcon A, a 55% HEMA lens, the most naturally-occuring CL material found on the planet. But few are fit in methafilcon these days, but instead with SiHy. It would be a grave error for them to switch these patients out, but that's what they do. It's not going to end well for someone. I would always deny a CLRx verification from that outfit.

And the reason they don't want you to know which patient is sneaking around on the internet is so you cannot call your patient and read them the riot act. Which, truthfully, if having been educated on the policies and procedures of your office, and if the the patients have agreed to the terms of your mutual agreement to be under your care, is grounds for termination of the doctor-patient relationship. It is willful non-compliance with a treatment/therapy. You can't get very far doing that with your glaucoma drops...your @$$ would be out on the sidewalk immediately if you decided to source your meds this way. No difference.

So my current thinking is this:
1. People in the United States are free to blind themselves.
2. People in the U.S. are not free to sell regulated devices. There is regulation. That's axiomatic.
3. But if there's no enforcement by the regulators, essentially contact lenses are unregulated, OTC devices.
4. While every prescribing entity is a regulator of the doctor-patient interaction, we are not regulators of patient-third party interactions. That's the government's job.
5. I reserve the right (and probably have the obligation) to warn and dismiss patients that refuse to comply with my medical advice.
6. This will be unpleasant for all, but it's simple greed that is driving this, and greed is unpleasant by nature.

[optical24/7]

Well doc, they do give you the name (though spelled out). What about have a form letter you fax back that says something like " This individual's Rx has expired. Anything you have to the contrary is in-accurate." Then see if that patient calls you. If they do, you at least know that these sleaze bags didn't fill it. Notate on that patient's record that you got the request so that next time (if there is one) that you see them you can read the riot act to them.



Or, simply fax them back, informing them they are not following FTC guidelines and refuse to give them anything.

[Uilleann]

Well doc, they do give you the name (though spelled out). What about have a form letter you fax back that says something like " This individual's Rx has expired. Anything you have to the contrary is in-accurate." Then see if that patient calls you. If they do, you at least know that these sleaze bags didn't fill it. Notate on that patient's record that you got the request so that next time (if there is one) that you see them you can read the riot act to them.



Or, simply fax them back, informing them they are not following FTC guidelines and refuse to give them anything. Emphasis mine

This is in essence what we did. Particularly as all we could make out was their confirmation number. So a fax back with a big, bold DO NOT FILL was sent. We haven't heard anything back yet. Wish I knew who the pt was so I could at least direct them to a slightly LESS overtly shady company.