Doctor Owned Lab

[JF LDO]

Is anyone working with a doctor owned lab? Why are we buying from these huge conglomerate labs like Essilor (France), Hoya (Japan), Zeiss (Germany), etc.

When we buy from Essilor our money goes to France, Hoya to Japan and Zeiss to Germany. I currently work for a doctor owned and operated lab that the doctors have the opportunity to become an owner and get money they put in the lab back in the doctors pocket. We are a local business model that supports the doctors growth, not corporate growth to another country.
PS- No we do not require the old lenses back to receive credit for any remakes or redo's

Just curious on any opticians thoughts, comments or concerns...

[optical24/7]

The main problem with small/private labs is lens and treatment availability.

[Hayde]

Doctors make great doctors. They often don't make the great business people. This broadly affects their ability to run a small practice, much less a large business. They didn't become doctors to become lab owners.

An independent lab good enough to get large (outside the ridiculous distortions of insurance contracting) and competitive with the big guys becomes a prime target for Big Guy acquisition.

They usually sell. I can't say I blame them.

For now, despite fashionable hysteria, quality control isn't a casualty of the big brand dominance. It's not a monopoly yet.

When independent labs stop cropping up at all, or one of those big names you mentioned folds under one of the others, that's when I'll start to worry.

[JF LDO]

The main problem with small/private labs is lens and treatment availability.

With the newest digital equipment technology nowadays, processing private label designs that are comparable to N-code progressive designs cost half the price and work the exact same if not better.

If you were to order an Auto III or Physio Enhanced Fit with Glacier or Avance AR you're paying well over xxxxx. Why? I've fit opticians wearing these lenses with private label designs and the results were outstanding; they actually liked the private label better.

Private label lens designs are half the price and offer the same benefits as these name branded lenses.

Hayde- did you know Essilor is required to outsource 20% of its work to it's lab in Mexico. These private practices need optical independence and the opportunity to make the lab they use their own. While the doctor's are refracting and can voice their opinions to the lab directly.

For example check out this link
https://www.healio.com/optometry/pra...sustainability

[JF LDO]

Hayde- If you were worried a local lab would sell, in my opinion, that's like saying a patient wouldn't go to a private practice to get their glasses because the patient is worried the doctor's office will sell and then they decide to go to a corporate place to get their glasses.

[Hayde]

With the newest digital equipment technology nowadays, processing private label designs that are comparable to N-code progressive designs cost half the price and work the exact same if not better.

If you were to order an Auto III or Physio Enhanced Fit with Glacier or Avance AR you're paying well over xxxxxx. Why? I've fit opticians wearing these lenses with private label designs and the results were outstanding; they actually liked the private label better.

Private label lens designs are half the price and offer the same benefits as these name branded lenses.

Hayde- did you know Essilor is required to outsource 20% of its work to it's lab in Mexico. These private practices need optical independence and the opportunity to make the lab they use their own. While the doctor's are refracting and can voice their opinions to the lab directly.

For example check out this link
https://www.healio.com/optometry/pra...sustainability

I was working at a practice-network whose collective weight managed to private-label a big-brand retread using a Mexico branch lab. Took 'em months to believe us they were arriving without laser markings. By that time we had moved on to a domestic lab sans the "un-branded brand label" cheapo and stuck to the Branded line.

I'm not an anti-globalization puritan and so don't get worked up about foreign ops in the lens production chain any more than I do about frames. Still, some of those big brands do bring quality control to the table--and the fact the surfacing labs I use are domestic is because of their proven quality. When there's an issue, it's resolved Fast. Independents Can be just a good, but the reality is that it is hit-and-miss...and yet they ALL say "just like/just as good as [Brand X.]" That is rarely the case. So rarely that I ignore it in the absence of controlled customer satisfaction studies. Regrettably, it's the big guys who can afford to fund them (and so then I can sort them out against each other and glean what little I can before necessarily letting patients become my own personal guinea pigs.)

I do give the big guys some deference for researching and bringing tech to market, that the competition later cannibalizes. When the big guys spend money on mass marketing, they're also marketing for me. I do have to unwind patients away from regrettable catch phrases such as "No-Glare." But since they paid to bring that patient to my door, I'm not going to sell a good & proven product short, either.

Having said all that, JF---I do like the principal of what I've read in your link. Theoretically, such a structure does have the possibility to compete in the larger league--and bring research, infrastructure for strict QC, and some mass marketing to the table--and maybe even more that the other guys don't. To that end, I do wish you endless success!

Hayde- If you were worried a local lab would sell, in my opinion, that's like saying a patient wouldn't go to a private practice to get their glasses because the patient is worried the doctor's office will sell and then they decide to go to a corporate place to get their glasses.

I agree. Good thing I'm not worried about that. I think if you re-read my post you'll agree I said I'm only worried when independents stop popping up.

[optical24/7]

With the newest digital equipment technology nowadays, processing private label designs that are comparable to N-code progressive designs cost half the price and work the exact same if not better.

I respectfully disagree. As example, hyperopes prefer dual side PAL over concave side only designs. I've yet to see any house AR perform as well as the Crizal or Hoya family of premium ARs either.

If you were to order an Auto III or Physio Enhanced Fit with Glacier or Avance AR you're paying well over xxxxx. Why? I've fit opticians wearing these lenses with private label designs and the results were outstanding; they actually liked the private label better.

Private label lens designs are half the price and offer the same benefits as these name branded lenses.

Hayde- did you know Essilor is required to outsource 20% of its work to it's lab in Mexico. These private practices need optical independence and the opportunity to make the lab they use their own. While the doctor's are refracting and can voice their opinions to the lab directly.

For example check out this link
https://www.healio.com/optometry/pra...sustainability

The costs associated with installing a digital surfacing lab are extremely high, plus you have the added labor ( medicaid, SS, ins, ect), maintenance, space, electricity, ect) . You limit yourself on lenses that are available and that come available on the market. If you have enough money to go this route, you probably have a large enough practice to negotiate substantially lower lab bills. I don't pay near list from my labs as example.

Also, when everything is done in house you loose an extra layer of checks and balances on the quality of product. Don't get me wrong, some places are well served with their in house surfacing lab. I know several. But it certainly is not for everyone for a myriad of reasons.

[JF LDO]

I was working at a practice-network whose collective weight managed to private-label a big-brand retread using a Mexico branch lab. Took 'em months to believe us they were arriving without laser markings. By that time we had moved on to a domestic lab sans the "un-branded brand label" cheapo and stuck to the Branded line.

I'm not an anti-globalization puritan and so don't get worked up about foreign ops in the lens production chain any more than I do about frames. Still, some of those big brands do bring quality control to the table--and the fact the surfacing labs I use are domestic is because of their proven quality. When there's an issue, it's resolved Fast. Independents Can be just a good, but the reality is that it is hit-and-miss...and yet they ALL say "just like/just as good as [Brand X.]" That is rarely the case. So rarely that I ignore it in the absence of controlled customer satisfaction studies. Regrettably, it's the big guys who can afford to fund them (and so then I can sort them out against each other and glean what little I can before necessarily letting patients become my own personal guinea pigs.)

I do give the big guys some deference for researching and bringing tech to market, that the competition later cannibalizes. When the big guys spend money on mass marketing, they're also marketing for me. I do have to unwind patients away from regrettable catch phrases such as "No-Glare." But since they paid to bring that patient to my door, I'm not going to sell a good & proven product short, either.

Having said all that, JF---I do like the principal of what I've read in your link. Theoretically, such a structure does have the possibility to compete in the larger league--and bring research, infrastructure for strict QC, and some mass marketing to the table--and maybe even more that the other guys don't. To that end, I do wish you endless success!



I agree. Good thing I'm not worried about that. I think if you re-read my post you'll agree I said I'm only worried when independents stop popping up.

No worries my friend, thank you for the your input. I always appreciate any type of feedback on how other opticians feel about it, just friendly talks from one optician to another. Our model is based on lowering the cost of goods to the doctors while providing the best quality and turn time and like you said, there will always be pro's and con's whether you go corporate vs local. Thanks again for your input and I look forward to further discussions.

[JF LDO]

The costs associated with installing a digital surfacing lab are extremely high, plus you have the added labor ( medicaid, SS, ins, ect), maintenance, space, electricity, ect) . You limit yourself on lenses that are available and that come available on the market. If you have enough money to go this route, you probably have a large enough practice to negotiate substantially lower lab bills. I don't pay near list from my labs as example.
]
I respectfully disagree. As example, hyperopes prefer dual side PAL over concave side only designs. I've yet to see any house AR perform as well as the Crizal or Hoya family of premium ARs either.
There are such few designs on the market for a dual sided PAL, I can think of 4; Kodak DSII(replaced the Unique DS), IOT Camber (VSP's Cascade), Hoya's IDS and Varilux's S-Design. The problem with these is you have to use their specific SF blank that is not available is all materials or treatments (like an xtractive). Full backside digital designs must compete with all these and the top progressive designs on the market- plus you pay top dollar for these name brands. Granite you can use a flatter base curve for the higher hyperopes but as long as you use a hi index material then you can go flatter on the base curve.
As for the Crizal and Hoya AR, as long as your AR recipe is a multi-layer stack and use a good super-hydrophic top coat it can compare if not outperform these name brands.

Also, when everything is done in house you loose an extra layer of checks and balances on the quality of product. Don't get me wrong, some places are well served with their in house surfacing lab. I know several. But it certainly is not for everyone for a myriad of reasons.

--There are such few designs on the market for a dual sided PAL, I can think of 4; Kodak DSII(replaced the Unique DS), IOT Camber (VSP's Cascade), Hoya's IDS and Varilux's S-Design. The problem with these is you have to use their specific SF blank that is not available is all materials or treatments (like an xtractive). Full backside digital designs must compete with all these and the top progressive designs on the market- plus you pay top dollar for these name brands. Granite you can use a flatter base curve for the higher hyperopes but as long as you use a hi index material then you can go flatter on the base curve.
As for the Crizal and Hoya AR, as long as your AR recipe is a multi-layer stack and use a good super-hydrophic top coat it can compare if not outperform these name brands.

Again, I appreciate the feedback 24/7, thanks.

[JF LDO]

What does everyone here think of the click fee's on a private label vs a name brand?

[lensmanmd]

What does everyone here think of the click fee's on a private label vs a name brand?

25%-40% vs Branded, depending on brand and contracts. OEM is a smart way to go.

[lensmanmd]

Not enough space to write a dissertation on this regarding COGs, ROI, etc.

A quick synopsis, if you process less than 50 surface orders per day, stay away. No ROI. Order from your friendly local lab instead. If more than 150 surface orders per day, then it may be worth looking into investing in Freeform. Anything in between, you need to do some serious cost accounting to determine the benefits of bringing FF in house.

All I can say is that we are a small lab and surface over 230 pairs per day, bringing FF in house was a smart move for us.

[Don Gilman]

Is anyone working with a doctor owned lab? Why are we buying from these huge conglomerate labs like Essilor (France), Hoya (Japan), Zeiss (Germany), etc.

When we buy from Essilor our money goes to France, Hoya to Japan and Zeiss to Germany. I currently work for a doctor owned and operated lab that the doctors have the opportunity to become an owner and get money they put in the lab back in the doctors pocket. We are a local business model that supports the doctors growth, not corporate growth to another country.
PS- No we do not require the old lenses back to receive credit for any remakes or redo's


Just curious on any opticians thoughts, comments or concerns...

Is your lab conventional or free form?

[JF LDO]

Is your lab conventional or free form?

We're free form. We grind all of our lenses (single vision, bi/trifocals, cast and full backside digital progressives) all on our digital generator.

[JF LDO]

Not enough space to write a dissertation on this regarding COGs, ROI, etc.

A quick synopsis, if you process less than 50 surface orders per day, stay away. No ROI. Order from your friendly local lab instead. If more than 150 surface orders per day, then it may be worth looking into investing in Freeform. Anything in between, you need to do some serious cost accounting to determine the benefits of bringing FF in house.

All I can say is that we are a small lab and surface over 230 pairs per day, bringing FF in house was a smart move for us.

Thanks for the info, do you folks have digital and conventional generators as well or all FF?

[lensmanmd]

Thanks for the info, do you folks have digital and conventional generators as well or all FF?

Backside FF. We also process all of our other surface work on our FF generators as STP. Lower overall labor costs, and consumables are on par with pads/laps. Diamond costs are offset by lower labor costs.

[JF LDO]

Backside FF. We also process all of our other surface work on our FF generators as STP. Lower overall labor costs, and consumables are on par with pads/laps. Diamond costs are offset by lower labor costs.

We're thinking about getting a conventional line in the future, but we're on the same boat. Thanks for the info.

[lensmanmd]

We have a conventional line but haven't touched it over 3 months. It's only good for out of range RXs, of which some we send to Epic.