In truth, what percent of your customers would receive AR or UV coatings if: You, the business or the prescribing doctor didn't make another nickel when it was used. Glasses for TV and occupations often photographed excepted of course.
My truth is that I have more patients who have been blessed with AR who were happy not to have it forced on them on their next pair of glasses than I have patient who want it.
Chip (Who thinks dispensing is a technical, not a selling job.) Anderson
Chip,
Our optical has exposure to acute visual deficits on a daily basis. In addition to that I see nearly all of my docs post op eyewear patients that recently had a monocular IOL. Therefore, we find AR to be a great benefit to these patients. The challenge however is the technical presentation of AR to seniors so that they can comprehend the features and benefits of what they are buying.
Now to answer your question: We sell AR on about 50% of our eyewear. In addition, this add on probably yeilds the least profit margin for us. (that is next to plastic photochromatics) We see positive results with AR and therefore make a good effort so that it is affordable for most folks. Once in a while we even run a weekly promotional offer for free AR on all complete eyewear purchases.
UV on the other hand takes additional time and is not a tangible benefit that the patient can easily recognize unless you personally show them their lenses under the meter. When we UV clear lenses how do they substantiate we delivered? I've always found UV a hard sell on CR39 without incorporating it into a tint package. I've found it easier to sell a poly lens while informing them the properties of the poly material blocks UV while also providing a few other ancillary benefits. And "NO" I don't charge them for a UV coat on poly lenses like some places do. I'm interested to see others comments of dealing with UV.
I have worn AR coating for quite some time. Recently, I had been wearing a pair of lenses without the coating and it drove me nuts. Driving at night didn't bother me as much as reading indoors at night. I have my favorite nook with a table lamp next to a cozy chair; the reflections were annoying. Now I don't ever remember noticing the problem before I ever wore AR, so my guess is that after awhile I wouldn't even notice the reflections. I don't have a problem recommending them to people who do a lot of night driving or have glare complaints. I also don't pitch it to every customer. If someone comes in with a pair of lenses that look like they clean them with sandpaper I am definitely not going to sell them AR; the same goes with certain high dust occupations. I was recently bothered by the fact that a co-worker sold a pair of poly AR lenses to an eight year old. Let's see how many hours it takes the kid to scratch them. Basically, I try to get the customer to understand that if they get these lenses they need to treat them like they were a brand new black BMW with a shiny new finish. Wipe that car dry and you are going to get swirls on it. Unfortunately, even if you try to take care the lenses may still scratch and scratches will show up more on AR's. Park a Beemer at the grocery store and eventually it will get hit by a cart.
This is an excellent topic. One that I have waffled on for my whole 10 year career. My question is... why do I want to pitch UV to someone who is not outdoors for a long period of time. Isn't that like putting sunscreen on before you go to the office to work. What is the point?
I can understand UV in sunglasses or glasses that a construction worker would wear. But why UV for someone who is hardly ever outdoors?
I hate it when a doc tells every patient they need UV. This is selling. It is not meeting the patient's/ customer's needs.
What do you think? Does every pair of glasses need UV?
What do you think? Does every pair of glasses need UV?
Slate83...............Absolutely! uv400 treatments should be on every pair. Just because your patient may not be an outdoorsman does not mean that they would not benefit. Even Medicare allows for it. We sell uv400 treatments for $15.00. The more affordable it is, the better.
Jackie O
------------------
Still a Maina for now
Hi Jackie;
Medicare no longer pays on UV-400. They classify it as a tint. I file on it every time and it has come back unpaid for the last year and a half. We file it under code V2755, if you know of another code to get it paid, please share. Jim Seebach
Jim, If you include a letter stating that the Rx called for UV, or that the doctor specifies matching the patients existing lenses they will pay, but you need to write the letter :(.
Best Wishes from a chilly Cape Cod
------------------
Harry J
About three months ago, I had a lady stop by my store to ask me if she had received the AR coating that she paid $75.00 for at EGW.
When she pulled out the glasses, it was plain that there was no AR coating on it. The manager, who use to run a rent a car lot prior to becoming the store manager, assured her that it was a new, invisible AR coating.
This same store, along with a few others I can think of, will also sell UV and srcatchguard coatings, but add nothing to the lens.
There are too many customers who come into my office who already believe that UV, AR and scratchguard are just scams to drive up prices. Unfortunately, in many cases, they are right.
Chip, I suppose about 85% of our clients wear Crizal AR coating. It is AR and warranted for scratching. We have fit Ar lenses for 15 years. we have a repeat business of about 70%, so on an average day, it's very rare for someone to not get AR. many new clients are amazed when we present AR that no one's ever offered them the choice before, and that's really all "selling" is is offering them the choice, who's to judge whether something is going to benefit the pt, just because it costs more, so saving them money is in their best interest?? not hardly. Like Kevin said, it's not really a profitable item, but our clients sure do love it!
I WON'T wear glasses without AR Coating or UV protection, and won't provide eyewear to any of the people that I LOVE (family and close friends) without it, because I believe that the additional clarity of AR is important to their visual health and UV is definitely important to their ocular health.
If you look at standard CR 39 lenses and know that 4% reflection is generated by each surface of the lens, (that's right, two sides equal 8%), then you can see a benefit there. The higher the index of the material, the higher the percentage of reflections, means that in the very high indexes, you could, indeed have 14% to 16% reflections from the lenses. That amounts to a lot of relections that annoy the brain and causes the patient to be losing some of their clear vision. It generates visual noise, and our brains don't like it. Therefore, AR has a definite benefit for vision and overall visual health. UV protection can only be judged over a period of time, some say. I can assure you, years ago, I took my husband, poor man, always the guinea pig, when he was experiencing headaches because of working on a computer all day and put a UV filter in his eyewear, (changing nothing else). His headaches went away. He also treated me better. I believe that UV filters could save marriages. (Only kidding). Did the UV filter have immediate benefits? I think so, but definitely it has long term benefits.
I believe that every patient should have the choice in both AR and UV. If you, as a dispenser don't like either, and you choose not to offer it to your patients, you could actually be responsible for long term risks based on UV exposure, and certainly reducing the amount of clarity in their vision caused from reflections, if you don't, at least offer AR coatings
That's my two cents worth.
Diane
Hi Ya'all;
UV is a funny situation. Most \doctors I talk to believe it is one of the main causes of Cataracts here in the Southwest. I am In Odessa, Texas and it is very flat, and not much foliage. That old sun shines most of the year, and without the foliage to filter it a little, the people get a larger dose of UV. We have what they call Brown Cataracts out here. You can't see them by just looking at a person. They start seeing things dirty or with a yellowish or brownish hue to them. We have three Cataract Factories here in Odessa alone, a town of about 95,000 and they stay busy year round. I have been told that they use Implants that have UV filter in them, but most of the Rx's come with UV prescribed for the lenses. I believe that if I am going to live out here I am surely going to give myself the benefit of UV protection, therefore if I am fare to my customers, I am going to tell them about UV. I think there is a strong argument for having it. You may not be able to see it on the lenses, but that doesen't mean it isn't there. Sometimes you have to trust the people your dealing with until they prove they can't be trusted.
Jim Seebach
Again, I ask the question... why does every patient need UV? It is obvious, if a person only wears his or her glasses to read, why UV? If a person is only outdoors for maybe 5 minutes per day (walking to and from their car), why UV?
Nobody in this thread has yet to establish why everyone has to have it. Yes, I know if you live in Florida, Texas or any other place for that matter, and you are outdoors a good part of the time.... you need UV.
Other than that point, I just don't see it.
I love AR and see more benefit to it than UV.
By the way, we get reimbursed $10 per lens for UV on post cataract glasses. The code we use is V2755ZX (RT or LT).
It has been paid everytime.
I too am a firm believer in AR coatings, and the main reason is that I personally see and feel the difference on my own glasses.
Having said that, The biggest problem we experience in our stores is the short life of these coatings and the expectations of the Pt. who think the coating should last for many years without any signs of deterioration.
Yes, we do explain how to wash and clean their lenses, we even have instructions printed on the back of our 'custom cases' but it doesn't help, a great pity, so now I too look at how the Pt. has treated their old specs before I recommend AR.
Slate83...your UV question is a good one...why should someone who does't spend much time outdoors need it?
Television sets emit UV...so do flourescent lights, computer monitors. If your home or office windows don't have a UV block, guess what! UV will be present.
Is it a money maker? If you have your own tint unit, yes. You can charge $5.00 a pair if you want and still profit after 8 pairs. Most UV solutions state that they are usually good up to 100 pairs of lenses.
Bob V.
Okay, if the television, computer monitors, flourescent lights, etc. emit UV, then why isn't my face burned? I spend tons of time in front of my computer with no ill effects to my skin. I don't put sunscreen on before I watch TV. I personally feel it is something concocted to sell UV.
I know there is a profit in UV. But what is the use if it is not needed. If it is needed in every pair, why don't the lens manufacturers include it in every lens made?
If I am missing something, please correct me.
I believe AR coating is essential for anyone who expects maximum performance from his or her eyewear. I am also vain enough to believe that people like not having a shiny lens compromising the esthetics of the new eyewear they took so long to pick out. UV is not as important for indoor use I cannot get a tan from my computer no matter how long I sit in front of it. For a few dollars more I do prefer a UV filter on my glasses. I do go out side and we do live a lot longer so why not protect your eyes whenever possible. We should not apologize for providing protection, great vision, and excellent esthetics. After all it is only money
My two cents
Bill
Slate, the reason you are not getting burned from all that "harsh" UV is because of the low levels of it.
As with anything, over time it MAY do some damage...so why not a little protection.
We are bombarded with low level radiation every day. Do we all need lead suits to keep from glowing in the dark? No, because the levels are so small that our clothes keep the radiation out.
Do you not use some kind of bug spray when walking in the woods? Mosquitoes and ticks harbor some nasty diseases. I use it and I also have lenses that are UV'ed.
Bob V.
I'm gonna just have to get into the OptiBoard more often so I can respond 2nd or 3rd rather than 28th.
Damage from UV radiation appears to be cumulative so that those little doses received running from the car to the office may just add to the problem. That little old lady may have been a sailor or sunbather in her youth. Cataracts may be seen more often simply 'cuz we're living longer. I feel that UV attenuation can be easily justified as long as the retail price is not usury.
Disclaimer. I am on the BOD of the AR Council of America so I admit prejudice. (What, you say, is the AR Council? Well, we're an industry organization, funded by manufacturers, AR coaters and labs, dedicated to promoting the use of AR Coatings. For more info, we're linked here or call up www.arcouncil@aol.com) I'd just ask any one of you: After wearing an AR coating, would you ever have a pair of specs without? Industry stats indicate that with today's vastly improved coatings, over 9 of 10 folks do reorder. Now, we just have to get the use up from today's 15% to the 60 - 90% in Japan and western Europe.
Re: A/R and UV
I work next door to an optometrist who thinks he's a consumer advocate. So, he tells his patients . . . "A/R is good but you don't necessarily need it.And, if you get it you will have to take special care of it." He also says: "You don't need UV unless you are exposed to Ultraviolet light excessively."
I take the following position on these issues:
1, Go into a camera store and ask for a top line lens for a camera without coating. That's stupid. So is anyone who says having it on glasses is an option. You don't buy AR cause its an option. You buy it because it is the ultimate form of quality in optics for your eyes.
2, Every single person everywhere in the world every minute of every day who watches television, is looking through a lens with AR coating. You would not appreciate watching a TV show taped at night, in low light, or any other time through uncoated lenses. And, if Procter and Gamble knew they were paying milions a minute to promote their product through low quality optics . . they'd kick the producers . . . *** !
3, Stand at the international terminal of any big airport and look at the glasses of Europeans and Asians coming off the planes. Shocker . . . A/R is dominant. Who's the dummy?
4, It's OK to promote quality. You don't have to justify it with medical jargon.
When I sit in front of a patient with my coated glasses on . . I tell them they need to have a no-glare lens. They have the option of not getting it.
5, I also insist to my people that they do NOT present long winded reasons for AR. "Don't spill your candy in the lobby or there will be no more left for the movie." Wear AR and stop making it conditional. AR is part of the definition of superior optics. Its attitude. I run 92% AR. If a patient scratches it and you have a warranty . . recoat it. If they don't, redo it anyway. If you sell one AR job and have to redo it, that's a 100% failure rate. But once you get past "critical mass" in sales a remake here and there is diddly poop!
The question we all need to answer in our own minds is do we believe some so-called expert like a doctor wannabe consumer advocate negataive sells, or do we want to take on the professional/technical attitude of so many of our colleagues in Europe. What we present and dispense is supposed to be pure and simply the best in optics.
Go ahead and argue with that. Any argument is between OUR ears and not the patients. Funny how Otto Kraus, Zeiss, Rodenstock, and a handfull of American schools plus a diminishing number of us real technicians in the USA believe in and produce superb optics for our patients. No compromise. Quality optics is quality optics.
My God, the camera and broadcast industry has more regard for AR than a lot of those people who think of themselves as opticians.
As for UV . . . Protection is protection. Either you provide it or you don't. We are not here to determine whether our patient is safe under a depleated ozone layer or a carcenoma will develop or a cataract will develop. We provide protection. That's our job.
If there is a question as to whether a kid will get hurt in PE class . . . don't insist he wear a jock strap!
If you are uncomfortable making money because of a lot of AR sales . . . then you are on a guilt trip! You can't stop thinking like a consumer advocate gone wrong. And, if, God forbid, you need a heart valve replaced . . . watch the look on Dr DeBakeys's face when you say . .
"Is there a cheaper one?"
Tah, tah!
We decided that as optical professionals we would include UV & factory scratch coat in the cost of our CR39 lenses. We were having to buy the solution & change it on a regular basis whether we were running 1 or 100 pair through it. There are enough things that we try to ask patients to make choices about without including something that really doesn't effect our cost of doing business.
We do a fair amount of AR, & would rather our customers come out of pocket for this.
I hope you're all having fun & making money!!
Framebender
You right there..Originally posted by slate83:
This is an excellent topic
Why sell the uv coat to anybody as you cant say its on the grounds of protection against uv rays as people who do not wear glasses do not get any uv protection and do they get more problems than folks who wear glasses, I dou't it.
My question is... why do I want to pitch UV to someone who is not outdoors for a long period of time. Isn't that like putting sunscreen on before you go to the office to work. What is the point?
I think the point is its a way to add a few extra bucks to the job as we brits say "money for old rope.."
Arn't all lenses protection againts some amount of uv anyway so you are almost there anyway, and coating the lens to 100% uv only stops uv rays through the lens not what gets round them..
As for ar coats i wont wear a pair without now cant cope with glare etc of the non coated lenses..
------------------
Every day a grind
Every week a bind
www.iooi.co.uk
For those interested, measurable UV radiation from a computer monitor is negligible once you are 1cm (about a half an inch) from the screen, so don't sit too close!
A half hour in the sun covers about 2 decades of sleeping on a computer monitor!
TV and fluorescent lights have similar emission rates, so UV indoors is a non-issue.
RP
Has there ever been a study where someone has been made to wear one lens with uv and one without, forever, and then had their eyes compared? That would resolve the issue.
And, while we're on the topic, where do they get these people from, who take part in the stupid trials for 20 years? You read reports that say 'People who ate nothing but carrots for their whole lives were found to have more hearing deficiencies, but curlier hair, than people who ate nothing but Ryvita'. A slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean. I thought that maybe they get them from prison, but that wouldn't work in the UV experiment, because they never see daylight (haha). You could just do the UV thing, though, without them knowing. It's unethical, but in a kind of 'mad-genius-scientist' way. And it would be fun. I may do it, but then die without telling anyone the results. It will be my evil anti-legacy to optics.
We have a few doctors in town (Who of course have a financial interest in the filling of their Rx's) who specify UV on reading glasses and half eyes (If the optician has the nerve to question this, he will be told about the UV in fluorescent lights, computers, T.V. etc.). Surely you don't think an M.D. would take advantage of an unsuspecting public do you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks