Printable View
Couldn't help but notice the shiny gold foil sticker attached on some Rx's lately from one particular national optometric practice.. "Complete eyeglasses for **.**.
Very PURDY!!. Well....at least they have reduced the amount of paper they used to attach.
What are the guidelines, Provincially. Just asking.
In Ontario OD's are still governed by our College regulation that states that dispensing is based on a fee method - so cost of frame+lenses+..+fee is the total. You could put a frame price on each frame (frame cost + frame fee) but not a total cost - unless you stated that each priced frame only included single vision lenses (i.e. CR39 with SRC) and the Rx range. Personally, in my office, we have no prices marked on the frames at all. I know that there are many OD's who believe they could compete better with the discount chains if they priced their eyewear like the opticians - and they have been lobbying our College to remove the current regulation for pricing. Some of us , however, are fine with the current system and if one wants to charge a fee in excess of the OAO guidelines, then one can, as long as it is explained to the patient (Dentists do the same on their receipts "our fee may exceed the ODA guidelines"). My concern with your case, however, is what is on the receipt given to the patient - an itemized bill or just the total. If just the total then the receipt is not in agreement with our regulation and I would be concerned in that case. Hope that helps.
Was this stuck on the Rx itself????
Yup!Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar
National optometric? As in the part of the eye consisting of muscle tissue that regulates light entering the eye?
Secondly, is it against the rules to advertise a price on an Rx?
2006 Registrar's report on page 3 suggests that statements on the Rx are prohibited, even if they make sense (expiry date for example - ?!):
http://www.collegeoptom.on.ca/conten...&sys-Attr=File
However, if you are a national optometric group with a legal team to back you up - well, you likely get a free pass on this, along with all the other outdated conflict of interest regulations (just haven't been changed quite yet). Just have to print the words "Charter Challenge" on legal stationary...
A sticker on the Rx? - that certainly is a different type of marketing, just not sure how professional that looks. I would like to see one - anybody got a scanned one with the patient info blacked out they care to post?
[QUOTE=LandLord;342701]National optometric? As in the part of the eye consisting of muscle tissue that regulates light entering the eye?
No.
For Your Information....I might be giving them too much "street cred"...let's just say they aspire to be national.
The stickers stopped appearing on subsequent Rxs. I'm willing to concede, that it is possible they were applied by accident, intended for "other correspondence" and that a staff member may have developed a case of TWITCHY STICKERITIS.
There's a few cases of that malady circulating in the west....mostly associated with spring fever, with links to brain freeze.
I'll check and see if I kept one... Our procedure is to return the original to the client, keeping a scan or pcopy of it. We usually surgically remove the sticker with an explaination that "it must have been put on in error"Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthStar
Really, crap like that makes us all look bad!
I can't count the number of times I've had to explain "No, your doctor didn't mean you weren't able to wear contacts..." when NOT SUITABLE FOR CONTACTS was stamped across their prescription.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncut
Wanna bet ?....Thats exactly what I mean if I indicate that on the rx...How can you interpret that differently ?
Simple, with repeated referral to ophthalmology, where suitability miraculously is restored!Quote:
Originally Posted by kws6000
kws6000:
What are the Alberta guidelines re: attachments, price advertising on Rx?
uncut
curious, what condition would qualify one as not suitable for contacts that would be unknown to the patient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandLord
Nothing,wrt the people I see....I tell them why they are unsuitable for cls.
That makes total sense. I can't imagine a patient given a good reason they aren't a suitable candidate and then turn around and try to buy some anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by kws6000
Tell that to a few post-LASIK disasters I know!Quote:
Originally Posted by LandLord
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandLord
It happens a lot with cl overwear disasters.....Around here ,they dont have any problem finding contact lens fitters who will sell them more cls.
There are tons of people that shouldn't be wearing contact lens that refuse to stop, and will feign anyway to get their damn CL. Myself, I'm more liberal, I will educate my patients on why they should not wear CL's, and I even refuse to fit some, but most will find a way...Quote:
Originally Posted by kws6000
In my experience it is actually the contact lens fitters (those that I know anyways) that are more conservative when it come to fitting (or not fitting) these patients.
Ethics ? In the optical business ? What you talking about boy ?
It's best to behave as if everyone is ethical even though we know they aren't.
Quite a few doctors are writing this on their scripts so they don't try and use their Glasses Rx to order contacts online.Quote:
Originally Posted by kws6000
Not suitable for contacts in my mind means that this is an eyeglass rx only, it is not a cl rx, therefore not to be used to order cls from your friendly mail order. Patients have no clue that Rx's are not global. If you want to prevent pt from being fitted for cls then specify " This patient not suitable for Cl fitting. " When presented with an Rx, always check with the prescribing doctor if indeed this patient is eligible for cls. It will endear you to that doctor, knowing you are an ethical, patient proactive fitter, not just a lens seller. You might be remembered for future business favorably.
I have always wondered why you call yourself "Refractingoptician" why is this and is it ethical? Do you refract? Do you wish you could? I know that I am slow - but ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Refractingoptician.com
A lot of unanswered questions on this thread, eh!