I don't think so.Originally Posted by drk
If everyone pitched in just a little it could easily get off the ground.
What I would suggest is trying it out in one State first. Maybe all of the Wisconsin independent opticians and labs get together and try to get a some small to large companies on board.
Offer them better benefits for the glasses.
I agree it can be done, but getting enough retailers to agree on anything is a task in itself... i think if they can agree on something then the money would really not be as much as an issue...
Most of us independents are toooo independent :hammer:
CHM, you are usually the fiscally-conservative one...
Can you see all these independents getting together and agreeing on anything?
Can you see independents pony-ing up bucks to take a reduced fee-for-service, and then getting some sort of share-holder's profit distribution later in the year?
Can you compete with the sophistication of modern third-party companies, with all their money when you knock on the door of IBM to sell your plan?
Paper claims or electronic? Credentialing? Liability requirements? Customer service? Provider relations? Website presence? Member literature? It's a massive undertaking.
Can you think of the possible "political" implications with current vision-care plans like VSP, Specterrible, Davis, when they find out some of their provider panel is now their competition for marketshare?
Why not? Simply get togther form your own advertising company and make it work! How many independents are there? Join forces. It may be necessary to stay afloat. Stop just talking about it and do it!!!
Ok! I'm pumped. I'll donate $5,000 to make the venture work. I'm sure many will follow. I'm sure we'll see a good return on our investment as we out-compete the current vision-care insurance companies!:hammer: It's a sure thing. I'm glad so many of us rich independents are lining up in lock-step. That's why the AOA and OOA are so strong and effective...
NAH!
Gain acceptance.......................
I knew, I was right............as you state it would sell generic to an individual.
The market at large consist's of a lot of individuals, thats how it is made up and we can not change that. Therefore sales are made to individuals by individuals .................
According to above statement, we should be able to assume that by learning and apply some good sales psychology, we can and should be able to convince the market at large that has been brainwashed prior to the fact.
After all who is the last and final professional the customer is seeing, ..................the optican.
Have you ever heard that any startup business is asking their future competition for advice?
I personally think that opticians would be a natural choice to start a vision plan with nothing else besides. Lux who now owns one of them is now direct competition where a few years ago they were simply a plain supplier............did they ever ask anybody what the reaction and implications would be.
They just assumed that the optical business is so loose and could never get organized, so there would be no implications, political or other. In general I think they were right.
I think you've bolstered my point there, Chris.
Nah!
And that is why they the big companies will always have the upper hand! Too much apathy!
OAA and other organizations I do not know! Seems like they just have meetings!!
From a business viewpoint in would be in everyones interest to work together much like a buying group!
But as I said before there appears to be too much of a bad attitude for anything worthwhile to work!
As I understand it, under the current system, the process, simplified, goes something like this: The patient pays Clarity (for example) for their vision coverage. The patient sees the provider, pays a copay, and the provider bills Clarity, which pays a little more.
How about offering a simple discount plan? Cut out the patient payment to the "insurance company", and make it so the patient will pay the amount that would have been the reimburement from the "insurance company". The patient's total outlay should remain about the same - reduction in payment to insurance company, offset by the addition of the copay amount. This would reduce our outlay to sales and marketing - no processing claims, etc.
How's that as a staring point to keep down start-up costs?
Drk, you are looking at this in a way too complicated way.
Do not set up the frames and the lenses. Instead go to these companies and offer a flat rate. Maybe like $200 for glasses every two years. Have independents buy in to be able to take part of this plan.
Davis and all the others had to start somewhere...from zero I think!
Are'nt these companies just insurance companies. They have stolen what is rightfully yours- profit.
In my business we could easily charge less and get a hugh profit. Volume sales is the way to do it. How many of you only have a few sales a day because you lose to the 3rd parties.
Of the plans I saw when I lived in the states the reimbusement was very high. The consumer did not get much of a discount at all.
If you work it right you could put them out of business. After all they are just insurance companies. What kind of good service do JQP get from them?
Just a paper claim!
Bravo!!! Yo se que la gente que esa optica es muy inteligente!
My spanish is not too good but I think we have a lot of intelligent people on these boards!
Again Chris, your logic is sound and I like learning from you. If I understand your point, you're saying that a product can beat an identical product if the price is lower, regardless of the name. But again, I insist that the masses don't behave logically, as individuals do.
An example: Hundreds of thousands of blind taste tests have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Royal Crown cola tastes better than Coke. So why is Coke the leader and Royal Crown nowhere? Because of marketing. When you buy a can of Coke, are you drinking the contents or the label? Individuals know that Royal Crown tastes better but the market still prefers Coke.
Same thing with lens and frame brands. When people wear Panamics are they wearing the front surface design or the name? I say the name.
Let me see if I get this right...
Let's offer $100/yr of benefit to the member. Now, where do we get that $100? From the employer. But we can't charge them $100, can we? No, otherwise the employer could just dole it out themselves. We have to charge them, say, $50 per member per year. Then, we have to assume risk. That's what insurance is: "risk management". It's a gamble that a substantial portion of the members NOT utilize their benefits to reduce our payout to our providers (ourselves, in this case) if we want to turn a profit at the insurance level, or even if we want to break even, like VSP apparently does (after paying all the salaries). Not to mention family plans...
So, assuming we break even, then we have captured part of the market by offering a $100/yr benefit that they can spend only in our office. Maybe we can get our U&C fees, and the member gets a $100 off benefit.
In the bad years, we do not break even, and we have to dip into the reserve to pay out all those benefits...what reserve?
Do we have to be rated by the insurance industry? You bet. Do we have to follow state and federal insurance industry regulations? You bet....
You work it into the benefits with other companies.
Take a look at how Canada does it.
Liberty Health, Blue Cross, Green Shield all offer it.
Now you go to them and you work something out with them.
Also, for the big companies it is not a problem, because not everyone at the company wears glasses.
Yeah, but usually the employees have to pay a certain amount to enroll, as well. They ain't enrollin' if they's see-in good.
Chris and Jason: "Get a room"
This is the most incoherent thread in awhile!
Last edited by drk; 06-03-2005 at 04:10 PM.
Most 3rd party plans that I had participated in offered a basic plan to their members. For those benefits not covered under the plan the members had to pay a discounted rate for each item (frame upgrade, lens upgrade, coatings, etc). Additionally, the patients had to pay for other testing (DFE, Visual fields, etc). We never lost money on these plans no matter how terrible. Its important to understand the plan fully and work with it.
Also, their are much less expensive alternatives to Essilor, Hoya and Zeiss products. You are the professionals and it is up to you to prescribe and educate your patients. Seek out alternatives for both eyewear and lenses. Work with private label contact lenses from the manufacturers. Marketing only costs alot of money if you are unwilling to market one patient at a time. Use the brand names to advertise and use your knowledge to prescribe and advertise the same way the brand names are using you and marketing directly to your patients.
Doc
...........................you don't know the first thing about how managed care works.
Managed care is a benefit from employers. Some employees pay a portion of their health care cost but the majority of it is paid by the employer who wants, to pay less than retail, wants to know what his outlay is going to be and wants multi providers, in multi states with administration. ( someone has to verify eligibility - unless of course you want everyone to get the discount) Finally they want some type of certification and credentialing of the providers. All of this cost lots of money.
OAA and a number of state societies have had discount plans. There was no income to support sales or advertising. Firms refused to pay firm dues, individuals refused to pay individual dues. And state societies refused to pay state society dues. That program and many others went away. Funded plans were impossible to secure because every state society wanted a little piece of the action and didn't want to pay administrative fees. Michigan had a mildly sucessful program call HAN. I am not sure if they are even around any more and so did California. I doubt it.
Every major group I can think of offers discount optical plans (usually packaged with dental) to their members.
I think there are even optical buying groups that have managed care plans.
I don't think it is possible with the competition at the leval it has reached in todays market. It was probably possible 10 years ago when this was being attempted but not today.
Rep
What you are going to try and sell is " I have this great product it's better than the "brand" name and I can sell it to you cheaper. Wow gee shouldn't it be cheaper if your not spending any money on advertising or promotion!!!
Great marketing strategy - Good Luck
Employers want the name brands cheaper, not your generic brand cheaper.
Their employees already think they're getting screwed by the company. Why would they want to risk an even tougher position with generic products? Most of these companies sell products and services that have name brands. Do you really think you would have a chance of convincing them the generic brand is just as good as their own name brands.
Rep
I understand that this topic does not please Lux or Lenscrafters people. To date Lux has made and is making alot of money from many of the posters (and non-posters) on this site. It is also entirely reasonable for the 3 O's to feel threatened by Lux's ownership of Lenscrafters, Pearle, etc since they are competing for the same patients no matter how you slice it. Its not reasonable for Lux people to have a condescending attitude towards people who realize this threat and have an open discussion on this board on how to address it. The point of the discussion is a free flow of ideas and to build upon another persons thoughts. We already know the reps from Lux will defend Lux and bash those against Lux. Your not going to sway this discussion so I don't see the point of your continued haranging of those no inline with your companies way of doing business.
Doc
Funny how often I see crappy PALs worn by patients who have third party plans.
Yes Yes Yes
Super No Line rules!
I've been watching most of this thread and replying here and there. As a lab owner, I would be more than happy to join in on a discount or an independent insurance program. The volume would more than make up for any loses.
Someone had a good idea, start it in one state and let it spread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks