Shwing
Shwing
Oof...I'm so confused...is that guy for real??
Do you think they're actually going to do anything to this guy?? Also, how does he do 3 for 1?? Does he charge $300.00 fpr the first pair??
Days where my gratitude exceed my expectations are very good days!
Closer to $400 but that's Canadian. Safilo's also after them because they're selling Safilo brands but don't have an accout with them nor do they have any records as to where these Armani frames came from....Originally Posted by Framebender
And I really liked the 1.5 CT "safety glasses that a patient brought in from them.
These guys are remarkable. The court ruling in 2003 was a slap on the wrist (he wasn't fined, just told to stop), he's had his license suspended a couple of times....but they just keep doing what they're doing.
Maybe I should start giving out prescription medications from my office. There's obviously no penalty for it.....:hammer:
Prescription medicine from your office? You may as well do cataract surgery if they can't stop this embarrassment. Hell, I may as well do the surgery. Note the newspaper caption refers to the "eye examination" he is conducting. I laughed when I read the part where he seems confused about going to jail. "Am I going to jail?" Uh well...Yeah.
My fix? Actually put him in jail for a while, that may clear up his confusion.(am I going to jail?)
My favourite bit is when they figured out his dog owns the company. I wonder if the dog filed a tax return.
Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.
Last edited by mike.elmes; 07-31-2006 at 08:15 PM.
ok - I'm confuzed...this guy's dog owns the company (although the dog might be his wife's mom???) and he is certified to give exams in Canada but yet he issues prescriptions? Oh - and this is a charity? No one works for free....
Can't resist..."You're going to jail...and your little dog too..."
You do realize this is the next logical step from what you're doing, right Mike? You have an off-site MD authorize you to create prescriptions. So did he, at least 3 years ago he did. How much longer until you allow a "technician" to do the test under your authority? But then, why does the technician need an optician?Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.
This may become the norm for refractions and I fail to see how it benefits anyone except the MDs who get paid to give out a rubber stamp.
A preview...............
This is all only a preview of what is in the soon to come future................when the lens corporations dominate through the aquisition of most or all the optical labs......................and the frame corporations own the majority of retail stores.
I suggest you or anyone unfamiliar with this advanced refraction system refresh yourself by reading what they offer...www.eyelogic.com
Our setup is NEVER going to be compared to what is happening in this thread. Speaking of technicians, many Opthalmalogist's practices use technicians with training to do the refractions. The doctor does recheck at the end to verify results.I have found using the eyelogic system that the consumer LOVES the acuity. After all, that is what they are after....sharp vision. In a typical dispensary, I would say that as many as 10-20% of customers have some issue with the RX....and I'm not talking about the ones that are dealing with base curve, or seg hight issues.It gives us a tool as Opticians to help deliver improved customer satisfaction....That is the next logical step.
Trust me Mike, I know about the eyelogic system. It is the system that these guys (Great Glasses) use to give out their "free eye test." It is an automated system that is run by untrained technicians. These technicians are "self employed" and are trained with a manual written by Mr. Bergez. Last I heard there was an MD in Hamilton who "authorized" the prescriptions generated but who never actually saw the prescription.
Whether the eyelogic system is the best thing since the retinoscope or not is irrelevant. My point is these people are doing exactly what you are doing to determine a "prescription" and then making glasses.
We already know that throughout much of the US there are no prerequisites for being an optician. Canada almost invariably follows the US eventually. So at some point I forsee the title of optician being unprotected. In Ontario HPRAC recently recommended that eyeglass dispensing be kept regulated but eventually it will likely change.
So what I'd like you to explain to me is how you think this "Great Glasses" situation is not what is going to happen elsewhere? We've already seen it with opticians using the eyelogic system....you find a questionable loophole in the delegation rules and keep using it (despite many being challenged successfully) until eventually the government lets you keep doing it. This company has been doing the same thing since 2001 I believe and only now does it seem they might be stopped.
I truly think that unless a big message is sent now we will see opticians refracting, then we will see non-opticians refracting and dispensing, and I still fail to see how this benefits our healthcare system or our patients.
And one final point. If the eyelogic system is really so much better than a person at refracting, why can I not think of a single OD who is using it? If I could find a way to speed up my exam and do a better job of it I'd be all over that.
There are actually a number of benefits to basic sight testing
with eyelogic other than MD's profiting:
- the owner of the dispensary offering this service (as well as staff) will also benefit when a pair of eyeglasses or contact lenses are dispensed after the Rx has been signed off by the MD. This is similar to an OD refracting their patient and then recommending various ophthalmic appliances that are readily available within their own dispensary.. rather than handing the Rx to the patient and letting them go to their dispensary of chose.
- it eliminates time and frustration attempting to get a clients Rx released from the prescribing Dr. who is trying to keep their clients from shopping around.
- it can help reduce redos when receiving scripts from certain Dr's offices that have difficulty on certain days refracting
- ... and more
To my understanding with changes being made to the health act... the next wave of health care could easily weigh heavily towards delegation. There have been groups in the past (ie:The Vision Council of Canada) that have suggested that dispensaries only require one licensed Optician on premise and the rest of the workers could be less than experienced = nonlicensed.
Over the years Ophthalmologists have delegated numerous technical tasks to their staff which includes refraction... and I know of Optometrists who have built their practices on the same type of philosophy.. meaning nonlicensed employees who are delegated to.
Also...those that use the eyelogic system (mike) don't actually create the Rx...... the client along with a software program produces the Rx...Mike is just the licensed operator of the equipment.
As far as I know... talk has it that in certain provinces those that fall under the Health Professions Act may be able to run eyelogic systems. This means that nurses as an example could set up an eyelogic system if they chose to under the direction of an MD.
Sight testing is like going to Mr Lube for an oil change. Once upon a time people took their cars to a full service garage where licensed mechanics were responsible for everything. Now ..when people want to maintain their vehicle on an ongoing basis they look for alternative quick fixes for basics like oil changes. Sight testing in order to maintain continual crisp vision without getting a complete comprehensive Eye Exam is similar.
When associations allowed frame stylists to become part of the optical scene due to poorly written bylaws...the doors were opened to the large corps to change the playing field.
By the way... I am for licensing 100%.
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
I think if OD's embraced the eyelogic system it would send a clear message that the equipment works and is reliable. This would only
widen the road towards Opticianry using the same equipment.
Please keep in my mind that we are discussing simple Sight Testing..
.. not exams. The sight test is only one component of a comprehensive eye exam.
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
Sounds like the Eyelogic system is alive and well in Ontario. The system works quite well if followed correctly. This guys case is coming off a bit like kangaroo court:shiner: .Why has revenue Canada allowed this to get so far out of hand.
Like the Mounties...Revenue Canada always gets their man... and taxes owed. They're probably sitting back and watching him...letting him accrue more and more interest owed on back taxes.... then they'll really sock it to him... and they get more bucks in the end.
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
like anything else there will aways be someone out there who will abuse the system. Keeping our image high in regards to the public is our job and to put pressure on our governing body's to seek out these individuals and prosecute them
Actually, so are these guys. Really, other than the shady business practices and the fact that Mike is a licensed optician, I'd like you to point out what difference there is between Mike's setup and this one.
They use an offsite MD to sign off on prescriptions.
They use the eyelogic system.
My point is not whether opticians should be allowed to stand-alone refract. I don't think they should but we've beaten that horse to death previously. My point is, if telemedicine in this form is allowed, why should a company even have an optician working for them. An MD is not restricted to delegating only to other regulated health professionals, they could delegate to some guy who just walked in off the street. So paying the premium for an optician suddenly becomes pointless because the MD will delegate the act of refracting and the act of dispensing. Therefore, no optician is necessary.
Mike is independant so he won't be delegated out of the picture but many others will. Please explain to me how my logic is flawed.
...
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
I'm not trying to disparage Mike's business in any way. What I'm trying to convey is that these people are using the same prescription-generating paradigm. The only difference is that Mike is a licensed optician (and I'm assuming he is the one to run the equipment).
Direct from the eyelogic website, they claim the system shows an absence of operator influence on the results. Meaning anyone can run the system.
How did opticians in some areas of the country get to refract? They just started doing it and waited for the laws/regulations to catch up.
Great Glasses have done the same, they just don't have onsite opticians. Are you aware the college of opticians in Ontario wouldn't even support the college of optometrists' court challenge initially? They thought what Bergez was doing was just fine, until the court ruled against him.
Great Glasses will likely fold when the owner (the real one, not the dog) goes to jail and is bankrupt. But others will start to do the same thing. I'm not saying it will lead to the end of opticianry as a career just as I don't think opticians refracting will be the end of optometry. I just think it will spread the consumer dollar that much thinner and some places (corporate optical?) will ditch both ODs and ROs.
I still don't see how that can be good for any of us.
..
Last edited by The Critical Eye; 08-04-2006 at 07:13 PM.
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
Holding a valid license to dispense is a big enough difference for me.
I certainly don't go around saying the only difference between myself and an optometrist is that they have a license to practice optometry. A valid license IS what makes the difference.
Are you deliberately misreading what I've written? I'll restate what I said in different terms: The way in which these two opticals are creating a prescription is the same - the eyelogic system.
Actually, shows an absence of operator influence on the results is a direct quote from their site. Their site is really annoying, using images instead of text so I'm not going to quote any more but they specifically say untrained personnel can learn the system in a couple of hours. They are not talking about the patient, they are specifically saying it doesn't matter if a trained monkey runs the system, you will get the same result.Direct from the eyelogic website, they claim the system shows an absence of operator influence on the results. Meaning anyone can run the system.
Ummm.... I think what this refers to is that the results are subjective based as opposed to a more objective refraction.
The system relys heavily on the clients responses as opposed to the refractionists ability to properly use a retinoscope... as well as their
own philosophies on what constitutes a suitable/proper Rx
No. Opticians who started refracting (and the MDs working with them)took a very liberal view of the powers of delegation. They argued that the MD did not have to be on-site. This is the same, just also delegating the ability to dispense.How did opticians in some areas of the country get to refract? They just started doing it and waited for the laws/regulations to catch up.
... and your point is ? Sometimes for there to be change one must take a chance... step out and test the system. This seems to come naturally to man.
Mail order contact lens companies did something similar.
Great Glasses have done the same, they just don't have onsite opticians.
What do you mean by "just don't have onsite opticians" ? This is against the law as things stand right now... that's a pretty big "just".
Read Justice Harris' decision (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html) you'll see that they had an MD. You'll also see a few bits where the college of opticians argue against the optometrists' right to bring this to court (as the college of opticians had been ignoring the situation and there was no other recourse.)
I did not realize that the college of Opticians looked the other way in this case. If I was a member of this group... I would have been in their office demanding that they take immediate action and if they chose not to...then I guess they'd need to be reported to the proper government body for not carrying out their responsibilities in the best interests of firstly the public and secondly their membership.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that some of the western colleges of opticianry were advocating their members refract using the eyelogic system while the legality of it was being questioned. This does not seem to be "protecting the public" as the college is supposed to do but instead "advancing the profession" which associations are supposed to do.
Can you tell me why the college of Optometrists across Canada have looked the other way when OD's rather than have two separate entrances in their business...(one to the exam room...and one to the dispensary) have instead made a common passage from the exam room into the dispensary. I believe this is against the Optometrists bylaws .. but is allowed so as to try and keep the client in the office. Very good marketing technique.
Ummm...we have no such restriction in Ontario. You may be thinking of how optometrists and opticians are allowed to associate. An optician is not allowed to work for an optometrist and there must be a separate entrance for an optician-run dispensary.
Anyway, this thread is just getting redundant. I can tell I won't convince you, which is how any argument of opinion goes. When you start seeing opticals full of highschool dropouts pushing buttons and dispensing glasses under the "supervision" of an offsite MD maybe you'll remember this thread!
:cheers:
Oh... I see what you're saying... I did misinterpret.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, shows an absence of operator influence on the results is a direct quote from their site. Their site is really annoying, using images instead of text so I'm not going to quote any more but they specifically say untrained personnel can learn the system in a couple of hours. They are not talking about the patient, they are specifically saying it doesn't matter if a trained monkey runs the system, you will get the same result.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't been to the eyelogic website in quite sometime. I'll have to go have a look.
I know how frustrating it can be having a machine seemingly replace ones years of training and talent. It can't... IMO.... I guess it's up to Optometry to convince Mr and Mrs Joe Public that they are not being served in their best interests. I think the majority of the public who have had eyeglasses made from an Eyelogic Rx have been exceptionaly pleased with their visual results. This has nothing to do about eye disease... just refraction.
[/QUOTE]
No. Opticians who started refracting (and the MDs working with them)took a very liberal view of the powers of delegation. They argued that the MD did not have to be on-site. This is the same, just also delegating the ability to dispense.
[/QUOTE]
I believe I did state in a previous post within this thread that delegation was
a word used liberally under the proposed health act. Let them delegate away. If that's what the public thinks they want ...good luck to them.
[/QUOTE]
Read Jusice Harris' decision (http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onsc/2003/2003onsc11137.html) you'll see that they had an MD. You'll also see a few bits where the college of opticians argue against the optometrists' right to bring this to court (as the college of opticians had been ignoring the situation and there was no other recourse.)
[/QUOTE]
Very interesting. There's no doubt that the college seems to be self serving
at times.
[/QUOTE]
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that some of the western colleges of opticianry were advocating their members refract using the eyelogic system while the legality of it was being questioned. This does not seem to be "protecting the public" as the college is supposed to do but instead "advancing the profession" which associations are supposed to do.
[/QUOTE]
There are still associations in the west.... they have not separated into colleges and associations yet.
Hmmm... the act of providing a simple sight test for an individual is not harmful to the public. It may actually be helpful in several ways. The public does need protecting..from themselves.... because they are and will get what they want. Looks like whomever was in charge of educating the public about proper eye healthcare... fell a bit short of their goal.
[/QUOTE]
Ummm...we have no such restriction in Ontario. You may be thinking of how optometrists and opticians are allowed to associate. An optician is not allowed to work for an optometrist and there must be a separate entrance for an optician-run dispensary.
[/QUOTE]
You're right... the cobwebs are clearing... it's been so long since I've thought about this.
[/QUOTE]
Anyway, this thread is just getting redundant. I can tell I won't convince you, which is how any argument of opinion goes. When you start seeing opticals full of highschool dropouts pushing buttons and dispensing glasses under the "supervision" of an offsite MD maybe you'll remember this thread!
:cheers:[/QUOTE]
Are you sure you won't convince me ? I can find fault with using an eyelogic system as opposed to conventional means. There are pros and cons as in most things. At present though I tihnk the pros outweigh the cons... unless someone can convince me otherwise. I have not heard of any cases where the public was harmed by the use of Eyelogic.
If the system fails to work.. then the public can vote with their wallets and feet. If the public in general truly wants and accepts or lacks the desire to seek out better venues for obtaining eyewear... then so be it.
I appreciate what you're saying here Ory.. however the degradation of this industry started way before these issues of delegation and sight testing
ever came about. Do I like it what's been going on ? :angry:
I saw the buses being built years ago to transport the new wave of ophthalmic providers to their respective businesses.
Last edited by The Critical Eye; 08-05-2006 at 02:13 AM.
Oh ! Was I being too Critical ? :finger:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks