Ontario Opticians refracting?

**LandLord** · 12-10-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Barry Santini

at least at this time. There are too many commercial interests that would NOT like to see a higher standard of optician education (and resultant higher salaries), and I'm not talking about ODs here.

I believe, and continue to believe, that refraction *can* be safely separated from a medically-comprehensive eye-exam. Agree or not, so many *medical* insurances no longer cover the refraction fee, stating it is a "routine" procedure that is not medically necessary.

I don't agree: Refraction *is*, IMHO. a *necessary* part of a complete eye exam, but a desire to be refracted does NOT mean a complete eye exam is warranted.

I think the public welfare is *not*compromised at all if refractions were available separately from a complete exam, as long as they are educated as such. If you think the public is too _____(dumb?, insert your fave word here) to understand the difference, then, for my money, they certainly too _____ to select their own OTC ANYTHING (readers, Bifocals, dive/snorkel masks, etc.)

"John Q" knows that vision is fluid. That's why they want a refraction just about any and every time they want to buy Rx eyewear & sunwear. "Why not have the latest *numbers* before I make this purchase?"

Is their eye or general health threatened by such a desire? Yes, but only if you continue to feel that only a complete eye exam should be done when a refraction would suffice.

In fact, I think that the twin inconveniences of having to schedule an eye exam and/or determine whether insurance coverage is available ARE THE TWO BIGGEST FACTORS THAT PREVENT SALES IN THE EYEWEAR MARKET FROM REAL GROWTH AS WELL AS MOVEMENT AWAY FROM A MEDICAL PURCHASE BASED ON NEED, TO A FASHION ONE BASED ON WANT.

Trained and qualified opticians that refract do nothing to take away from optometry and ophthalmology as gatekeepers of vision health and care, unless opticians allow the public to continue to think that the refraction is the eye exam (as most of the public does now).

Bottom line: If you believe that the highest quality care can only be ensured with refracting done in an Dr.s office, then just common sense and logic alone dictate that the public SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFRACT themselves.

I think congressmen and politicians will never buy the idea that the present public vision health is compromised by the availability of OTCs. Heck, they don't even think that internet refills of Contact Lenses (NOW THERE"S A MEDICAL-VISION APPLIANCE IF I EVER DID SEE ONE!) harm the public, and we all know better than that...

So just what is the harm when a qualified optician, with proper licensure and training (as in NYS), refracts John Q, as long as its clear that no medical eye exam is implied in the procedure?

I may not be able to refract as well as other, great ODs on this board (and elsewhere), but...most of their dispensing skills are also not nearly as good as mine (and others here)...and which one do you think really impacts the general satisfaction level of the public and their eyewear the most?

I sincerely hope I have *not* instigated anyone to flame-on with this thread. We need good discussions and exchanges like these.

Barry

Very complete and well expressed. This is the kind of logic the refractometry killers fear most. Have you considered becoming a lobbyist?

**LandLord** · 12-10-2007, 09:36 PM

By the way, what's a reach around? :)

**opti-refractonator** · 12-11-2007, 01:25 PM

I am sorry that i have to tell you this.
a reach around is when one person is standing in front of another person, similar to a line, and the person from behind reaches around the person in front and gives him a 'full release' (chocking the chicken). (if you dont understand this by now, i don't think that i can help you anymore.)