Re-branding... Unethical or smart business?

**Wes** · 12-27-2009, 01:47 PM

So I've been seeing quite a bit of this lately, mostly from chain ODs. They'll write an rx for contacts, say, softmed 55 or encore etc... These lenses are not always to be found in Tylers (softmed is listed as a rebrand), but a quick package inspection (if pt has previous box) reveals they're Coopervision. Material name and parameters reveal they're biomedics 55 (also packaged as ultraflex).
So what we have here is ODs writing rxs for pts that they can't get anywhere other than the ODs own business unless the pt happens to be very savvy or stops in an optical that knows its stuff.
From general conversations with many pts, rather than try to find a cheaper place (and let's face it, cheaper places don't hire help who figure this out) that they can get their lenses, they just return to the prescriber. Definitely a revenue generator, but is it ethical? Comments welcome.
Wes

**k12311997** · 12-27-2009, 03:54 PM

if I may add a question, even if you me and the manufacturer all agree that they are the same lens is it legal to fill with a biomedic instead of an ultra flex instead of a softmed, etc. ?

**HarryChiling** · 12-27-2009, 04:13 PM

It is not illegal to fill it with a bio medic and I'll have tp check but prescriptions are supposed to be written with the generic name.

**Wes** · 12-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by k12311997

if I may add a question, even if you me and the manufacturer all agree that they are the same lens is it legal to fill with a biomedic instead of an ultra flex instead of a softmed, etc. ?

I will fill it if I can match the manufacturer, material, and specifications. I'm not very concerned with "brand name" as many companies obviously have more than one "brand" for some of their lenses. As to what Harry said, I agree that's the way it should be, but I have never ever seen a contact lens rx written with the generic name. Perhaps it varies by state.
Wes

**rbaker** · 12-27-2009, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by wss2020

Re-branding... Unethical or smart business?

To which you might add Illegal. Confining the discussion to the United States, who would regulate this "rebranding" and what are the relevant state and federal statutes? What does the FDA and FTC and Elliot Ness and the Untouchables have to say about this matter? How about state laws?

Doesn't it seem logical that our state and national professional/trade organizations would have this information readily available to their members? Would you not expect them to take a leadership position in determining whether re-labeling ophthalmic products is in the best interest of their membership and vigorously pursuing both legislation and enforcement of violators? After all, is not the stated purpose of state and national optician societies the "protection of the public?"

Is it Moral or Smart Business? If you can sleep tonight in your bed and not under a bridge I guess it’s OK. If you feel that re-branding or relabeling is illegal or an unfair business practice take the matter to your professional society and seek legislative redress of these issues?

**tigerlilly** · 12-27-2009, 06:42 PM

I was just reading something about this from my (new) company earlier today. We are allowed to fill an RX for a "house brand" contact lens with the same lens regardless of what name it says on the box. They have a list of what the generic Cooper name is and what other names it may be marketed under.

I vaguely remember that Cooper had discontinued rebranding lenses and was just offering their name? I think it was about a year ago, actually. As far as I know, they have the Biomedics and the Premier lines rather than a dozen different names for different chains. Am I remembering it wrong? Did they just discontinue certain brand names and they still have others?

**Johns** · 12-27-2009, 07:20 PM

I used to be a BIG proponent of rebranding/offbranding/unbranding contact lenses. Then, I found out that my prices were slightly below the internet guys, and I decided to let the world know it.

I still charge a $15 "deposit", which is applied to a year's supply purchase, for any trials we fit. It's done wonders for our practice.

**cocoisland58** · 12-27-2009, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Johns

I still charge a $15 "deposit", which is applied to a year's supply purchase, for any trials we fit. It's done wonders for our practice.

Tell me how this works please? I'm looking for angles.

**eyemanflying** · 12-27-2009, 08:58 PM

This is nothing new. Its simply a way for companies to capitalize their manufacturing costs and then maximize their gain to multiple markets to be both competitive and profitable.

In my opinion, its not really illegal per se; but I see it as unethical in some lights; but, understand why it is necessary.

In spectacle lenses, this is becoming ever more popular with free form lenses. The same design can be available in both multiple brands and private label and certainly isn't hurting revenue.

But in the contact lens industry, this can really bite you in the keester. Just ask Bausch & Lomb.

**Johns** · 12-27-2009, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by cocoisland58

Tell me how this works please? I'm looking for angles.

When we fit them in a trial, we charge them $15 dollars. If they order a year's supply for $99, we deduct their $15 off, which makes it $84. Factor in the rebates, and most customer order the supply.

If they don't order the year supply, then we keep the $15 to cover our "shipping and handling" fees for the trials.

**k12311997** · 12-27-2009, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Johns

When we fit them in a trial, we charge them $15 dollars. If they order a year's supply for $99, we deduct their $15 off, which makes it $84. Factor in the rebates, and most customer order the supply.

If they don't order the year supply, then we keep the $15 to cover our "shipping and handling" fees for the trials.

is this in addition to any Dr's fitting fees?

**Johns** · 12-27-2009, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by k12311997

is this in addition to any Dr's fitting fees?

We are independent of the OD, so yes, the $15 is in addition. The ODs fees are pretty reasonable at $90 for exam and fitting for spherical Cls. We beat the local WM's ODs by $11, and we are booked out about 3 weeks.

Nobody has protested, and we've been doing it for the past 3 years. Most of the year supplies are mailed directly to the patients as well, so it saves us a ton of manpower not having to open the box, call the patient, file them away, dispense them, etc...

We all win.

**sharpstick777** · 12-28-2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Johns

I still charge a $15 "deposit", which is applied to a year's supply purchase, for any trials we fit. It's done wonders for our practice.

I like it... especially since your exam prices are SO LOW... The average exam around here is $220 and CL exam is an additional $55.

**Borysko** · 12-28-2009, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by sharpstick777

The average exam around here is $220 and CL exam is an additional $55.

No.

**Johns** · 12-28-2009, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by sharpstick777

I like it... especially since your exam prices are SO LOW... The average exam around here is $220 and CL exam is an additional $55.

The exam price is irrelevant (from my standpoint), as I am only concerned w/the product side.

The ODs in my offices set their own prices. Yes, there are practices around here that charge $200 plus exams, but they are not very busy, and many of those ODs moonlight at big boxes where they charge less than we do? Our ODs would rather be busy all the time. Everyone has their own way of approaching it.

**Barry Santini** · 12-29-2009, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Johns

We are independent of the OD, so yes, the $15 is in addition. The ODs fees are pretty reasonable at $90 for exam and fitting for spherical Cls. We beat the local WM's ODs by $11, and we are booked out about 3 weeks.

Nobody has protested, and we've been doing it for the past 3 years. Most of the year supplies are mailed directly to the patients as well, so it saves us a ton of manpower not having to open the box, call the patient, file them away, dispense them, etc...

We all win.

From another viewpoint, it may be considered dangerous to eliminate the "having to open the box, call the patient, file them away, dispense them, etc", which are some of the root contributors to the "personal" experience a B&M offers that mail-delivery does not.

IMHO, It puts your practice on the same playing field as other-online fulfillment.

Something to think about....

B

**nooksak** · 12-29-2009, 08:38 AM

I can only comment VIA my experience...I actually work for a company that sells a re-branded contact. We sell them at a similar price to comparable acuvues, if not cheaper...we also fill out the script with biomedics written in not the house brand. This way if they want to go elsewhere(say on vacation) they won't run in to any issues...

**EdgeOptical** · 12-29-2009, 04:07 PM

Vision source is a huge supporter of this.

both in contacts and also with their own PALs (own essilor lens..haha)

**Now I See** · 12-29-2009, 04:17 PM

I didn't think we could (legally) give the pt anything other than what was written on the doctor's RX.

If the doc writes XYZ, then XYZ it is, no exceptions (unless the doc OK's it)...even if all the parameters are the same and we know it is the same lens under a different name.

**Oedema** · 12-30-2009, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Heather A

I didn't think we could (legally) give the pt anything other than what was written on the doctor's RX.

If the doc writes XYZ, then XYZ it is, no exceptions (unless the doc OK's it)...even if all the parameters are the same and we know it is the same lens under a different name.

Legal? Yes. Ethical? Very questionable.

I would recommend simply dispensing the brand equivalent if you're certain it is the same lens, just under another name. No need to get the doc's approval - if he or she is an (choose your favourite expletive) then they're just going to be difficult about it anyways, if they're reasonable they won't mind.

**Now I See** · 12-30-2009, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Oedema

Legal? Yes. Ethical? Very questionable.

I would recommend simply dispensing the brand equivalent if you're certain it is the same lens, just under another name. No need to get the doc's approval - if he or she is an (choose your favourite expletive) then they're just going to be difficult about it anyways, if they're reasonable they won't mind.

Thanks for the input! :)

**Uilleann** · 12-30-2009, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by EdgeOptical

Vision source is a huge supporter of this.

both in contacts and also with their own PALs (own essilor lens..haha)

Please explain in detail the re-branded Essilor lens you mention here. Thanks.

**obxeyeguy** · 12-30-2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Uilleann

Please explain in detail the re-branded Essilor lens you mention here. Thanks.

I believe it's called a Tru Clear.

**EdgeOptical** · 12-30-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Uilleann

Please explain in detail the re-branded Essilor lens you mention here. Thanks.

Tru Clear and Tru Clear HD

we were told (from many sources, essilor and outside the empire) its a physio and physio 360.

the Vision Source AR coatings are rebranded crizal also, except the lowest one, which is a house brand sharpview i believe.