Is it a law that poly must be sold to minors?

[canaanlilli]

I have had 3 different occasions where poly/trivex saved my pt.s eye and 5 instances where cr-39 was the actual cause of the vision loss. Gratefully on the cr-39 cases they were all adult and had signed a waiver that stated they understood that I had recommended a MORE (key word) impact resistant lens for their particular application. I my self have had an eye injury due to chipping plastic in a sunglass frame. Gratefully I did not lose my vision, it did partially penetrate my scelera (which is oddly cool and gross at the same time.) but I have not ordered cr-39 since.

I try to sell trivex to most of my patients unless they need a super thin lens, then I jump to 1.67 or higher.
I hate selling poly, and generally only sell it if the pt.s insurance covers it and they don't want to pay the upgrade to trivex. On that note I price my sv ply and trivex the same.

[wmcdonald]

This thread is an example of the vast diversity of knowledge in this profession. Professionals who do not recommend poly for all children (and at-risk patients of all types) put themselves and their patients at great risk, both physiological and financial. This has been well known for many years. Stop being irresponsible if you are not following those guidelines. You may have never seen it, but it happens. Be thankful you have not, and make corrections now.

[canaanlilli]

This thread is an example of the vast diversity of knowledge in this profession. Professionals who do not recommend poly for all children (and at-risk patients of all types) put themselves and their patients at great risk, both physiological and financial. This has been well known for many years. Stop being irresponsible if you are not following those guidelines. You may have never seen it, but it happens. Be thankful you have not, and make corrections now.

here is a link about trivex impact resistance http://www.youngeroptics.com/pdf/tri..._Monograph.pdf

I have also done independent studies on the impact resistance of poly and trivex. I have done the drop ball test, the hit by a baseball test and the "I don't know how I got shot w/ a bb" test. I used 100 of both lenses all -2.00 sphere. ( fairly average rx in my area.)
Poly didn't shatter but it did crack in all of the baseball and bb test. trivex showed dings, but no cracking, chipping, or shattering.
Also with the way that poly cracks in metal grooved frames or drill mount frames it poses a customer service issue. I'm sorry but in my humble opinion,poly needs to be phased out. Even 1.6 has made incredible strides in impact resistance, and it is thinner than poly and has better optics.

[Uilleann]

Must have been a seriously poor batch of poly!! In all my years dispensing, I can count on one hand the poly lenses I've seen cracked - with fingers left over. Never had one, not a single one of my patients ever come back with a poly lens cracked or shattered in any sort of manner that would have caused them any form of risk of bodily harm.

To say it unilaterally needs to be phased out is utterly untrue and dare I say, irresponsible as an honest dispenser. Take a breather from that giant stein full of Trivex kool aid folks. :)

Any lens material on today's market is 100% perfectly viable to dispense. And any lens material on todays market can be made to safely withstand minor impacts, and even safety and industrial applications - we would all do well to remember that.

The poly vs. Trivex "I'm better than you nya nya nya!" Arguements get old. They're both perfectly fine materials, and either will excel at providing both good optical quality and impact resistance.

[Johns]

In my offices, we will not put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian.

We recommend Poly. If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx. And yes, we've had a few walk.

Adios...

[Judy Canty]

In my offices, we will not put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian.

We recommend Poly. If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx. And yes, we've had a few walk.

Adios...

And that's how it should be done.

[canaanlilli]

Must have been a seriously poor batch of poly!! In all my years dispensing, I can count on one hand the poly lenses I've seen cracked - with fingers left over. Never had one, not a single one of my patients ever come back with a poly lens cracked or shattered in any sort of manner that would have caused them any form of risk of bodily harm.

To say it unilaterally needs to be phased out is utterly untrue and dare I say, irresponsible as an honest dispenser. Take a breather from that giant stein full of Trivex kool aid folks. :)

Any lens material on today's market is 100% perfectly viable to dispense. And any lens material on todays market can be made to safely withstand minor impacts, and even safety and industrial applications - we would all do well to remember that.

The poly vs. Trivex "I'm better than you nya nya nya!" Arguements get old. They're both perfectly fine materials, and either will excel at providing both good optical quality and impact resistance.

I didn't say the poly shattered, I said the poly cracked. that means it stayed in one piece but had a crack across the lens. Poly is safer than plastic no doubt, poly is even good for most patients with cyls under -/+ 3.00 in my experience BUT Trivex does have better optical quality. It seems like we have as Dr. Mcdonald says a wide variety of opinions, knowledge and experiences. BIG DEAL, that's part of any industry and life. FACT of the matter is and I don't think anyone disagrees with this point, CHILDREN should not be put in CR39.

[EdgeOptical]

In my offices, we will not put children in Cr-39. Your professional responsibility cannot be waived by a signature of a parent or guardian.

We recommend Poly. If they do not take our recommendations, then we will not fill the Rx. And yes, we've had a few walk.

Adios...

Bingo. There are alot of laws i dont really care about, i have a standard for my office and that is my bottom line.
same with unrelated Dr.s writing their own Rx's, may be legal but not acceptable in my office.

[Speed]

Poor little fellers.

[braheem24]

If it comes down to a waiver, spend the extra $5 yourself to save the sale and have peace of mind.

[wmcdonald]

here is a link about trivex impact resistance http://www.youngeroptics.com/pdf/tri..._Monograph.pdf

I have also done independent studies on the impact resistance of poly and trivex. I have done the drop ball test, the hit by a baseball test and the "I don't know how I got shot w/ a bb" test. I used 100 of both lenses all -2.00 sphere. ( fairly average rx in my area.)
Poly didn't shatter but it did crack in all of the baseball and bb test. trivex showed dings, but no cracking, chipping, or shattering.
Also with the way that poly cracks in metal grooved frames or drill mount frames it poses a customer service issue. I'm sorry but in my humble opinion,poly needs to be phased out. Even 1.6 has made incredible strides in impact resistance, and it is thinner than poly and has better optics.

Trivex has comparable impact resistance. I should have stated so above. My apologies for leaving it out. The important issue is NOT to use only CR-39 or glass.

[Pogu]

How is a kid in CR any more at risk than a kid with no glasses on at all? Getting hit in the face is getting hit in the face, es no bueno.

[tigerlilly]

Getting hit in the face with no glasses on is a different issue. If the kid is wearing glasses when he gets hit, are we going to put him in the material least likely to send sharp projectile shards into his eye? Are we going to use the material most likely to protect his eyes from the object hitting him? I think we have an obligation to do so. Trivex or poly, I don't care which, but if you're under 18 you should be in one of them.

[Speed]

Trivex or poly, I don't care which, but if you're under 18 you should be in one of them.

Why the age restriction? Should you just play it safe and give these as the only choice?

[tigerlilly]

Adults are responsible for making their own risk assessments and have the right to choose accordingly. We need to inform them of their options and recommend poly/Trivex when it's the most appropriate choice, but it's on them to make the decision. When it comes to kids, the safest material should be the default choice. I consider that choice to be along the lines of carseats, bike helmets and other safety measures that are now standard.

[tdnod]

Understanding that poly is the "more" beneficial lens for all minor children, how do you explain to a parent of a child that you will not fill a Rx without poly when the family walks in with absolutely no income and the child's glasses are broken? Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials. I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39. These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales. When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or 2. Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly? hmmmm..... I go for #1!

[opticianbart]

I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39.

Really? that sucks, around my area 'Caid generally pays for poly with kids, you just have to do some extra paperwork depending on which... "flavor" of 'Caid you're working with.

[lind2020]

If you get hit in the face hard enough to shatter a CR39 lens with any object, the last concern will be why you didn't get polycarbonate lenses. That much I guarantee you.

Now is there a higher possibility of a chip, shard, piece or otherwise from a cr39 lens detaching and entering your eye, absolutely. The point, which has been well made, is exactly that. Why risk it, on anyone but especially children on monocular patients who are either higher risk or have more to lose.

The only other question is what is your office policy?? If you decide anyone under 18 gets poly or hits the door, good for you. Make it known and post it clearly and that's settled for you.

[Uilleann]

...Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials...

Wait a tick...this is the very business model EVERY insurance company is founded on ain't it??

[canaanlilli]

Understanding that poly is the "more" beneficial lens for all minor children, how do you explain to a parent of a child that you will not fill a Rx without poly when the family walks in with absolutely no income and the child's glasses are broken? Insurances have decided to down grade and down pay the providers for their materials. I don't know where you all live, but in Central Florida, Nature Coast, over 60% is Medicaid HMO and those insurances only pay for CR-39. These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales. When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or 2. Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly? hmmmm..... I go for #1!

Wow, In Kansas and Missouri both they cover poly under 16 on most plans and those with VSP's medicare is covered up to 18.

[DragonLensmanWV]

Poly is covered here by Medicaid for up to 21 years old. They even pay a little more for poly.

[Ginster]

It is not a law here in Texas either but we do strongly incurage ploy for kids. Most parants go with it. If not, we have them sign a waver stating we are not responsible for any damage incurred the childs vision due to an impact while wearing glasses without impact resistant lenses (something like that). What I have heard is that they can sue you if something happens where an eye is damaged or lost because they are a minor, theres an old rumor here that someone did sue and win?? I don't know personally if this is true or not but we didn't want to take the chance.

[KStraker]

It is not a law here in Texas either but we do strongly incurage ploy for kids. Most parants go with it. If not, we have them sign a waver stating we are not responsible for any damage incurred the childs vision due to an impact while wearing glasses without impact resistant lenses (something like that). What I have heard is that they can sue you if something happens where an eye is damaged or lost because they are a minor, theres an old rumor here that someone did sue and win?? I don't know personally if this is true or not but we didn't want to take the chance.

I'm tired of people referring to other lenses as non impact resistant. As I stated previously, ALL optical lenses in the US are impact resistant.

[Chris Ryser]

These people cannot afford to upgrade to poly and even the bleeding heart of the devil itself, "Walmart", has to sell glasses for $19 in order to get the sales.

When it's up to these 2 questions, 1. Do I dispense with a CR-39 for a child who is +3.50-2.25 so they can at least SEE? or
2. Do I let them walk because the parent won't upgrade to a poly? hmmmm..... I go for #1!

In a case like that try to use CR39 stock lenses in 71mm diameter. They will be thick enough in a kids frame to give plenty protection and make a nice hidabevel so the thickness won't show.

[harry a saake]

Chris, 71mm ???? what are you talking about, if its a minus lens and the CT is 2.0, it makes no difference whether or not the blank is 51 mm, 65mm, or 80mm, after you edge it down to the frame size the CT and edge thickness will be the same for any size blank you use. your statement would only be true if it were a plus lens.

BTW, guys , over the years i have seen more eye related injuries to kids, from the bad habit of dispensing poly lenses with a metal frame(nose pads) and then telling them its ok to go out and play sports. Ever seen a nose pad that has entered the canthus and the sclera, not pretty