Eyeglass Start-Up Ready to Battle Industry Titan
Summary: Warby Parker has reconceptualized the PD question as a fight between Luxottica and the rest of the world. They continue to demonstrate that they have an excellent PR department and are capable of selling themselves as everymen who also happen to deal in eyewear, removing the distrust endemic to the optical retail industry.
LC isn't technically doing anything wrong as I don't believe there is a "standard" for eye exams in terms of what is included. Their rx pads used to have a place labeled PD. the newest revisions have removed this. They release the rx but and all medical records upon request as they are required to. They do not record the PD on any medical record this they are not required to produce one. In California, where the doctors are employeed by the company, the exam is clearly spelled out. PD is exclude from the prescription. I cannot speak to LC outside of California.
Pupillary distance is by-and-large an optical measurement, and has nothing to do with an eye examination. They can make all the fuss they want.
For that matter, they can have p.d.'s and the glasses would still stink.
Glad to see Luxottica wise up and not roll over.
WP is opening B&M locations. They will soon find out the *costs* of such locations. Either they will need a pricing restructuring or turn out being just another Eyemart Express...A cheap provider of mediocre product supplied by minimally trained staff.
Also, if you read the comments section you will find a huge disgruntlement over PD's not being provided by their examiner. Refusing this info is not a way to elicit loyalty from your patients. If you have it documented, you should provide it. If not, charge a nominal fee and engage them in why they don't find value in your services. It just may give you the opportunity to improve what you offer along with educating them with what you provide that online can't.
Hey optical:
If they want Ks for CLs, I suppose you'd recommend the same course of action?
How about releasing their IOPs? Do you think that's a good idea to elicit loyalty?
Maybe we should prescribe meds over the phone without an office visit? I think that would elicit a whole lot of loyalty.
How about a no-questions-asked 90-day 100% guarantee? That would be really big.
The customer is always right.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the PD belongs to the patient because it is a physical measurement of the eye location with reference to the bridge of the nose, just like a prescription is the physical measurement of the powers needed to correct the vision. The places that refuse to give it out are just giving ammunition to the FTC to make a ruling requiring the PD be part of the prescription. The PD does NOT belong to the optician. It is part of the medical records and should be given to the patient.
The liars at WP say the battle is against Luxottica, but really the battle is against optometry and opticianry, Luxottica provides a strawman for them.
Luxottica' s products are "expensive" just like Marchon's and Safilo's, how about silhouette? moscot? la eyeworks? why pick on lux?
anyway stuff your shops with a wide variety of products at many different price points, and yes, offer a WP-competitive package, it is NOT that hard to do. Now Zenni on the other hand, at sub $10 - they should do an attack PR campaign on Warby! Warby is charging 10X more for the same made-in-china garbage glasses that Zenni offers.
Oh yes. the PD question. Absolutely give out a binocular PD upon request with the caveat that it is not the only measurement required to produce glasses, and does not guarantee a well-fitted or comfortable pair of glasses.
If you have the monocular PD on file, you should give that, otherwise you are providing inaccurate or incorrect information, for which you could face legal charges. You are supposed to be a professional. Act like it!!Originally Posted by optimensch
Doc, how do you rationalize NOT giving medical records to patients? Aren't K's and IOP's part of that record? How does withholding info comply with HIPAA? Even if you have a (legal) leg to stand on, would you rather loose patients over it (along with the bad PR that would go along with it)? Why not let them *take a walk on the wild side*?
After years and years of watching a handful of patients purchase elsewhere, only to sheepishly return with bad stories of service, product, comfort, ect from other locations and become life long clients, I'm convinced that they see value in me. Even if they find similar service and products/pricing, they still don't get *me*. If you (or any of you) are loosing patients on price alone you are not providing value in their eyes. You have to ask yourself, why?
Lastly, the optical pie is HUGE. There are many markets and sub-markets. You can't be all things to all people. Pick your market and excel! Be it a burger joint or a fine steak restaurant, there are clients that will patronize them.
I understand that you do not need to take a PD to conduct an eye exam. But isn't a PD a crucial part of the prescription? I know, I know you need all kinds of other measurements as well to make a pair of digital free form lenses. Maybe an explanation that it takes more than a PD to make a quality pair of glasses would be a more effective sales technique than telling the customer you do not "give" out the PD.
I agree with the comment above regarding the FTC. Withholding this info is further alienates the public that is already suspicious of being overcharged by opticals. A reasonable person considers withholding this info to be unreasonable.
This thread re-affirms that the best way to get 10 posts on a Monday morning is start a discussion about PD measurements.
A professional follows the laws they have to, and takes care of the patient according to their professional judgement, Mike Aurelius.
Legal charges are based on statues, board rules, and tort. None of that may apply in these situations.
I do what I'm required to do, by law, 24/7. That means I release records when requested. Not piecemeal, though. Requesting records usually means transfer of care, and usually there is an administrative fee.
No Stan, glasses fitting measurements are not part of a prescription.
As to the FTC, I have no doubt that my profession will bungle any hearing that they are called to, or will cower like children.
I will gladly provide pat's with a "printed-out" PD stick. I however, will not give-away the skill to use the instrument.
Clinton Tower
The intellect to live free is in short supply
ALT248=°
Interesting you should bring up statutes, drk. Giving the patient the wrong or incorrect information causing the patient to have glasses remade because of the wrong or incorrect information falls under the statutes for fraud. Might also be cause to lose your license.
Oh, and let's all remember that this forum AND THIS THREAD are all available to anyone who wants to do a search, including investigators for the FTC.
Blah blah.
Let's see, unlicensed, possibly foreign, totally fly-in-the-face of existing rules and regulations online dudes get a pass, whereas those of us who are responsible for the visual welfare of the citizens of this country are criminals.
You need a perspective change, sir.
You may be right. But here is the public's take away from such a discussion: "Here is your prescription...But good luck getting it filled because I am not going to give you some very crucial information you need. Unless of course you buy your glasses from me."
For someone in optical, this is a complex topic with varying views. But for the public, it is very simple. In about two years, this will be a moot discussion. There will be cell phone apps and webcam technology readily available for free that will be more accurate than a guy holding a metric ruler in your face.
This is wrong in so many ways.
First of all, medical records belong to the professional as well as the patient. So there's that.
Secondly, I suppose you'd say that shoe size, because it's a physical parameter of the patient, should be given out, too. It's their shoe size, right? It's their HbA1C, right? It's their tomogram of their cerebral vesicles. So, exactly where is the distinction? It's all about the patient's body.
It's simple because the nimwits at Yahoo! don't know how to write an article, and some of us don't have critical thinking skills needed to understand the situation and communicate it effectively to the patient.
It's not about the p.d., Stan. It never was about the p.d. and never will be about the p.d. That is the world's largest red herring in this issue.
Let me put it in words in a way you might understand:
It would be like giving a patient a prescription for medicine to fill, not taking into account the patient's weight and requiring the pharmacist to figure that out and dose accordingly.
Riiiight....You go ahead and live in your own little world of denial.
You are trying to come up with any argument just to cloud the issue. Since you aren't a shoe store, nor do you do ultrasounds or MRI's, any purely medical insertion is pure BS and you know it. How about if you stick to the the point, Dr. K?
How, PRECISELY, is a monocular PD remotely a non-physical (and therefore private data) measurement as it relates to the correction of the patient's vision?
Oh, yeah, red herrings, your opposition to the release of PD's is full of them.
Nope. The onliners guess or use "standard" PD's for their patients ALL THE TIME. To call this measurement "crucial" doesn't seem to apply in this scenario. It's a vague guideline - and certainly shouldn't matter whether its bi or mono in the least with as fast and loose as these outfits often play with their "precision" eyewear.
The burden of proof will likely fall to those who can prove harm - regardless of ANSI "standards" (which of course, aren't laws or rules at all, but voluntary guidelines). It seems that, so far at least, the only thing the FDA can (and has) come down on the onliners for is missing impact requirements...which of course, is highly unlikely that anyone looking for glasses online cares about anyway.
I agree with much of what you say but we live in a society that provides for 10 seconds of thought before forming a self serving opinion.
To the patient it is and will continue to be about the PD. Why? Because Warby Parker and others have convinced the public the only barrier to cheap glasses is a PD. You see, they know how to communicate with your customer better than you and your colleagues.
.
Better yet, what about if I write an Rx for oral steroids and the misinformed or just plain stupid patient gets their medrol dose pack from drugswithoutaprescriptioninternational.com
It's not about the p.d., Mike, don't you get that? I guess not.You are trying to come up with any argument just to cloud the issue. Since you aren't a shoe store, nor do you do ultrasounds or MRI's, any purely medical insertion is pure BS and you know it. How about if you stick to the the point, Dr. K?
How, PRECISELY, is a monocular PD remotely a non-physical (and therefore private data) measurement as it relates to the correction of the patient's vision?
Oh, yeah, red herrings, your opeosition to the release of PD's is full of them.
Here's how I communicate, Stan.
"Can I have my p.d.?" (Let's assume that I have one on file.) (Now, mind you, the question is more often: "Can I have my expired contact lens powers?)
"Why do you need that?"
"Uh, want to buy glasses online."
"We don't recommend that."
"Why?"
"Because it's an unregulated mess. We prefer you fill our prescription with a licensed professional who will provide all the necessary measurements, instead of doing-it-yourself on the internet."
"Oh. Can I have it anyway?"
"No."
Then, if they want their records, they can have their records. For a fee. And they are not going to be patients in our office at that point, anyway.
See how simple?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks