Those who know, know the reason I've asked this question.
Discussion.
B
Those who know, know the reason I've asked this question.
Discussion.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 09-08-2014 at 02:09 PM.
Any prism?
HMMMM..
Plano in and of itself is "powerless" so I would not see where it could be an RX per se. However, if it's the DV portion of a multifocal RX, in that form as presented as an expired RX it would be illegal to fill/adapt.
IMHO if plano without prism is REALLY an RX then the sunglasses sold at the local gas station would fall under ophthalmic regulation.
Clinton Tower
The intellect to live free is in short supply
ALT248=°
Insufficient data.
I would research the client's age, VAs, ocular health, occupation, sports, hobbies, etc.
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman
Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.
I would interpret that statement as the pt see's 20/20 without any aid. My opinion is that is always a false statement. All patients will benefit from some form of eyewear, even in plano. Sunglasses, enhancing tints, etc, etc...... Have not seen an Rx for plano though, that's a new one for me. With an expiration, it is at least encouraging patient to have the health of their eyes checked at least once every year or two.
Here: The logical extension of gatekeeping eye health to a refractive finding expiration date is that ALL Rxs (and PLANO IS AN Rx!) should be gate kept.
That means that plano sun purchases, done in an oprical shop environment, should be vetted for PROOF of their last eye health exam.
Discussion.
B
Plano is not a prescription, it is LACK of prescription!
Oh, but it is! A prescription is a determination by a doc of any correction needed for this patient's best vision. A script for pln/ds expires just as fast as a strong correction. Who's to say the plano patient's rx is any more stable than the latter? We gotta let docs be docs.
So you're saying that all plano sales in an optical environment should only be made with some sort of proof that a prospective client is receiving ongoing eye health care from a Doctor? Not sure if that's a good idea. I mean, ideally, even people with no vision problems should be seeing an optom on whatever established schedule exists in your area but I don't think it should be a pre-requisite for purchase. You'd probably just end up being "that guy" who wont sell me Flackjackets because I haven't had my eyes tested in 3 years. :) Use the time with these people to strongly suggest they should set up a new exam but trying to enforce it by those means just does not seem good.
I've got to respect the prescribing Doc's decision on this one, an expiry date is an expiry date.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
Ok, so an Rx is an Rx is an Rx...and an Rx expires, HOWEVER, even if you can't "fill the Rx," and certainly recommend an eye exam, anyone is allowed to purchase, without any prescription, plano sunglasses (and, for that matter OTC readers). If this were not true, foodstores and gas stations would need to have someone policing all "eyewear" sales, which is clearly not a requirement in the USA.
So, "I'm sorry sorry, I can't fill this expired Rx. I would recommend seeing your eye doctor. However, if you feel you need or want non-prescription sunglasses, I'd be glad to help you with that."
That's If you believe in nanny state medicine. (I don't). If a Dr doesn't write an *Rx*, there's nothing to expire, just as if a person never goes to an eye Dr he has no Rx to expire. It's a moot point here though, there is no expiration of eyeglass Rx's in my state.
So, I'm sensing that their is an underlying feeling that "emmetropes" do not require eye exams as much as an ammetrope of as little as 0.25D
B
"Should" have and "required" are two different things.
I believe that the patient owns his/her eyes, and that we don't. I strongly advise an annual exam. But I have no right to force that on anybody. Happy to sell the patient plano suns, plano ARC Transitions Vantage, etc. It is legal. It is helpful. Most important, the patient (who own his/her eyes) wishes to purchase something that they value. Who am I to be the "gatekeeper" of that patient's eyes?
(End Libertarian Rant)
Of course we're all painfully aware the refractive margins of error of these small corrections are so forgiving that it would take more than compound incompetence to screw them up, but practically outright determination. I understand the hesitation of losing such a prospective sale.
But the sunglasses scenario isn't technically applicable here. I'm not making lenses for those sunglasses, so I'm not the gatekeeper. I AM collecting sales tax on those shades...
Making lenses for a plano Rx in any given frame, tax free, then it's because the state recognizes this is a medical provision and I am the gatekeeper. If a doctor bothered to write an Rx, and put an expiration date on it, then I'm not ignoring it.
That patient doesn't think to tell me he had shrapnel removed from his eye in a woodworking accident three months ago. (Is an optician trained to fish this info out?) She's not going to tell me about the stage of her pregnancy when that old script was taken. Diabetics...Oh yeah.
Eyes are dynamic organs, even in 'emmotropes.' They change just like they do for the rest of us--so therefore does emmotropia.
The patient who's trying to fill an expired script is asking for drama and trying to trick me into joining it. No thanks!
Last edited by Hayde; 09-08-2014 at 02:05 PM. Reason: cleaned up word choice & yammered another sentence or two
Sell the sunglasses as non-Rx. Collect the sales tax. Advise patient to "check yearly / see clearly".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks