Complete and utter nonsense.Originally Posted by Dr. Bill Stacy
Do you care to flesh out your claims of unreliability, or is it just a "hunch"?
Complete and utter nonsense.
Do you care to flesh out your claims of unreliability, or is it just a "hunch"?
1.Please--somebody...anybody--explain why anyone would need a p.d. at any point in time to go with the lens powers. 2. What else would you like me to provide, Barry? Or is this the ONLY thing you'll ever ask for again, pinky-promise? 3. And please explain why you prefer to NOT fill prescriptions that CURRENTLY GO BEYOND LENS POWERS, such as: bifocal seg type, PAL design, tint density, etc. YOU KNOW you'd bich up a storm if we gave MORE than you want...but you'll also bich up a storm for giving LESS than you want. 4. Your preferences are completely self-serving, IMO. You want to dictate someone take the time and expense to gather and communicate the information YOU WANT, but would hate any burden of restriction upon yourself. Why don't you just ask for the records, while you're at it? Better yet, why not do it all yourself? No worries, Barry. You'll soon get the chance. Be patient.
Last edited by drk; 09-06-2015 at 07:59 PM.
Beer batter onion rings with Ranch dressing on the side. Thanks!
Wow. Yum!
Giving out a binocular PD on the current Rx fulfills the spirit/intent of the spectacle release rule.
That's why. The rest is reserved for the party doing all the figuring out.
B
A. How CAN you interpret the "spirit" of the old FTC ruling? Are you a member of the "Supreme Court of Opticians"?
B. How DO you interpret the "spirit" of the old FTC ruling? Are you a strict constructionist, or a judicial activist?
This, too, is nonsense.
I guess this is going nowhere.
On the optometry end, there is going to be an effort to contribute professional opinion to this subject.
I was hoping for some intelligent discussion on what best serves the public, from an opticianry viewpoint, so as to include it.
What best serves the public is certainly not the same as what best serves the optician or the optometrist.
Hopefully, the FTC will be looking out for the best interests of the consumer and not the pecuniary interests of the eye care business. The eye care professions will do everything in their power to insure that their oxen does not get gored. Hopefully any new regulations will stand on sound footing and will give the consumer full freedom of choice in where they purchase their eye wear.
Sorry to hijack this thread.
No, that's not a hijack, that's what we should be talking about.
I would also add that that FTC should not be involved in any crony capitalism from the likes of Luxottica, Essilor, or VSP. They can be bought.
Having done an article and researched just this subject, I have more than a slight interest in getting the information correct to the best of my abilities.
Just simply exclaiming "How do I know", without doing your own investigation, doesn't seem to fit the tenor of previous discussions.
B
I think it is fair to the consumer if they ask the prescriber for an rx, that it be given, without delay or excuse, as long as the fee is paid, with the actual exam date, no matter when it is requested. I think it is ridiculous to force a prescriber to hand out an rx so as to suggest fragmentation of care, even when the patient has made it clear that they want to keep all services under one roof.
Is a dentist forced to give out an x ray before filling a cavity If the patient doesn't ask for it? Is an ophthalmologist forced to give a patient a diagnosis of cataract and suggest that they might go have it removed somewhere else? No, but as a patient, I should be assured that if I want a copy of my findings or Rx so as to get a second opinion, or carryout the treatment at another location, I should be able to get it. The fact that it is an Rx for glasses should not make it different.
Not a hijack at all. .. Your comments directly address the topic, right or wrong. .. or somewhere in between.
Can an MD write you an Rx and send you over to their pharmacy in house? No. Why? The eye glass Rx release law clearly states to give the patient a copy of their prescription upon completion of the exam, yet this is not the norm, and patients are made to jump through hoops to get a copy released to another provider. That law needs sharper teeth.
Maybe the public would be better served if OD's got out of the eye glass peddler business, and expand on the medical side of eye care.
It's there for the person who might be filling the Rx and might not be very good at doing p.d. measurements and/or is not sure of his/her measurments. It's there for the taking, but nobody is saying if the filler of the Rx has some reason to change it, I say let 'er rip. Really, I mostly do it to save on the phone calls from people who forgot to take a p.d. and could I give it to them, pretty please?
Lots of younger o.d.s, and some older ones would agree with you. But remember the history of optometry. We were eyeglass peddlers first, who decided maybe we could help people pick out their specs a little more scientifically, and so we developed scientific refraction techniques. It is what it is.
is this really an issue in certain parts of the U.S.?
It's referred to as segregation of duties or segregation of function. It has nothing to do with PD's.
Ok, stand back, here come the bar room lawyers.
That's asinine. You provide pds because you want to avoid a possible phone call from a possibly incompetent or forgetful optician?
Also, the health care field seems to be going toward managed care, where the physicians do indeed self refer in the sense that if I need lab work, they send me to their in house or in netword lab. If I need a ECG, they do it in house, as they do with colonoscopies, vaccinations and even cardiac stress tests. So nobody should be surprised that and O.D. or an M.D. is going to push patients toward their own dispensaries if they have one. I do it. But I also freely write Rxs to go. Any doc who is reluctant to do that is tempting the FTC and is being pretty, um, short sighted...
Shooting from the hip again?
No, probably from a forgetful O.D.'s staff person. Most of my patients who take the Rx out end up in other VSP or EyeMed doc's offices for filling because they want the most bang for their insurance buck.
My practice is about 60% VSP and 25% EyeMed. I fill about as many outside Rxs as those I lose to other offices. I don't lose any sleep over it.
At the point the eye exam is complete, and the Rx is written, and the person leaves the exam room, the patient becomes a consumer, with all its associated freedoms. No one office can supply all needs and wants today. THIS is why the Rx MUST BE GIVEN. Simply keep a copy for yourself, and for all those who do not want "fragmented care." At least not at this point.
B
Back to the whole RX release thing, as seen from a purely business management aspect; the pat. gets their required copy, any other copies or transfers will require a fee. It takes valuable time from the office to run-around pulling and printing and FAXing and e-mailing RX's. Let's put the onus of responsibility back on the pat., they got what they paid for and what is required of the practice. We aren't responsible for people's laziness, people will keep record of what is valuable.
Clinton Tower
The intellect to live free is in short supply
ALT248=°
I can't bring myself to charge for what at least in my office only requires a couple of keystrokes and a piece of paper (paper optional, but all electronic transmissions so far take quite a few more keystrokes). Even when I get requests for an entire exam, it's still a couple of keystrokes and 3 sheets of paper.
I've always believed that the patient should have access to their Rx, we give it to them after the exam is paid for. I have had issues with clinics who require a record release form for a copy of the exam, that I consider unprofessional behavior. As to the IPD, as Drk, asks,"which one". Also, if the IPD is on the RX would that require me to fill the Rx using said IPD or would I be able to interpret it as a recommendation. I have seen Rx's with an IPD given and have found most to be off by a mm or two and given as monocular number. Perhaps it is the conspiracy theorist in me but I am not one to trust someone else's measurements. The very idea of it means that the prescribing Dr has to absorb an additional component of responsibility for someone's poor execution of filling a prescription. It also reinforces to the consumer that the IPD is the only viable measurement required to fill their Rx and that all others are fictitious creations by others in the industry to fool the patients, if not why do we not provide them with such information.
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain
The problem I see here is the patient not being given a copy, period. There's one office that will make you come in person to sign a release! (unless you request it to be e-mailed to the same account they have on your record.) Needless to say, for the patients I know that have had to do this, it was their last visit to this Dr's location.
The next thing I'd address is putting a one year expiration on EVERY eyeglass Rx. Number one, it's a mere suggestion, legally, in most state. (there are no laws to abide by it.) Number 2, I don't know an OMD that puts one on an Rx, I also don't know an OD that doesn't, Why? Number 3, since lens duplication is legal in most states, it make expiration a mute point.
[ flame suit on]
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks