This is serious.

[Uilleann]

I honestly don't understand what the FTC hopes to accomplish here. Really I don't...

[rbaker]

I honestly don't understand what the FTC hopes to accomplish here. Really I don't...

My bet is that they have received a lot of complaint concerning the impediments (HIPPA BS and downright violations of the law) in obtaining their Rx's (medical records?) in order to exercise freedom of choice in where to purchase optical goods.

Youse guys have gone way overboard in preventing Rx's from "walking" in an effort to maintain "high capture rates."

[Barry Santini]

My bet is that they have received a lot of complaint concerning the impediments (HIPPA BS and downright violations of the law) in obtaining their Rx's (medical records?) in order to exercise freedom of choice in where to purchase optical goods.

Youse guys have gone way overboard in preventing Rx's from "walking" in an effort to maintain "high capture rates."

Amen.

B

[Uilleann]

The "high capture rate" thing has been pushed to death by the overpaid consulting firms, and it's pie in the sky promise further exaggerated by the managed care fat cats. It isn't about capture rate if you're providing quality optical solutions. The money to remain a viable business should come if you're doing the right things by the patient. But if you're a prescriber, and failing or refusing to give a pt information (Rx etc) they request at the conclusion of a properly paid examination- the onus sits firmly with you for failing to do so. PDs be damned.

Still, the FTC doesn't appear to care about the contents of the SRx or CLRx, so long as it's handed to the pt. From there, it maters not at ALL what sort of monstrosity the pt chooses to create with their health information. Honestly, I think it's great if pts want the "right" to self prescribe, alter scripts, change CL brands and base curves on a whim, and fill everything with eastern labs running 50,000 jobs a day.

Look - as a country, the US has done nothing whatsoever about the gun epidemic, despite mass shootings, children killed, etc etc. And there can be strong cases made for that as a public health crisis with very little effort. (This is NOT a political rant, so please bear with me here.) Do we really think that federal government regulatory agencies such as the FDA are going to do anything that is in the best interest of the health of a patient vs. simply giving them the choice to do what they want, when they want it, with whoever they choose, wherever they can get it for their eyewear? I'm guessing not.

How many people have died this year from shoddy glasses production? If harm cannot be shown, will the FTC so much as raise an eyebrow at what is being made or who is making it or to what standard?

[Barry Santini]

Do we really think that federal government regulatory agencies such as the FDA are going to do anything that is in the best interest of the health of a patient vs. simply giving them the choice to do what they want, when they want it, with whoever they choose, wherever they can get it for their eyewear?

The latent issue here is far larger.

What an individual chooses to do or not do regarding their health, seems to be an AMERICAN freedom of choice issue.
"
However, when they choose unwisely, no matter whether intentionally or unintentionally, they figuratively "kick the can down the road" for some entity or entities to handle, albeit at far greater communal expense.

Should this be allowed is the question, and whose to say what's "right"?

For vision, the argument turns to whether DMV standards should be tighter, which might be shown to decrease accidents. Who can say?

B

[fjpod]

I honestly don't understand what the FTC hopes to accomplish here. Really I don't...

Maybe they will look at: 1) PD release. 2) Rx release (after the fact). 3) Spectacle Rx expirations (if any). 4) face to face vs online fitting and dispensing (whether telemedicine rules should apply). 5) face to face refractions vs. online.

My first instinct was they were not going to look at these "peripheral" issues, but on further thought..., I think they want to expand the rights of consumers...playing right into the big corporate interests. I think MikeA may be right, FTC is probably getting a lot of grief from consumers who want to use developing technology to have access to "cheaper" eyecare and eyewear.

[Paul Smith LDO]

The "high capture rate" thing has been pushed to death by the overpaid consulting firms, and it's pie in the sky promise further exaggerated by the managed care fat cats. It isn't about capture rate if you're providing quality optical solutions. The money to remain a viable business should come if you're doing the right things by the patient. But if you're a prescriber, and failing or refusing to give a pt information (Rx etc) they request at the conclusion of a properly paid examination- the onus sits firmly with you for failing to do so. PDs be damned.

Still, the FTC doesn't appear to care about the contents of the SRx or CLRx, so long as it's handed to the pt. From there, it maters not at ALL what sort of monstrosity the pt chooses to create with their health information. Honestly, I think it's great if pts want the "right" to self prescribe, alter scripts, change CL brands and base curves on a whim, and fill everything with eastern labs running 50,000 jobs a day.

Look - as a country, the US has done nothing whatsoever about the gun epidemic, despite mass shootings, children killed, etc etc. And there can be strong cases made for that as a public health crisis with very little effort. (This is NOT a political rant, so please bear with me here.) Do we really think that federal government regulatory agencies such as the FDA are going to do anything that is in the best interest of the health of a patient vs. simply giving them the choice to do what they want, when they want it, with whoever they choose, wherever they can get it for their eyewear? I'm guessing not.

How many people have died this year from shoddy glasses production? If harm cannot be shown, will the FTC so much as raise an eyebrow at what is being made or who is making it or to what standard?

Whoa! Hold on their Brian, I was quiet when Dick said that "high capture rates" are directly responsible for "withholding" patients Rx's, even though not one person on this thread has openly shared with us that they "withhold" Rx's. I bit my lip when Barry said, "Amen" to Dick's blatantly irresponsible and insensitive comment. I can "withhold" no longer. You are referring to the 2nd Amendment, as an American I have the right to purchase a hand gun with little or no interference from the government. Besides how do you expect someone to retrieve their Rx from a clinic whose sole business is based on a "high capture rate" without waving a hand gun in the face of an office manager working for said "fat cat". Without the threat of violence we can not obtain a peaceful resolution. What we have here is a paradox.

[Barry Santini]

Whoa! Hold on their Brian, I was quiet when Dick said that "high capture rates" are directly responsible for "withholding" patients Rx's, even though not one person on this thread has openly shared with us that they "withhold" Rx's. I bit my lip when Barry said, "Amen" to Dick's blatantly irresponsible and insensitive comment. I can "withhold" no longer. You are referring to the 2nd Amendment, as an American I have the right to purchase a hand gun with little or no interference from the government. Besides how do you expect someone to retrieve their Rx from a clinic whose sole business is based on a "high capture rate" without waving a hand gun in the face of an office manager working for said "fat cat". Without the threat of violence we can not obtain a peaceful resolution. What we have here is a paradox.

Yes. We have a paradox!

B

[Judy Canty]

My feeling is that what they're looking for is the inclusion of PD as an rx requirement. Follow the money. Who benefits?

[Barry Santini]

It's the consumer who benefits. The spirit of the original Rx release law is fulfilled for an online age.

B

[optical24/7]

If I were to pick the top three things the FTC would address concerning consumers ( at least down here), in order of importance:

1. Release of Rx ( given after exam)

2. Expiration and release of same

3. PD ( has actually been zero concern considering I've never been asked for one.)

[drk]

It's the consumer who benefits. The spirit of the original Rx release law is fulfilled for an online age.

B

No, it's businessmen horning in on optical killing off professionals, as they did with commerical opticals..."in an online age".

[Tallboy]

So it is the equivalent of buying a suit online right? I guess I can live with being an expert optical tailor if that is all that will be left for me as a business. There will be plenty to fit at a premium price.

I will charge for consulting on online eyewear and giving out the PD will be stated that this PD is ONLY in accordance with the law and any extra level of measurement or adjustment to this measurement(for head cape, frame wrap, etc) is not to be interpreted as included in this PD area of the RX.

It won't matter though people will still comeback and complain if the Binocular PD is giving them headaches. I'm sure, as always, that my business partner the Dr. will fully comply with the law.

[Barry Santini]

I think the whole PD issue and headache risk is overplayed, bordering on fear mongering.

B

[Craig]

Why is a silly PD so important anyway? We have had a total of 2 asks for it in all these years and we said no to helping you buy elsewhere.
When folks perceive your office as a place to get an exam and not the glasses; it is time to ask why from a patients point of view.
75% of our rx's come from another office that had less expensive product offerings and/or took their insurance yet they bought from us.

If the only thing you offer is to take their insurance; how about getting folks to come to you because of the overall value you offer?

Personally it is time to get rid of all optical licensure at this point or move it towards refracting but with on-line refracting here and almost ready for prime-time it is probably too late but would be a great help for ensuring the refraction is as good as possible.

[Barry Santini]

Why is a silly PD so important anyway? We have had a total of 2 asks for it in all these years and we said no to helping you buy elsewhere.
When folks perceive your office as a place to get an exam and not the glasses; it is time to ask why from a patients point of view.
75% of our rx's come from another office that had less expensive product offerings and/or took their insurance yet they bought from us.

If the only thing you offer is to take their insurance; how about getting folks to come to you because of the overall value you offer?

Personally it is time to get rid of all optical licensure at this point or move it towards refracting but with on-line refracting here and almost ready for prime-time it is probably too late but would be a great help for ensuring the refraction is as good as possible.

This is so spot on, Craig

[Tallboy]

Luckily we seem to offer tons that people appreciate, thankfully. As far as the last paragraph you wrote Craig I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole!!!

[Craig]

Luckily we seem to offer tons that people appreciate, thankfully. As far as the last paragraph you wrote Craig I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole!!!

What purpose does my license serve me as a business owner? None; it is not a level playing field so why not give up the fight at some point when you realize their is nothing worth fighting for?

Why does Barry, myself or Johns need a license? We are independent retailers who happen to sell optical products with a crutch attached (license) that prevents me from hiring the best people for the job. The job is not taking a PD or a set ht; that is way too easy but entails getting employees to be trusted by clients we will do the right thing at a fair price while standing behind what you offer.

If we could refract that would help my clients see as well as possible, more than occurs now in the present system.

Time for a new system or none at all.

[Uilleann]

The PD, dispensing licensure and certification are all moot. The reality is they have been for years. But for whatever reason (inflated egos perhaps?...Honestly?) we keep clinging to all three.

The apocalypse is here. Now.

[Judy Canty]

No, it's businessmen horning in on optical killing off professionals, as they did with commerical opticals..."in an online age".

Thank you. It's all your "partners" who have an online presence and will be able to bypass ECP's, save for a minimal reimbursement for a simple eye exam.

[Wes]

Which optician here wants to accept a PD on a prescriber's Rx rather than take their own?

Not me. They're wrong as often as they're right, and I mean wrong by several mm.

[rbaker]

What purpose does my license serve me as a business owner? None; it is not a level playing field so why not give up the fight at some point when you realize their is nothing worth fighting for?

Why does Barry, myself or Johns need a license? We are independent retailers who happen to sell optical products with a crutch attached (license) that prevents me from hiring the best people for the job. The job is not taking a PD or a set ht; that is way too easy but entails getting employees to be trusted by clients we will do the right thing at a fair price while standing behind what you offer.

If we could refract that would help my clients see as well as possible, more than occurs now in the present system.

Time for a new system or none at all.

A very valid point.

Lets have a thought experiment. In the Country of Noregula anyone can refract and sell glasses - don't need no stinking licenses, registration or pin head qualifications (sort of like today in many places.) Barry, Craig and Johns are partners in a business enterprise, Three Stooges Optical, which allows people to come in the door seeing 20-40 and walk out with a nice new pair of glasses seeing 20-20. They refract them, crank out a pair of lenses and mount them in the frame of the customers choice. Furthermore, there are no third party pressures on their customers.

If the Three Stooges Optical does not provide their customers, the public, with first rate service the freedom of the marketplace will soon force them out of business. If they really screw the pooch the trial lawyers will make their lives a living Hell.

Three Stooges Optical will close its doors and Barry, Craig and Johns will be living under a bridge toasting squirrels on a stick, arguing about PD's.

[AngeHamm]

Three Stooges Optical will close its doors and Barry, Craig and Johns will be living under a bridge toasting squirrels on a stick, arguing about PD's.

Isn't there a Beckett play about that?

[fjpod]

Not me. They're wrong as often as they're right, and I mean wrong by several mm.

So, what faith then do you have in the actual prescription?

[TEdFitz]

Sounds like it would be closer to the 'Band of Brothers' speech in Henry V.