Are the Eyeglass Rule/CL Rule even Constitutional?

[Tigerclaw]

Legal experts or people with access to legal experts, are the Eyeglass Rule and the Contact Lens Rule even Constitutional? Just because the federal government SAYS it has jurisdiction certainly does not mean that it DOES have jurisdiction.
The Constitution gives the federal government very limited power, but it also has the "Elastic Clause" and the "Commerce Clause" to weasel in a nice chunk of tyranny. The Commerce Clause basically gives the federal government jurisdiction over just about anything which can be deemed to involve more than one state/cross state lines, no matter how contorted the logic can be at times.
So my question is this: The Constitution does not give Congress to pass laws regarding eye exams. Is the doctor-patient relationship interstate commerce? No. So why should we be under these rules in the first place? Forget that they are BAD LAWS.... are they even Constitutional?

We want to get these laws nerfed, or better yet REPEALED, but it really just takes a federal judge to get the whole mess voided on lack of jurisdiction, and VSP, 1800, etc. probably couldn't even send their armies of lawyers due to lack of standing.

Unless someone can convince me I am wrong (not just with "best guesses" or because "it is what it is"), I think we should all bombard our associations and give this idea some life. We need to tell some people where a good place to store their PD ruler is.

[Chris Ryser]

Unless someone can convince me I am wrong (not just with "best guesses" or because "it is what it is"), I think we should all bombard our associations and give this idea some life. We need to tell some people where a good place to store their PD ruler is.

I am in no position to convince nor judge you on your " best guesses"

I went on Google and asked "how to measure a PD" and got the following answer

about 151,000,000 results (0.24 seconds)



by Clearly.com (owned by Essilor)

1. Pupillary Distance (PD) - clearly.ca‎
   
   Adwww.clearly.ca/‎
   Learn How to Quickly Measure PD From Our Step by Step Instructions!
   Save Up to 50% Off · Top Brands in Stock · Fast & Free Shipping
   World’s largest retailer of online eyewear – Marketing Magazine
   Clearly.ca has 500 followers on Google+
   
   
   • Shop Eyeglasses
   • Face Shape Guide
   • Eye Health Info
   • My Eye Style

Search Results

1. 
   
   1. To measure your Pupillary Distance (PD):
      
      
      • Place a millimeter ruler on the bridge of your nose.
      • Have a friend face you about arms length away.
      • Have your friend measure the distance between the center of your pupils (the black dots in the middle of your eyes).
      • Or you can do it yourself simply by looking in the mirror.
      
      
      
      
   
   
   
   

[Tigerclaw]

Well isn't that nice of Essilor.... Maybe Essilor can link to Alibaba where people can buy frames for a dollar? You know, continue to aid the bottom half of the population (in terms of mentality/maturity) driving us all out of business and taking Essilor with us...

[MikeAurelius]

Legal experts or people with access to legal experts, are the Eyeglass Rule and the Contact Lens Rule even Constitutional? Just because the federal government SAYS it has jurisdiction certainly does not mean that it DOES have jurisdiction.
The Constitution gives the federal government very limited power, but it also has the "Elastic Clause" and the "Commerce Clause" to weasel in a nice chunk of tyranny. The Commerce Clause basically gives the federal government jurisdiction over just about anything which can be deemed to involve more than one state/cross state lines, no matter how contorted the logic can be at times.
So my question is this: The Constitution does not give Congress to pass laws regarding eye exams. Is the doctor-patient relationship interstate commerce? No. So why should we be under these rules in the first place? Forget that they are BAD LAWS.... are they even Constitutional?

We want to get these laws nerfed, or better yet REPEALED, but it really just takes a federal judge to get the whole mess voided on lack of jurisdiction, and VSP, 1800, etc. probably couldn't even send their armies of lawyers due to lack of standing.

Unless someone can convince me I am wrong (not just with "best guesses" or because "it is what it is"), I think we should all bombard our associations and give this idea some life. We need to tell some people where a good place to store their PD ruler is.

Powers are given by Congress to government agencies allowing them to pass rules and regulations, this has the net effect of reducing the amount of work that Congress actually has to do. These powers are granted in a law, or an act, that gives the agency authority over a certain type of jurisdiction.

The agency in question is the Federal Trade Commission, and its legitimacy and constitutionality have survived many attacks. It works to regulate inter-state (between the states) commerce, as well as commerce between the US and other countries.

If your beef is about the up-coming proposed rule, and specifically the PD section, you are probably going to be disappointed. The key point to the FTC is that consumer purchases of eyewear are being "restrained" by OD's, in the form of refusing the release or even the measurement of the patient's PD. Without a PD, the patient has no access to internet purchase of eyewear, and that is "restraint of trade" in the FTC's eyes. Whether or not you believe that is a moot point.

The FTC takes "restraint of trade", especially across state borders, very seriously. By definition, under the existing Eyeglass Rule, the patient is given the right to purchase eyewear anywhere he or she wishes. The internet of course has created a whole new marketplace for the patient to shop, and not having a PD as part of the Rx makes it difficult for the patient to complete their legal purchase.

In my opinion, you are incorrect in your belief that the FTC and the Eyeglass Rule(s) are unconstitutional. While the Eyeglass Rule(s) have never stood an actual constitutional test, it's my belief that any case would be thrown out simply on the basis of not having merit. They (the FTC) put in place rules that protect the consumer (patient) from a locked-in relationship between a doctor and a dispenser. In medicine, this would be the same as having your family practice doctor require you to use the pharmacy in his own practice. And, to extend it just a bit further, any pharmacy that is owned by the same group of people. And that's essentially what this is about: breaking the final link between the OD and the dispenser.

Internet "dispensers" are legal in the United States. But patients are being restrained from using them by the traditional optical industry refusing to provide a physical measurement that has always been part of the prescription: the measurement between their eyes, especially in relation to the centerline of the bridge of their nose.

[MikeAurelius]

Well isn't that nice of Essilor.... Maybe Essilor can link to Alibaba where people can buy frames for a dollar? You know, continue to aid the bottom half of the population (in terms of mentality/maturity) driving us all out of business and taking Essilor with us...

Except you really can't buy a single frame from a manufacturer on Alibaba. Alibaba is a business-to-business website, where companies who need large quantities (as in several thousand) of "things".

And, serious? "continue to aid the bottom half of the population (in terms of mentality/maturity)"???? So, basically, anyone who every buys ANYTHING on the internet is in the bottom half of the population in terms of mentality (not to mention totally immature). Come on. Lighten up.

[Tigerclaw]

Except you really can't buy a single frame from a manufacturer on Alibaba. Alibaba is a business-to-business website, where companies who need large quantities (as in several thousand) of "things".

And, serious? "continue to aid the bottom half of the population (in terms of mentality/maturity)"???? So, basically, anyone who every buys ANYTHING on the internet is in the bottom half of the population in terms of mentality (not to mention totally immature). Come on. Lighten up.

Not "ANYTHING", just things as crucial as eyeglasses and contacts.

As for Alibaba, you just ask for a sample. Or buy 50 for $50 and get your family fitted and sell the other 45 on eBay? Not saying it's easy, but these business models change every few years, so the point survives.

[MikeAurelius]

Not "ANYTHING", just things as crucial as eyeglasses and contacts.

Crucial? Contacts are freely purchased on the Internet, and have been for many many years. In fact, many offices directly refer their patients to an online website for continuing purchases.

Eyeglasses? LOL, you are concerned about the PD, have publically stated that you will give out PD's that aren't exact. Right there, that makes you complicit in making a bad eyeglass purchase for one of YOUR patients. Doesn't that cause you some concern that you have deliberately made a choice to cause some harm (financial or otherwise) to one of your patients? You should be. You could be sued, and with your statements here, you'd lose. You could lose your license and your practice.

[Chris Ryser]

Powers are given by Congress to government agencies allowing them to pass rules and regulations, this has the net effect of reducing the amount of work that Congress actually has to do. These powers are granted in a law, or an act, that gives the agency authority over a certain type of jurisdiction.....................

.................Internet "dispensers" are legal in the United States. But patients are being restrained from using them by the traditional optical industry refusing to provide a physical measurement that has always been part of the prescription: the measurement between their eyes, especially in relation to the centerline of the bridge of their nose.

Mike............a very good and understandable post, that makes sense

[Tigerclaw]

In my opinion, you are incorrect in your belief that the FTC and the Eyeglass Rule(s) are unconstitutional. While the Eyeglass Rule(s) have never stood an actual constitutional test, it's my belief that any case would be thrown out simply on the basis of not having merit. They (the FTC) put in place rules that protect the consumer (patient) from a locked-in relationship between a doctor and a dispenser. In medicine, this would be the same as having your family practice doctor require you to use the pharmacy in his own practice. And, to extend it just a bit further, any pharmacy that is owned by the same group of people. And that's essentially what this is about: breaking the final link between the OD and the dispenser.

Internet "dispensers" are legal in the United States. But patients are being restrained from using them by the traditional optical industry refusing to provide a physical measurement that has always been part of the prescription: the measurement between their eyes, especially in relation to the centerline of the bridge of their nose.

Thanks for your thoughtful opinion. I think though that it reflects some of the misconceptions the general public may have about seemingly good-for-everyone-but-the-optometrist benefits of these laws.

We live in an age of information at our fingertips. Lots of OD's don't dispense anything and therefore have no motivation to retain their prescriptions. Patients can easily find out who does and who doesn't. The notion that they are as "locked in" to their prescription for glasses or contacts as they are to their PCP is a bit overstated. What it amounts to is that if they fail to do their research and ensure that their appointment is with an OD who will release their prescription, the most they are out is the cost of the appointment/refraction of the first doctor or that of the second doctor who would release the prescription. This is unlikely to occur more than once to someone, as they will have "learned their lesson" and made sure to check with their OD before their next years' appointments. So what, they are out $50-70? Not the end of the world.

So for that minor savings, we introduce the patients to an internet full of options, many of them harmful, and many of them involving fraud on not just the seller's part, but also on the patient's. At least 75% of my CL verification requests are on expired prescriptions or from patients we have never even seen at our office. So now I am burdened with verification requests from the Devil (a.k.a. 1800-CONTACTS) for prescriptions that aren't even protected by the CL Rule.

We also reinforce the idea that patients know what is best for their eyes. This needs no elaboration.

What about the 12yo kid like I had in my office, never had an eye exam, has headaches, and I find him to have a +4.00 OU? His dad asks for his PD and I refuse, explaining how crucial a measurement is for his son's visual and comfort needs are? How the online companies may send something "good enough" in materials that lack the impact-resistance? He pulls out his ~-1.00D "Wull I got these online an' thay work jus' fine!" The stock answer is to always "educate your patients". Works well until you have patients who think they can educate themselves better online and now you won't see them for years because they still have their prescription and still "see real good".

Am I cynical? A bit. Comes from experience. To see us willing to tank an industry and let giant corporations and other bad actors bypass us all just to save the patient from having to get their glasses in a store is inexcusable.

I know there is no perfect solution and I am a bit all over the place here, but I am multitasking. The bottom line is that MY decisions to protect MY patients from even their own stupidity should be between me and my patients, and Congress or the FTC have no jurisdiction except that illegally obtained IMO.

[Tigerclaw]

Crucial? Contacts are freely purchased on the Internet, and have been for many many years. In fact, many offices directly refer their patients to an online website for continuing purchases.

Eyeglasses? LOL, you are concerned about the PD, have publically stated that you will give out PD's that aren't exact. Right there, that makes you complicit in making a bad eyeglass purchase for one of YOUR patients. Doesn't that cause you some concern that you have deliberately made a choice to cause some harm (financial or otherwise) to one of your patients? You should be. You could be sued, and with your statements here, you'd lose. You could lose your license and your practice.

Contact sales result in a ten-fold risk of infection. We could argue the correlation/causation, but the point is that it is NOT good other than for bad actors.

As for PD, proving I was intentionally off would make suing for that headache with their new glasses a bit difficult. Maybe we can sue the OMD's who tell my +2.00 hyperopic kids with headaches that they don't need glasses? We have a bigger problem in allowing OMD's to prescribe glasses, but that's another thread.

[Chris Ryser]

Well isn't that nice of Essilor.... Maybe Essilor can link to Alibaba where people can buy frames for a dollar? You know, continue to aid the bottom half of the population (in terms of mentality/maturity) driving us all out of business and taking Essilor with us...

That is about the first one I just found that has minimum order of 1 and there is many more with lower and lower quantities.


glasses spectacle frames in wholesales price mens eyeglass frames optic frame glasses


1 Piece (Min. Order)
Place of Origin: CN;GUA

Brand Name: JH
Frame Material: Acetate
Usage: For Reading Glasses;reading glasses
Model Number: JH-SSF1574
Frame Color: acetate

2015 hotsell women men new optical glasses kids spectacle frame with spring hinge






2015 hotsell women men new optical glasses kids spectacle frame with spring hinge


US $xxx / Piece ( FOB Price)
12 Pieces (Min. Order)

Frame Color: Green
Frame Material: Stainless
Usage: For prescription glasses
Face Shape Match: All
Certification: CE FDA UL
Service: OEM ODM

[rbaker]

Powers are given by Congress to government agencies allowing them to pass rules and regulations, this has the net effect of reducing the amount of work that Congress actually has to do. These powers are granted in a law, or an act, that gives the agency authority over a certain type of jurisdiction.

The agency in question is the Federal Trade Commission, and its legitimacy and constitutionality have survived many attacks. It works to regulate inter-state (between the states) commerce, as well as commerce between the US and other countries.

If your beef is about the up-coming proposed rule, and specifically the PD section, you are probably going to be disappointed. The key point to the FTC is that consumer purchases of eyewear are being "restrained" by OD's, in the form of refusing the release or even the measurement of the patient's PD. Without a PD, the patient has no access to internet purchase of eyewear, and that is "restraint of trade" in the FTC's eyes. Whether or not you believe that is a moot point.

The FTC takes "restraint of trade", especially across state borders, very seriously. By definition, under the existing Eyeglass Rule, the patient is given the right to purchase eyewear anywhere he or she wishes. The internet of course has created a whole new marketplace for the patient to shop, and not having a PD as part of the Rx makes it difficult for the patient to complete their legal purchase.

In my opinion, you are incorrect in your belief that the FTC and the Eyeglass Rule(s) are unconstitutional. While the Eyeglass Rule(s) have never stood an actual constitutional test, it's my belief that any case would be thrown out simply on the basis of not having merit. They (the FTC) put in place rules that protect the consumer (patient) from a locked-in relationship between a doctor and a dispenser. In medicine, this would be the same as having your family practice doctor require you to use the pharmacy in his own practice. And, to extend it just a bit further, any pharmacy that is owned by the same group of people. And that's essentially what this is about: breaking the final link between the OD and the dispenser.

Internet "dispensers" are legal in the United States. But patients are being restrained from using them by the traditional optical industry refusing to provide a physical measurement that has always been part of the prescription: the measurement between their eyes, especially in relation to the centerline of the bridge of their nose.

A very lucid explanation. Thank you

[Paul Smith LDO]

The, Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act, is here to stay. It will be enhanced to the eye glasses Rx with the addition of a Binocular PD. It will be up to the FTC to enforce the rules and regulations. Will they fall short. Of coarse they will. People have been able to purchase their contacts on line, using prescriptions that are 5 years past expiry dates, they have been using Dr's offices they have never set one foot in as references, they are prescribing their own Rx's.
Most of us realize that providing the PD does not ensure it's use and that for most DIY entities it's a formality. Most of these entities are using their own decentration numbers along with the cheapest form of polycarbonate for some these will prove to be, "adequate". For others they will come back to us asking for an explanation, as to why they can not see out of their new Rx. Here is your opportunity to explain the differences in what the DIY entities consider "adequate" and what you and your professional staff call "optimized".
We should see additional fees charged by the prescribing offices for for these situations, along with a la carte fees for services performed for on line frames people bring to us.
If you what to slip in a political side note about the FTC's involvement, your call. Just remember that you can't fight City Hall.

[Barry Santini]

Two Cheesrburgers special at Burger king: $1.00 ($0.50 each)

Great burger in restaurant: $15.00

This is a 30X markup.

Big deal.

B

[Dustin.B]

You know, I see a lot of posts and complaints about online sellers and the issues they are causing with even mild RX's. How would you propose to inform the "Uneducated Masses" that what we are doing is worth their time and energy? My whole family's in the optical industry and we can usually convert those that come to us with problems from their online orders, but that's still a very small percentage compared to those who don't complain.

So... Ideas?

[Uilleann]

Two Cheesrburgers special at Burger king: $1.00 ($0.50 each)

Great burger in restaurant: $15.00

This is a 30X markup.

Big deal.

B

Barry - ever been to Jackson WY (just outside of Yellowstone)? Hit up MacPhails there. $23 bucks for a burger. Cha CHING!

It's the burger Craig would probably sell out of his place down in FL. :)

[Barry Santini]

How would you propose to inform the "Uneducated Masses" that what we are doing is worth their time and energy?

So... Ideas?

Yes. Let them experience it for themselves.

B

[Tigerclaw]

You know, I see a lot of posts and complaints about online sellers and the issues they are causing with even mild RX's. How would you propose to inform the "Uneducated Masses" that what we are doing is worth their time and energy? My whole family's in the optical industry and we can usually convert those that come to us with problems from their online orders, but that's still a very small percentage compared to those who don't complain.

So... Ideas?

Get the laws repealed. Take away their options. We are burdened with enough responsibilities - ensuring the welfare of a patient's pocket change shouldn't be one of them. MAKE them come to you. A few may get mad over it, but as I tell my CL overwearers, I'd rather have them hate me and keep their eyes healthy than love me and go blind.

Also I will begin billing people for using the prescriptions in unapproved manners, including people whom I've never seen. One good thing about verification requests is that they provide you with the patient's address. Send them a bill for a comprehensive exam plus a contact lens fitting fee plus a convenience fee plus late fees to begin accruing if they don't pay you in full within 30 days or provide proof that they had a CL exam prior to the date they placed the order (in case they made an honest mistake).

You use a legal firm's name in a threatening letter without their consent, they will bill you if not sue you or press criminal charges.
You hire a photographer to take your pictures but you aren't entitled to the pictures unless you pay more. Hiring someone to perform a service does not entitle you to unlimited use of their intellectual property.
Expired prescriptions ARE NOT (to the best of my knowledge) PROTECTED by the Fairness Act. An attempt to obtain anything outside of the legal parameters should be a violation.

[Paul Smith LDO]

You know, I see a lot of posts and complaints about online sellers and the issues they are causing with even mild RX's. How would you propose to inform the "Uneducated Masses" that what we are doing is worth their time and energy? My whole family's in the optical industry and we can usually convert those that come to us with problems from their online orders, but that's still a very small percentage compared to those who don't complain.

So... Ideas?

Is it easily done, no. If you are working in a prescribing Dr's office you will have a minimum of two opportunities, more than most. I have the benefit of discussing the issues with their current lenses and Rx before they leave. If they elect to have their Rx filled elsewhere that is the prerogative of the consumer. If they have issues with what they purchased, I trial frame the new Rx, if all is well with the Rx then generally the issue is with the product they received. That affords me a second opportunity to discuss their needs versus their wants.
The consumer has in their hands evidence of adequately made glasses designed to provide them with a need but are not delivering them what they want. It is at this junction that you can further discuss their option of having you produce the product or products that you believe you can deliver that will satisfy their wants.
Will they want you to try and solve the issues they are having with someone else's product, perhaps but that is now at your prerogative and on your terms.

[MikeAurelius]

Thanks for your thoughtful opinion. I think though that it reflects some of the misconceptions the general public may have about seemingly good-for-everyone-but-the-optometrist benefits of these laws.

We live in an age of information at our fingertips. Lots of OD's don't dispense anything and therefore have no motivation to retain their prescriptions. Patients can easily find out who does and who doesn't. The notion that they are as "locked in" to their prescription for glasses or contacts as they are to their PCP is a bit overstated. What it amounts to is that if they fail to do their research and ensure that their appointment is with an OD who will release their prescription, the most they are out is the cost of the appointment/refraction of the first doctor or that of the second doctor who would release the prescription. This is unlikely to occur more than once to someone, as they will have "learned their lesson" and made sure to check with their OD before their next years' appointments. So what, they are out $50-70? Not the end of the world.

So for that minor savings, we introduce the patients to an internet full of options, many of them harmful, and many of them involving fraud on not just the seller's part, but also on the patient's. At least 75% of my CL verification requests are on expired prescriptions or from patients we have never even seen at our office. So now I am burdened with verification requests from the Devil (a.k.a. 1800-CONTACTS) for prescriptions that aren't even protected by the CL Rule.

We also reinforce the idea that patients know what is best for their eyes. This needs no elaboration.

What about the 12yo kid like I had in my office, never had an eye exam, has headaches, and I find him to have a +4.00 OU? His dad asks for his PD and I refuse, explaining how crucial a measurement is for his son's visual and comfort needs are? How the online companies may send something "good enough" in materials that lack the impact-resistance? He pulls out his ~-1.00D "Wull I got these online an' thay work jus' fine!" The stock answer is to always "educate your patients". Works well until you have patients who think they can educate themselves better online and now you won't see them for years because they still have their prescription and still "see real good".

Am I cynical? A bit. Comes from experience. To see us willing to tank an industry and let giant corporations and other bad actors bypass us all just to save the patient from having to get their glasses in a store is inexcusable.

I know there is no perfect solution and I am a bit all over the place here, but I am multitasking. The bottom line is that MY decisions to protect MY patients from even their own stupidity should be between me and my patients, and Congress or the FTC have no jurisdiction except that illegally obtained IMO.

What confuses me about your rants(?) is that you've said several times now that you don't sell eyewear. Are you upset that you have to spend a couple more minutes with your patients? Are you upset that you are "enabling" them to buy online? If so, why? I don't get it. Online is here to stay, it will never go away. I think Chris mentioned 25 millions pairs sold last year...

And, as your characterization that Congress' and the FTC's jurisdiction is "illegally obtained", you are starting to sound like one of "those" anti-government folks who haven't actually read the Constitution and it's authorization given to Congress to delegate powers to regulate interstate commerce (in fact, it has a section all of its own). The internet is the very embodiment of interstate commerce. You *might* have a case if your hypothetical patient purchased a pair from an on-liner in Texas, and in that case, you could certainly complain to your state's regulatory boards. But those boards have absolutely zero power to regulate interstate commerce.

Spend your time refracting patients and diagnosing diseases of the eye. That's what you are trained for. Give your patients an extra minute of your time and take their PD. Let them go on their way. You can't control where they are going to purchase from, whether it is Costco, Walmart, or Eyeglasses For Less dot com. If they have a problem with their glasses, let them go to a brick and mortar optician to diagnose the problem. If it's the actual Rx that's incorrect, that's in your area, if its a bad pair of spectacles, that's on the consumer/optician/internet store to resolve.

[optical24/7]

Get the laws repealed. Take away their options. We are burdened with enough responsibilities - ensuring the welfare of a patient's pocket change shouldn't be one of them. MAKE them come to you. A few may get mad over it, but as I tell my CL overwearers, I'd rather have them hate me and keep their eyes healthy than love me and go blind.

Also I will begin billing people for using the prescriptions in unapproved manners, including people whom I've never seen. One good thing about verification requests is that they provide you with the patient's address. Send them a bill for a comprehensive exam plus a contact lens fitting fee plus a convenience fee plus late fees to begin accruing if they don't pay you in full within 30 days or provide proof that they had a CL exam prior to the date they placed the order (in case they made an honest mistake).

You use a legal firm's name in a threatening letter without their consent, they will bill you if not sue you or press criminal charges.
You hire a photographer to take your pictures but you aren't entitled to the pictures unless you pay more. Hiring someone to perform a service does not entitle you to unlimited use of their intellectual property.
Expired prescriptions ARE NOT (to the best of my knowledge) PROTECTED by the Fairness Act. An attempt to obtain anything outside of the legal parameters should be a violation.

This get's my vote as the nuttiest, fruitcake post in OB history.

[Tigerclaw]

What confuses me about your rants(?) is that you've said several times now that you don't sell eyewear. Are you upset that you have to spend a couple more minutes with your patients? Are you upset that you are "enabling" them to buy online? If so, why? I don't get it. Online is here to stay, it will never go away. I think Chris mentioned 25 millions pairs sold last year...

And, as your characterization that Congress' and the FTC's jurisdiction is "illegally obtained", you are starting to sound like one of "those" anti-government folks who haven't actually read the Constitution and it's authorization given to Congress to delegate powers to regulate interstate commerce (in fact, it has a section all of its own). The internet is the very embodiment of interstate commerce. You *might* have a case if your hypothetical patient purchased a pair from an on-liner in Texas, and in that case, you could certainly complain to your state's regulatory boards. But those boards have absolutely zero power to regulate interstate commerce.

Spend your time refracting patients and diagnosing diseases of the eye. That's what you are trained for. Give your patients an extra minute of your time and take their PD. Let them go on their way. You can't control where they are going to purchase from, whether it is Costco, Walmart, or Eyeglasses For Less dot com. If they have a problem with their glasses, let them go to a brick and mortar optician to diagnose the problem. If it's the actual Rx that's incorrect, that's in your area, if its a bad pair of spectacles, that's on the consumer/optician/internet store to resolve.

Well here's a little secret: I went to law school. Being that it was in the 90's I remember probably just enough to get me into trouble. That being said, I did quite well in Constitutional Law, and I have a good basic understanding of torts, civil procedure, etc. Congress does not have the authority to grant authority to other bodies that Congress does not itself possess. It has no bearing whatsoever where they buy their glasses. In Texas, in Cali, in China. The issue is if CONGRESS has the authority to pass the law (the FTC merely enforces it). Wherever any potential sale takes place, a patient visit is by no means "interstate commerce", and thus should not be subject to Congressional influence. Just because it happens does not mean it is legal, and my contention is that it is not. This may surprise you, but many federal legislators don't really understand the Constitution that well themselves, and whether or not this is the case, they typically aren't in favor of denying themselves power. There is no little referee blowing the whistle telling them "You can't pass this, it's not in your jurisdiction." Well, aside from Ron Paul, who was one of the few "nay" votes on the Fairness Act. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h644

Again denying your claim that I am a Libertarian, but whatever disagreements I have with Ron Paul on issues, he knows the Constitution probably better than any of his colleagues at the time. The resident Libertarian and I have gotten into it a few times in these forums, he will tell you I am not a Libertarian. This is not hysteria, this is an argument that I am making with a lot of information except for applicable case law. With the current clowns in federal courts going all the way to the top, it may not be DEEMED unconstitutional, but it is.

"Online is here to stay"? Well what if they don't have their prescriptions? What if lens technology surpasses what can be ordered online? You can't pretend to have a crystal ball and throw your hands up. That's the problem with too many people in our profession: we take politicians (that's all that Congress is) at their word, failing to see their flaws, and when someone else comes along we think we have no recourse. It's akin to saying "well I saw it on TV and they wouldn't let them say that on TV if it wasn't true."

And no I don't sell glasses, which underscores the fact that it isn't the profit that motivates me. Also that "couple of minutes" adds up. 2 minutes for 30 patients adds up to an hour wasted because Congress can force us to facilitate 1-2 of those patients to go online to feed the companies who are trying to diminish us in every capacity. So what if you wasted that hour? That college student that overwears her contacts saved $30 on a website that is going to contact her in 364 days to sell her another year's worth of contacts. And really, isn't saving tens of dollars at the cost of burdening our health care providers and decreasing face time with patients who need it even if they don't want it such a noble goal?

[Tigerclaw]

This get's my vote as the nuttiest, fruitcake post in OB history.

If it went over your head, I can find some crayons and draw some pictures to help you out.

[Tigerclaw]

One other point (and I am trying to find a source since it's been awhile) is that when Utah (home of 1800 CONTACTS) passed a law that banned UPP in Utah, somewhere in the litigation process that ultimately got that ban overturned. 1800 CONTACTS was arguing against federal jurisdiction, denying that their activities were interstate commerce, or something like that. IC was a HUGE part in that litigation.

[optical24/7]

If it went over your head, I can find some crayons and draw some pictures to help you out.

Crayola's nice, please use a fruity color to explain why you think it's good for the patients that entrust you with their eye health that you plan to offer known false information on their Rx you write if they wish to fill it somewhere you don't like. I think you're the doctor down the road from me that doesn't give copies of Rx's to my clients, makes them come in person to sign a "release" then makes a *typo* on the written copy.f

DRK, you doubted what goes on down here, here's yer sign....