Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: FTC Contact Lens Rule Change?

  1. #1
    Master Jedi King of the Lab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA.
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    399

    FTC Contact Lens Rule Change?

    I do not understand the FTC's new decision on Contact prescriptions, If any.

    Is anyone familiar with what is going on and can explain it to me?

    I received this from J & J.

    https://www.jnjvisionpro.com/sites/u...ensiveResource
    Erik Zuniga, ABOC.

  2. #2
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Mitten State
    Occupation
    Ophthalmic Technician
    Posts
    604
    What do you find confusing?

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Professional Michael I. Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Eldersburg
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    107
    So if Hubble is not out of business in 3-6 months this regulation is not being enforced. Since no one actually fits this lens and they are not allowed to change our prescriptions, how can they survive? Only by lack on enforcement.

  4. #4
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    OptiBoard Silver Supporter

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael I. Davis View Post
    So if Hubble is not out of business in 3-6 months this regulation is not being enforced. Since no one actually fits this lens and they are not allowed to change our prescriptions, how can they survive? Only by lack on enforcement.
    Amen. We always provide the patient with any and all RXs they get during an exam. Are there really places that don't?

    Hubble can jump in a lake.

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    524
    I'm pretty sure the old contact lens rule didn't allow alterations or substitutions either. With the same exception that exists in the new law.

  6. #6
    Master Jedi King of the Lab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA.
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Lelarep View Post
    What do you find confusing?
    I was not familiar with the original rule, so I was just wondering how this one changed things.
    Erik Zuniga, ABOC.

  7. #7
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Plainfield, Illinois
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    125
    Doctors are being required to keep patients signatures on file (3yrs) ensuring they received their cl rx's. With most offices EMR, this is just a pain. Physically signing paper, really!!!
    Don't let a billy goat guard your cabbage patch.

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,829
    Quote Originally Posted by rbanting69 View Post
    Doctors are being required to keep patients signatures on file (3yrs) ensuring they received their cl rx's. With most offices EMR, this is just a pain. Physically signing paper, really!!!
    Karma for withholding CL specs improperly.

  9. #9
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    usa
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Karma for withholding CL specs improperly.
    There was already law and punishments in place for withholding CL Rx's. Why would the minority of doctors who are dumb enough to already break the law, change their minds because of the rule change? It's not protecting consumers anymore now than it was before. It's a bunch of unnecessary bureaucracy, and waste for compliant doctors. What is the FTC going to do, create a department of Contact lens inspectors who go around to every practice and spot check their paper work? They could call it C.L.E.A.R., the Contact Lens Examinations And Records department.

  10. #10
    OptiBoard Novice
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Maryland
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael I. Davis View Post
    So if Hubble is not out of business in 3-6 months this regulation is not being enforced. Since no one actually fits this lens and they are not allowed to change our prescriptions, how can they survive? Only by lack on enforcement.
    I must be out of the loop....What is Hubble???

  11. #11
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwill212 View Post
    There was already law and punishments in place for withholding CL Rx's. Why would the minority of doctors who are dumb enough to already break the law, change their minds because of the rule change? It's not protecting consumers anymore now than it was before. It's a bunch of unnecessary bureaucracy, and waste for compliant doctors. What is the FTC going to do, create a department of Contact lens inspectors who go around to every practice and spot check their paper work? They could call it C.L.E.A.R., the Contact Lens Examinations And Records department.


    That's a good point, who is going to be checking to make sure ECPs are doing this? More rules and regulations with seemingly no way of enforcing it, sounds like something the government would do.

    I'd join C.L.E.A.R. though, "The few, the proud, the contact lens examination records department!"

    Or maybe, "Be all that you can see, C.L.E.A.R!"

    Maybe they'd call it Contact lens Force, make it a branch of Space Force.

  12. #12
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    PA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    974
    We process the same way as ABN's in EMR and in our optical services software by signing and then scanning into images or e-doc's and then give to the patient. When necessary it can be printed as a PDF.
    Bev Heishman, ABOM, NCLC-AC

  13. #13
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,255
    "JJV urged FTC to ban robocalls, andif not, add more requirements tohow these calls must be madeNote: JJV continues its advocacyefforts on H.R. 3975 which wouldprohibit sellers from usingrobocalls to verify CL Rx.Requires automated callsto be clear &comprehensible, optionto repeat, provide ‘papertrail’ by maintaining callon file for 3 years✓ Sellers must record entire call and preserve complete recording✓ Start call by identifying it is a prescription verification request inaccordance with CL Rule✓ Deliver message in slow deliberate manner and at volumeprescriber can understand✓ Make message repeatable at the prescriber’s option✓ Must maintain recording on file for 3 years."

    The slow deliberate manner could be maddening if you have clients in front of you while you're receiving such a call. Go to hell, Brad Scott!

  14. #14
    Rising Star
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Morethnu2 View Post
    I must be out of the loop....What is Hubble???
    Hubble is an online contact lens seller, known for two things: crazy advertisements about their cheap contacts (IE: a bowl of milk filled with contact lenses), and more importantly that they only sell Methafilcon A contacts. So when a patient orders from them, they swap out whatever has been prescribed to the patient to their brand. Which is, from all understanding, wrong and illegal.

    If the new FTC rule has any teeth, Hubble and their like should be fined and out of business if they continue, but this hasn't stopped them or other online sellers prior to this change. I don't see them stopping soon.


  15. #15
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Karma for withholding CL specs improperly.
    Bull****, Barry, bull****.

    This is completely driven by online retailers. All the "withholdling CLs specs" (they're prescriptions, not "specs" Mr. Part-of-the-problem) is just a facade; a narrative; a fake story to blow up the system.

    You're anti-optometry and anti-patient health, and you think you know much more than you really do. You and Hubble are cut from the same greedy pirate cloth.

    Buugger off.

  16. #16
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Earth
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by jefe View Post
    "JJV urged FTC to ban robocalls, andif not, add more requirements tohow these calls must be madeNote: JJV continues its advocacyefforts on H.R. 3975 which wouldprohibit sellers from usingrobocalls to verify CL Rx.Requires automated callsto be clear &comprehensible, optionto repeat, provide ‘papertrail’ by maintaining callon file for 3 years✓ Sellers must record entire call and preserve complete recording✓ Start call by identifying it is a prescription verification request inaccordance with CL Rule✓ Deliver message in slow deliberate manner and at volumeprescriber can understand✓ Make message repeatable at the prescriber’s option✓ Must maintain recording on file for 3 years."

    The slow deliberate manner could be maddening if you have clients in front of you while you're receiving such a call. Go to hell, Brad Scott!
    Brad Scott and Josh Neilson, my two most hated telephone robocalls for the past 10 years.

  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,829
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    Bull****, Barry, bull****.

    This is completely driven by online retailers. All the "withholdling CLs specs" (they're prescriptions, not "specs" Mr. Part-of-the-problem) is just a facade; a narrative; a fake story to blow up the system.

    You're anti-optometry and anti-patient health, and you think you know much more than you really do. You and Hubble are cut from the same greedy pirate cloth.

    Buugger off.
    Drk
    Let’s think about this logically:

    Years before online was a reality, the government of the United States sought to intervene on behalf of the American consumer and protect their right to fragment redemption of prescription optical goods from the prescriber.

    The reasons for these actions and the results—the Spectacle Release Rule and the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumer Act—did not develop out of a vacuum.

    The vast majority of prescribers of optical goods have been engaged in acts of unfair control of optical consumer choices. These are the reasons behind the impetus for these laws.

    I stand firmly behind my statement about karma.

    Barry

  18. #18
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,002
    Drk
    Let’s think about this logically:

    Years before online was a reality, the government of the United States sought to intervene on behalf of the American consumer and protect their right to fragment redemption of prescription optical goods from the prescriber.

    The reasons for these actions and the results—the Spectacle Release Rule and the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumer Act—did not develop out of a vacuum.

    The vast majority of prescribers of optical goods have been engaged in acts of unfair control of optical consumer choices. These are the reasons behind the impetus for these laws.

    I stand firmly behind my statement about karma.

    Barry
    You're a boob.

    That's not what happened.

    What's more, you can't apparently find a way to be a good optician without breaking laws yourself, so you're also a hypocrite.

  19. #19
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,829
    Hi again

    1. So tell us, drk, what did happen.

    2. Please expand on your hypocrite accusation.

    Barry

  20. #20
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    The vast majority of prescribers of optical goods have been engaged in acts of unfair control of optical consumer choices.

    Barry
    Wait, WHAT? Come on B - that's quite a stretch.

  21. #21
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,002
    1. If you want to go back to the 1970's and 80's, feel free. I was watching Happy Days at the time, or drinking beer. But, Eyeglasses I (that must have been 77?) and II were primarily when superopticals were started. That was the old "private vs. commercial" war.

    Ironically, today there is more reason than ever for a prescriber to fear harm to their patients by deciding to participate in shared care. Makes sending an Rx out to EyeMasters in 1984 look like sending it to Clifford Brooks, vs. today.

    As to the FTCs CL release rules, they've been entirely driven by online CL suppliers. Feel free to take their side, Barry.


    2. For a guy who's such an apologist for regulatory crack-down, you sure don't mind promoting (in your trade rag pieces) "just OK" accuracy (ANSI-schmancy, board-schmoard), and you have bragged about adding minus to glasses for night driving, which is prescribing. You flout whatever legal restrictions you don't like, and then you accuse a whole profession of not following the intent of consumer protection laws. So you are hardly credible. Spare me.

  22. #22
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Plainfield, Illinois
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    125
    We email patients spectacle and contact rx to them before they leave the office. Most of our patients acknowledge the courtesy. Those that don't want an email on their file, the rx's are printed and handed out. I do understand what your point is Barry, but I don't think it's that wide spread.
    Don't let a billy goat guard your cabbage patch.

  23. #23
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    591
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    1. If you want to go back to the 1970's and 80's, feel free. I was watching happy days at the time, or drinking beer. But, eyeglasses i (that must have been 77?) and ii were primarily when superopticals were started. That was the old "private vs. Commercial" war.

    Ironically, today there is more reason than ever for a prescriber to fear harm to their patients by deciding to participate in shared care. Makes sending an rx out to eyemasters in 1984 look like sending it to clifford brooks, vs. Today.

    As to the ftcs cl release rules, they've been entirely driven by online cl suppliers. Feel free to take their side, barry.


    2. For a guy who's such an apologist for regulatory crack-down, you sure don't mind promoting (in your trade rag pieces) "just ok" accuracy (ansi-schmancy, board-schmoard), and you have bragged about adding minus to glasses for night driving, which is prescribing. You flout whatever legal restrictions you don't like, and then you accuse a whole profession of not following the intent of consumer protection laws. So you are hardly credible. Spare me.
    round 3, i love this. Two champions dukeing it out!!!

  24. #24
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    8,002
    Well, I'm sorry.

    Someone, sometime spend a little while watching the most recent FTC hearings, and you tell me if it wasn't a pure, paid-for farce.

    Some people around here don't know the "good guys" from the "bad guys". Wake up.

    The good guys are the professionals. The bad guys are the people outside the professions that are trying to reduce patient protections or flout them. And they do it with big money.

    For any supposed professional colleague to take some weird point-of-view that optometry is so corrupt that the pristine U.S. government has had to come to the rescue is PURE, self-serving, fantastic, ax-grinding nonsense.

    I don't need to discuss it any further, but somehow Barry has ingratiated himself into a position over the years as some kind of industry spokesman. I've been present and accounted for here on Optiboard during Barry's "rise". Take it from me, he had rather humble beginnings. And don't get me wrong, we've ALL grown over the years, here, but Barry's in no position to judge anyone.

    For him to espouse the views he does, after all this camaraderie and interprofessional good will is outrageous and speaks to his opportunity for character-building.

    This may be totally unfair to invoke someone who isn't able to speak for himself, or to name drop or flag wave or appropriate heroes for my cause, but damn, Darryl Meister wouldn't be such a dick. Nor would Lensman. Nor do some other very notable opticians on this website that I won't embarrass by holding them up as truly brilliant professionals.
    Last edited by drk; 10-23-2020 at 03:57 PM.

  25. #25
    Eyes eastward... Uilleann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,849
    I think we can all agree heartily that if ANY aspect of our profession is in desperate need of MORE regulation, preventing harm to consumers FROM numerous UNSCRUPULOUS 3rd party CL vendors who love to change CLRXs at will, or dispense even on expired scripts, or incorrectly entered parameters, etc etc. Enabling that sort of "access" is not healthcare. It creates problems, and undermines doctors abilities to prescribe safely and effectively. The FtCLCA could use a SERIOUS remake - this time, include doctors and healthcare professionals who can explain the direct health risks to the public in allowing things to continue unchecked as they are.

    As far as glasses are concerned, in 3 decades, I have NEVER worked for, or known or even heard of a Doctor refusing to release any SRx. Ever. With the only rare exceptions being a pt who refuses to pay for services. It's a manufactured "problem" that the chains, and big box Rx destroyers pushed ages ago, and that act doesn't reflect reality today either.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FTC wants to change contact lens rule - Patient Acknowledgement
    By GrahamEye in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-2016, 01:41 PM
  2. Comment Request Ophthalmic Practice Rule (Eyeglass Rule)
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-27-2015, 03:18 AM
  3. Are the Eyeglass Rule/CL Rule even Constitutional?
    By Tigerclaw in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 08:52 AM
  4. Power distribution across a toric lens and prentice rule
    By alberto_correia in forum OptiBoard File Directory
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 06:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics and Vision Equipment