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
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.
What do you find confusing?
I was not familiar with the original rule, so I was just wondering how this one changed things.Originally Posted by Lelarep
Erik Zuniga, ABOC.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
You're a boob.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
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.
Hi again
1. So tell us, drk, what did happen.
2. Please expand on your hypocrite accusation.
Barry
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!!!
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.
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.
+100
The red is the original I highlighted. The blue is my commentary.
FTC Announces Final Amendments to the Agency’s Contact Lens Rule
June 23, 2020
Changes will help more patients comparison shop for contact lenses
FOR RELEASE
TAGS:
The Federal Trade Commission today announced the approval of a final rule amending the agency’s Contact Lens Rule, which facilitates shopping for contact lenses by requiring prescribers to automatically provide a copy of a patient’s prescription to the patient and to verify or provide prescriptions to third-party sellers.
THIS IS NOT NEW
The Final Rule requires prescribers to request that their patients confirm that they have received their prescription, and allows flexibility in the way the prescription and confirmation are provided.
THIS IS NEW. HAVE A PATIENT SIGN A PAPER THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS? WHAT GOOD DOES THAT DO?
“Eye doctors are required by law to provide every patient with a copy of his or her contact lens prescription, allowing patients to comparison shop for lenses,” said Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith. “This rule change will help to ensure that eye doctors fulfill their obligations, and will facilitate FTC enforcement of these important requirements.”
HOW DOES THIS NEW DUMB RULE MAKE ME MORE LIKELY TO FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL DUMB RULE?
Issuance of the Final Rule follows an extensive review and consideration of thousands of public comments and materials received by the Commission between 2015 and 2019, including surveys, studies, analyses, and information generated at an FTC workshop devoted to the Rule and the evolving contact lens marketplace. It also incorporates changes made in response to public comments received following a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking published in May 2019.
As detailed in a final notice of rulemaking to be published shortly, after a contact lens fitting, prescribers will be required to do one of the following toconfirm that a patient received their prescription:
AGAIN, WHY WOULD WE BE INTERESTED IN CONFIRMING THAT A PATIENT RECEIVED THEIR PRESCRIPTION? IS THIS SO, IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE IT, IT CAN BE "INVESTIGATED" AND THE INVESTIGATORS CAN SAY "SHOW ME THEIR SIGNATURE THAT THEY RECEIVED IT" AND IF WE CAN'T PRODUCE IT, THEN IT'S ASSUMED WE DIDN'T RELEASE IT, AND WE GET FINED OR SOMETHING? SO WE JUST GET SCARED TO NOT HAND OUT PRESCRIPTIONS?
- request that the patient acknowledge receipt of the contact lens prescription by signing a separate confirmation statement;
- request that the patient sign a prescriber-retained copy of the prescription that contains a statement confirming the patient has received it;
- request that the patient sign a prescriber-retained copy of the sales receipt for the examination that contains a statement confirming the patient received the prescription; or
- provide the patient with a digital copy of the prescription, and retain evidence that it was sent, received, or made accessible, downloadable, and printable.
Prescribers must maintain proof that they satisfied the confirmation of prescription release requirement for at least three years. If a patient refuses to sign a confirmation, prescribers must note this and save it to record their compliance.
The Final Rule also will affect prescribers in several other ways. First, it adds a new definition of the term “provide to the patient a copy,” which will allow (GEE, THANKS) the prescriber—with the patient’s verifiable consent (MRS SMITH, CAN YOU SIGN THIS FORM FOR ME TO RETAIN FOR THREE YEARS THAT SAYS YOU CONSENT TO ME EMAILING YOU YOUR PRESCRIPTION? SHEER ADMINISTRATIVE LUNACY) —to provide the patient with a digital copy of her prescription instead of a paper copy. When seeking a patient’s consent, prescribers must tell the patient the specific method of electronic delivery they will use, and must keep a record of the patient’s consent to that method for three years. The Final Rule will also require prescribers to provide patients or their designated agents with an additional copy of their prescriptions on request within 40 business hours. GOSH. I WONDER IF HUBBLE CONTACTS IS A DESIGNATED AGENT? IF I NEED A CONSENT FORM TO EMAIL A CLRX TO A PATIENT, I THINK I'D NEED A VERITABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY FORM TO CONFIRM THAT HUBBLE CONTACTS IS, INDEED, AN OFFICIAL DESIGNATED AGENT. I MEAN, HOW DO WE KNOW? IT COULD BREAK A RULE SOMEWHERE IF WE PROVIDED A CLRX TO A NON-DESIGNATED AGENT, YOU KNOW.
The Final Rule includes several new requirements for sellers as well. To address concerns about sellers verifying prescriptions by leaving incomplete or incomprehensible automated telephone messages with prescribers, sellers who use automated telephone messages for verification must:
- record the entire call and preserve the complete recording;
- start the call by identifying it as a prescription verification request made in accordance with the Contact Lens Rule;
- deliver the verification message in a slow and deliberate manner and at a volume that the prescriber can understand; and
- make the message repeatable at the prescriber’s option.
The Final Rule also includes modifications designed to reduce illegal prescription alterations by sellers. Under the Final Rule, sellers must make prominently available a way for consumers to present their prescriptions, and must clearly disclose that method. The method of presentation and related disclosure must be provided before requesting the prescriber’s contact information to verify the prescription. WHAT THE HECK DOES THAT MEAN?
The Contact Lens Rule already prohibits prescription alteration, but the Final Rule defines “alteration” to include sellers providing, as part of a verification request, a brand or manufacturer other than that prescribed to the consumer. There are exceptions, however, for when the seller provides, as part of the verification request, the manufacturer or brand named by the consumer in response to the seller’s request for the manufacturer or brand listed on the prescription. DOES THIS MEAN THAT HUBBLE CAN'T SUBSTITUTE THEIR LENES, BUT THE PATIENT CAN REQUEST A NEW LENS, AND THAT WILL SHOW UP ON THE VERIFICATION REQUEST? These changes should reduce the incidence of sellers selling consumers lenses other than those that were prescribed. The Final Rule also clarifies that the only permissible substitution involves private label lenses; private label and brand name lenses can be substituted for each other when they are identical lenses made by the same manufacturer.
The Rule changes go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register notice.
The Contact Lens Rule
In place since August 2004, the Rule imposes obligations on both eye-care prescribers and contact lens sellers. The prescriber must automatically provide the patient with a complete copy of the contact lens prescription after completion of a contact lens fitting, and also must verify or provide the prescription to authorized third parties. The Rule also requires that contact lens vendors sell contact lenses only in accordance with a valid prescription the seller has received from either the patient or prescriber, or has verified via direct communication with the prescriber.
The Commission vote approving publication of the final notice of rulemaking in the Federal Register was 5-0, with Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issuing a separate statement. The final notice will be published shortly.
There are MANY Instances of attempting to keep Rxs from walking out the door of the local, main street optical’s “ecosystem.”
The most egregious is the concept of “capture ratio.” Such a lovely term for such an unfortunate metric.
Drk: You were brought up and bought into a framework that says strict accuracy is what optical is all about.
I WAS TOO. But I’ve moved on. I will make it just as squishy as it needs to be to make MY Paying customer happy.
Just let them enjoy freedom of choice.
B
You don't really mean that, do you, Barry? That is really taking it a step too far. There has to be a limit, otherwise professional integrity is thrown right out the window.
Last edited by Lelarep; 10-24-2020 at 06:29 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks