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?
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'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.
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.
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.
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
"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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks