Has sight testing been harmful to optometrists in BC?

[tmorse]

What would be informative is the subject matter of this thread:

Has sight testing been harmful to optometrists in BC?

[drk]

And enough safeguards were put in place by government and the regulatory Colleges to adequately safeguard the public.

Such as?

[tmorse]

Such as?

Only permitted between ages of 19-65; no history of certain chronic diseases permitted; mandatory refer to OD/OMD if certain acuity not met. These are just some of the mandatory sight-testing protocols. And let's not forget a 20-years history of no medical or legal complications due to sight-testing process. Check with either BC or Alberta regulatory Colleges' website if you want further details.

[drk]

Age is verified, how? (And of course we know no disease happens from 19-65?)

Chronic disease is verified, how? Self-report? That'll catch everything, right? "Sir, if you want to get glasses here today, please fill out this form carefully. BTW, if you have any diseases, you're getting back into your Subaru."

Referral is enforced, how? "Hey, you're 20/30 today. You should see someone about that. It's the law."

But they're still getting those glasses, right?


In the better system, the doctor's butt is liable. That works wonders.

Amazing how "third-world-style" Alberta, Canada decided to go with their health care.

[optical maven]

1) The customer walks into any store (online or BM)
2) The trained (highly)14 year old measures (computer assisted) PD and seg height
3) Results are faxed to ophthalmologist who confirms and glasses are sold.

[tmorse]

In the better system, the doctor's butt is liable. That works wonders.

I forget to mention... should any error or omission on the part of the sight-tester resulting in real loss, all specialty-licensed Optician are required by their regulatory Colleges to carry a minimum of $1,000,000.00 ($1M) Errors & Omissions liability insurance policy. In fact, every licensed Optician across Canada carries this same amount of E&O liability insurance.

[wmcdonald]

Yes, we will cause cancer by doing these kind of refractions, and Opticians are too stupid to be able to know when to refer based on established protocols, right? ODs have been accused of over-stepping for many years, and if one really understands the issue, the incidence of significant eye diseases is minimal in the ages described above. This is no more than a turf battle, and used properly these new refraction devices can be effective, and increase access. All these health concerns are nothing more than scare tactics. The MDs have no real issue here, and they are the folks ODs refer to when needed, so again, just turf. You can do a simple refraction on a cell phone today, and if patients are informed of the need for an eye health exam then they made a choice.

[drk]

I forget to mention... should any error or omission on the part of the sight-tester resulting in real loss, all specialty-licensed Optician are required by their regulatory Colleges to carry a minimum of $1,000,000.00 ($1M) Errors & Omissions liability insurance policy. In fact, every licensed Optician across Canada carries this same amount of E&O liability insurance.

I find that amazing, if true.

You have an hourly employee professional-liability insured? That's crazy.

In other words, you are getting screwed.

[drk]

Yes, we will cause cancer by doing these kind of refractions, and Opticians are too stupid to be able to know when to refer based on established protocols, right? ODs have been accused of over-stepping for many years, and if one really understands the issue, the incidence of significant eye diseases is minimal in the ages described above. This is no more than a turf battle, and used properly these new refraction devices can be effective, and increase access. All these health concerns are nothing more than scare tactics. The MDs have no real issue here, and they are the folks ODs refer to when needed, so again, just turf. You can do a simple refraction on a cell phone today, and if patients are informed of the need for an eye health exam then they made a choice.

There aren't any "established protocols" Professor McDonald. And if they are, they're dog crap. Trust me on that one, OK? You're making yourself sound totally ignorant. Your post is 100% incorrect. 100%. You don't even begin to know what you don't know.

[tmorse]

I find that amazing, if true.

‘I am shocked Sir, shocked I say, that you should doubt the veracity of my claim.’

As you well know, Insurance companies use ‘actuaries’ to determine level of risk and they have determined the possibility of real risk to the patient by Opticians fitting eyeglasses, contact lenses and performing sight-tests to be so low that the annual cost of E&O liability insurance for Opticians to be little more than insurance file-opening costs.
In Canada, part of registration process for licensure requires that every optician registrant must obtain $1,000,000.00 ($1M) Errors and Omissions liability insurance. Our National organization ‘Opticians Association of Canada (OAC) offers this amount of E&O coverage as just one of the many benefit that form part of annual OAC membership dues. An official certificate of $1M E&O coverage for the member is sent by OAC to each respective regulatory College in Canada. And annual OAC membership is $125.00/yr (or about $100.00USD) + tax.

Free Professional Errors & Omissions Liability Insurance
Together with Western Financial Group, the OAC is proud to provide a FREE* $1,000,000.00 personal Professional Liability Insurance policy that protects its members from lawsuits for damages claimed by a third party, resulting from a professional error or omission or negligent act, committed during the course of their activities as an "Optician".
Many provincial regulatory colleges require that Opticians carry their own personal Professional Liability Insurance policy to obtain and maintain their license.
Opticians who wish to obtain more coverage can upgrade to a $3,000,000.00 or $5,000,000.00 PLI policy by contacting the OAC office at 1-800-847-3155 or email memberservices@opticians.ca

See www.opticians.ca and check under MEMBERSHIP (Benefits of membership)

[drk]

Well, that is very cheap.

Carry on, my wayward son.

[tmorse]

Well, that is very cheap.

Carry on, my wayward son.

Thanks, Dads!

[mike.elmes]

Listen here, I am a licensed Refracting Optician. I am licensed for 35 years. I am in my own business for more than 20 years. You sir are an Optometrist from another country, if Ohio is where you do business. We do indeed have protocols that we adhere to for the best interest of the patient/client. We refer often. This is really a turf war issue. Optometrists and Opticians can be compared to dentists and denturists.... this gets old. Lets agree to disagree.

[drk]

Sure. Whatever.

This is an international forum. I am the international OD of the webs. Whatever. I've been in the presence of Candian optometric smarties like Dumbledon and Jones. They're awesome but they seem to put their lab coats on one leg at a time.

Unless you have different human beings with different physiology...

I am a refracting optometrist and therapeutic optometrist since 1989 (how long is that?), and a business owner, as if that affects the truth of what I'm saying, which it does not.

No protocols are sufficient. They merely put lipstick on the pig that is sub-standard health care (by American standards, at least).

I fear that our standards will slip as low as yours. They probably will.

It's not a "turf war" and this is not 1975. I don't need dentures yet, but you "old guys" seem to view the world through that prism. It's about another subject altogether.

[mike.elmes]

As for the accuracy and subsequent acuity of my clients, I would say that in all cases where we do a refraction with the eyelogic system the client picks the RX we come up with and receives the subjective results they ask for.
I have seen so many doctors that wont give the patient what they say they see the best with. I'm just saying.