Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 146

Thread: how can this be legal...

  1. #101
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Not at all. Do NOT tell me that mild ametropia...say up to 0.50D SPH and/or Cyl, is NOT routinely "prescribed", i.e., "your eyes are fine...healthy."

    Yet I chase my tale with suns that "impact their vision."

    BULL****!

    You are refracting them...And collecting a co-pay for such. Everyone deserves their findings.

    If we did the optical thing in general medicine, then when someone's "numbers" were normal, we simply wouldn't tell them.

    B
    You do not get it.

    A. I'm not a refracting machine. I'm a problem solver.
    B. Everything is complaint-driven. No complaint, no treatment.
    C. That's what doctors do for their daily bread.

    If someone is in for a routine exam without symptoms and I find a low refractive error, we'll discuss the findings but let the symptoms dictate the treatment. A prescription is a treatment plan for a problem.

    And of course if they want the medical records they're theirs to take in any event.

    There's no "findings release". You don't ask your OD to "write down my C/D ratio" or your PCP to "write down my BP measurement". You don't ask your PCP "Hey, will you prescribe an antihypertensive even though I have borderline HTN?" Likewise, you don't ask your OD "Well, I know I'm seeing just fine, but will you prescribe glasses for me, just so I can have a written prescription on hand?" That's nonsense.

    (You really don't know the difference between a finding and a treatment plan and what a prescription's for?)
    Last edited by drk; 04-30-2015 at 01:00 PM.

  2. #102
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    199
    I joined this board to find out things from experienced opticians and other similar positions because I trust many of them to know what they are doing from the real world perspective besides the training I received in optometry school in their work. It would be nice if they would similarly understand that most of them have no idea what we do and why. We should learn from each other, not presume that they know more about our job than we know of theirs.

  3. #103
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    The surgeons in my area routinely send their patients to the local pharmacy to obtain OTC readers, declaring that their cataract surgery was so successful that they'll never need eyeglasses for distance again, and that OTCs are all that they'll ever need. It's not uncommon to see ± .50 to .75 sphere equivalents, and/or cyls over .75. I don't know what their thinking, probably a combination of a God complex and ignorance.
    It's simply expectation management.

    What we're seeing today is OMDs selling upgrades on IOLs, refractive procedures during cataract surgery, and now even laser-assisted paracentesis, incisions, capsulorrhexis, and phacofragmentation.

    1. Medicare don't pay what they used to.
    2. Shiny new toys
    3. More shiny new toys
    4. More shiny new toys.

    In order to get out-of-pocket contribution of several thousand samolians, they have to sell something. Now, are you going to tell Mr. Senior that you're off a half-diopter and he's 20/25 so he needs distance Rx, or are you going to watch his face when he reads the eye chart and see who blinks first?

  4. #104
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw View Post
    I joined this board to find out things from experienced opticians and other similar positions because I trust many of them to know what they are doing from the real world perspective besides the training I received in optometry school in their work. It would be nice if they would similarly understand that most of them have no idea what we do and why. We should learn from each other, not presume that they know more about our job than we know of theirs.
    Don't worry, Tigerclaw. This is an in-family feud here. All is good. You'll see.

  5. #105
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,019
    I would not take an Rx generated by, goblink. The reality is that most of us would not see their Rx's, as most people utilizing these services will be purchasing on line. Many of us will end up seeing the net result, when these people are forced to the B&M because they can't see thru their new glasses. If you haven't had enough of WP, this may be the breaking point.
    I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it. Mark Twain

  6. #106
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    I would, and am used to, taking all sorts of Rxs. Meh. Nobody's perfect. If my Rx redo rate stays below 10-12%, I think that's the best you can expect.

    Ever.

    B

  7. #107
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    It's simply expectation management.

    What we're seeing today is OMDs selling upgrades on IOLs, refractive procedures during cataract surgery, and now even laser-assisted paracentesis, incisions, capsulorrhexis, and phacofragmentation.

    1. Medicare don't pay what they used to.
    2. Shiny new toys
    3. More shiny new toys
    4. More shiny new toys.

    In order to get out-of-pocket contribution of several thousand samolians, they have to sell something. Now, are you going to tell Mr. Senior that you're off a half-diopter and he's 20/25 so he needs distance Rx, or are you going to watch his face when he reads the eye chart and see who blinks first?
    Yeah, there's no money in refractive error, except when there is.

    Maybe that's being overly cynical; the eye surgeons in my area are very conservative- they don't recommend the riskier procedures, and I compliment them for that. But they really don't pay very close attention to how well people see. I guess that's how it should be- MDs cut, ODs manage and prescribe, and opticians sort it out optically.
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  8. #108
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead Daddy
    Well said Barry. From a patient's perspective (seeking CL after expiration), the OD is extorting them for exorbitant exam fees, especially for those who have had the exact same Rx for the past 5 years, and who are seeing just fine. From the patient's view, the OD is using the force of law to keep them from taking care of themselves.

    And we must admit that this is true. We charge our fees based on supply and demand. The requirement that only LDOs, MDs, and ODs can prescribe is a barrier to supply (thus increasing the cost). The requirement that patients possess a current Rx in order to take care of their eyes is an artificial boost to demand (thus increasing the cost). Patients pay more than what the service is worth because the law requires it. Anybody who seeks to get around the law can be fined or even jailed. This is coercion.

    Now don't read me wrong. I am not saying that ODs are worthless. I am saying that the system artificially boosts their marketability through well-intentioned, but poorly reasoned, laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    Ignorance in the truest sense of the word.
    Tigerclaw, if you disagree, tell me why so I can be relieved of my ignorance. How is it that artificially increasing demand does not raise prices? From the patient's perspective, how is this not a legal form of extortion?

    Also, just to clarify what I am saying, I am a licensed optician, work for a licensed Optometrist, and have a lab manager who is also a licensed optician with an Associate's degree in ophthalmic dispensing. I highly value these professions. I just don't think that, in a free society, government should require free people to go through an Optometrist or Optician in order to purchase contact lenses or eyeglasses.

    I am skeptical that the Blink system will work for most patients. If I were to receive a Blink Rx, I may require the patient to sign a waiver stating that our 60 day Rx sat guarantee does not apply to non-O.D./M.D. Rx's. But this should be the patient's choice, not the government's.

  9. #109
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    Don't worry, Tigerclaw. This is an in-family feud here. All is good. You'll see.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead Daddy View Post
    Tigerclaw, if you disagree, tell me why so I can be relieved of my ignorance. How is it that artificially increasing demand does not raise prices? From the patient's perspective, how is this not a legal form of extortion?

    Also, just to clarify what I am saying, I am a licensed optician, work for a licensed Optometrist, and have a lab manager who is also a licensed optician with an Associate's degree in ophthalmic dispensing. I highly value these professions. I just don't think that, in a free society, government should require free people to go through an Optometrist or Optician in order to purchase contact lenses or eyeglasses.

    I am skeptical that the Blink system will work for most patients. If I were to receive a Blink Rx, I may require the patient to sign a waiver stating that our 60 day Rx sat guarantee does not apply to non-O.D./M.D. Rx's. But this should be the patient's choice, not the government's.
    Seeing as how you agreed with the patient's perspective, let's omit that qualification from the beginning. You agree that A. we charge exorbitant fees, B. that patients know what their prescription is and how well they are seeing, and C. the implication that we are using "coercion" and "the force of law" to drive up demand.
    A. Our fees are rarely, if ever, "exorbitant". Some doctors charge less for a full exam than I pay my specialist as a co-pay. Your perceived value of an eye exam is where you get this opinion from, which tells me you really don't know what you are talking about. Eye exams are one of the best values from a provider in all of health care.
    B. Do you know how many times I have changed patients' prescriptions from what it had been for years? Patients don't know they are losing vision half the time any more than a glaucoma patient is aware that their peripheral view has decreased 3 degrees in one eye over the course of a year.
    C. Yes, yes, I hear all kinds of this rhetoric from people who woke up one day and decided to get into politics because libertarian ideals were simplistic enough for them to digest and instantly became the smartest guys in any room they entered, at least from their own perspective. Do you think the FDA should be able to prevent stores from selling horse meat as beef? Do you think medication should be enforced by government to be at the advertised dosing? We don't give people carte blanche to do whatever they want to themselves in wisely limited categories, and anyone who knows anything about the eyes knows that you can cause harm with poorly fitting and poorly prescribed eyeglasses and contacts. The fitting and power determination are not available knowledge to people without special training, which is why people get LICENSES. You get a license to drive a car, you get a license to sell meat (I guess you consider this is artificially driving up the price of beef, since you can't mix in some horse meat to extend it), you get a license to sell medicine (artificially driving up the cost of medicine, I suppose, since you actually have to put in all 1000mg of the drug). Licenses aren't an issue of freedom. They are an issue of safety. For all the freedom I have to prescribe any kind of lens under the sun, I also have penalties not available to the general public: I must renew my licenses, renew my DEA, attend CE, maintain records, etc. You can extend the "artificially increasing demand" argument until we all end up in the unemployment line. It is a weak argument and quite dishonestly values the burden of a few bucks annually over the potential life-saving services we offer.

  10. #110
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw View Post
    Seeing as how you agreed with the patient's perspective, let's omit that qualification from the beginning. You agree that A. we charge exorbitant fees,
    I do not say that our fees are exorbitant. They are market rate, but the market is artificially inflated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    B. that patients know what their prescription is and how well they are seeing,
    Clinically, patients do not know what their Rx is and if a new Rx, cataract surgery, other procedure might improve their VA. However, most sense when they are, and when they are not seeing well. Isn't that why you see many of your patients? You ask for chief complaint, and they say, "I just don't think I am seeing as well as when I first got these glasses."
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    and C. the implication that we are using "coercion" and "the force of law" to drive up demand.
    The law bars people from acquiring contact lenses without a current Rx from an Optometrist, MD, or LDO (in some states). Thus, the patient is coerced by force of law to pay for an exam if they need contact lenses. This creates artificial demand (demand that would not be there apart from the law). Because of this artificial demand, prices are higher.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    A. Our fees are rarely, if ever, "exorbitant". Some doctors charge less for a full exam than I pay my specialist as a co-pay. Your perceived value of an eye exam is where you get this opinion from, which tells me you really don't know what you are talking about. Eye exams are one of the best values from a provider in all of health care.
    Our fees are based on market rates, but the market is inflated due to coercive laws. I hold a high value for regular eye examinations, and I am a licensed professional who runs an optometric practice. Your disdain for me is misplaced. An argument for liberty is not an argument against the value of professional eyecare. I think you unnecessarily conflate the two.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    B. Do you know how many times I have changed patients' prescriptions from what it had been for years? Patients don't know they are losing vision half the time any more than a glaucoma patient is aware that their peripheral view has decreased 3 degrees in one eye over the course of a year.
    I am intimately involved in similar situations on a daily basis, and I promote regular eye examinations by a qualified Optometrist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    C. Yes, yes, I hear all kinds of this rhetoric from people who woke up one day and decided to get into politics because libertarian ideals were simplistic enough for them to digest and instantly became the smartest guys in any room they entered, at least from their own perspective. Do you think the FDA should be able to prevent stores from selling horse meat as beef?
    This is an example of false advertising. That if fraud. Governments should protect citizens from fraud.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    Do you think medication should be enforced by government to be at the advertised dosing?
    This is another example of false advertising. It is exactly what governments are to protect us from.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    We don't give people carte blanche to do whatever they want to themselves in wisely limited categories,
    I think this is the real source of our disagreement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    and anyone who knows anything about the eyes knows that you can cause harm with poorly fitting and poorly prescribed eyeglasses and contacts.
    I am in absolute agreement with you here. That is why I work with a highly qualified Optometrist, and our lab is run by a highly-qualified Optician.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    The fitting and power determination are not available knowledge to people without special training, which is why people get LICENSES.
    I think the big heartache with Blink is that some machines are beginning to encroach into this territory. Do I think Blink will serve most patients well? No. But do I think it will blind them or get them killed? No. Do I think that machines may someday perform a large portion of our functions? You bet. That would be great progress, and government should not stand in the way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    You get a license to drive a car, you get a license to sell meat (I guess you consider this is artificially driving up the price of beef, since you can't mix in some horse meat to extend it), you get a license to sell medicine (artificially driving up the cost of medicine, I suppose, since you actually have to put in all 1000mg of the drug).
    Again, you are confusing fraud and licensure. Licensure does not have much to do with false advertising. It is a validation of one's professionalism by the state, and a ban on others practicing in that field.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    Licenses aren't an issue of freedom. They are an issue of safety.
    There has always been a tension between freedom and safety. It is precicely this that we are discussing, and it is highly relevant to our field.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    For all the freedom I have to prescribe any kind of lens under the sun, I also have penalties not available to the general public: I must renew my licenses, renew my DEA, attend CE, maintain records, etc. You can extend the "artificially increasing demand" argument until we all end up in the unemployment line.
    I think you just tipped your hand. Labor has always feared advancements in technology. Robots replace welders. Computers replace secretaries. There is always a pushback. But overall, quality of life keeps getting better, and people adjust to meet the demands of an ever-changing market. I don't think that a hand-held, patient-operated refractor will ever take the place of a qualified Optometrist. But it may make him more efficient, and it may reduce the cost per patient. We should not fear this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerclaw
    It is a weak argument and quite dishonestly values the burden of a few bucks annually over the potential life-saving services we offer.
    This is the argument of every special interest seeking for the government to help them "advance their profession". Great argument when you are receiving the extra few bucks. Poor argument when you are paying them.

    I completely agree with you that a refraction is not an exam, and that a patient-held lens-flipper is not even a refraction. But let's not go crying to Uncle Sam (or the NY Board of Optometry) about the new kid on the block. Let's see what he has to offer, use what we can, and reject what is counterproductive. The market will reward the best ideas, and the world will continue to be a better place.
    Last edited by Jarhead Daddy; 05-01-2015 at 01:54 AM.

  11. #111
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead Daddy View Post
    I do not say that our fees are exorbitant. They are market rate, but the market is artificially inflated.

    Clinically, patients do not know what their Rx is and if a new Rx, cataract surgery, other procedure might improve their VA. However, most sense when they are, and when they are not seeing well. Isn't that why you see many of your patients? You ask for chief complaint, and they say, "I just don't think I am seeing as well as when I first got these glasses."

    The law bars people from acquiring contact lenses without a current Rx from an Optometrist, MD, or LDO (in some states). Thus, the patient is coerced by force of law to pay for an exam if they need contact lenses. This creates artificial demand (demand that would not be there apart from the law). Because of this artificial demand, prices are higher.
    Our fees are based on market rates, but the market is inflated due to coercive laws.

    I completely agree with you that a refraction is not an exam, and that a patient-held lens-flipper is not even a refraction. But let's not go crying to Uncle Sam (or the NY Board of Optometry) about the new kid on the block. Let's see what he has to offer, use what we can, and reject what is counterproductive. The market will reward the best ideas, and the world will continue to be a better place.
    I implore you to please reread whatever econ book you have.
    I believe you will find that medical services are exempt from supply/demand shifts.

    As for patients knowing when their VA has decreased, I will challenge that.
    I would also suggest you ask your optometrist why annual eye exams are so important(not just refractions).

    The law protects people from purchasing contacts without an annual exam, as wearing contacts without yearly exams can cause permanent damage to the cornea among other things, like infection.
    Contacts are almost never "needed" 99% of the time, glasses are enough to treat ametropia.


    This isn't about crying to anyone, this almost goes against everything practically every medical board stands for.
    Protecting the public by ensuring only licensed/trained professionals deal with patient care.

    What will they offer next? mobile "examineers" with ipads and webmd apps, and a 2 min facetime with a physician to refill hydrocodone?

    edit:
    I'd also like to mention that nothing they are doing is anything "innovative" or "revolutionary"
    The technology has been around for at least 5-10 years.
    This is pure marketing and clever wording to side step the law.

    no different than this situation, except being implemented by optometrists/marketing instead of an optician
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...scribe-Glasses
    Last edited by ml43; 05-01-2015 at 02:41 AM.

  12. #112
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    199
    Not going to go line-by-line to refute every point you made, but I will hit the big ones:
    I don't fear technology. Just because some labor has feared some technology does not mean all labor fears all technology. I learn from history and see what ridiculous entities are allowed to operate online to the detriment of patients' health. If you have any experience with 1800-CONTACTS you know that they operate out of spite and create burdens specifically designed to reduce verification denials.
    Also, it's not just an issue of fraud, but the very nature of giving out prescriptions or eye wear that are not within acceptable margins of their actual prescription is fraud, the same way putting horse meat into beef is fraud. Sure, they both may or may not actual harm, yet we understand that lack of harm is not a justifiable standard for regulations.
    If you don't agree that our fees are exorbitant, then you may want to edit your post where you say you agree with the patients' perspective, which included our fees being "exorbitant".

    Is the world a "better place" with online sales? Of course not. Like I said early on, people don't make the best choices, like when TV dinners and other pre-cooked food came out. Cheap and convenient and now we are suffering from all kinds of maladies related to nutrition and metabolic disorders. There are some areas where the consumer has no business having complete control. Oh you'll say "why not? America and personal freedom and liberty" and I agree in many cases, but you have to exert wisdom and realize that not every single aspect is subject to this standard, especially when the impact is not isolated to the "free" individual. We all pay for people's bad decisions all the time. Why take a wait-and-see approach with things like this? Do you have to touch the stove every time to see if it burns?
    Last edited by Tigerclaw; 05-01-2015 at 04:37 PM.

  13. #113
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by ml43 View Post
    I implore you to please reread whatever econ book you have.
    I believe you will find that medical services are exempt from supply/demand shifts.
    Are we exempt from gravity as well? Just because some textbooks wish a particular industry is exempt does not make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by ml43
    As for patients knowing when their VA has decreased, I will challenge that.
    I would also suggest you ask your optometrist why annual eye exams are so important(not just refractions).
    Again, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I believe in annual eye exams (not Blink exams).

    Quote Originally Posted by ml43
    The law protects people from purchasing contacts without an annual exam, as wearing contacts without yearly exams can cause permanent damage to the cornea among other things, like infection.
    Contacts are almost never "needed" 99% of the time, glasses are enough to treat ametropia.
    If they are wearing according to instructions, and if they are exercising good hygiene, the threat is very minimal (especially if they have a long history of uneventful wear). Also, most patients will self-report a problem before it gets out of hand. I think you are being overly-alarmist here.


    Quote Originally Posted by ml43
    This isn't about crying to anyone, this almost goes against everything practically every medical board stands for.
    Protecting the public by ensuring only licensed/trained professionals deal with patient care.
    It is about control. Who should control the patient's eyes? I say the patient, and I would advise (not demand) an annual comprehensive eye exam with a qualified optometrist.

    Quote Originally Posted by ml43
    What will they offer next? mobile "examineers" with ipads and webmd apps, and a 2 min facetime with a physician to refill hydrocodone?
    I can't wait to see what they offer next! It may be a game-changing technology that is more mobile, more efficient, more effective, more economical, etc. Downside? It may put a few of us out of business. But I would gladly seek new work if a system were devised to eliminate the need for eyeglasses and contact lenses in the world. Go progress!

    Quote Originally Posted by ml43
    edit:
    I'd also like to mention that nothing they are doing is anything "innovative" or "revolutionary"
    The technology has been around for at least 5-10 years.
    This is pure marketing and clever wording to side step the law.

    no different than this situation, except being implemented by optometrists/marketing instead of an optician
    http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...scribe-Glasses
    Agreed.

  14. #114
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Fayetteville, NC, USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    2,009
    Jarhead......I know where you are coming from, brother, but patients do not have the background and understanding needed to make some of these decisions. That is why we have ODs and Opticians to write and fill Rxs. My only issue here is that we immediately threw water on this new technology without fully understanding how it might be used.

  15. #115
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Drk
    I would respectfully submit that refractive findings...even plano...are important to write out in tge current age of anywhere fulfillment.

  16. #116
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Could you give me a more concrete example as to why you think so? Maybe I'll better understand your perspective.

  17. #117
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by wmcdonald View Post
    Most ODs do not hire anyone trained, and pay the lowest salaries in the industry......as reported by most salary surveys historically. Read the local want ads.......no experience necessary, will train. And even worse, they often leave the office and allow these "trained" folks to dispense eyewear to the public. It should be illegal. So do not sit on any high horse when it comes to ODs and their relationship with Opticians. You have done all you can do for as long as I have been involved in this industry to hold Opticians back. Now I understand your point quite well, but do not get on this board and talk about how ODs show benevolence to us poor Opticians.......it just isn't so!
    If you think hiring someone with experience is expensive wait till you hire an amateur.

  18. #118
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    188
    Well said, EyeSore. BTW, I work for an Optometrist who employs two licensed opticians (even though he does not have to). He is sending an apprentice through college (Associates in Ophthalmic Dispensing) as well.

  19. #119
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead Daddy View Post
    Are we exempt from gravity as well? Just because some textbooks wish a particular industry is exempt does not make it so.


    It is about control. Who should control the patient's eyes? I say the patient, and I would advise (not demand) an annual comprehensive eye exam with a qualified optometrist.

    I can't wait to see what they offer next! It may be a game-changing technology that is more mobile, more efficient, more effective, more economical, etc. Downside? It may put a few of us out of business. But I would gladly seek new work if a system were devised to eliminate the need for eyeglasses and contact lenses in the world. Go progress!
    if you don't understand economic theory and the rules that govern them then there's no reason in debating over an economic thoery.

    there's a lot of complex math that goes into formulating supply/demand curves, and the proof is implicit. Meaning, if certain given conditions aren't met, then the whole proof falls apart. This is part of the reason why medical services do not follow supply and demand curves. Because the given assumptions driving the proof do not hold true for the healthcare/medical services market.


    it's not about control, it's about liability.
    no one is twisting the patients arm to see anyone or buy anything.

    however, would you not agree that an incorrect rx can do just as much harm, if not more harm than no rx at all?
    again, liability.


    and again, you and I have quite different definitions of progress.
    I see progress as the whole industry moving forward and everyone in that industry more educated and better trained.

    This "technological progress" you seem to believe in would put a lot of skilled workers out of jobs, and the money into a small handful of corporations.

    if that's what you want/believe in, fine.
    but don't expect the rest of us to jump into your boat while it sinks and smile the whole way down.

  20. #120
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Barry Santini's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Seaford, NY USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    6,008
    Quote Originally Posted by drk View Post
    Could you give me a more concrete example as to why you think so? Maybe I'll better understand your perspective.
    Ex: "your eyes are fine. You don't need glasses!"

    But the have a small refractive error as noted above.

    Try doing the following:

    1. Finding a sunglass they can see through, but is dark for glare
    2. Fit them with an OTC
    3. Fit them with a (Plano?) /reading add bifocal, or worse, progressive
    4. Explain why they get headaches after wearing "any" sunglasses rather than none.

    List goes on. Ditto for small monocular changes not "prescribed"

    b

  21. #121
    OptiBoard Professional OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    188
    ML43, I suppose "it's only you and me, and we just disagree." Peace to you.

  22. #122
    OptiWizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    California
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhead Daddy View Post
    ML43, I suppose "it's only you and me, and we just disagree." Peace to you.
    I am fine with different opinions,

    I'm not ok with bad logic and misinformation.

    If you are going to use economic theories to basically call doctors ripoffs and scam artists, please use the right ones.
    I will gladly PM you a simple and elegant proof of supply and demand curves. As long as you understand basic calculus, you'll easily see why they don't apply to healthcare, and that they stand on a poor leg as it is.

  23. #123
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Seattle
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Santini View Post
    Not at all. Do NOT tell me that mild ametropia...say up to 0.50D SPH and/or Cyl, is NOT routinely "prescribed", i.e., "your eyes are fine...healthy."

    Yet I chase my tale with suns that "impact their vision."

    BULL****!

    You are refracting them...And collecting a co-pay for such. Everyone deserves their findings.

    If we did the optical thing in general medicine, then when someone's "numbers" were normal, we simply wouldn't tell them.

    B
    Barry,
    Is what you're asking for is, for a lack of a better term, a more comprehensive eye exam? If so, I agree with you. I can't see why new tests couldn't be developed to test the benefits (and necessity) of tints and what not.

    Drk, your old west story is wonderful. Thanks for brightening my Saturday up.

  24. #124
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12
    Jarhead Daddy, you are exhausting, man. I wish I could assume patient compliance and self education, that would have made the past 14 years of my life so much easier.

    The fact is the VAST majority of patients I have seen (chances are that we have ALL seen) know next to nothing about how their lenses work in the most basic sense. People routinely do not understand how vision quality changes over time and even with annual comprehensive exams they forget the value of sunglasses year to year (and living in AZ the sun is a constant concern).

    People cannot be trusted with their own health, American culture and history proves that to be true. Americans in particular have very little respect for the value of their vision, until it is too late. I've had people select a designer frame with a high price tag over quality lenses and AR countless times.

    Providing Americans a service that equates to McDonalds in regards to eyecare is less "disruptive" and more destructive to the public perception of the importance of quality care.
    I have a website. I post stuff there. Some people think it is cool.

  25. #125
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12
    I wrote an article about EyeNetra and Blink a little while back that can be found here.

    The article will be picked up by a national optical blog on the 9th and they have requested I write a follow-up exploring VSP's involvement in the project. I am in communication with a PR person for VSP to get more information and answers from them. I am also in communication with someone at Blink trying to get some sort of meaningful response to my original article.

    If anyone feels inclined to read what I have written and comment, I am excited to discuss it.
    I have a website. I post stuff there. Some people think it is cool.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Is this legal
    By lab fly in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-13-2008, 07:44 AM
  2. legal or not
    By singlemalt in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 06:52 AM
  3. Is this even legal?
    By OptiAssistant in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-21-2008, 09:32 PM
  4. When is it legal?
    By Snitgirl in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-09-2007, 08:08 PM
  5. IS THIS LEGAL ???
    By harry a saake in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-24-2001, 09:26 PM

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
  •