Bad D&A!

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

This may sound quite unbelieveable to you, but by the time overheads are taken into acccount, each appointment costs at least £30 to operate. A typical fitting will require an initial appointment to take measurements, discuss which modality of lens wear is most suitable, insert those lenses (if in stock on that day), review again after an hour or two and an instruction session for handling, cleaning etc. Usually a follow up appointment after a week or 10 days and again after 1 to 3 months are required to ensure the lenses worn are causing no adverse effects.

If you factor in the cost of the lenses and solutions and VAT, £90 for the 1st 3 months starts to look very reasonable to you and a loss making exercise to them, which is why most Opticians insist on minimum 12 months contract to cover the initial start up costs. Maybe then, they may even make a profit!

BTW, I ought say that I have no connection with D & A or any other Multiple company for that matter. I'm just trying to educate folks as to the realities of the true costs for the products/services which people seem to expect and not value very highly. I also ought to say that qualified Optometrists don't earn £40 per hour - if only!

you are correct - it is unbelievable. I have yet to meet a poor optician! Even if they were making a loss on the lenses (which I do not believe for one moment) they are more than compensating for that with the huge (in some cases apparently) 1000% profit they make from spectacles.

As I said, they are merely trying to prevent people from getting the benefit of going elsewhere and paying less.

nedmundo

"you are correct - it is unbelievable. I have yet to meet a poor optician! Even if they were making a loss on the lenses (which I do not believe for one moment) they are more than compensating for that with the huge (in some cases apparently) 1000% profit they make from spectacles.

As I said, they are merely trying to prevent people from getting the benefit of going elsewhere and paying less."


I think you have missed the point. The fitting of contact lenses is the loss making bit - not the supply. That's why Contact Lenses are more expensive than online sellers - to subsidise the the fitting procedure!

When an Optician hands out a contact lens specification for 6 or 12 months or whatever, they are liable for it. In other words, if your eyes suffered an adverse reaction as a result of wearing the lenses or if the prescription/fit altered, then it would be his/her responsibility. If you were fitting lenses, wouldn't you want to take the precaution of checking that everything was fine after a reasonable period of wear before you dished out the spec - I certainly do!

So if everyone gets the lenses and specs online what happens? - you either pays the correct fees for eye exams and contact lens services to cover time, equipment, staff and other overheads or there would be no one to do it. You can't have it both ways.

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

"you are correct - it is unbelievable. I have yet to meet a poor optician! Even if they were making a loss on the lenses (which I do not believe for one moment) they are more than compensating for that with the huge (in some cases apparently) 1000% profit they make from spectacles.

As I said, they are merely trying to prevent people from getting the benefit of going elsewhere and paying less."


I think you have missed the point. The fitting of contact lenses is the loss making bit - not the supply. That's why Contact Lenses are more expensive than online sellers - to subsidise the the fitting procedure!

quote]


I don't agree with you. I suspect they make a huge profit from charging £30 - £35 per month for the lenses. They are certainly not doing it for charity, of course they make a profit from the lenses.

nedmundo

I still think you're missing the point.

I understand how it appears to the lay observer but-

You are thinking in terms of gross profit (i.e. mark-up) whereas what is realistic is net profit (after operating costs are taken into account). The practice costs are massive, whereas an online retailer can literally operate out of a lock-up. The difference in overheads is huge - hence the diffference in prices.

If a contact lens wearer has their lenses fitted and lenses supplied for 12 months @ £30 per month, then yes, after all the costs are taken into account - a profit is made. If that contact lens wearer has their lenses fitted and supplied for 3 months @ £30 per month and then leaves to obtain their lenses elsewhere, the company makes a loss. It is relying on enough people not leaving after 3 months to make it worth their while!


BTW, what lenses are you using, which cost £30-£35 per month?

BBTW, do you now understand the retionale behind not releasing the specifications for 3 months?

gregg1

nedmundo wrote: »

I still think you're missing the point.

I understand how it appears to the lay observer but-



BTW, what lenses are you using, which cost £30-£35 per month?

BBTW, do you now understand the retionale behind not releasing the specifications for 3 months?

Of course I understand the rationale behind not releasing the specifications for 3 months - to tie people in to an expensive contract and stopping them from going elsewhere and paying less. If you have no connection to these companies where are you getting your information from? Just curious.

Anyway, fyi, my lenses are soft toric and cost £35 per month from one of the big opticians. I could get the same lenses online for £10 per month so yes, even taking into account "overheads", I do feel that I am being ripped off!

We are not going to agree on this so maybe we should leave it at that.

nedmundo

You've just reinforced my argument. Three months at £25 minimum gross profit virtually covers the fitting costs!

I have no connection with these companies but have worked for most of them at some stage over the years. I currently have 2 part time positions with independents and sit on a PCT committee the rest of the time. I also help cover managerial duties when practice proprietors have holidays, so become involved in the management/financial side then. Personally, I'd rather concentrate on clinical issues at work, but due to my experience, end up becoming involved as a problem solver.

olly300

EvilBoris wrote: »

It might seem like they are ripping you off asking you to come back for a 3 month check and pay £30 a month, but the direct debit scheme they offer is 100% free of contractual obligation, it can be cancelled or suspended at any time and whilst you are on the scheme (either actively paying you DD or even with the scheme suspended), you are entitled to unlimited free checks.

D&A may not do this but quite a few chain opticians now sign you up for a year on their direct debit scheme. If you refuse to pay or cancel the direct debit then they chase you for breach of contract.

In addition D&A have always had a bad reputation on giving people their prescriptions even if they have happily worn contact lenses before prescripted from another optician. I was told from when I first thought of getting contact lense NEVER to go to D&A.

I've had contact lense tests from other opticians and none of them charge £90 for the check up and trial lenses, which means they are all making a loss.

I use to wear gas permeable lenses and my lenses, fitting fee and check up cost £200 and when I went back for my annual check up, they use to tell me that I didn't need to buy new lenses for at least 2 years. There as my friend (until I told her to go to my optician who was the same as 2 relations of mine) was informed by an optician at D&A to buy new lenses every year.

nedmundo

I think you are referring to just one local branch. You cant' tar all branches with the same brush unless you can back it up.

If you've been to other opticians, surely they have either charged you per appointment or had a minimum period of contact lens supply to cover their costs. Otherwise, they are making a loss.


On the subject of replacing RGP lenses, occasionally I will see a patient with lenses 5 years or older, which are still in pristine condition and therefore do not need replacing. Others are susceptible to more deposits or the lens material is susceptible to more wear & tear - i.e scratches and therefore do need to change theie lenses every year - it's impossible to generalise and draw conclusions.

Different practitioners will have different experiences and ideas. It doesn't automatically mean that one is wrong.

olly300

nedmundo wrote: »

I think you are referring to just one local branch. You cant' tar all branches with the same brush unless you can back it up.

If you've been to other opticians, surely they have either charged you per appointment or had a minimum period of contact lens supply to cover their costs. Otherwise, they are making a loss.

I repeat myself NONE of them have charged me £90 for a trial of toric soft contact lenses and check ups. This means all of them are making a loss.

And the experience with D&A involved 3 branches, one of which was in a completely different area of the country.

D&A are pants for contact lenses.

nedmundo

"I repeat myself NONE of them have charged me £90 for a trial of toric soft contact lenses and check ups. This means all of them are making a loss.

And the experience with D&A involved 3 branches, one of which was in a completely different area of the country."


So what were you charged and what was the minimum tie-in period? I presume they didn't do for free did they?