Contact Lens Cost Cutting article discussion

Engadine

I've been using Daysoft lenses for the last couple of years, find them a lot more comfortable than the Acuve ones I used previously. Currently a 2 month supply of lenses is £19.96

nedmundo

Folks might find the below article interesting. The same rules apply to both Opticians and supply only firms. Those that are prepared to break the rules are only after the sales and not looking out for patients best interests - best avoided.

Vision Direct fined over illegal CL sales

A judge has ordered Vision Direct to pay over £60,000 after the General Optical Council achieved a successful prosecution against the company for illegal sales of contact lenses.

As reported on the Optician website last Tuesday, Vision Direct pleaded guilty to six offences of selling CLs without a valid specification and without the supervision of a registered doctor or optician at the September 3 hearing at Hendon Magistrates Court.

Sale and supply of optical appliances are regulated under the Opticians Act.

The charges dated back to 2007 when GOC solicitors carried out test purchases.

The company was fined £600 for each offence – a total of £21,600 – and ordered to pay the Council’s legal costs of £39,296.

Passing the sentence the district judge said: ‘This is important legislation, which has the protection of the general public at heart. The defendants appear to have paid only lip service to the legislation and to the duty of care that they owed to members of the public.’

Welcoming the judgement, acting chief executive, Dian Taylor said: ‘This is a significant result for the Council. The law is designed to protect consumers from eye health problems by ensuring that qualified professionals are involved in prescribing and selling contact lenses. We will continue to take action in the interest of public safety against companies who breach those rules.

‘The GOC is currently investigating other alleged offences and will not hesitate to bring further prosecutions in the criminal courts should it be necessary.’ Taylor added that she, ‘would urge all other online retailers to ensure that their processes are compliant with the legislation.’

BCLA president Sarah Janikoun also welcomed the verdict and urged optical professionals to report suppliers who they believe are acting outside the law. ‘This ruling is reassuring proof of the teeth of the Act in place to protect the public from the dispensing of incorrect or inappropriate contact lenses. Contact lens wearers and practitioners must be vigilant of contact lens suppliers who do not request a proper contact lens specification from a qualified practitioner, since lenses that are not as the practitioner prescribed can cause visual and ocular problems. The requirement for supervision of some contact lens sales is another measure put in place to protect the public. We should all be ready to report any suppliers we fear are not acting within the law so that the GOC can investigate,’ she said.

nedmundo

treliac wrote: »

I have never had the material specified on my prescription ned. Is it specific problems with materials causing harm that you have seen or poor wearing schedules by those adversely affected, do you think?

Manifestly unsuitable materials would not be on the market and, hey, I'm not advocating people should self prescribe beyond making informed decisions for themselves, having been tested, fitted and advised by a properly qualified optician.

Virtually every particular brand of lens is a specific different material. Therefore, the material is specified by the brand of lens. There isn't one material that will be suitable for everybodies eyes. That doesn't mean that the material is not suitable.
The different properties of materials include oxygen permeability, flexability, wetting and susceptibility to dehydration & deposits. Also, it is worth remembering that the base curve represents only the central few mm of the back surface. What happens between that zone and the lens edge is a complex mathematical parabolar curve, of which every manufacture has their own version.

You can not take one lens and consider that it will be equivalent to a different brand with a similar spec - there are just too many variables in practice.

Hope that helps.

Movado

Being a contact lens wearer and one not to over spend on contact lenses, I read this internet web with interest.

Let me say from the start that while I purchased my contact lenses from my Optician he hardly did checked ups.

He had no problems selling me contact lenses and the front desk where I collected never took control of the supply!

When I started buying contact lenses from the Internet I saved loads of money and I still control my check-ups regularly. Certainly better than my optician did!

I think any action the GOC take is protecting the interests of the Opticians far more than the public: I bet they make their money from Opticians!
Have you ever seen check ups done on zero power contact lenses? Do we live in a nanny state?

nedmundo

Movado wrote: »

Being a contact lens wearer and one not to over spend on contact lenses, I read this internet web with interest.

Let me say from the start that while I purchased my contact lenses from my Optician he hardly did checked ups.

He had no problems selling me contact lenses and the front desk where I collected never took control of the supply!

When I started buying contact lenses from the Internet I saved loads of money and I still control my check-ups regularly. Certainly better than my optician did!

I think any action the GOC take is protecting the interests of the Opticians far more than the public: I bet they make their money from Opticians!
Have you ever seen check ups done on zero power contact lenses? Do we live in a nanny state?

Thanks for joing in Movado and welcome to the forum. You shouldn't let your experience with one particular Optician shouldn't tarnish your opinion of the profession as a whole.

No one here is against ordering lenses off the internet to save money - I do it with electronics and CDs etc.

What we're discussing is self prescribing. If there are companies prepared to supply lenses without an up date specification or lenses which are not to the exact spec prescribed, what's to stop anybody ordering something that could potentially harm their eyes? Why would anyone break the rules and supply if it isn't to make extra sales?

The GOC is the regulatory body, registration with which is a legal requirement for anyone to practice in the UK. Therefore, they get their income irrespective of their actions. They are very much there to protect the public safety and will gladly make an example of any practioner or company (normally practitioners as there are more of us) who flouts the rules governing eye examinations and sale/dispensing of optical appliances.

Hope that clarifies things. Glad you have regular checks BTW - I wish everyone did, it would save a lot of messy situations.

Movado

I didn’t really want to get into a heated discussion. I read your reply and of course agree that the health of your eyes are the most important issue far more than saving money on contact lenses. However I read into the GOC and I found out that I was correct in saying that they get their money from opticians! So don’t you think it’s a double standard or edged sword here? How can we be sure that they truly act in all the correct interests? Furthermore if I lie to my Doctor I can also get things prescribed that aren’t necessary ? I take better care of my eyes now since I save money- more than I did before – and I was more likely in the old days to stretch it out with lenses since my optician ripped me off!

treliac

Well said Movado. Spot on

nedmundo

Movado wrote: »

I didn’t really want to get into a heated discussion. I read your reply and of course agree that the health of your eyes are the most important issue far more than saving money on contact lenses. However I read into the GOC and I found out that I was correct in saying that they get their money from opticians! So don’t you think it’s a double standard or edged sword here? How can we be sure that they truly act in all the correct interests? Furthermore if I lie to my Doctor I can also get things prescribed that aren’t necessary ? I take better care of my eyes now since I save money- more than I did before – and I was more likely in the old days to stretch it out with lenses since my optician ripped me off!

You obviously didn't read my reply or at least you failed to understand it. Registration (with a fee payable, by which the GOC derives it's income) is a legal requirement for all Opticians and all companies involved within optics - including those that supply optical appliances. Therefore, the GOC has no vested interest in the Opticians cause. It get's it's income irrespective of it's actions.

It's a bit like saying that the Police won't act against you (should you commit a criminal offence), because they are funded by you paying your council tax!

nedmundo

treliac wrote: »

Well said Movado. Spot on

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing Treliac - you being a prime example! You see fit to comment on something, of which you have no knowledge (brands and materials for starters). You only see it from a conusmer perspective (which isn't always the correct one), because that suits your misguided opinion that all Opticians are out to rip off the poor hard working consumer - wrong!
If you saw the mess I had to pick up from a self prescriber earlier - you would think differently.

The reason I take part on these forums is to try and put a bit of balance to the threads and hopefully to stop misinformed posts like your own from influencing someone else into doing their eyes a great harm!

nedmundo

Here's some more bed time reading!

News


12 September 2008

Spectacle prescriptions main cause of concern
Despite an overall increase in the number of complaints against practitioners in the past year, less than 1 per cent of opticians were the subject of a fitness to practise complaint, according to the latest figures from the GOC.
The data published in the 2007/8 report also revealed that the overall rise in the number of complaints follows decreases for the past two years. In total, 13 per cent of all complaints resulted in a referral to a formal public hearing. According to the GOC figures, in total 172 fitness to practise complaints were received in 2007/8. Optometrists were the subject of complaint in 69 per cent of cases. The remainder related to dispensing opticians (15 per cent), student registrants (4 per cent) and bodies corporate (4 per cent).
GOC data also revealed that spectacle prescriptions were among the public's main concerns, accounting for nearly 28 per cent of complaints received. Clinical issues also featured highly, including complaints relating to the treatment and detection of eye conditions such as cataracts and macular degeneration.
Commenting on the publication of the annual report, GOC chairman, Rosie Varley, said: 'The overwhelming majority of our registrants continue to maintain high standards of conduct and clinical competence. In the small number of cases where there are problems, the GOC works hard to implement FTP procedures that are fair, transparent and proportionate, from receipt of the complaint right through to its conclusion. Our work over the past year demonstrates our commitment to delivering effective public protection that also inspires the confidence of the eye care professionals we regulate.'
The annual report includes an update on the current CET cycle. Figures show at the half-way point of the current cycle, optometrists have earned an average 29 points each, with contact lens opticians clocking up 26 points and dispensing opticians 21 points each.
The report also features registration figures. These reveal that both optometry and dispensing optics continue to attract a growing number of trainees. The overall intake of students to all GOC-approved courses in optometry and dispensing optics increased by 3 per cent last year, from 4,166 to 4,289.