Vision Express eye photo: useful or a gimmick

nedmundo

For starters, the most thorough way of detecting any eye desease is by looking directly at/into the eyes. Imaging only really helps to monitor images over time. The only reason it is used for diabetic screening is because it is a way of achieving mass examinations, where all the images taken that day are 'graded' by an Ophthalmologist or more realistically a non-clinical trained 'grader'. It is also offered as a way of educating/inforimg patients.

I think you have got it the wrong way round. 'Expensive' glasses are sold to subsidise expensive eye examinations. Historically, this has its roots in the NHS, where they have always payed a pitiful amount for the eye exam, citing that it can be subsised by dispensing. That's effectively a stealth tax - not very ethical either is it?

Yes, some places offer free tests as a loss leader - that's because 1. they're desperate and 2. they're big companies run by marketing/retail directors, who have no idea of the damage that they are doing to this profession.

You only have to see the threads on this forum to see how poorly the public value an eye examination.

keelykat

Hi- i think its unfair to charge so much to be honest, as not everyone can afford this extra. As my eye sight is pretty bad-i have to go for regular eye tests and have to wear glasses all day every day, and already pay enough for standard eye tests and then theres my glasses and lenses too.

But to be honest-i have no complaints about the eye tests i do have already, they usually are very thorough and i ask plenty of questions about whats going on and theyve picked up on two problems with my eyes.

I thought they tested for glaucoma with that puff of air thing-sorry dont know the name for it?

And dont blood tests pick up on things like diabetes?

I do reckon that more people should go and get their eyes tested though-as you may have other problems other then poor eye sight.

keely.

Running_Horse

Do opticians want to be regarded as professionals or merchants?

If I went to my GP with an ailment and was given the choice of two standards of examination, dependent on ability to pay, I would conclude he was a money grubbing charlatan. If he failed to diagnose my illness because I could not afford the better examination, I would conclude he should be struck off.

moneysaver12

i thought that opticians could see things like glaucoma, when they just looked in to your eyes, i have to have this checked when i go for a eye test as my mum has glaucoma and she is only 47

nedmundo

moneysaver12 wrote: »

i thought that opticians could see things like glaucoma, when they just looked in to your eyes, i have to have this checked when i go for a eye test as my mum has glaucoma and she is only 47

That's just what I was trying to say. Imaging is an optional extra and not an essential. If it was, there would be a legal requirement for all opticians to perform it on everyone.

Running Horse - why shouldn't extra services beyond what is necessary be offered?

Running_Horse

nedmundo wrote: »

That's just what I was trying to say. Imaging is an optional extra and not an essential. If it was, there would be a legal requirement for all opticians to perform it on everyone.

Running Horse - why shouldn't extra services beyond what is necessary be offered?

If its not essential (or necessary) then you shouldn't be trying to scare a captive audience into paying another £10. If it is a useful service then it should be part of the eye examination, not gathering dust in the corner because the patient cannot afford it.

Its like Boots Opticians trying to flog insurance at the end of the dispense, to someone who is probably already covered on their household policy (but thats just another multiple rip-off). Or like doubling the profit margin by selling a hardcoat regardless of need.

I am the first to defend opticians against the easy charge of being greedy, but sometimes they really do not help their own cause. Having spent 20+ years in every branch of the industry I have known some great professionals, but have also known some real chancers who only cared about the next till read, or their dispensing bonus.

lolly5648

I don't think opticians are trying to scare people they are just offering additional services for peace of mind. It is like people paying for a BUPA healthcheck. They could go to their GP and get blood tests etc but a lot of people think it is worth paying the extra for reassurance that there is nothing wrong with them rather than waiting for symptoms to occur.

nedmundo

Running_Horse wrote: »

If its not essential (or necessary) then you shouldn't be trying to scare a captive audience into paying another £10. If it is a useful service then it should be part of the eye examination, not gathering dust in the corner because the patient cannot afford it.

Its like Boots Opticians trying to flog insurance at the end of the dispense, to someone who is probably already covered on their household policy (but thats just another multiple rip-off). Or like doubling the profit margin by selling a hardcoat regardless of need.

I am the first to defend opticians against the easy charge of being greedy, but sometimes they really do not help their own cause. Having spent 20+ years in every branch of the industry I have known some great professionals, but have also known some real chancers who only cared about the next till read, or their dispensing bonus.

Easy tiger! No-one has mentioned scaring a captive audience into paying another £10! We're not all like the latter group you describe! For someone who has spent 20+ years in the industry, your comments are somewhat mis-informed. You will of course know all about the high overheads which come with performing eye examinations and high cost of state of the art gear like digital fundus imagings systems!

Just to run you through some figures (assume the average practice sees 1500 patients a year (excluding large multiples) and that a decent fundus camera costs £20,000. Also assume that it will depreciate at a rate of 50% per year).

If the service is offered to every patient and say a 3rd take it up - that generates 500 x £10 per year. So in the 1st year, the operating cost is £10,000 and the income generated is £5000. In the second year, the service breaks even. In the 3rd year it would make £2500 profit, after which time the unit would be upgraded as it is a very fast moving technology. Over 3 years, the service would make a loss of £2500. This is before other costs such as maintenance contracts come into place (approx £1000 per year).

So you will see that £10 is actually a bit of a bargain (and subsidised by the practice) and not a rip-off as you were very quick to proclaim.

How would you propose that the eye examination and any extra services are funded? It's a sad fact of life that everything costs money and that funding has to come from somehere. Unfortunately some have more money than others. In an ideal world, where everything is free or everyone is well off, it would be nice to provide the best of everything to everyone, including eyecare. However, unless we are in a communist state, some people will be better able to afford luxuries (such as imaging) than others. It doesn't mean that we should not offer it to everyone, does it?

For the record, my ideal would be NHS tests for everyone, properly funded so any extra equipment and tests are covered. This would in turn reduce the need for a cross-subsidy from dispensing optical appliances i.e specs and contact lenses and make it fair service to all.

But, this is England and not Scotland, so I don't hold out much hope!

nedmundo

The silence is deafening - funny how 'experts' go quiet when asked to provide a better solution.

Running_Horse

You still here? I gave my better solution, you just chose not listen.

Stop subsidising the eye examination with overpriced glasses. Does anyone seriously believe there is such a thign as a "free" sight test? Stop pretending you can buy one get one free. It devalues the service you offer to the public, and devalues your professional status.

The govenment will not pay for "free" NHS tests while opticians continue to act like del boys.