# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  What do opticians hope to achieve by having a working OD in the optical store?

## gochi

Curious about this, since OD's can start up there own practice or work for an OMD, thus practicing mostly medical optometry, what would entice an OD to work primarily in a Optical?

----------


## rbaker

[QUOTE=gochi;360575]What do opticians hope to achieve by having a working OD in the optical store?
QUOTE]

Increased sales. You need a hired gun to churn out those Rx's.




> Curious about this, since OD's can start up there own practice or work for an OMD, thus practicing mostly medical optometry, what would entice an OD to work primarily in a Optical?


In todays eyecare marketplace most OD's can't start a practice that will offer them a good living so its far easier for them to either work for a chain store or carpet bag.

----------


## Johns

> Curious about this, since OD's can start up there own practice or work for an OMD, thus practicing mostly medical optometry, what would entice an OD to work primarily in a Optical?


$$...

----------


## uncut

Perhaps it is the quest of reliable, error-free, expedient, editorial-free prescriptions at a reasonable price,....... for the clients of the dispensary?

----------


## gochi

So the general consensus seems to be more revenue for the optical store.

But doesn't that revenue go to the OD? I mean, wouldn't an OD bring in more patients (for which he/she benefits from)?

I'd imagine it would be better for the optical to hire additional staff rather than an OD who would probably cost near the six figure range. 

2 opticians, 1 tech, 2 sales people IMO would be better than just 1 optician and 1 OD, if you're talking about the dollar.

----------


## DanLiv

> Increased sales. You need a hired gun to churn out those Rx's.


Yes, this is the only reason for an optical to hire an OD. 

If someone shops your optical and likes the stuff but doesn't have an Rx, and you don't provide exams, they have to go somewhere else to get one. The moment they leave your optical they are fair game for the OD they see and any other optical that catches their eye along the way. If someone shops you and likes your stuff but needs an Rx, and you have a mercenary OD in the back ready to do the exam and hand the patient right back to you, you dramatically increase capture. And even patient satisfaction because of the convenience for them.

Most ODs have their own associated opticals and are in the business of providing eyewear for their patients, or at least delivering them right into the waiting arms of an associated retail optical. If you don't offer exams you are in the business of relying upon failed captures from other businesses rather than creating a complete customer.

It doesn't have to cost the optical much, either. Let the OD set up his own exam operation at his expense and keep all exam profits. The optical drives patients in for exams, the OD drives patients back to the optical after the exam. No reason I know of that private opticals and ODs can't set up and follow the retail partnership model, which I think is good for both.

----------


## gochi

> Yes, this is the only reason for an optical to hire an OD. 
> 
> If someone shops your optical and likes the stuff but doesn't have an Rx, and you don't provide exams, they have to go somewhere else to get one. The moment they leave your optical they are fair game for the OD they see and any other optical that catches their eye along the way. If someone shops you and likes your stuff but needs an Rx, and you have a mercenary OD in the back ready to do the exam and hand the patient right back to you, you dramatically increase capture. And even patient satisfaction because of the convenience for them.
> 
> Most ODs have their own associated opticals and are in the business of providing eyewear for their patients, or at least delivering them right into the waiting arms of an associated retail optical. If you don't offer exams you are in the business of relying upon failed captures from other businesses rather than creating a complete customer.
> 
> It doesn't have to cost the optical much, either. Let the OD set up his own exam operation at his expense and keep all exam profits. The optical drives patients in for exams, the OD drives patients back to the optical after the exam. No reason I know of that private opticals and ODs can't set up and follow the retail partnership model, which I think is good for both.


Why would the OD, essentially, help grown another optical/office, when he/she can grow there own? 

I'd have to say, if an OD is working for an optical, he should get more of the share, than just exam profits, as he/she is growing the optical.

----------


## rbaker

> Why would the OD, essentially, help grown another optical/office, when he/she can grow there own?


As Yogi Berra would say: "_If they could, they would_" however many OD's are not entrepreneurs and lack the balls to go into business for themselves. In fact, in todays economy and uncertain medical and business climate Ill bet that it would be next to impossible to capitalize a new optometric practice.

----------


## Johns

> Why would the OD, essentially, help grown another optical/office, when he/she can grow there own? 
> 
> I'd have to say, if an OD is working for an optical, he should get more of the share, than just exam profits, as he/she is growing the optical.


The OD (in my case) 


has NO investment in equipment
has NO rent
has No payroll expense
has No utilities to pay
has NO advertising expense
has NO equipment maintenance expense
has No inventory  
has No start-up costs

Now, please tell me why they would deserve any of the profits from the dispensary?   It's ironic how many ODs believe that they are the reason for the success of the dispensary, when in fact, often when they leave, the patients don't even realize that there is someone different examining them. It's not unusual for patients to know the name of the practice, but have no clue as to the name of the doctor.

Growing the optical?  I don't think so...

----------


## rbaker

> The OD (in my case) 
> 
> 
> has NO investment in equipment
> has NO rent
> has No payroll expense
> has No utilities to pay
> has NO advertising expense
> has NO equipment maintenance expense
> ...


Right on. There are also certain tax advantages particularly in the case of the customer who pays cash. Not to make any insinuations but a $50.00 cash payment in the hand is worth $200.00 in the insurance bush. How much is $100.00 under the table worth in todays economy?

----------


## gochi

> The OD (in my case) 
> 
> 
> has NO investment in equipment
> has NO rent
> has No payroll expense
> has No utilities to pay
> has NO advertising expense
> has NO equipment maintenance expense
> ...


The optician would have those expenses, anyways, regardless of the OD being there, so to say the OD shouldn't be paid anything more than just his/her exam fees, because of expenses the optician is responsible for, is moot.




> Now, please tell me why they would deserve any of the profits from the dispensary?   It's ironic how many ODs believe that they are the reason for the success of the dispensary, when in fact, often when they leave, the patients don't even realize that there is someone different examining them. It's not unusual for patients to know the name of the practice, but have no clue as to the name of the doctor.


The idea is, customers without prescriptions can obtain prescriptions which allows them to buy the correct glasses from YOUR optical. Without the prescription, the customer cannot buy glasses, thus you loose business. Since the OD is legally allowed to write the prescription, and that prescription helps your business, then logically, the OD should get a share of profits collected from dispensary, by the optical. Perhaps those patients who bought glasses from your optical may come back next year, which again is more $.

----------


## Oedema

> The optician would have those expenses, anyways, regardless of the OD being there, so to say the OD shouldn't be paid anything more than just his/her exam fees, because of expenses the optician is responsible for, is moot.
> 
> 
> 
> The idea is, customers without prescriptions can obtain prescriptions which allows them to buy the correct glasses from YOUR optical. Without the prescription, the customer cannot buy glasses, thus you loose business. Since the OD is legally allowed to write the prescription, and that prescription helps your business, then logically, the OD should get a share of profits collected from dispensary, by the optical. Perhaps those patients who bought glasses from your optical may come back next year, which again is more $.


 Why are you trying to rationalize any of this?  I already told you, optometry as a profession sucks, move on.

----------


## Johns

> The optician would have those expenses, anyways, regardless of the OD being there, so to say the OD shouldn't be paid anything more than just his/her exam fees, because of expenses the optician is responsible for, is moot.


Huh?

Why in the world would an optician have the expense of a lane, if there were no ODs on the premises?:hammer:
Why in the world would an optician have the expense of advertising an OD if there were no OD?:hammer:
Why in the world would an optician hire extra staff and install EMR software if there were no OD?:hammer:
Why in the world would an optician have the extra expense of more space (more rent) if there were no OD.:hammer:

One of my offices has no OD, and it is a 10X20 space, and the overhead (w/out the OD) is extremely low.  Why in the world would you think that an optician would have all the expenses that ODs bring, if they had no OD?:hammer:




> " Since the OD is legally allowed to write the prescription, and  that prescription helps your business, then logically, the OD should  get a share of profits collected from dispensary, by the optical.  Perhaps those patients who bought glasses from your optical may come  back next year, which again is more $.         "


News flash:  ODs do not have a monopoly on the Rx writing business.  Many of our patients are referred to us by MDs, IN SPITE of us have an OD on the premises.  Plus, another large percentage of our scripts come from ODs that have dispensaries, but don't have qualified opticians running them.  

An OD on premises is a convenience to the patient, to be sure, but to rate them anything more than a convenience would be a stretch.  I'm not bashing ODs, but if they had as much value to a practice as you seem to think, they would be able to demand the spoils you think they deserve, and so far, that hasn't been the case.  In fact, I've had ODs approach me that have offered me a cut of THEIR profits, because they know that there are many more like them out there, black bags in hand, looking for a turn-key location to ply their trade.

----------


## gochi

> Why are you trying to rationalize any of this?  I already told you, optometry as a profession sucks, move on.


Why does it suck? Its not the OD's fault that there are OMDS and OPTICIANS.

----------


## LandLord

If an OD wants to be my 50/50 business partner then he will have to put up 50% of the capital costs.  If not, he is simply an associate and should be happy using my basic equipment and getting free rent.

----------


## Johns

> Why does it suck? Its not the OD's fault that there are OMDS and OPTICIANS.


I don't think it sucks.  I think it's a very honorable profession.  I do, however, think that many ODs try to take the easy way out, but then want all the benefits as if they went the extra mile.

----------


## Bill West

> I don't think it sucks. I think it's a very honorable profession. I do, however, think that many ODs try to take the easy way out, but then want all the benefits as if they went the extra mile.


 
*  AMEN*, Brother

----------


## gochi

> I don't think it sucks.  I think it's a very honorable profession.  I do, however, think that many ODs try to take the easy way out, but then want all the benefits as if they went the extra mile.


I agree, but this is true of most people:bbg:

But, I do think you are drastically devaluing the qualifications and services of the OD, and how both of these collectively, can mature an optical quite nicely.

----------


## gochi

> Huh?
> 
> Why in the world would an optician have the expense of a lane, if there were no ODs on the premises?:hammer:
> Why in the world would an optician have the expense of advertising an OD if there were no OD?:hammer:
> Why in the world would an optician hire extra staff and install EMR software if there were no OD?:hammer:
> Why in the world would an optician have the extra expense of more space (more rent) if there were no OD.:hammer:
> 
> One of my offices has no OD, and it is a 10X20 space, and the overhead (w/out the OD) is extremely low.  Why in the world would you think that an optician would have all the expenses that ODs bring, if they had no OD?:hammer:
> 
> ...


What I meant was, if an optical HAS room for an OD, then its at no large cost to them, besides the equipment, which can be negotiated I suppose with the OD. Not many opticians would go out of there way to make room for the OD, unless they would benefit extremely well by having the OD in office.

Not sure why MDs would refer patients, which then become CUSTOMERs, to an optical, when a health professional such as an OD or an OMD should be doing the job. Thats quite absurd. Seems like the MDs/OMDs have something against the OD's?

----------


## gochi

Why would an OD want only 50% share of profits, when he can generate the equivalent of 100% of profits the optical collects without him? This is a legit question, I have on idea where you came up with 50/50. 

50/50 would work if there were two ODs working together.

----------


## Johns

> Not sure why MDs would refer patients, which then become CUSTOMERs, to an optical, when a health professional such as an OD or an OMD should be doing the job.


It's a very difficult concept to comprehend, and I'm not at all surprised at your inability to grasp it. The type of "other eyecare related field" worker you are may have some bearing on this.

----------


## Johns

> Why would an OD want only 50% share of profits, when he can generate the equivalent of 100% of profits the optical collects without him? This is a legit question, I have on idea where you came up with 50/50. 
> 
> 50/50 would work if there were two ODs working together.


I believe that the 50% was based on how much capital was put up front.  When no capital (as is usually the case) is put up, then the OD (in my office) gets the fee for the service they have provided.

----------


## gochi

> It's a very difficult concept to comprehend, and I'm not at all surprised at your inability to grasp it. The type of "other eyecare related field" worker you are may have some bearing on this.


Yes, illogical concepts are difficult to understand. When patients are treated as customers, something is VERY wrong. But, I suppose opticians CHOOSE not to care, because they are primary eye care providers.

----------


## LandLord

> When patients are treated as customers, something is VERY wrong. But, I suppose opticians CHOOSE not to care, because they are primary eye care providers.


you sound a bit naive.  If more patients were treated as customers, eyecare would be greatly improved!!!!!!!

----------


## kws6000

I dont think its reasonable to expect opticians to give OD's working there a piece of the action,if they  have no overhead and are getting all of their fees...and havent bought in...

----------


## design786

> I dont think its reasonable to expect opticians to give OD's working there a piece of the action,if they  have no overhead and are getting all of their fees...and havent bought in...


I have to sort of agree with the OP. The optometrist is bringing in business for the optician - by referring patients to the optician - so, I imagine the optometrist should be compensated for that, even if the compensation is low.

I have a couple of associates, and they receive a base pay + 21% of anything they sell or service. So if associate A sells a pair of 300 dollar glasses, they receive 21% of that amount. Without that associate, I would not be able to sell the $300 glasses to a patient and thus would not be making any profit on those glasses.

----------


## kws6000

But I bet the base pay isnt 100% of the exam fees....

----------


## Johns

> I have a couple of associates, and they receive a base pay + 21% of anything they sell or service. So if associate A sells a pair of 300 dollar glasses, they receive 21% of that amount. Without that associate, I would not be able to sell the $300 glasses to a patient and thus would not be making any profit on those glasses.


It wouldn't fly in my place.  I can't think of a more unethical arrangement.  Do the doctors in Canada also get kickbacks from the pharmacies, if the pharmacy is located in the hospital?

----------


## LandLord

Gochi has obviously never been in the optical business.  The optometrist DOES get compensated for bringing in patients.  Free rent, free equipment, free staff.  These things have a substantial monetary value.

Having an optometrists license doesn't bring patients to an office.  Marketing does that.  Optometrists are not marketing experts.

----------


## uncut

IMO, everyone....gochi stands for GOCHINA, and the *lack* of comprehension, the *odd* questions, and posts *that are illogical,* is the spawn of someone in a foreign country, with a *slight* grasp of the english language, and *faint* understanding of the laws, rules, and regulations of the optical industry as a whole, in North America.

----------


## gochi

see below

----------


## gochi

> Gochi has obviously never been in the optical business. The optometrist DOES get compensated for bringing in patients. Free rent, free equipment, free staff. These things have a substantial monetary value.
> 
> Having an optometrists license doesn't bring patients to an office. Marketing does that. Optometrists are not marketing experts.



If that is the case, would you still hire an OD who sends all his patients who want to buy glasses and contacts to the optical next door? 

By the way, optometrists are themselves a marketing entity. They can essentially give out free eye exams, unlike the optician.

----------


## Johns

> By the way, optometrists are themselves a marketing entity. They can essentially give out free eye exams, unlike the optician.


Ah yes!  Now the onion has been peeled away to reveal absolutely true marketing genius!:bbg:


I've always wondered why some ODs seemed to be more successful than some opticians...and now, the secret is revealed!

What a great way to start the day!

Thanks!:cheers:

----------


## ManitobaOD

The benefit to the patient would be receiving quicker and better care by both professions.

The benefit to the optician would be the opportunity to offer full eye exams to their patient base as part of the existing services the optician already provides, while building a stronger practice.

The benefit to the optometrist would be the opportunity to establish a patient base outside of their primary practice, while provide more services to the patients. For new graduates from Waterloo, this would be a golden opportunity to get the feet wet, establish a patient base and work down some of that debt they incurred while in school. 



In the end both the optician and optometrist would see a dramatic increase in revenue in sales and examination fees. To the patient they would, on average, still pay the same amount for their vision care needs, albeit with improved service and communications among the three parties involved.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I have to sort of agree with the OP. The optometrist is bringing in business for the optician - by referring patients to the optician - so, I imagine the optometrist should be compensated for that, even if the compensation is low.
> 
> I have a couple of associates, and they receive a base pay + 21% of anything they sell or service. So if associate A sells a pair of 300 dollar glasses, they receive 21% of that amount. Without that associate, I would not be able to sell the $300 glasses to a patient and thus would not be making any profit on those glasses.


Lot's of models that work in this industry, that seems like a good one.  If an optometrist is truly marketing himself and bringing in business then I personally would love to share any rewards but if they have no skin in the game (invested in the practice) I would need a way to track those being brought in by the OD compared to exiisting or optical generated consumers.

Also how to deal with scenarios where the OD brings in the patient but the optical services bring in family and referrals, conside this vice versa as well the optical brings in the patient and the OD wows them so the family and referrels pour in.

If I was an OD personally I would search for opticians in town without a doctor and work out relationships with him/her to work in their offices for exams and a piece of the action, it sounds like a great opportunity for both if it can be ironed out.

----------


## uncut

> see below


I actually like what you first said:

"The optician is not a professional, while to optometrist and pharmacologist is" 

Dude.....lay off the mushrooms!

Or did your handler in the boiler room not like your post?

----------


## design786

What is unethical about my arrangement? When I first graduated, my senior doc compensated me as I compensate my associates now. We as optometrists are primary eye care providers, and as such should be compensated well, even if the government refuses to fully comprehend the importance of the services the OD is capable of performing.

----------


## Johns

> What is unethical about my arrangement? When I first graduated, my senior doc compensated me as I compensate my associates now. We as optometrists are primary eye care providers, and as such should be compensated well, even if the government refuses to fully comprehend the importance of the services the OD is capable of performing.


If you are referring to being compensated for the amount the dispensary sells, as opposed to purely on the optometric services being rendered, then yes, I think it's unethical.

I can't get past the irony of the many ODs that refuse to be termed "retailers", but they sure want a cut of the retail profits.  Too funny!:bbg:

----------


## Geirskogul

If the OD takes the patient out and helps them pick out frames etc etc then they deserve a part of the glasses profit.  Many ODs do everything or at least help quite a bit in choosing/fitting frames and lenses.  

If the OD sits in a room all day an cranks out refractions and health checks, then they get exam fees and nothing more.

One of the situations (the second one) is an absolute.  Any other situation is case-by-case, and we cannot judge how the business is run.  After all, it is THEIR business, not yours :)

----------


## gochi

^

What if the OD were to refer all his patients who needed glasses to the optical next door? Would you then give the OD a piece of sales from optical?

----------


## Johns

> ^
> 
> What if the OD were to refer all his patients who needed glasses to the optical next door? Would you then give the OD a piece of sales from optical?


What if a cow were to climb up on top of your roof, and fall down your chimney?  There's more a chance of that happening than having an OD at my place referring somewhere else.

----------


## gochi

Answer the question, Johns.

----------


## uncut

> Answer the question, Johns.


 
You forgot to say "Pretty, Please!"   Where are your manners?

----------


## Fezz

"What do opticians hope to achieve by having a working OD in the optical store?"


Somebody else to get the coffee in the morning?

----------


## Johns

> Answer the question, Johns.


I did!



> There's more a chance of that happening than having an OD at my place referring somewhere else.


It would not happen, so why discuss it?  That's like saying..."What if the waiter(OD) were to refer all the diners (patients) who were hungry (needed glasses) to the restaurant (optical) next door? 

A relationship like that wouldn't exist, or at least for not very long.

----------


## kcount

Interesting thread guys. I suddenly remember why I dont have an OD in my office.

To Gochi: If a Ophthalmologist or Optometrist reffers a patient to me to provide eyewear, is it your belief that I should give th referring doctor a percentage of the profit for said refferal?

KC

----------


## gochi

> I did!
> 
> 
> It would not happen, so why discuss it?  That's like saying..."What if the waiter(OD) were to refer all the diners (patients) who were hungry (needed glasses) to the restaurant (optical) next door? 
> 
> A relationship like that wouldn't exist, or at least for not very long.


lol, that was my point. A "real" OD would not be willing to work in an optical if % of revenue generated, from his/her patients, from eye ware is not transferred to him/her. That is basically the reason there is a war between the two professions.

Opticians refuse to compensate ODs for their services.

----------


## gochi

No, although I highly doubt why an OMD/OD would be referring to an optician in the first place (unless the OD/OMD does not dispense).

However, if the OMD/OD were to refer a patient to your optical for eye ware, then the only way to share profits generated by the referral is to refer a patient back to him/her.

My scenario is completely different, where the OD is working for the Optical/Optician.

----------


## kcount

> lol, that was my point. A "real" OD would not be willing to work in an optical if % of revenue generated, from his/her patients, from eye ware is not transferred to him/her. That is basically the reason there is a war between the two professions.
> 
> Opticians refuse to compensate ODs for their services.


But, if the Doctor is hired on a 1099 than they would receive a flat rate for their services. Whether that flat rate was a day rate or perdium the OD has contracted to perform exams in the location. Thus, the OD is not entitled to a % of revenue regardless of their part in the practice. The OD is not a firm member nor a partner in the practice thus they have no "skin in the game". Further more it is illegal to remunerate a doctor for referrals or for prescribing specific products in the US.

----------


## kcount

> No, although I highly doubt why an OMD/OD would be referring to an optician in the first place (unless the OD/OMD does not dispense).
> 
> However, if the OMD/OD were to refer a patient to your optical for eye ware, then the only way to share profits generated by the referral is to refer a patient back to him/her.
> 
> My scenario is completely different, where the OD is working for the Optical/Optician.


Where OD's do dispense in their practice is a matter of course. MD's often do not have dispensaries. Obviously this may be different in your area. But, the classical relationship of MD to optician does exist as is today a viable business model as can be attest to those of us that live it. As Johns has stated, many of his customers come to his practice not for their exams but for their materials. I have many patients who see an OD and come to me for their eyewear as they see a value add in my services.

I believe you are simply naive in your attitude that an OD should be paid a % of profits for their exams. I know of no chain or independent optician that would even entertain the concept of shared profits for a hired OD. 

Rule number one in business, Profits go to Owners.

----------


## kcount

> No, although I highly doubt why an OMD/OD would be referring to an optician in the first place (unless the OD/OMD does not dispense).
> 
> However, if the OMD/OD were to refer a patient to your optical for eye ware, then the only way to share profits generated by the referral is to refer a patient back to him/her.
> 
> My scenario is completely different, where the OD is working for the Optical/Optician.


For the record there are products and patients OMD's and OD's who have dispensaries do not want to handle. These patients are "Farmed out". My practice specializes in this type of situation. 
When was the last time you said yes to a -5.75+2.00*45 4B prism patient that stated they wanted a wrap sunglass? This is common place to Professional Opticians.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

By your argument then, the receptionist working the front desk that checks in the patient for the OD's exam should get a cut of the exam fees, since she could have just as easily referred that patient to the doctor across the street.

If I am wrong, please explain the difference to me.

----------


## bob_f_aboc

I see a new market for Rx pads that come with a self-addressed business reply envelope to send a check to the prescribing OD for his cut of the sale, regardless of where the patient ends up purchasing.

----------


## gochi

> By your argument then, the receptionist working the front desk that checks in the patient for the OD's exam should get a cut of the exam fees, since she could have just as easily referred that patient to the doctor across the street.
> 
> If I am wrong, please explain the difference to me.


Not exactly, because the receptionist did not diagnose the patient for eye ware. The OD, however, does that and more.

----------


## musicvirtuoso

Wow, I am really astonished by this thread. I really can't believe this argument has even gone this long... An OD is either paid a flat salary (as the rest of the employees - commission only coming into play if they themselves are selling product), 100% of the exam fees, or portion of the business (only if they have invested in said business, ie: start-up costs, etc. or their name is somewhere in the paperwork AKA: *They own part of the business*). You can justify commission to opticians because it is in the realm of what is ethically acceptable (the opticians are incentivized to sells more pairs of glasses and more "features", something that rarely hurts patients and mostly helps them. And quite frankly, patients will only comply with opticians to a certain point, usually when their wallet/frugality can't). However, monetarily incentivizing a prescribing OD would be highly unethical; this would encourage (of course not force - encourage is bad enough) OD's to carelessly over-Rx, prescribe unnecessary Multifocals or prism, wantonly fabricate ocular issues (for "profit-increasing" reasons), etc. We are all "eye-care professionals", but it must be known that we are each held to different guidelines/ethics based on our role and the regulations (explicit or implied) that govern those roles. There is a governing body in this country called the Federal Trade Commission that addresses these types of consumer affairs issues... they are the reason OD's MUST give Americans a prescription and not require you to buy glasses/contacts at that particular dispensary. This is like a law firm paying commissions to judges for ruling in their favor... (a bit extreme of an example, but it gets my point across).

----------


## gochi

> Wow, I am really astonished by this thread. I really can't believe this argument has even gone this long... An OD is either paid a flat salary (as the rest of the employees - commission only coming into play if they themselves are selling product), 100% of the exam fees, or portion of the business (only if they have invested in said business, ie: start-up costs, etc. or their name is somewhere in the paperwork AKA: *They own part of the business*). You can justify commission to opticians because it is in the realm of what is ethically acceptable (the opticians are incentivized to sells more pairs of glasses and more "features", something that rarely hurts patients and mostly helps them. And quite frankly, patients will only comply with opticians to a certain point, usually when their wallet/frugality can't). However, monetarily incentivizing a prescribing OD would be highly unethical; this would encourage (of course not force - encourage is bad enough) OD's to carelessly over-Rx, prescribe unnecessary Multifocals or prism, wantonly fabricate ocular issues (for "profit-increasing" reasons), etc. We are all "eye-care professionals", but it must be known that we are each held to different guidelines/ethics based on our role and the regulations (explicit or implied) that govern those roles. There is a governing body in this country called the Federal Trade Commission that addresses these types of consumer affairs issues... they are the reason OD's MUST give Americans a prescription and not require you to buy glasses/contacts at that particular dispensary. This is like a law firm paying commissions to judges for ruling in their favor... (a bit extreme of an example, but it gets my point across).


Woah, hold your horses!

There is nothing illegal, or unethical (what is ethical/unethical varies from person to person, IN BUSINESS) about an OD referring his patients to another optical, due to monetary reasons.

Many opticians force OD's to give customers an RX which requires new glasses.

----------


## Fezz

> But, if the Doctor is hired on a 1099 than they would receive a flat rate for their services.



Keep in mind that we are in the Canadian Forum!

----------


## uncut

> Woah, hold your horses!
> 
> There is nothing illegal, or unethical (what is ethical/unethical varies from person to person, IN BUSINESS) about an OD referring his patients to another optical, due to monetary reasons.
> 
> *Many opticians force OD's to give customers an RX which requires new glasses*.


 This statement is a lie...either restate or edit.

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> Woah, hold your horses!
> 
> There is nothing illegal, or unethical (what is ethical/unethical varies from person to person, IN BUSINESS) about an OD referring his patients to another optical, due to monetary reasons.
> 
> Many opticians force OD's to give customers an RX which requires new glasses.


I did not and will not state any legal bindings as I am not versed in Canadian law; however, the ethics that bind doctors do transcend borders as human rights are inalienable and consistent in many places. Also, read the post. I am addressing the overall issue of *monetarily incentivizing doctors*, regardless of the reason, which is why this question even came up. IT IS UNETHICAL, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, TO GIVE INCENTIVES TO A DOCTOR WHO IS PRIMARILY A PRESCRIBING DOCTOR (aka, they don't own part of the business and don't sell product). There are codes of ethics that govern the behavior of most professions (especially in the healthcare industry). Just because those codes may not necessary be written into _law_, does not make them unacceptable. After all, speaking on behalf of opticians in this country, if we violate our code of ethics, we are liable to lose our licenses or certifications (even if there are no "legal" ramifications). Obviously, a doctor has the right to refer to other places as they see fit. Obviously again, the employment of that doctor would be in jeopardy as they would be overtly and purposely redirecting business away from that particular practice (and by the way, you rarely to never see this). Also, see directly above for the post from uncut. I'm not even sure why I'm really wasting my breath. I am led to believe that you are not actually in the eye care field, but rather are lashing out against the community as a whole for some bad experience you've had. At least that's what it seems like - seeing your lack of knowledge of the field and blind and baseless accusations.

----------


## HarryChiling

"diagnose the patient for eye ware" - That's funny, I've been looking over all the ICD-9 codes and can't seem to find this diagnosis anywhere.  All these years I have been billing wrong.  I would hate to work for a doctor that was just prescribing anything willy nilly just so I can make a sale.  I think your talking about a chain enviornment, which most independent opticians don't want to operate like.

I guess if the doctor was smart enough to ask for a piece of the pie, I would do it on a probationary period.  I know doctors that blow sales from the chair and I know doctors that can benefit the opticians greatly from the chair depending on which kind of doctor I worked with it could be negotiable.  However the aire of deserving that would immediately turn off any opportunity to even work with an OD like that.  It shouldn't be expected, I have worked with doctors that complain that they went to school as long as a dentist and they should make at least the same if not more.  I used to tell the doctor I worked for that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college so if his logic held true then I should make even more than him so why was he complaining, I'm the one losing my shirt in his logic.

----------


## Oedema

Pay no attention to the troll, he/she is a student, not even an OD student.  The whole "eye ware" thing is a big giveaway.

----------


## gochi

> This statement is a lie...either restate or edit.


It really is not. I am not saying that its wrong what the optician does, it is just business. Of course the majority of Opticians do not interfere with the doctors examination, but there are quite a few who do - it is business. 

There is no need to be offended lol.

----------


## gochi

> IT IS UNETHICAL, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE, TO GIVE INCENTIVES TO A DOCTOR WHO IS PRIMARILY A PRESCRIBING DOCTOR


There is no reason for the doctor to work with the Optician, in his/her Optical, if there are no incentives. I am not even sure what you are talking about- you seem to be out of control in your posts, and completely refuse to answer my original question. Also, there is nothing illegal/unethical about ODs getting a % of optical sales, if the patient requires glasses/contacts etc. If it were illegal, then it would be the law, which it clearly is not as ODs can be employed by Opticians and if it were unethical, both parties, the OD and Optician would have to agree to that, which is rare since there is a little war between the two professions.

----------


## gochi

> However the aire of deserving that would immediately turn off any opportunity to even work with an OD like that.  It shouldn't be expected...


Why?

That has been my question all along, and so far people have said its "UNETHICAL" or "ILLEGAL" which is laughable because a) opticians can employ ODs in most regions of Canada and b) what is ethical, unethical varies between people, i.e. it would seem unethical to you because your loosing out on revenue while the other optician might think it is unethical because the optician is telling the od how to do his job etc etc.

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> "diagnose the patient for eye ware" - That's funny, I've been looking over all the ICD-9 codes and can't seem to find this diagnosis anywhere.  All these years I have been billing wrong...


Of course, Harry! You've never heard of the code 367.000001  - "chronic eye ware" ? LOL

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> There is no reason for the doctor to work with the Optician, in his/her Optical, if there are no incentives. I am not even sure what you are talking about- you seem to be out of control in your posts, and completely refuse to answer my original question. Also, there is nothing illegal/unethical about ODs getting a % of optical sales, if the patient requires glasses/contacts etc. If it were illegal, then it would be the law, which it clearly is not as ODs can be employed by Opticians and if it were unethical, both parties, the OD and Optician would have to agree to that, which is rare since there is a little war between the two professions.


Stick a fork in me... I'm done. LOL  You are right on one thing, that I was not addressing the original question. I chose not to do so because the conversation had strayed to the topic that I did speak to, which is whether or not to compensate a doctor beyond their base salary (ie: giving them a cut of store profits without having said doctor invest in said business). I won't waste anymore of my time trying to reason with someone who very obviously is not versed in the optics field (or any health-related business for that matter), nor cares to be. You don't bother actually reading the posts (as evidenced by your continued use of the word "illegal" when no such word is being uttered) and now I'm sure everyone following this is just doing so to get a laugh. :hammer:

----------


## Johns

> Of course, Harry! You've never heard of the code 367.000001  - "chronic eye ware" ? LOL



Aisle 9...next to kitchen ware.

----------


## gochi

> Stick a fork in me... I'm done. LOL  You are right on one thing, that I was not addressing the original question. I chose not to do so because the conversation had strayed to the topic that I did speak to, which is whether or not to compensate a doctor beyond their base salary (ie: giving them a cut of store profits without having said doctor invest in said business). I won't waste anymore of my time trying to reason with someone who very obviously is not versed in the optics field (or any health-related business for that matter), nor cares to be. You don't bother actually reading the posts (as evidenced by your continued use of the word "illegal" when no such word is being uttered) and now I'm sure everyone following this is just doing so to get a laugh. :hammer:


Says the Optician.

----------


## Fezz

> Aisle 9...next to kitchen ware.


 
Ware, I can't find it?

----------


## HarryChiling

> Why?
> 
> That has been my question all along, and so far people have said its "UNETHICAL" or "ILLEGAL" which is laughable because a) opticians can employ ODs in most regions of Canada and b) what is ethical, unethical varies between people, i.e. it would seem unethical to you because your loosing out on revenue while the other optician might think it is unethical because the optician is telling the od how to do his job etc etc.


Because there is no reliable metric to show which patients came for the doctor and which patients came for the optical.  The doctor will of course claim everyone came to see him and I will claim everyone came to see me for my eye wear expertise.  In the USA in most states an optician cannot even hire an OD because then the optical would have the ability to influence the doctor in his/her decision making ability.  That's more than likely the reason why you got so many unethical remarks to your post.  Here in the states the doctors don't prescribe eye wear the very notion is absurd, they diagnose a condition and that condition can be remedied with eye wear, contacts, or even lasik and the various forms of refractive surgery.

You seem to be under the impression that the doctor has nothing to gain from working in an optical owned by an optician, but as an example here in the states, the optical provides a space, equipment, staff support, consumables, and a patient base.  You may not value these things but try starting up a new office and come back in 3 years and look at this post, you'll be embarrassed by your line of questioning.  I don't think one poster here is under the impression that the relationship between the two professions is anything but amicable.  Believe me when I say in most scenarios if an OD didn't have to work for an optician / optical they wouldn't but look at the alternatives.  Chain stores which force their doctors to do things on the border and just beyond the realm of unethical, unrealistic hours, weekend hours, reduced fees, forced insurance plans, and meeting unspoken goals.  Opticians value what we do, I have seen very few optician owned practices that treat their OD contractors with anything but respect.  It is a symbiotic relationship that never works to anyone's advantage when one wants to play the parasite and leach off a host.

I don't think you can understand it since you don't work on that level in this industry, so you shouldn't question it so much rather than try to understand it.

----------


## Oedema

> Because there is no reliable metric to show which patients came for the doctor and which patients came for the optical.  The doctor will of course claim everyone came to see him and I will claim everyone came to see me for my *eye wear* expertise.


Man, when are you slow opticians going to get it through your thick neanderthal skulls, it's eye *WARE*.  :Nerd:   Geeesh

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Ware, I can't find it?


Sign in optical shop, or optician to client- "If you don't see what you're looking for, you've come to the right place."

----------


## gochi

> Because there is no reliable metric to show which patients came for the doctor and which patients came for the optical.  The doctor will of course claim everyone came to see him and I will claim everyone came to see me for my eye wear expertise.  In the USA in most states an optician cannot even hire an OD because then the optical would have the ability to influence the doctor in his/her decision making ability.  That's more than likely the reason why you got so many unethical remarks to your post.  Here in the states the doctors don't prescribe eye wear the very notion is absurd, they diagnose a condition and that condition can be remedied with eye wear, contacts, or even lasik and the various forms of refractive surgery.
> 
> 
> You seem to be under the impression that the doctor has nothing to gain from working in an optical owned by an optician, but as an example here in the states, the optical provides a space, equipment, staff support, consumables, and a patient base.  You may not value these things but try starting up a new office and come back in 3 years and look at this post, you'll be embarrassed by your line of questioning.  I don't think one poster here is under the impression that the relationship between the two professions is anything but amicable.  Believe me when I say in most scenarios if an OD didn't have to work for an optician / optical they wouldn't but look at the alternatives.  Chain stores which force their doctors to do things on the border and just beyond the realm of unethical, unrealistic hours, weekend hours, reduced fees, forced insurance plans, and meeting unspoken goals.  Opticians value what we do, I have seen very few optician owned practices that treat their OD contractors with anything but respect.  It is a symbiotic relationship that never works to anyone's advantage when one wants to play the parasite and leach off a host.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can understand it since you don't work on that level in this industry, so you shouldn't question it so much rather than try to understand it.


I am sure a basic arrangement can be made, but it would vary for each practice. For example, each patient that undergoes an examination who is required to purchase eyeware may be given a token, stating the doctors name/patient name and prescription.

You are in the minority. Opticians can and do take advantage of ODs if they see the opportunity. It is a business. Two days ago there was an Optician looking for an OD for her optical; the pay was 70% of exam fees. I agree that the "free" staff, space & equipment are appealing to the OD in an optical, but if the OD chooses to, he/she can get the same arrangement working with/for another OD. There has to be other incentives for the OD if he/she chooses to work in an optical, under the Optician. You don't see dentists working for dental hygienists.

Since this is a pro-optician board, I don't expect most of you to see the logic behind the arrangement mentioned in this thread, however, it is still interesting to see what types of excuses opticians can come up with. Perhaps I might use the same excuses when hiring an Optician, who knows.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

I'm guessing you're an optometry student. As such, you are wanting to explore employment possibilities and you seem to be bent on extorting money from an optical if they hire you. Don't get me wrong, I work for an OD, and in my state, the situation you're describing is in itself illegal. An Optician cannot hire an OD or OMD to work for them. Period. Now of course there is a way around that - both offices HAVE to have separate entrances, and there can be zero sharing of employees. And the Optician cannot pay the OD, the OD has to generate all their money themselves. If it was legal, and an OD wanted to work for me AND wanted a percentage of the optical shop's revenue IN ADDITION to their own, I would never hire that OD.

----------


## uncut

> Man, when are you slow opticians going to get it through your thick neanderthal skulls, it's eye *WARE*.  Geeesh


 
These Brit transplants sure get their knickers in a twist.....don't they? :Cool:

----------


## HarryChiling

> Man, when are you slow opticians going to get it through your thick neanderthal skulls, it's eye *WARE*.  Geeesh


I still can't figure out if it goes on the right or left side of your dinner*WARE*.

----------


## shanbaum

> Man, when are you slow opticians going to get it through your thick neanderthal skulls, it's eye *WARE*.  Geeesh


Hmmm... why do you say that?  Merriam-Webster seems to hold to the contrary...

----------


## kcount

> I still can't figure out if it goes on the right or left side of your dinner*WARE*.


Leftside is outer WARE  Rightside is Inner WARE. Unles your in Australia then its reversed.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I am sure a basic arrangement can be made, but it would vary for each practice. For example, each patient that undergoes an examination who is required to purchase eyeware may be given a token, stating the doctors name/patient name and prescription.


I think the perception that would instill in the patient base would benefit neitehr party.  I would personally just not hire a doctor who wanted to set up some sort of token arrangement.  Have you even given any thought to the implications of what you're suggesting.




> You are in the minority. Opticians can and do take advantage of ODs if they see the opportunity. It is a business.


It's a bit different here in the US, I would say 90% of shops in teh US are doctor or retail owned so yes an optician owned practice would be in the minority.




> Two days ago there was an Optician looking for an OD for her optical; the pay was 70% of exam fees. I agree that the "free" staff, space & equipment are appealing to the OD in an optical, but if the OD chooses to, he/she can get the same arrangement working with/for another OD. There has to be other incentives for the OD if he/she chooses to work in an optical, under the Optician. You don't see dentists working for dental hygienists.


Why are you asking opticians, again the way you phrased the statement guised as a question it was meant for an optician to answer, yet you seem to be befuddled as to a reason why an OD would work for an optician.  My plain and simple answer, an optician owned practice definately appreciates their OD more.  I'm not really a fan of OD's but when one works in my office to my patients they are kings/queens, and I will talk them up like they were the next greatest invention next to wonder bread.  Oh and BTW I have more time (at least with the lights on) with a patient then the doctor gets so I am their biggest ambasador in the shop.




> Since this is a pro-optician board, I don't expect most of you to see the logic behind the arrangement mentioned in this thread, however, it is still interesting to see what types of excuses opticians can come up with.


If you start by calling them reasons instead of excuses you'll see that more answers are on this thread then you care to see.




> Perhaps I might use the same excuses when hiring an Optician, who knows.


If you're looking to justify taking advantage of an optician you really don't need to, just do it.  $h!t we're on the bottom of the food chain if you have to worry about the very bottom of the food chain your going to fail miserably in this profession.  Your collegues are nipping at each other and ophthalmology, but your wisdom in going the opposite direction is to be commended.  I also recommend that if you have cleaning staff that works at night to hide the mints you wouldn't want them getting more then they deserve, oh and leave a #2 in the toilet for them to make sure they really earn their money.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Leftside is outer WARE Rightside is Inner WARE. Unles your in Australia then its reversed.


Ok, that still leaves me confused as to where the under*WARE* goes?

----------


## Diopterman

This thread is starting to *WARE* me out!

----------


## kcount

> Ok, that still leaves me confused as to where the under*WARE* goes?


under*WARE* goes in the tupper*WARE*

Besides, talking about your under*WARE* in public is not polite. *WARE* are your manners?

----------


## HarryChiling

> This thread is starting to *WARE* me out!


*W*hy *A*ren't *R*eplies *E*ntertaining?

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> under*ware* goes in the tupper*ware*
> 
> besides, talking about your under*ware* in public is not polite. *ware* are your manners?


lmao!

----------


## gochi

> I think the perception that would instill in the patient base would benefit neitehr party.  I would personally just not hire a doctor who wanted to set up some sort of token arrangement.  Have you even given any thought to the implications of what you're suggesting.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit different here in the US, I would say 90% of shops in teh US are doctor or retail owned so yes an optician owned practice would be in the minority.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking opticians, again the way you phrased the statement guised as a question it was meant for an optician to answer, yet you seem to be befuddled as to a reason why an OD would work for an optician.  My plain and simple answer, an optician owned practice definately appreciates their OD more.  I'm not really a fan of OD's but when one works in my office to my patients they are kings/queens, and I will talk them up like they were the next greatest invention next to wonder bread.  Oh and BTW I have more time (at least with the lights on) with a patient then the doctor gets so I am their biggest ambasador in the shop.
> ...


I don't know what you are talking about and your post is reminiscent of a 12 year old babbling on about what he did at lunch break. Perhaps you should try to answer my original question.

Don't really understand why so many posters refuse to answer the question. Can you not handle the truth!?

----------


## Fezz

I think Gochi needs a hug!

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

> There is no reason for the doctor to work with the Optician, in his/her Optical, if there are no incentives. I am not even sure what you are talking about- you seem to be out of control in your posts, and completely refuse to answer my original question. Also, there is nothing illegal/unethical about ODs getting a % of optical sales, if the patient requires glasses/contacts etc. If it were illegal, then it would be the law, which it clearly is not as ODs can be employed by Opticians and if it were unethical, both parties, the OD and Optician would have to agree to that, which is rare since there is a little war between the two professions.


It sounds to me like you want to be the doctor extorting money from an optician for the wondefulness of you being in HIS store.

----------


## optical24/7

gochi needs to look up referral fee laws.

----------


## musicvirtuoso

> I don't know what you are talking about and your post is reminiscent of a 12 year old babbling on about what he did at lunch break. Perhaps you should try to answer my original question.
> 
> Don't really understand why so many posters refuse to answer the question. Can you not handle the truth!?





> ...You seem to be under the impression that the doctor has nothing to gain from working in an optical owned by an optician,* but as an example here in the states, the optical provides a space, equipment, staff support, consumables, and a patient base.  You may not value these things but try starting up a new office and come back in 3 years and look at this post, you'll be embarrassed by your line of questioning.*  I don't think one poster here is under the impression that the relationship between the two professions is anything but amicable.  Believe me when I say in most scenarios if an OD didn't have to work for an optician / optical they wouldn't but look at the alternatives.  Chain stores which force their doctors to do things on the border and just beyond the realm of unethical, unrealistic hours, weekend hours, reduced fees, forced insurance plans, and meeting unspoken goals.  Opticians value what we do, I have seen very few optician owned practices that treat their OD contractors with anything but respect*.  It is a symbiotic relationship* that never works to anyone's advantage when one wants to play the parasite and leach off a host.
> 
> I don't think you can understand it since you don't work on that level in this industry, so you shouldn't question it so much rather than try to understand it.


There is your answer... again, *read the posts*. You really sound like this "12-year-old" that you accuse us of being.

----------


## HarryChiling

> I don't know what you are talking about and your post is reminiscent of a 12 year old babbling on about what he did at lunch break. Perhaps you should try to answer my original question.
> 
> Don't really understand why so many posters refuse to answer the question. Can you not handle the truth!?


When I was 12 I wathced one of my best friends get kicked in his gochi. Just thought I'd share.

PS - I have gotten in trouble more than enough times to know that name calling is not tolerated on this board, but if this is an invitation I'm game so long as you are.

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

You are getting a lot of answers, you apparently can't tell that.

----------


## DC Optix

Wowsa...I've never ventured into the Canadian forum b/c I'm in the US and figured that it wouldn't apply, but there's some serious HEAT being thrown over here!

----------


## uncut

> Wowsa...I've never ventured into the Canadian forum b/c I'm in the US and figured that it wouldn't apply, but there's some serious HEAT being thrown over here!


Jump in anytime, the water's calm, cold.........just watch out for the icebergs!

----------


## Johns

> Wowsa...I've never ventured into the Canadian forum b/c I'm in the US and figured that it wouldn't apply, but there's some serious HEAT being thrown over here!


Most of  us are from the US as well.  We just try to tease enough to chase us over the border, and then we throw goat chee at them. ("Chee" is the plural of "cheese" isn't it?)

----------


## uncut

It's hard to run with a two-four of real beer, even harder to throw chee!

----------


## LandLord

wtf?

----------


## DC Optix

Did you say tai chi?

----------


## Ory

> When I was 12 I wathced one of my best friends get kicked in his gochi. Just thought I'd share.


I have a friend who accidentally hit his gochi with his eye ware.  He's never been the same since.

----------


## uncut

And you'all thought Canucks were a conservative bunch, eh!!!:drop:

----------


## LandLord

Goat Cheese

----------

