# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Ontario Opticians Banned from Refractometry

## Excalibur

A letter from Dr. J. Tepper (Asst Deputy Health Minister) was sent July 15/2008 to the President of Jeff Fernandes, President of the College of Opticians of Ontario stating that the Ministry of Health of Ontario does not permit opticians to independently refract.

In the letter, it stated that "members of your College should not be performing refractometry under any circumstances" and that "we reiterate that no new direction has been issued by any Minister since 2001 that would permit opticians to perform refractometry".

If there is a way of posting this letter to Optiboard I would be happy to do so. It is in pdf format.

I understand that the College of Opticians has embarked on a refracting course for its members. Perhaps they should consider returning any tuition immediately.

----------


## For-Life

It has been made very clear to Ontario Opticians that refracting is not permitted.  Those who are following through with the refracting courses have done so with the hope the law will change.  Plus, some are working for ODs and doing their pre-refractions for them.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> A letter from Dr. J. Tepper (Asst Deputy Health Minister) was sent July 15/2008 to the President of Jeff Fernandes, President of the College of Opticians of Ontario stating that the Ministry of Health of Ontario does not permit opticians to independently refract.
> 
> In the letter, it stated that "members of your College should not be performing refractometry under any circumstances" and that "we reiterate that no new direction has been issued by any Minister since 2001 that would permit opticians to perform refractometry".
> 
> If there is a way of posting this letter to Optiboard I would be happy to do so. It is in pdf format.
> 
> I understand that the College of Opticians has embarked on a refracting course for its members. Perhaps they should consider returning any tuition immediately.


 

Refractometry is in the public domain . That means anyone can do it .

----------


## Excalibur

> If a Health Minister sent a letter like that , then in my humble opinion they made a huge error and need to reconsider the meaning of the word DISCRIMINATION !!!!! 
> 
> In my opinion The Minister of Health does NOT control who can and who can not refract. 
> 
> Refractometry is in the puiblic domain . That means anyone can do it . ANYONE ! Therefore, singly out one particular body and saying they can not refract is very simply ... DISCRIMINATION !! 
> 
> The College of Opticians , in my opinion , was wrong to accept any such nonsense . They should only seek an immediate public apology from the author of that nonsense.
> 
> Opticians do not need anyone's permission, least of all permission from the Minister of Health , to refract.


Do you then suggest that opticians, and perhaps all other health professions, become unregulated?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

[ .

----------


## Oedema

> Please quote the exact law that states that opticians can not perform refractometry and post it here .  Please post the source as well  such as the Act  page number and paragraph number and subparagraph as well .



It doesn't have to come from any specific act or legislation, like it or not the minister has the final word on all college activities...

*Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991*
  S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 18



> *Powers of Minister*
> *5.*  (1)  The Minister may,
>   (a) inquire into or require a Council to inquire into the state of practice of a health profession in a locality or institution;
>   (b) review a Councils activities and require the Council to provide reports and information;
>   (c) require a Council to make, amend or revoke a regulation under a health profession Act or the _Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act_;
>   (d) require a Council to do anything that, in the opinion of the Minister, is necessary or advisable to carry out the intent of this Act, the health profession Acts or the _Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act_.

----------


## Excalibur

> It doesn't have to come from any specific act or legislation, like it or not the minister has the final word on all college activities...
> 
> *Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991*
>   S.O. 1991, CHAPTER 18


I trust that defiance of the Health Minister could be a foolish and dangerous proposition for the College.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

[.

----------


## Excalibur

> Even Ministers are subject to the laws of the courts . 
> 
> The College is doing nothing wrong by offering refractometry courses and opticians are doing nothing wrong by studying refractometry. 
> 
> There also is nothing wrong in doing refractometery . 
> 
> The issue you are skirting is what happens with the results of refractometry. 
> 
>  You must also realize the world is changing . 
> ...


Tempting the Ministry of Health in this manner is a fool's game. Ontario's optometrists were declined therapeutic prescribing privileges in 2001, but were successful in 2006. Had the College of Optometrists wantonly defied the Ministry of Health and told their members to defy government, it would have been unwise. Of course, prescribing is not in the public domain, however, blatantly defying the Ministry in any fashion is counterproductive and foolish. I trust you will eventually be able to review the entire letter from the Assistant Deputy Health Minister -- the Ministry's opposition to independent refraction by opticians is quite clear. Best of luck with your approach.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Tempting the Ministry of Health in this manner is a fool's game. Ontario's optometrists were declined therapeutic prescribing privileges in 2001, but were successful in 2006. Had the College of Optometrists wantonly defied the Ministry of Health and told their members to defy government, it would have been unwise. Of course, prescribing is not in the public domain, however, blatantly defying the Ministry in any fashion is counterproductive and foolish. I trust you will eventually be able to review the entire letter from the Assistant Deputy Health Minister -- the Ministry's opposition to independent refraction by opticians is quite clear. Best of luck with your approach.


It's not my approach , in fact I am not even in favor of opticians refracting . 

Having said that , the danger is not in refracting nor is the danger even in opticians  prescribing WITH THE CORRECT TRAINING . The danger is that the public does not know what they are not getting . 

The COO model is too cumbersome and won't work . But no one has put forth a better model that will work .  We  must give COO credit for trying to overcome the obstacles . 

There are not enough Ophthalmologists , therefore some of the slack needs to be taken up by Optometry and likewise some by Opticians . Something has to give and they all need to work together .

----------


## eyemanflying

> Something has to give and they all need to work together .


Until the 3 O's can agree on at least something, there will be no progress or unity; that has always been the issue.  The Minister is our expensive babysitter/mediator and must be busting a gut by now watching us all playfighting in the sandbox.

----------


## optical maven

It is true that measuring of a refractive error, just as measuring blood pressure, measuring body temperature, or measuring eye pressure are within the public domain.  Diagnosing and prescribing are controlled acts and, as dispensing, are only permitted by authorized professionals.   In the defining acts of the RHPA only three professions do not include the descriptive of "assessment".  Opticianry is one of those.

----------


## renee1111

> Tempting the Ministry of Health in this manner is a fool's game. Ontario's optometrists were declined therapeutic prescribing privileges in 2001, but were successful in 2006. Had the College of Optometrists wantonly defied the Ministry of Health and told their members to defy government, it would have been unwise. Of course, prescribing is not in the public domain, however, blatantly defying the Ministry in any fashion is counterproductive and foolish.


I don't understand your reasoning, first of all educating ourselves, to effectively further our understanding about refraction, isn't a ploy to defy government. We are acquiring the skills and knowledge we need in order to widen our scope of practice. We dont expect the Minister of Health to just assign us the duties of refraction, without prior training and proven competencies. So your judgment is ignorant and, quite frankly, unappreciated. :angry: 



> I trust you will eventually be able to review the entire letter from the Assistant Deputy Health Minister -- the Ministry's opposition to independent refraction by opticians is quite clear. Best of luck with your approach.


I wish someone could post a link to this alleged letter, because there's no information posted on the College of Opticians website nor the Ontario Opticians Association's website. I would think if this was true then I would be alerted in some way.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> It is true that measuring of a refractive error, just as measuring blood pressure, measuring body temperature, or measuring eye pressure are within the public domain. Diagnosing and prescribing are controlled acts and, as dispensing, are only permitted by authorized professionals. In the defining acts of the RHPA only three professions do not include the descriptive of "assessment". Opticianry is one of those.


 
And if that is true , that refracting is in the public domain , then anyone attempting to ban opticians as a group and distinctive from any other member of the public , is discriminating . And anyone accepting and passing on such a directive would be part of that . Opticians as a group, should not accept being subject to that and they should demand apologies and compensatory damages , in my humble opinion. 

Prescribing is a different matter .

----------


## Excalibur

> I don't understand your reasoning, first of all educating ourselves, to effectively further our understanding about refraction, isn't a ploy to defy government. We are acquiring the skills and knowledge we need in order to widen our scope of practice. We dont expect the Minister of Health to just assign us the duties of refraction, without prior training and proven competencies. So your judgment is ignorant and, quite frankly, unappreciated. :angry: 
> 
> I wish someone could post a link to this alleged letter, because there's no information posted on the College of Opticians website nor the Ontario Opticians Association's website. I would think if this was true then I would be alerted in some way.


If there's a way I can post to the forum, I will. Short of that, post your email address and I will send you a copy.

----------


## Excalibur

> I don't understand your reasoning, first of all educating ourselves, to effectively further our understanding about refraction, isn't a ploy to defy government. We are acquiring the skills and knowledge we need in order to widen our scope of practice. We dont expect the Minister of Health to just assign us the duties of refraction, without prior training and proven competencies. So your judgment is ignorant and, quite frankly, unappreciated. :angry: 
> 
> I wish someone could post a link to this alleged letter, because there's no information posted on the College of Opticians website nor the Ontario Opticians Association's website. I would think if this was true then I would be alerted in some way.


Some opticians are 'prescribing' independently and that is what concerns the Ministry. As for being 'alerted', ask Mr. Fernandes about the letter from Dr. Tepper -- I am sure he will be delighted to forward you a copy and you can then vouch for its existence.

----------


## Dave Nelson

Not really wanting to jump into the fray about refracting one way or the other, Its the presumtion that opticians shouldn't be taking refracting courses that irritates me the most. 10 billion times health care professionals, including optometrists, had the education BEFORE the legislative change allowed them to use it. We ran into this time and time again in BC. For Life also points out that many opticians have been refracting for years under supervision or delegation, and finally, many opticians want to take the course just to gain insight and understanding into the process. I've been in the OR many times watching and assisting cataract surgery while an ophthalmologist explained the procedure right from pre-op to post-op and recovery. Doesn't mean I think opticians should seek the right to perform the bloody thing, just to gain insight and understanding first hand, up close and personal, so my knowlege of aphakia and its management with spectacles and contact lenses is enhanced, and some continuity with other allied professionals is realized.
rant over.

----------


## optical maven

Unfortunately opticianry has done a poor job in policing itself on the issue of both dispensing and refracting.  Performing these procedures is rampant throughout the world of opticianry.  That is why the government basically gave a cease and desist to order to opticianry on refracting several years ago.    Now when that ban was lifted the College of Opticians took this as a green light, as though refracting was now within opticianry's scope of practice.   So the government felt compelled to reiterate that refracting for the purpose of diagnosing is not within the scope of practice of opticianry.  Opticians are not a persecuted bunch.  They do seem however to try to manipulate the rules beyond their original intent.

----------


## renee1111

> If there's a way I can post to the forum, I will. Short of that, post your email address and I will send you a copy.


Here's my e-mail address inspire.99@hotmail.com, I would love a copy, thanks!

----------


## Excalibur

> Unfortunately opticianry has done a poor job in policing itself on the issue of both dispensing and refracting.  Performing these procedures is rampant throughout the world of opticianry.  That is why the government basically gave a cease and desist to order to opticianry on refracting several years ago.    Now when that ban was lifted the College of Opticians took this as a green light, as though refracting was now within opticianry's scope of practice.   So the government felt compelled to reiterate that refracting for the purpose of diagnosing is not within the scope of practice of opticianry.  Opticians are not a persecuted bunch.  They do seem however to try to manipulate the rules beyond their original intent.


Agreed. Do you think that the College of Opticians would have 'gone after' Bergez alone? I think the College of Optometrists had to initiate legal action unilaterally. 
Do you think that if the College of Opticians ignores the Minister of Health's letter, they Ministry will abolish the College executive? Is that technically possible?

----------


## Excalibur

> Here's my e-mail address inspire.99@hotmail.com, I would love a copy, thanks!


your email is not working:

              -----------------
This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

inspire.99@hotmail.com

Technical details of permanent failure:
-------------------

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> If there's a way I can post to the forum, I will. Short of that, post your email address and I will send you a copy.


please send a copy to gwhite@cogeco.net   Thank you .

----------


## Oedema

Ministers Letter:

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Unfortunately opticianry has done a poor job in policing itself on the issue of both dispensing and refracting. Performing these procedures is rampant throughout the world of opticianry. ... They do seem however to try to manipulate the rules beyond their original intent.


Not quite true Optical Maven . The real truth of the matter is that The Minsiter of Health has a done a poor job as has RHPA.

Colleges are supposed to be self governing , but they can't be self governing if they don't have the tools to enforce and perform the job. In my opinion , If the Ministers keeps sticking their noses in by giving directives and ultimatums they are effectively and constructively dismissing the entire concept of "self-governing". IN my opinion , Opticians are not self governing . In my opinion  They are politically controlled illusions of self government. 

If the Minister wants things cleaned up then why not ask the Minister why a certain case is dragging for years through the court systems !!  And for that matter the College of Optometrists' lawyer , who handled the GG case ,  might be your best bet for an explanation of why it is so difficult to police & enforce . 

 Self government is a joke without funding and tools . And part of that is a Ministry and RHPA problem .  


As far as things being "rampant" you are really talking about one chain in particular . The same is true for your statement of "manipulation" . An apology is in order .

----------


## opti-refractonator

I cannot believe the astounding level of stupidity that is being shown by the responses and range of arguements.  I really thought that this was a board with intelligence and free mind to help our professions.  It seems pretty clear that the directive from the ministry simply reiterates the fact that opticians cannot refract for the purpose of prescribing an rx.  This doesn't mean we cannot learn to refract.  This does not mean that we cannot work with other O's.  Yes, refracting is in the public domain, just like diagnosing that your little brother has a cold, but you cannot write an rx for him.  A similar thread about not being able to look at the soft/exterior tissue of the eye in contact lens fittings a few days earlier, was just as mind numbing.  Please, my people, let your common sense be the judge.  Just because the wording of something may be translated into a thousand different meanings, using common sense and experience will ultimately lead you in the right path.

----------


## Excalibur

> I cannot believe the astounding level of stupidity that is being shown by the responses and range of arguements.  I really thought that this was a board with intelligence and free mind to help our professions.  It seems pretty clear that the directive from the ministry simply reiterates the fact that opticians cannot refract for the purpose of prescribing an rx.  This doesn't mean we cannot learn to refract.  This does not mean that we cannot work with other O's.  Yes, refracting is in the public domain, just like diagnosing that your little brother has a cold, but you cannot write an rx for him.  A similar thread about not being able to look at the soft/exterior tissue of the eye in contact lens fittings a few days earlier, was just as mind numbing.  Please, my people, let your common sense be the judge.  Just because the wording of something may be translated into a thousand different meanings, using common sense and experience will ultimately lead you in the right path.


Ah yeah......?
What did I say in my initial post?

Here it is again.... "A letter from Dr. J. Tepper (Asst Deputy Health Minister) was sent July 15/2008 to the President of Jeff Fernandes, President of the College of Opticians of Ontario stating that the Ministry of Health of Ontario does not permit opticians to independently refract."

----------


## opti-refractonator

hey excal, not directly refering to you but the people who read only a part of a text and assume they know the rest.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Ah yeah......?
> What did I say in my initial post?
> 
> Here it is again.... "A letter from Dr. J. Tepper (Asst Deputy Health Minister) was sent July 15/2008 to the President of Jeff Fernandes, President of the College of Opticians of Ontario stating that the Ministry of Health of Ontario does not permit opticians to independently refract."


 
Would you mind printing out the letter in it's entirety , please . What I downloaded from your link was only part of a letter , not an entire letter , and it does not say what you are interpreting.

----------


## Excalibur

> Would you mind printing out the letter in it's entirety , please . What I downloaded from your link was only part of a letter , not an entire letter , and it does not say what you are interpreting.


The entire letter was posted earlier on this thread as a Word file (ie. doc file)
Please look for that post.

----------


## LandLord

get out of the glasses business and get into real estate

----------


## tmorse

> Do you think that if the College of Opticians ignores the Minister of Health's letter, they Ministry will abolish the College executive? Is that technically possible?


Certainly possible. Here in BC the provincial government removed the entire Board of the College of Acupuncturists and replace them by a government-appointed trustee.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> Ah yeah......?
> What did I say in my initial post?
> 
> Here it is again.... "A letter from Dr. J. Tepper (Asst Deputy Health Minister) was sent July 15/2008 to the President of Jeff Fernandes, President of the College of Opticians of Ontario stating that the Ministry of Health of Ontario does not permit opticians to independently refract."


The problem is in the rest of your post; 




> I understand that the College of Opticians has embarked on a refracting course for its members. Perhaps they should consider returning any tuition immediately.


I'm not sure how you meant that to sound, but from that quote and other posts in this thread, you come off as implying that the mere fact that Opticians are learning how to refract is somehow going against the Ministry. That the fact the College is offering the course, perhaps the Minister might disband it.

I've read the letter, and no where in it does it say the College can not offer this program. It sounds more of a cautionary letter. A reminder about the rules reguarding what Opticians can and can't do with this training.

----------


## Truth

Any of you read the original letter referenced in the new letter? Might make for an interesting conversation.

----------


## Excalibur

> The problem is in the rest of your post; 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you meant that to sound, but from that quote and other posts in this thread, you come off as implying that the mere fact that Opticians are learning how to refract is somehow going against the Ministry. That the fact the College is offering the course, perhaps the Minister might disband it.
> 
> I've read the letter, and no where in it does it say the College can not offer this program. It sounds more of a cautionary letter. A reminder about the rules reguarding what Opticians can and can't do with this training.


It would be interesting to hear how many people taking this course are doing so with the intent of independently prescribing rather than learning with the intent of working with an OD or OMD.

----------


## eyemanflying

> It would be interesting to hear how many people taking this course are doing so with the intent of independently prescribing rather than learning with the intent of working with an OD or OMD.


I'm certain everyone is...and why shouldn't they?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

[ 
Ecalibur:

Have you ever seen how a cataract is actually removed ? How do they actually get it out ? And how do they actually get the implant back inside there ? Just curious .

----------


## renee1111

> It would be interesting to hear how many people taking this course are doing so with the intent of _independently prescribing_ rather than learning with the intent of working with an OD or OMD.




I should hope that every Optician in Ontario would be well aware that _independent prescribing_ is illegal. What would make you think were being mislead? Its clearly outlined in this explanatory guide from the College of Opticians website.

----------


## LandLord

Yet another optometrist trying to beat down opticianry to prevent self-betterment.

WHY DID OPTOMETRISTS STUDY TPA'S BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PRESCRIBE THEM?  FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON!!!!!!

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> It would be interesting to hear how many people taking this course are doing so with the intent of independently prescribing rather than learning with the intent of working with an OD or OMD.


Intent is a completely different beast that actually going out and doing it. We're trying to further our field, and these folk are trying to get a head start on it. Does this mean they think "hey, I'm gonna start breaking the law and make some quick cash!"? There might be people in the course who think this way, and if they break the laws, they SHOULD be punished. 

That being said, there is absolutely no law, and nor should there be, outlawing  studying and learning ANYTHING. What's next? Oh! We don't want the average Joe making bombs, so lets make it so only specific people can learn physics. Different scenario, but basicly the same.

----------


## optical maven

I don't think anybody questions any persons desire to educate themselves.  If the task is being done by an automated machine, such as an Eyelogic or other automated device, this has been done in an OD or OMD office for 25 years or longer.  There is no specific qualification necessary.  The problem here is that the College of Opticians announced with great enthusiasm that performing refracting was now legal for opticians.  In fact, opticians were reintorduced to the rest of the world and allowed to work under the supervision of an OMD or OD.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> I don't think anybody questions any persons desire to educate themselves. If the task is being done by an automated machine, such as an Eyelogic or other automated device, this has been done in an OD or OMD office for 25 years or longer. There is no specific qualification necessary. The problem here is that the College of Opticians announced with great enthusiasm that performing refracting was now legal for opticians. In fact, opticians were reintorduced to the rest of the world and allowed to work under the supervision of an OMD or OD.


I think you need to read the College of Opticians web site and their package to opticians regarding refraction . You seem to have some details mixed up . 

Sometimes people just can't see the trees because the forest is in the way . 

Read the entire web site and package dealing with refraction .

 And by the way ,  it is my understanding that refraction is in the public domain , which means this ....optometry does not own it and has no right to think that they control refraction .  

Why not limit your discussion to the real matter that is underlying your concerns  ... " prescribing " . 

We will patiently await your apologies until you have had sufficient time to read it and think about what you just read .

Please  quote the section of law that says optometry owns & controls refraction .

----------


## optical maven

In any posting I have written I have always said that refracting is within the public domain, as is many other measurements such as blood pressure, eye pressure or body pressure. Since refracting is within the public domain it is even more reason to question the intent of the COO to regulate opticians about refracting at the current time. From the COO web site:

*"IMPORTANT:*
Please be reminded that any optician wishing to refract must first 
*apply* to, and be *approved* by
the COO. Further, opticians granted refracting status by the COO are reminded that full
compliance with the Standard of Practice: Refraction is required.If you have any questions or comments please contact Shannon Falconer "

I actually agree with your comments. But how can the COO regulate what they are not allowed to do? How can they regulate what is in the public domain? And yes I have read the information on the COO web site. I have never said or intimated that optometry controls anything. I have said nothing which requires an apology.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> I have said nothing which requires an apology.


I would agree fully. Having different opinions is no reason to ask for an apology.

Lets look at that quote from the COO at a different angle. I see that as talking about the course itself. If an optician wants to refract, they have to apply to the refract course. And the second bit is saying "Hey, even though you're planning on taking this course, according to the standard of practice, you're still not allowed to actually refract." It's another cautionary line. To me, it seems like the college is making sure their aplicants know that they're not able to refract. That by taking this course, it's purely to either further your knowledge in the event that the laws change.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> In any posting I have written I have always said that refracting is within the public domain, as is many other measurements such as blood pressure, eye pressure or body pressure. Since refracting is within the public domain it is even more reason to question the intent of the COO to regulate opticians about refracting at the current time. From the COO web site:
> 
> *"IMPORTANT:* 
> Please be reminded that any optician wishing to refract must first 
> *apply* to, and be *approved* by
> 
> the COO. Further, opticians granted refracting status by the COO are reminded that full
> compliance with the Standard of Practice: Refraction is required.
> 
> ...


You do not get it. If you did then you would not keep repeating the same mistake .  

"But how can the COO regulate what they are not allowed to do?" 

On one hand you agree that refraction is in the public domain and yet on the other hand you are trying to say that opticians are not allowed and COO is not allowed . 

Think about what you are trying to say precisely . 

I believe COO just wants to register members so they know who has had the training and education dealing with refraction . How and why does this upset you ? 

Are you not saying the word "refraction" but meaning the word "prescribing" ?  Are you confusing yourself ? 

I can't see where anyone could have any issue with the College over refraction and their professional approach to knowing which members have achieved what degree of education and training.

----------


## LandLord

The fight is not about refraction.  Neither side really cares about refracting.  It's the prescribing that counts.  I can sit in my basement spinning lenses on a phoropter like a mad scientist.  Yeah, let's leave it at that.

----------


## kws6000

> I think you need to read the College of Opticians web site and their package to opticians regarding refraction . You seem to have some details mixed up . 
> 
> Sometimes people just can't see the trees because the forest is in the way . 
> 
> Read the entire web site and package dealing with refraction .
> 
>  And by the way ,  it is my understanding that refraction is in the public domain , which means this ....optometry does not own it and has no right to think that they control refraction .  
> 
> Why not limit your discussion to the real matter that is underlying your concerns  ... " prescribing " . 
> ...



What is with this juvenile need for apologies where none are warranted?

----------


## kws6000

> Yet another optometrist trying to beat down opticianry to prevent self-betterment.
> 
> WHY DID OPTOMETRISTS STUDY TPA'S BEFORE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO PRESCRIBE THEM?  FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON!!!!!!


I dont care if opticians take refracting courses as long as they dont try to utilize this by attempting to perform independent refractions.

The chances of opticians being able to independently refract legally  in Ontario is somewhere between zero and none.

There is no shortage of qualified ecp  currently in Ontario. 

Opticians would be very hard pressed to convince the minister of health why

independent refractions by opticians are necessary or beneficial to the public at large,other than to  opticians who just want to sell more 

optical goods.

Why would you think any optometrist would help opticians infringe on our profession?

----------


## Dave Nelson

Oh if only I had a dollar for every time an optometrist told me the chances of opticians performing refraction were zero, nay even a dime.
They would take me aside, then explain, sometimes in very slow, deliberate voice how we could never convince anyone how this could be good, and opticians, bless their hearts, could never understand that  only doctors could refract. Heck why would we want to anyway?
with 4 lost court cases, The BC Eye Physicians and Surgeons telling the Ministry of Health that opticians should seek an independant refraction, and a Minister of Health publicly stating that opticians had proven their ability to safely perform refractions, the "could never happen" mantra so loved by optometry changed. 
Chances are zero to none? Myopia can be a way of thinking as well as a refractive error.

----------


## renee1111

> I dont care if opticians take refracting courses as long as they dont try to utilize this by attempting to perform independent refractions.
> 
> The chances of opticians being able to independently refract legally in Ontario is somewhere between zero and none.
> 
> There is no shortage of qualified ecp currently in Ontario. 
> 
> Opticians would be very hard pressed to convince the minister of health why
> 
> independent refractions by opticians are necessary or beneficial to the public at large,other than to opticians who just want to sell more 
> ...


So you think we would be hard pressed to convince the minister. I can think of few good reasons just off the top of my head. 

-Accessibility- With the impending doom of a recession, many people are living either on a strict budget or simply living paycheck to paycheck. The fees ODs impose for getting an eye exam are forever climbing and becoming too expensive for those on a budget. Ill give you an example: In 04 the government decided to finally deregulate ODs fees. So all the ODs (in my area anyway) made it seem as though the government had imposed these new fees onto their patients. When in reality ODs had pushed for this for a long time. Before deregulation they were all getting paid $39 CND per eye exam. Shortly after, they upd their fees to $45, two months later the fees went up to $59, by years end all were charging $70. In 2008 the average cost is $110. Are these fees going to keep climbing every year or are they ever going to level out? 

- Redo rates  If a specific ODs office has a particularly high redo-rate, it would be great to be able to double check the RX. Which by the way, wouldnt pose a risk to the public because the patient already had a full eye exam prior to the refraction.

_-Most_, not all, the Techs who work in Ophthalmologists offices, have hardly any training at all, yet these individuals do perform refractions that are dispensed to the patient. Same would go for the Ophthalmic Technicians, some take the course although most arent required. I have met techs that took the course and didnt know what AR was, or how to perform proper adjustments. I would think that basic optical knowledge must be a requirement to work in an ODs office, but from personal experience Ive realized that it is not. Seems to me that ODs have a double standard. On one hand its okay for them to have a tech working under them, yet it isnt okay to have a fully qualified and educated individual do there adjustments or pre-tests. 

So in conclusion I think that if refractions are done by Opticians following the College guidelines, there is _absolutely no danger_ to the patient receiving the refraction. The arguments are always missed pathology or patient not getting a proper eye exam, but if the standards of practice were strictly followed, patients would have to see an OD every year anyway. (Which by the way = more money for you!)






> Why would you think any optometrist would help opticians infringe on our profession?


Finally someone said it!!! Im glad that you can admit that, because most ODs dance around the subject. Every time someone mentions refracting courses, an OD chimes in to ask Who exactly is teaching the coursebetter be an OD This is the one of the main reasons Opticians should be legally able to refract, because ODs are infringing on our profession!

----------


## kws6000

> Oh if only I had a dollar for every time an optometrist told me the chances of opticians performing refraction were zero, nay even a dime.
> They would take me aside, then explain, sometimes in very slow, deliberate voice how we could never convince anyone how this could be good, and opticians, bless their hearts, could never understand that  only doctors could refract. Heck why would we want to anyway?
> with 4 lost court cases, The BC Eye Physicians and Surgeons telling the Ministry of Health that opticians should seek an independant refraction, and a Minister of Health publicly stating that opticians had proven their ability to safely perform refractions, the "could never happen" mantra so loved by optometry changed. 
> Chances are zero to none? Myopia can be a way of thinking as well as a refractive error.


You are missing a very important point  -This is taking place in Ontario-where everything is highly regulated by the govt.

----------


## kws6000

> So you think we would be hard pressed to convince the minister. I can think of few good reasons just off the top of my head. 
> 
> -Accessibility- With the impending doom of a recession, many people are living either on a strict budget or simply living paycheck to paycheck. The fees ODs impose for getting an eye exam are forever climbing and becoming too expensive for those on a budget. Ill give you an example: In 04 the government decided to finally deregulate ODs fees. So all the ODs (in my area anyway) made it seem as though the government had imposed these new fees onto their patients. When in reality ODs had pushed for this for a long time. Before deregulation they were all getting paid $39 CND per eye exam. Shortly after, they upd their fees to $45, two months later the fees went up to $59, by years end all were charging $70. In 2008 the average cost is $110. Are these fees going to keep climbing every year or are they ever going to level out? 
> 
> - Redo rates  If a specific ODs office has a particularly high redo-rate, it would be great to be able to double check the RX. Which by the way, wouldnt pose a risk to the public because the patient already had a full eye exam prior to the refraction.
> 
> _-Most_, not all, the Techs who work in Ophthalmologists offices, have hardly any training at all, yet these individuals do perform refractions that are dispensed to the patient. Same would go for the Ophthalmic Technicians, some take the course although most arent required. I have met techs that took the course and didnt know what AR was, or how to perform proper adjustments. I would think that basic optical knowledge must be a requirement to work in an ODs office, but from personal experience Ive realized that it is not. Seems to me that ODs have a double standard. On one hand its okay for them to have a tech working under them, yet it isnt okay to have a fully qualified and educated individual do there adjustments or pre-tests. 
> 
> So in conclusion I think that if refractions are done by Opticians following the College guidelines, there is _absolutely no danger_ to the patient receiving the refraction. The arguments are always missed pathology or patient not getting a proper eye exam, but if the standards of practice were strictly followed, patients would have to see an OD every year anyway. (Which by the way = more money for you!)
> ...


OF course I wouldnt expect you to see any problems with opticians refracting.It is to your advantage to do so.

If the customer has to see an OD yearly anyway ,based on your stated stds of practice ,and the industry standard is for an rx to be valid for 1 year ,where is the need for opticians to perform independent refractions ?

How is this of benefit to anyone other than the optician ?

You know as well as I,that refracting opticians would  see anybody in their store in order to get the sale,regardless of when the customer  has had a proper exam.They would also take advantage of the publics confusion about the three O's to downplay that a full exam is not being done.

I see this all the time around here with refracting opticians wearing their white lab coats,pretending to be a health care professional.Some of them even let their customers mistakenly refer to them as Dr. 

Who is going to police them? Certainly not the opticians themselves.It is to their advantage for this farce to continue.



If the local ODs become too pricey,their business will dry up leading to fee reductions (basically free market conditions asserting itself).However , in the interim, fees will likely increase to what the market will bear (and so they should from a business perspective)

The exam fee is  a small percentage of the total costs when eyewear is involved.If total  customer cost is causing problems in your business,you might want to look at lowering your fees if this is chasing customers away.

Why would I dance around the subject of not supporting refracting by opticians ? I dont know of any OD colleagues in favour of it.

Why would we want to help the competition break  into our profession and devalue some of the services we provide? 

The push by opticians to do independent refractions is nothing more than a self serving move to increase eyeglass and CL sales.You and I both know that, regardless of what else you may post.

----------


## tmorse

> I see this all the time around here with refracting opticians wearing their white lab coats,pretending to be a health care professional.Some of them even let their customers mistakenly refer to them as Dr. 
> 
> Who is going to police them? Certainly not the opticians themselves.It is to their advantage for this farce to continue.
> 
> The exam fee is a small percentage of the total costs when eyewear is involved..
> 
> The push by opticians to do independent refractions is nothing more than a self serving move to increase eyeglass and CL sales.You and I both know that, regardless of what else you may post.


HA HA!! 
Just as you also let your customers mistakenly believe that you are somehow a medical doctor.
Sorry to dissapointy but Opticians are already classed as Health Professionals throughout Canada... see Alberta's Health Professions Act.
Exam fee is a small percentage of your income, that is why you offer opticianry's optical goods for sale (like a MERCHANT)... your own 'self-serving move'. :p

----------


## eyemanflying

I am so sick and tired of the ignorance and arrogance of most OD's and their negative, selfish, egotistical attitudes toward opticians.  For the record, last time I checked...OD's were not God, and when I wrote my $735 cheque to the COO, opticians were considered health care professionals despite what the non-informed KWS says.

Call it what you will, the fact of the matter is one day opticians will refract or perform simple eye exams.  We do not want to diagnose diseases and conditions, that's the OD's expertise and responsibility.

Please read this very clearly as it will happen one day in the near future.......*Opticians will refract, period*.  

Now, to all you OD's out there in disbelief, grab a tissue, take a deep breath and gently wipe away those tears.  It's really going to be ok and you will still be able to charge the ridiculous dispensing fees and also accept the vendor rebates written to your personal account and not claimed to Revenue Canada.  There will be lots left over for the Beamer, cottage and boat.  

The time is coming to share a small piece of that pie, and it most definitely serves the public's best interest when a customer simply needs to have their Rx updated and nothing else.

Now, can't we all just get along for once???

----------


## Excalibur

> I am so sick and tired of the ignorance and arrogance of most OD's and their negative, selfish, egotistical attitudes toward opticians.  For the record, last time I checked...OD's were not God, and when I wrote my $735 cheque to the COO, opticians were considered health care professionals despite what the non-informed KWS says.
> 
> Call it what you will, the fact of the matter is one day opticians will refract or perform simple eye exams.  We do not want to diagnose diseases and conditions, that's the OD's expertise and responsibility.
> 
> Please read this very clearly as it will happen one day in the near future.......*Opticians will refract, period*.  
> 
> Now, to all you OD's out there in disbelief, grab a tissue, take a deep breath and gently wipe away those tears.  It's really going to be ok and you will still be able to charge the ridiculous dispensing fees and also accept the vendor rebates written to your personal account and not claimed to Revenue Canada.  There will be lots left over for the Beamer, cottage and boat.  
> 
> The time is coming to share a small piece of that pie, and it most definitely serves the public's best interest when a customer simply needs to have their Rx updated and nothing else.
> ...


A post full of insults... concluded by "can't we all just get along for once?"

NICE!!! LOL.

----------


## eyemanflying

> A post full of insults... concluded by "can't we all just get along for once?"
> 
> NICE!!! LOL.


Thank you Excalibur for the nice compliment and kind words.  I feel so special.  I suggest you take my advice on the last line for a change.

Can we have a group hug?

----------


## renee1111

[quote=kws6000;253927]


> OF course I wouldnt expect you to see any problems with opticians refracting.It is to your advantage to do so.


It is of great advantage to the patient also. Whether you like to admit it or not.




> If the customer has to see an OD yearly anyway ,based on your stated stds of practice ,and the industry standard is for an rx to be valid for 1 year ,where is the need for opticians to perform independent refractions ?


See last post




> How is this of benefit to anyone other than the optician ?


See last post 



> You know as well as I,that refracting opticians would see anybody in their store in order to get the sale,regardless of when the customer has had a proper exam.They would also take advantage of the publics confusion about the three O's to downplay that a full exam is not being done.


 No one is pretending to be anything, other than OD's prentending to be doctors. 




> I see this all the time around here with refracting opticians wearing their white lab coats, _pretending to be a health care professional_.Some of them even let their customers mistakenly refer to them as Dr.


Wow you really have no idea about the three O's do you. Do some reseach and you'll quickly find out that we ARE health care professionals! 




> Who is going to police them? Certainly not the opticians themselves.It is to their advantage for this farce to continue.


We are a self regulated profession, the College of Opticians is policing our actions.





> The exam fee is a small percentage of the total costs when eyewear is involved.If total customer cost is causing problems in your business,you might want to look at lowering your fees if this is chasing customers away.


I'm sure, no _positive_ I can beat your price!




> Why would I dance around the subject of not supporting refracting by opticians ? I dont know of any OD colleagues in favour of it.
> 
> Why would we want to help the competition break into our profession and devalue some of the services we provide?


Exactly! Why would we want OD's teaching our refraction courses?




> The push by opticians to do independent refractions is nothing more than a self serving move to increase eyeglass and CL sales.You and I both know that, regardless of what else you may post.


I totally disagree, this move is to offer better customer service.

----------


## renee1111

> I am so sick and tired of the ignorance and arrogance of most OD's and their negative, selfish, egotistical attitudes toward opticians. For the record, last time I checked...OD's were not God, and when I wrote my $735 cheque to the COO, opticians were considered health care professionals despite what the non-informed KWS says.
> 
> Call it what you will, the fact of the matter is one day opticians will refract or perform simple eye exams. We do not want to diagnose diseases and conditions, that's the OD's expertise and responsibility.
> 
> Please read this very clearly as it will happen one day in the near future.......*Opticians will refract, period*. 
> 
> Now, to all you OD's out there in disbelief, grab a tissue, take a deep breath and gently wipe away those tears. It's really going to be ok and you will still be able to charge the ridiculous dispensing fees and also accept the vendor rebates written to your personal account and not claimed to Revenue Canada. There will be lots left over for the Beamer, cottage and boat. 
> 
> The time is coming to share a small piece of that pie, and it most definitely serves the public's best interest when a customer simply needs to have their Rx updated and nothing else.
> ...


 :cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

----------


## optical maven

I find the comments about the cost of an eye exam and "exorbitant dispensing fees" to always be ridiculous. It seems that the game plan for opticians to refract is to pay $40,000 - $50,000 for an Eyelogic system (you can correct me if it is more or less) and provide the service for free. Well, nobody stays in business for long doing things for free. I recently had a woman ask for an expensive frame and lens combination which totalled about $850, including my outrageous, hidden dispensing fee. She left to shop around and came back a week later and ordered the glasses. She had been quoted $1200 for the same glasses at 2 different retail stores. Of course thankfully there was no "hidden dispensing fee". So I guess free eye exams won't really be all that free.

----------


## eyemanflying

> I find the comments about the cost of an eye exam and "exorbitant dispensing fees" to always be ridiculous. It seems that the game plan for opticians to refract is to pay $40,000 - $50,000 for an Eyelogic system (you can correct me if it is more or less) and provide the service for free. Well, nobody stays in business for long doing things for free. I recently had a woman ask for an expensive frame and lens combination which totalled about $850, including my outrageous, hidden dispensing fee. She left to shop around and came back a week later and ordered the glasses. She had been quoted $1200 for the same glasses at 2 different retail stores. Of course thankfully there was no "hidden dispensing fee". So I guess free eye exams won't really be all that free.


This is not par for the course.  Most but not all OD's do charge ridiculous dispensing fees.  The patients/customers are the ones that always come in to the optician and complain about the OD.  They always ask the questions....what is a dispensing fee and why do the optometrists charge it?  And, what's the difference between an optician and optometrist?  If you polled the general public glasses wearer, 9 out of 10 people couldn't answer each of these questions correctly and view the two O's as equivalent.  I'm just relaying what I hear.  Believe me, as an optician, I think it's an excellent idea for OD's to charge the high dispensing fees as it makes our sale that much easier to close.
:)

----------


## optical maven

What are some examples of ridiculous OD dispensing fees?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Perhaps they mean rediculously low dispensing fees? I don't know about other OD offices, but here, to charge a measly $148 dispensing fee on a progressive lens... ANY PAL, including a 1.67 freeform with transitions and super-hydrophobic AR. Now, again, I only have the office I work in as a comparason, but their prices are very competative, including that "ridiculous" fee.

----------


## eyemanflying

You guys have to be kidding me.  To measure a PD, seg height, bend two temples and splay two nose pads, all of which combined should take ten minutes.  A $148.00 fee is a riduculous rip off to a consumer.  But, please don't stop on my behalf as it's great for me when comparing to customers why I don't charge a fee.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Woah woah woah. The "fitting fee" isn't just that. It's the profit margin. I'm not gona go into specifics about markups etc, because this is the open forum, but we both know you make atleast $148 on a pair of PALs with a new frame. Especially when we're talking about high end frames (Versace, Escada, etc etc etc) and higher end PALs.

----------


## kws6000

> You guys have to be kidding me.  To measure a PD, seg height, bend two temples and splay two nose pads, all of which combined should take ten minutes.  A $148.00 fee is a riduculous rip off to a consumer.  But, please don't stop on my behalf as it's great for me when comparing to customers why I don't charge a fee.


So you are selling everything at cost?

----------


## optical maven

So you buy a frame for $100 and sell it for $240, but thankfully you don't charge a fee.   I buy the same frame for $100 and add a "fee" for $80, and so sell the same frame for $180.  My goodness, you're right!!  I am ripping off the public!!  What planet are you living on??

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Erm, this is why I wanted to avoid talking about markups. There's a fourm for that, maven, so be carefull what you post.

----------


## optical maven

> Erm, this is why I wanted to avoid talking about markups. There's a fourm for that, maven, so be carefull what you post.


I agree.  But don't make statements you know are not true.  It does not matter how the final cost is derived, but what the final price to the customer happens to be.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> I agree. But don't make statements you know are not true. It does not matter how the final cost is derived, but what the final price to the customer happens to be.


I do hope that's not directed at me. I'm on your side here. :P

----------


## eyemanflying

No sir, it is not.
:cheers:





> I do hope that's not directed at me. I'm on your side here. :P

----------


## optical maven

> I do hope that's not directed at me. I'm on your side here. :P


 No.  It was to eyemenflying

----------


## Truth

Interesting articles that we can all learn from...

A Green County optometrist was indicted for Medicaid fraud.
http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/17677799.html#

 FORMER MONMOUTH COUNTY  OPTOMETRIST SENTENCED TO SEVEN YEARS IN STATE PRISON FOR INSURANCE FRAUD
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/njins...e/amab0111.htm

  Attorney General Conway Announces Optometrist Indictment
http://migration.kentucky.gov/Newsro...indictment.htm

  Locum pleads guilty to defrauding multiple
http://www.opticianonline.net/Articl...g+multiple.htm

  Black Could Lose His Optometry License
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1933507/

  Dayton-area Optometrist Guilty of Insurance Fraud Totaling Nearly $11,500
http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/Newsroo...ReleaseID=5443

Ingersoll optometrist charged with fraud in filing claims
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/London...17/315700.html

  Optometrist Arrested for Falsifying Claims to Medicaid
http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.ns...C?OpenDocument

  Advertising Pitches for the 'See Clearly Method' Claim That Simple Exercises Can Improve Your Vision Naturally.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100845_pf.html

  Mass. Optometrist Focused on Trip to House of Correction Following Fraud Scam
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/ea...0/21/47093.htm

----------


## eyemanflying

Give me a break here, nice business ethics... It certainly does matter how the fees and pricing are derived.




> I agree. But don't make statements you know are not true. It does not matter how the final cost is derived, but what the final price to the customer happens to be.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

I still don't understand your beef. If you do have so many people coming in complaining about rediculous dispensing fees, give us some examples. Is it just that they're confused about the system? Because that makes perfect sence. I have people look at me funny when I explain it to them as well. But what Maven is getting at is in the end, the price is fair. We may get to that price in a different way, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with the ethics. We're showing the patient exactly where the cost is coming from.

----------


## optical maven

> Give me a break here, nice business ethics... It certainly does matter how the fees and pricing are derived.


So dispalying all fees charged to the customer is unethical.  But hiding your markup so no one knows how the price is derived is the ethical way.  How does that make sense?   I guess 3 for 1 is the ethical way to go.  I'm going to follow your lead eyemanflying.

----------


## eyemanflying

I see you've drank the kool-aid.  There is no hiding a mark up.  The selling price is what it is and there is no hidden cost or extra charge after the fact.  We don't quote a price and then say by the way, there's a $130 dispensing fee on top of that price because I have to have my receptionist measure your PD and bend the temples.  That would be considered unethical in my store and also classified as illegal dispensing.  As I said in earlier posts, this is what the customers are telling me and asking me...so please keep up the good work in trying to mesmorize the patient with bs that only an OD can properly provide and fit your glasses and that you shouldn't trust your eyes to anyone else.  What a crock.




> So dispalying all fees charged to the customer is unethical. But hiding your markup so no one knows how the price is derived is the ethical way. How does that make sense? I guess 3 for 1 is the ethical way to go. I'm going to follow your lead eyemanflying.

----------


## optical maven

> I see you've drank the kool-aid. There is no hiding a mark up. The selling price is what it is and there is no hidden cost or extra charge after the fact. We don't quote a price and then say by the way, there's a $130 dispensing fee on top of that price because I have to have my receptionist measure your PD and bend the temples. That would be considered unethical in my store and also classified as illegal dispensing. As I said in earlier posts, this is what the customers are telling me and asking me...so please keep up the good work in trying to mesmorize the patient with bs that only an OD can properly provide and fit your glasses and that you shouldn't trust your eyes to anyone else. What a crock.


 
In my office, as in every optometrist that I know,  all fees are discussed with the customer, including the dispensing fee.  They are given their prescription and told to shop around if they desire.  They are told to compare same frame and lens and to return if they find a better price elsewhere.  They always return.  I also have worked in the past with the COO and neither pricing glasses with a dispensing fee or a markup is illegal.  I do have a person working for me who previously worked for 10 years in a local optical store, often on her own, and she is not licensed.  I figured if it was good enough in an optician's premise it was good enough in my office.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

I'm sorry, but there's been no Kool-aid drinking here. I've been a LICENSED Optician since I was 18 years old. I've worked in chains, independants AND OD offices.  When I quote a price for a patient, the dispensing fee is included. It's broken down by lens, frame, coating, and fee. The patient is fully aware of what the fee is for, and believe me, the price is very competitive. 

I don't get your specific complaint. Most people when complaining about the cost plus system are complaining that it makes it so ODs can charge much LESS than indepenants, not more. (which I can fully understand.)

----------


## renee1111

> I don't get your specific complaint. Most people when complaining about the cost plus system are complaining that it makes it so ODs can charge much LESS than indepenants, not more. (which I can fully understand.)


Yes and no....cost plus dispensing would be a great system, but the reality of the situation is that OD's get discounts on lenses and frames. And rarely, if ever are those saving passed onto the patient. This is where the word "unethical" would make perfect sense.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Which is fine, and I agree with you. 

But that's not his complaint. He's complaining about high dispensing fees, which just makes no sence to me.

----------


## optical maven

> Yes and no....cost plus dispensing would be a great system, but the reality of the situation is that OD's get discounts on lenses and frames. And rarely, if ever are those saving passed onto the patient. This is where the word "unethical" would make perfect sense.


 
Do opticians not get the same discounts?  Do they pass these on to the customer?  It is still a fact that when all is added up, optometrists are almost always less expensive than retail stores for the same glasses.

----------


## renee1111

> Do opticians not get the same discounts? Do they pass these on to the customer? It is still a fact that when all is added up, optometrists are almost always less expensive than retail stores for the same glasses.


Yes, Opticians do get the same discounts and no, they don't pass them on, your right. But the cost plus model, is supposed to be just that "cost plus fitting fee" that's all. I guess I'm off the main subject, sorry guys....please carry on

----------


## Excalibur

> I'm sorry, but there's been no Kool-aid drinking here. I've been a LICENSED Optician since I was 18 years old. I've worked in chains, independants AND OD offices.  When I quote a price for a patient, the dispensing fee is included. It's broken down by lens, frame, coating, and fee. The patient is fully aware of what the fee is for, and believe me, the price is very competitive. 
> 
> I don't get your specific complaint. Most people when complaining about the cost plus system are complaining that it makes it so ODs can charge much LESS than indepenants, not more. (which I can fully understand.)


The fact that the following comment is made by a dispensing optician makes it even more valuable. "Most people when complaining about the cost plus system are complaining that it makes it so ODs can charge much LESS than indepenants, not more."


The post earlier in this thread outlining insurance fraud reminded me of this case about an optical store: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8sLV_xvEM

In conclusion, the last few pages have got far off topic. Good place to close this thread.

----------


## MelroseEye

> Not really wanting to jump into the fray about refracting one way or the other, Its the presumtion that opticians shouldn't be taking refracting courses that irritates me the most. 10 billion times health care professionals, including optometrists, had the education BEFORE the legislative change allowed them to use it. We ran into this time and time again in BC. For Life also points out that many opticians have been refracting for years under supervision or delegation, and finally, many opticians want to take the course just to gain insight and understanding into the process. I've been in the OR many times watching and assisting cataract surgery while an ophthalmologist explained the procedure right from pre-op to post-op and recovery. Doesn't mean I think opticians should seek the right to perform the bloody thing, just to gain insight and understanding first hand, up close and personal, so my knowlege of aphakia and its management with spectacles and contact lenses is enhanced, and some continuity with other allied professionals is realized.
> rant over.


As a dispensing optician who has even assisted M.D.'s during Lasik and PRK procedures, every bit of training and education, including the ability to effectively refract patients, has immensely expanded my ability to deliver insightful and quality care and services to my Opticianry patients. It is my hope that your Ministry des not suggest that Opticians shouldn't seek greater training and insight. I do agree that an optician or any other professional in the vision sciences should never prescribe corrective lenses without appropriate certifications. Hope this all works out for you.

----------


## Barry Santini

> It's not my approach , in fact I am not even in favor of opticians refracting .  Why not?
> 
> Having said that , the danger is not in refracting nor is the danger even in opticians prescribing WITH THE CORRECT TRAINING . The danger is that the public does not know what they are not getting . That's because we've let them to believe that the refraction *is* the eye exam.


Yes, I'm intentionally trying to stimulate a response here.  I challenge all boarders to show how "determining" the focus of the eye is endangering the public.  After all, the public  *refracts* themselves now with OTC readers and bifocals, yes?

Barry

----------


## Chris Ryser

> *You guys have to be kidding me. To measure a PD, seg height, bend two temples and splay two nose pads, all of which combined should take ten minutes. A $148.00 fee is a riduculous rip off to a consumer. But, please don't stop on my behalf as it's great for me when comparing to customers why I don't charge a fee.*


As far as I know Optometrists charge a flat dispensing fee and then sell the frame and lenses at cost, compared to an optician who uses a multilplying factor of his cost to arrive at his selling prices.

The optometrist will end up selling simple prescritions, as single vision in an inexpensive frame for much more than the optician, but expensive ones for much less.

----------


## optical maven

> Yes, I'm intentionally trying to stimulate a response here. I challenge all boarders to show how "determining" the focus of the eye is endangering the public. After all, the public *refracts* themselves now with OTC readers and bifocals, yes?
> 
> Barry


As has been said several times before:  The measuring of the refractive error of the eye is no different than measuring someone's body temperature or blood pressure.  You need no training or qualifications to do these measurments.  The interpretation (diagnosing) and subsequent prescribing have been deemed to require more training and so are restricted activities to those that are properly trained.

----------

