# Optical Forums > General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum >  when does an eyeglass rx expire?

## eyedoc2020

I was recently told by a supposed reliable source that eyeglass prescriptions NEVER expire unless the doctor writes an expiration date on it.  I always thought that an eyeglass rx expires after 2 years unless the doctor writes an earlier expiration on the rx.

I practice in New Jersey.  Perhaps the laws in NJ are different than other states.

Do any of you know the facts on this?

----------


## Steve Machol

No disrespect intended, but are you really a 'Doctor'? If so, of what? I would imagine an Optometrist would know the laws regarding his own profession, or at least should.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I was recently told by a supposed reliable source that eyeglass prescriptions NEVER expire unless the doctor writes an expiration date on it.  I always thought that an eyeglass rx expires after 2 years unless the doctor writes an earlier expiration on the rx.
> 
> I practice in New Jersey.  Perhaps the laws in NJ are different than other states.
> 
> Do any of you know the facts on this?


Ummm...what? 

Who is your reliable source?  

Something smells here.

----------


## bigmike1960

> No disrespect intended, but are you really a 'Doctor'? If so, of what? I would imagine an Optometrist would know the laws regarding his own profession, or at least should.



Agreed.

----------


## Wes

> I was recently told by a supposed reliable source that eyeglass prescriptions NEVER expire unless the doctor writes an expiration date on it.  I always thought that an eyeglass rx expires after 2 years unless the doctor writes an earlier expiration on the rx.
> 
> I practice in New Jersey.  Perhaps the laws in NJ are different than other states.
> 
> Do any of you know the facts on this?


You will get a much more reliable answer by contacting your state optometry board or optometrists association than you will by asking this on an international internet forum.  Good luck.  Let us know what they tell you, Doc.

----------


## eyedoc2020

> No disrespect intended, but are you really a 'Doctor'? If so, of what? I would imagine an Optometrist would know the laws regarding his own profession, or at least should.


It has been my understanding that an eyeglass rx is good for 2 years, and that is what I was taught in professional school. The official laws of optometry state nothing regarding eyeglass rx expirations. 

The "reliable source" I refer to is a director of a school that teaches opticianry.

In NJ, you can't just call up the board to ask the law on an issue, you have to submit a request in writing which can take awhile before getting a response.

I thought that a good place to inquire would be a site such as optiboard because I assume many of its members are opticians. Furthemore, I would also assume that opticians should also know the law regarding rx expirations since they need to know how to properly fill them or not fill them.

Just thought some of you might know.

No need for denigration on this site. If you have the facts, you only need to state them.

----------


## LandLord

My understanding in Ontario is there is nothing legally preventing me from filling a prescription of any date, even 20 years old.  

In practice, I would need a good reason to fill an Rx over 2 or 3 years old, unless the purchaser agrees to pay for any remake.

----------


## chip anderson

O.D. Rx's 2 yrs.   OMD, when and if indicated.

----------


## Wes

Laws vary from state to state.  For instance, in SC an eyeglass rx only expires if the prescriber states that it expires.  I was merely suggesting a local NJ optometrist/optician would be a much better resource.  I've seen people ask locality-specific laws on this international forum on numerous occasions and they are rarely satisfied with the answers provided.  So far you've gotten answers for South Carolina,  Mississippi and Ontario. It probably won't get much better.

Again, good luck.

----------


## Judy Canty

In VA, spectacle rx's may NOT specify an expiration date unless there is a medical requirement.  We've had some trouble with rx's written to expire in as little as 24 hours.

----------


## optical24/7

There are many state where an expiration on an eyeglass Rx is no more valid than a check box next to "Crizal" or "Varilux". Eyeglass Rx's do not fall into the purview of state pharmaceutical laws ( Where a medication has an expiration date and fines associated for filling.) It's wise to know your particular state's laws on this.

----------


## rbaker

> The official laws of optometry state nothing regarding eyeglass rx expirations.


You have just answered your own question.

----------


## harry888

I just perused the NJ optometry laws.  Couldn't find anything about spec Rx expirations.

Here in Massachusetts, ODs are required to write an expiration date as per State Optometry laws.  Also to be written on prescription is PD, address, and birthdate.  Expiration date is required, that date is up to professional discretion.

Lots of supposed info out there about a federal law that says an Rx is good only two years, but I've never seen it written.

It looks like these regs are state written, which is why internet contacts and glasses are so big and getting bigger as state rules don't apply

Harry

----------


## rbaker

> Lots of supposed info out there about a federal law that says an Rx is good only two years, but I've never seen it written. Harry


The laws governing optometry (and opticianry) in the United States are within the perview of the individual States and not the Federal Government. Thank God!

----------


## chip anderson

New Answer:  When the patient can no longer see as well as he should out of his old glasses.

Of course they don't write laws with this sort of common sense.

Chip

----------


## NJEyeGuy

I've been in the field for many years and happen to be in a school of opticianry at present here in NJ... They don't expire ever. Think about it in reverse, I can take ANY pair of glasses and replicate them so why would an RX need to expire? Should a person get a new exam? Absolutely. As a matter of business many large chains won't accept prescriptions dated older than 1-2 years but that's company policy not law or requirements.

Also for contacts it's two years unless you have a documented medical reason to cut it's expiration per your discretion.

----------


## Barry Santini

In eyewear, Rx expiration dates, Rx "hand-offs" and managing *capture* ratios are not primarily about client welfare.

They are about control.  The sooner we see the light about losing it, the better off and healthier our industry will be, IMHO.

B

----------


## AustinEyewear

> In eyewear, Rx expiration dates, Rx "hand-offs" and managing *capture* ratios are not primarily about client welfare.
> 
> They are about control.  The sooner we see the light about losing it, the better off and healthier our industry will be, IMHO.
> 
> B


Rx expiration's are a good way to get pts in for regular eye exams.  Pts often think that if they can see, there is no need for an eye exam.  It definitely could be considered in pts best interest to have Rx expire.  "hand-offs" are about excellent customer service.  capture ratios are about running a for-profit business. Capture ratios are directly related to understanding if you have the proper product mix for your patient base, and the ability of your optician to convey the product offering.  Again, its all about providing excellent customer service, nothing more.

----------


## fjpod

> The laws governing optometry (and opticianry) in the United States are within the perview of the individual States and not the Federal Government. Thank God!


Ohhhh..., I'm not so sure about that.  Yes, you are right that states control their professions, but not always their "commodities".  Eyeglasses 1 is a federal law that trumps states rights.  Yes, it only covers a specific thing about releasing the spectacle Rx, but it is conceivable that other federal rules can be made.  

Another example is the federal CL Rx release which specifies a one year expiration on CLs unless the prescriber writes something different.  This trumps state laws that may specify something else... (as it did in NY, and I am sure other places).

----------


## eyedoc2020

> Ohhhh..., I'm not so sure about that. Yes, you are right that states control their professions, but not always their "commodities". Eyeglasses 1 is a federal law that trumps states rights. Yes, it only covers a specific thing about releasing the spectacle Rx, but it is conceivable that other federal rules can be made. 
> 
> Another example is the federal CL Rx release which specifies a one year expiration on CLs unless the prescriber writes something different. This trumps state laws that may specify something else... (as it did in NY, and I am sure other places).


please tell me where I can get the cl law that states the cl rx is good for one year.  I thought that the law is that it is good for 2 years unless the doctor specifies an expiration less than two years.

----------


## eyedoc2020

> I've been in the field for many years and happen to be in a school of opticianry at present here in NJ... They don't expire ever. Think about it in reverse, I can take ANY pair of glasses and replicate them so why would an RX need to expire? Should a person get a new exam? Absolutely. As a matter of business many large chains won't accept prescriptions dated older than 1-2 years but that's company policy not law or requirements.
> 
> Also for contacts it's two years unless you have a documented medical reason to cut it's expiration per your discretion.


As a doctor, I would feel uncomfortable filling an eyeglass rx after 2 years.  If the patient refused an eye exam and I made them glasses without an exam, that patient could sue me if they lose vision to an undiagnosed eye disease.  

In regards to contact lenses, 2 years is generally too long to go without an eye exam.  I have seen many patients that did well in a particular contact lens that needed to be changed one or 2 years later due to complications that had NO SYMPTOMS for the patient.  Waiting that extra year could have cost the patient some vision.  

Contact lenses are a medical device that interacts with the ocular physiology.  For many patients, it is foolish to go 2 whole years without an eye exam.  For this reason, many O.D. and ophthalmologists will routinely expire a cl rx after one year.

----------


## fjpod

> please tell me where I can get the cl law that states the cl rx is good for one year. I thought that the law is that it is good for 2 years unless the doctor specifies an expiration less than two years.


You may be right, I suppose we could google Fairness to Contact Lens Consumer Act to be sure.  My point was that sometimes federal law trumps states rights.

----------


## Barry Santini

> Rx expiration's are a good way to get pts in for regular eye exams. Pts often think that if they can see, there is no need for an eye exam. It definitely could be considered in pts best interest to have Rx expire. "hand-offs" are about excellent customer service. capture ratios are about running a for-profit business. Capture ratios are directly related to understanding if you have the proper product mix for your patient base, and the ability of your optician to convey the product offering. Again, its all about providing excellent customer service, nothing more.


Here we may disagree. Yes, business aspects are important. But freedom of choice is too. And in the good ol' USA, there are only TWO laws regarding prescription eyewear:

1. FDA: Lenses dispensed must meet impact rseistantance standards.
2. FTC: Rx Release rule - patient MUST be given their RX as they leave the exam room.

As far as patient's best interest to keep them seeing their best, most academic studies define "plano" as inclusive from -0.50 to +0.50 sphere. So much for ANSI tolerance. And so much for defining a relationship between what's good enough/adequate and what's best. Even our driving standards, based on a 20/40 acuity threshold but without any contrast sensitivity testing, are, at best, merely adequate. 

If an office is interersted in delivering your patients the best, tell them so, and why they feel it is important to return every 1-2+ years for an full eye health exam. But don't fall victim to practice management company's cheering-you-on and appear to misuse the imprimatur of the eyeglass RX form to ensure client vision welfare.

So much is rationalized about "business" and justifying violating the letter of, if not the spirit of the Rx release law. Rx hand-offs and subtle manupulations to keep exam clients from leaving the office at best skate the edge of the law's intent. Now, not every office is covertly trying to maniipulate clients. But in my office, where you arrive _wanting_ eyewear (no exam, no doctor, no insurance taken), we're dependant on client's desiring, seeking and _not being obfuscated_ in their quest for the best. 

BTW - IMHO, staff hand-offs are fine. "Rx" hand-offs are not. Period.

All indie opticals desire is a reasonably-level playing field, and a chance to prove their worth. The FTC law was enacted to serve freedom of choice, which helps keep the field near level. Insurance, that's another matter.

No offense meant here, and certainly not its not personal. But having seen what practice's are exposed to, and the kool-aid they drink, I think it may be refreshing to see it from another ECP's perspective.

B

----------


## Barry Santini

> As a doctor, I would feel uncomfortable filling an eyeglass rx after 2 years. If the patient refused an eye exam and I made them glasses without an exam, that patient could sue me if they lose vision to an undiagnosed eye disease. 
> 
> In regards to contact lenses, 2 years is generally too long to go without an eye exam. I have seen many patients that did well in a particular contact lens that needed to be changed one or 2 years later due to complications that had NO SYMPTOMS for the patient. Waiting that extra year could have cost the patient some vision. 
> 
> Contact lenses are a medical device that interacts with the ocular physiology. For many patients, it is foolish to go 2 whole years without an eye exam. For this reason, many O.D. and ophthalmologists will routinely expire a cl rx after one year.


BTW, Canada Ophthalmological society outlined standards for eye exam frequency. For 19-41 years old, without symptoms, every ten years. I'm not saying this is great, but it sure is on the opposite pole from what we hold near and dear.

And if a person is "plano" and doen't need any eyewear duplicated...do they then fall in the *donut-hole* of *not* being fortunate enough to have an eye doctor looking out for their vision welfare?

B

----------


## fjpod

> ...All indie opticals desire is a reasonably-level playing field, and a chance to prove their worth. The FTC law was enacted to serve freedom of choice, which helps keep the field near level. Insurance, that's another matter.
> 
> No offense meant here, and certainly not its not personal. But having seen what practice's are exposed to, and the kool-aid they drink, I think it may be refreshing to see it from another ECP's perspective.
> 
> B


But Barry, the way you put this makes it sound like the purpose of Eyeglasses 1 is to protect the economic interests of the "independant" opticals.  Everybody knows this law was passed to protect the consumer.  

I know you are probably the last person I should pick on, but Eyeglasses 1, in it's present form, in the present marketplace, does neither.

----------


## Barry Santini

> But Barry, the way you put this makes it sound like the purpose of Eyeglasses 1 is to protect the economic interests of the "independant" opticals. Everybody knows this law was passed to protect the consumer. 
> 
> I know you are probably the last person I should pick on, but Eyeglasses 1, in it's present form, in the present marketplace, does neither.


I agree, Fjpod. It was to protect the right to choice for the consumer, and prevent steering and other manipulations. In the end, what with how incredibly uncredible so much of government and politics are today, I think it would be nice and refreshing for the average US citizen to really not have to deal with having the spirit of laws circumvented. Just hand them their Rx when they leave the exam room, and think twice before using expiration dates to police an individual'a visual health when the emmetropes (and near emmetropes) can do as they please. Last time I looked, "plano" was an "Rx" too.

B

----------


## chip anderson

Anyone wonder why emmetropes don't need UV protection.   Ain't they succeptable to catarcts and MD too?
Dey sho' gonna git a lot mo' UV than those folks wearin spectacles, whether the spectacles have UV filters or not.

Odd I've never seen an Rx specifiying UV unless the doctor owned a dispensary.

Chip

----------


## RIMLESS

..

----------


## RIMLESS

..

----------


## Barry Santini

> Anyone wonder why emmetropes don't need UV protection.   Ain't they succeptable to catarcts and MD too?
> Dey sho' gonna git a lot mo' UV than those folks wearin spectacles, whether the spectacles have UV filters or not.
> 
> Odd I've never seen an Rx specifiying UV unless the doctor owned a dispensary.
> 
> Chip


Chip:

Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?

And an expiration date?

B

----------


## fjpod

> Chip:
> 
> Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?
> 
> And an expiration date?
> 
> B


I'll let you handle Chipper...LOL

----------


## optical24/7

> BTW - IMHO, staff hand-offs are fine. "Rx" hand-offs are not. Period.
> 
>  B


I agree about the Rx "hand-off". It's akin to car dealers who don't give your keys back when they are evaluating your trade-in. You almost have to demand they return them if you decide to shop elsewhere.




> Chip:
> 
> Have you seen an "rx" for plano OU, with UV 400 filter?
> 
> And an expiration date?
> 
> B


It would depend if the Rx was written by an OD or MD. MD's virtually never put an expiration on an eye glass Rx. I guess they don't care about their patient's health.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Barry Santini

> I agree about the Rx "hand-off". It's akin to car dealers who don't give your keys back when they are evaluating your trade-in. You almost have to demand they return them if you decide to shop elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> It would depend if the Rx was written by an OD or MD. MD's virtually never put an expiration on an eye glass Rx. I guess they don't care about their patient's health.


+1!

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Here we may disagree. Yes, business aspects are important. But freedom of choice is too. And in the good ol' USA, there are only TWO laws regarding prescription eyewear:
> 
> 1. FDA: Lenses dispensed must meet impact rseistantance standards.
> 2. FTC: Rx Release rule - patient MUST be given their RX as they leave the exam room.


There are state laws that pertain to this subject as well.  i.e. Rx released when exam paid for.




> BTW - IMHO, staff hand-offs are fine. "Rx" hand-offs are not. Period.


+1  Rx should happily be provided once exam fees are paid.




> All indie opticals desire is a reasonably-level playing field, and a chance to prove their worth. The FTC law was enacted to serve freedom of choice, which helps keep the field near level. Insurance, that's another matter.
> 
> No offense meant here, and certainly not its not personal. But having seen what practice's are exposed to, and the kool-aid they drink, I think it may be refreshing to see it from another ECP's perspective.
> 
> B


Here is our perspective on the issue:

The terminology "hand-off" is a play on words and an misleading description of what occurs on most O.D. oriented offices.  I'm not saying there are not offices that don't try to do this sort of thing.  But I think it is unfair to make a federal case out of this when it is simply part of the normal office flow, and rather than accepting it as that, the word "hand-off" was devised to "demonize" the O.D.  In our office, patients come to us because of the world class customer service we provide and selection we offer. They would be offended if we acted any differently.  "Oh, see ya later, don't let the exam room door hit you in the .... on the way out".  That is not the level of customer service we wish to provide and I don't think any entity has the right to tell us what level of customer service we are allowed to provide. 

As far as the issue with capture ratios goes, we use that data to decide what products to offer.  I don't want any entity telling me what products to offer either - I think that is up to us, its our investment.  We have every right to measure this data and tweak our inventory accordingly, so that we can offer the products our customers want.  Capture ratios are just one small component of what we measure, it just happens to be part of the data. Any successful business owner with a business background is going to measure this data. It would be imprudent to do otherwise. 

Believe it or not, most patients like to purchase from us.  They may go price shopping around, Rx in hand, but they'll be back.  We work very hard to make that happen, and its not because of the so called "hand-off".

----------


## Barry Santini

Austineyewear:  I think your points are well taken, and I was not tryin' to demonize all OD's. And I agree with your in office business metrics. Let's just agree that although your office sees these issues clearly, many others don't.  And many others DO believe the rhetoric they're being fed.  And countless others are still into the whole Rx/eyewear *control* thing.

Thanks for your feedback and willingness to engage is this discussion.

B

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Austineyewear:  I think your points are well taken, and I was not tryin' to demonize all OD's. And I agree with your in office business metrics. Let's just agree that although your office sees these issues clearly, many others don't.  And many others DO believe the rhetoric they're being fed.  And countless others are still into the whole Rx/eyewear *control* thing.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback and willingness to engage is this discussion.
> 
> B


I understand where your coming from and probably have the same concern if I was in your position. Just not sure how much of this is really taking place.  I often thought on the contra ire there are lots of O.D.'s that don't concern themselves with this issue (a good thing for you) - but that was just my observations, no data to back that up. But until the pt pays for the exam, there really is nothing to complain about, and most exam rooms don't have cash registers.  I feel like your real argument should be that all Rx's should be provided as part of the exam receipt. The hand-off that gets spoken about quite often on this board really isn't part of that process.  The exam has many faucets to it, you can't cover everything in one fell swoop, so its really hard to argue for the Rx to be provided immediately upon doctor and patient parting ways. Sometimes the patient asks the doctors opinion in eye wear and no Rx has been provided yet.  I don't think this should be considered illegal and putting laws in place could cause this to become illegal.  That's just more barriers to an already struggling business.  

In my opinion, (looking from the outside looking in to your business model), your biggest concern should be online retailers and the "next door" corporate type operations. I would think these are your main competitors, not private O.D.'s. People in general trust their private O.D. and prefer to purchase from them all things being equal. So your odds of getting that business from the ones that rigorously pursue it and make it a great optical are pretty slim anyway. And if they are not rigorously pursuing it, then they probably hand off the Rx no problem anyway.    For example, by the time the few stragglers that leave a good O.D. with a good optical to shop elsewhere start shopping, they could go to any number of the places that I just mentioned, so statistically, your odds of getting that client are pretty low. They may go to LC or shop online.  That seems like it would be your real issue.  I guess you would know by the number of people who walk into your place who have no Rx and are having trouble getting it from their provider.  We see that occasionally, but most of the time they have Rx in hand, I don't feel like there is an industry problem with that issue, at least not in this part of the U.S.

----------


## Barry Santini

I guess its only about the specifics for me and others when the specifics and the spirit of the FTC Rx release law are being disrespected.
In my store, *many* people will NOT return to their ECP DR. if they have had a hard time obtaining their RX after exam.  They hate it!  THIS is what I'm talking about.

And if you ever attend many of the DR practice management seminars, as I do (I speak at them), you'll see how the mantra of "_THEY'RE YOUR Rx's!"_ can get out of hand.
_
B_

----------


## chip anderson

Austin:   

Patients don't even trust thier MD's anymore.  They never did trust O.D.'s.  Especially if they feel the _doctor_ is trying to _capture_them.

Second or third opinion anyone?

----------


## Barry Santini

Capture? Hand-off? "Prescribe" Sun or computer glasses? Maximize profit?
Maybe it should be renamed "Occupy ECP Street"
B

----------


## AustinEyewear

> And if you ever attend many of the DR practice management seminars, as I do (I speak at them), you'll see how the mantra of "_THEY'RE YOUR Rx's!"_ can get out of hand.
> _
> B_


Been to a few live ones and read some online - I know what you're referring to, but honestly, I've never heard them talk about holding the Rx back from the patient.  The spirit of the discussion (on the ones I've been to or read) is how to do a better job of presenting eye wear.  Something that I'm sure you strive for as well....

----------


## chip anderson

A year or two ago I ran into (and still do occasionally) a number of OMD offices that held the premise that refraction and spectacle Rx providing were not part of a _complete eye exam_ and therefore did not provide an Rx.  This appearently being due to some insurance companies providing a separate code for same.
These MD's appearently did not comprehend that unless the patient had pain, trauma, or sudden loss of vision, a glasses exam is why they called the doctor and made an appointment to see them.   Of course the patient was displeased when he left the office without an Rx and more displeased when the optician called for the Rx (sometimes getting the answer that this was not done, but oddly if the opticians office insisted stringently enough they always seem to be able to come up with one.)   And yes I do understand if the patient was in and and piece of steel was removed, or an infection was treated, it was not a good time to do a refraction.
But almost always when a routine exam is done, the patient scheduled this primarily for a refraction.  Not to discount all the other good things the doctor checked for, but the patient doesn't even know all these things, they just want to see better with a new pair of glasses.    Even if the doctor is a world renouned surgeon, they called for a general exam with a refractive result.

Chip

----------


## Barry Santini

> Been to a few live ones and read some online - I know what you're referring to, but honestly, I've never heard them talk about holding the Rx back from the patient.  The spirit of the discussion (on the ones I've been to or read) is how to do a better job of presenting eye wear.  Something that I'm sure you strive for as well....


They dont advocate holding back...just 'controlling' it.

----------


## regional_manager

How could an eyeglass rx expire if you can neutralize and duplicate a pair of existing glasses?

----------


## jediron1

Steve's right! When I was in school we knew the laws for optical. Barry is right concerning contacts. But as far as I have seen its up too the OD or OMD to whether they want to put an expiration date down. If they do you can't use but you can neutralize old glasses and use that, at least in NY that's allowed.  :Ninja:

----------


## jediron1

> How could an eyeglass rx expire if you can neutralize and duplicate a pair of existing glasses?



As I noted in post 44 if it has an expiration you can't use rx but can neutralize and you should write some where on patients info you neutralized glasses!

----------


## NJEyeGuy

You can't really hold back much, as the law requires not even 1 but 2 copies be given to each patient. I do agree with the fact that patient flow often prevents the doctor from waiting there until the patient pays for their exam. As for feeling uncomfortable just make sure you have the patient sign an "against advice" for the exam and make the glasses. 

For the contacts I wouldn't hesitate to mention the FDA's recommendation of 1 year but in NJ there needs to be more than an "I didn't feel like it was a good idea" to cut the expiration. However, like I said you can make a business decision not to fill the prescription after 1 year if it makes you uncomfortable. I agree there should be a better standard to protect stupid people from themselves but until the law changes to back your decision you still have to give them 2 years.

----------


## LandLord

> As I noted in post 44 if it has an expiration you can't use rx but can neutralize and you should write some where on patients info you neutralized glasses!


What if the Rx is expired and the patient has their old glasses with them?  Can I copy the glasses if I don't peek at the Rx?

----------


## regional_manager

> What if the Rx is expired and the patient has their old glasses with them?  Can I copy the glasses if I don't peek at the Rx?



Yep, that's why I don't get how an eyeglass rx can expire.  I feel like it would be better to go off of the written rx instead of  a neutralization.  Just my opinion.

----------


## Judy Canty

Not every state allows duplication of eyeglasses.  You need to check with your state regulations, if applicable.

----------


## thedjc01

No one really cares what they do in Canada here in the United States.  Opticians are now doing eye exams in Canada instead of optometrists, right?

----------


## thedjc01

I think it also depends on the state that you are in.  In north Carolina we make scripts expire after 1 year.  It is really the doctors discretion.

----------


## Wes

They're doing refractions, not exams.  There's a difference.

----------


## Barry Santini

Today, my partner, in an extremely inciteful (!) piece of original thinking, put this whole expired Rx/duplicate thingy in proper perspective:

Said he: "If a person's glasses are _broken_, and the Rx connected to them has surpassed its expiration date, and I know that others say we shouldn't duplicate them...but...should we _repair_ them....or not?"

Which, he asks, would be more consistent with our duty to protect people's health? Which would be more consistent with those who say "No!" to using an expired Rx?

Me? "Expired Rx, my ***!" One of the all-time, biggest waste-of time and mental effort discussion points I can imagine in eyewear. Really really just plain silly.

B

----------


## chip anderson

Senario for expiration:  Patient has one pair of glasses, many years old, broken.  Rx is + or - 8 diopters.   His eye doctor can't see him for 6 weeks (not unusual among OMD's around here).   Now do you make him a new a new pair of glasses, *now* in his old Rx.  Or do you start with a diatribe: "The law says ....."

Chip

----------


## Judy Canty

> Senario for expiration: Patient has one pair of glasses, many years old, broken. Rx is + or - 8 diopters. His eye doctor can't see him for 6 weeks (not unusual among OMD's around here). Now do you make him a new a new pair of glasses, *now* in his old Rx. Or do you start with a diatribe: "The law says ....."
> 
> Chip


And once again, negating his impetuous for seeing his eye doctor. With that logic, he'll never need an eye exam.

----------


## braheem24

> Senario for expiration:  Patient has one pair of glasses, many years old, broken.  Rx is + or - 8 diopters.   His eye doctor can't see him for 6 weeks (not unusual among OMD's around here).   Now do you make him a new a new pair of glasses, *now* in his old Rx.  Or do you start with a diatribe: "The law says ....."
> 
> Chip


Go to Lenscrafters, Eyemasters, Visionworks, Wal-mart, Sears, JC penneys, Heck walk into any mall and get a walk in refraction from a business that's ready to take business from all of the ill-prepared independents.

----------


## Barry Santini

> And once again, negating his impetuous for seeing his eye doctor. With that logic, he'll never need an eye exam.


And if the person in the above scenario happens to be an emmetrope, with no Rx eyewear, just what is their impetus to see an eye doctor or need aneye exam? Shall we now regulate OTCs, to protect these people's eyehealth? Further with this reasoning, sunwear?

B

----------


## Judy Canty

That's the most ridiculous argument yet. Where is the urgency in replacing non-rx eyewear? BTW, yes I do believe that OTC readers should be regulated, if not outlawed altogether.

Let's keep the discussion on an "apples to apples" basis. No "red herrigs", please.

----------


## Barry Santini

> That's the most ridiculous argument yet. Where is the urgency in replacing non-rx eyewear? BTW, yes I do believe that OTC readers should be regulated, if not outlawed altogether.
> 
> Let's keep the discussion on an "apples to apples" basis. No "red herrigs", please.


Well that's my point. Without prescription eyewear, non-wearer's aren't being subjected to what I feel is an arbitrary condition to *mandate* have an eyexam to ensure/ protect their eye health through a gatekeeping function such as eyewear Rx expiration. The point is that whether or NOT they have an Rx, I'm not sure why vision health should have a lawful protective/prophylactic mandate tied to fulfillment of a low risk item (eyewear has been declared as such by the FDA). I can't think of any other related aspect of healthcare that similarly does. Help me, I'm listening.

I think we have too much tendency to confuse medical eye health with refractive clarity. Yes, they're related, but the use of Rx expirations is not consistent with eye health risk management for all individuals. 

So either everyone has to get an eye exam every year or two, or logically, we should stop discriminating in favor of ammetropic eye health only.

B

----------


## AustinEyewear

We all read and see pts who have adapted to improper Rx and/or fitting's / measurements.  The same thing could occur with an old Rx. A great example is when a pt is first prescribed for reading zones and does not "take" the Rx prescribed.  The pts continues to age, continues to "get by" w/o taking their prescribed Rx until one day they just can't read, and now have difficulty adapting to a perfectly fitted progressive.  What an injustice the pt has done to themselves for not taking their prescribed Rx.  This is why Rx's should probably expire.  An expired Rx prevents an unscrupulous eye glass vendor from never mentioning that maybe they should at least get a refraction, before the pt ends up adapting to something they should not adapt to.  It is essentially a pt protection mechanism.  It protects their eyes, and it protects their wallet from having to pay for lenses that don't work or at least don't work as well as they could.

----------


## Barry Santini

> We all read and see pts who have adapted to improper Rx and/or fitting's / measurements. The same thing could occur with an old Rx. A great example is when a pt is first prescribed for reading zones and does not "take" the Rx prescribed. The pts continues to age, continues to "get by" w/o taking their prescribed Rx until one day they just can't read, and now have difficulty adapting to a perfectly fitted progressive. What an injustice the pt has done to themselves for not taking their prescribed Rx. This is why Rx's should probably expire. An expired Rx prevents an unscrupulous eye glass vendor from never mentioning that maybe they should at least get a refraction, before the pt ends up adapting to something they should not adapt to. It is essentially a pt protection mechanism. It protects their eyes, and it protects their wallet from having to pay for lenses that don't work or at least don't work as well as they could.


Very True, AustinEyewear. But, IMHO, a bit oversimplified in the prognosis of ezpected consequences.

B

----------


## rdcoach5

> That's the most ridiculous argument yet. Where is the urgency in replacing non-rx eyewear? BTW, yes I do believe that OTC readers should be regulated, if not outlawed altogether.
> 
> Let's keep the discussion on an "apples to apples" basis. No "red herrigs", please.


 Are you serious?

----------


## chip anderson

Courious and others:   My senario mentioned an Rx of Plus or Minus 8.00 diopters.   To me this would imply that the patient needs something *now*.     Generally folks with this much correction, aren't very functional without glasses. Not after waiting to see the doctor for any length of time.   Couldn't bring myself to get a patient to change doctors, unless he didn't like the one he had or the condition needed immediate _medical_ attention.

Chip

----------


## Fezz

Isn't it about time that this thread expires?

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Courious and others:   My senario mentioned an Rx of Plus or Minus 8.00 diopters.   To me this would imply that the patient needs something *now*.     Generally folks with this much correction, aren't very functional without glasses. Not after waiting to see the doctor for any length of time.   Couldn't bring myself to get a patient to change doctors, unless he didn't like the one he had or the condition needed immediate _medical_ attention.
> 
> Chip


It would seem most pt that depend on an Rx of this magnitude typically have multiple pairs of backups already.

----------


## LandLord

> Well that's my point. Without prescription eyewear, non-wearer's aren't being subjected to what I feel is an arbitrary condition to *mandate* have an eyexam to ensure/ protect their eye health through a gatekeeping function such as eyewear Rx expiration. The point is that whether or NOT they have an Rx, I'm not sure why vision health should have a lawful protective/prophylactic mandate tied to fulfillment of a low risk item (eyewear has been declared as such by the FDA). I can't think of any other related aspect of healthcare that similarly does. Help me, I'm listening.
> 
> I think we have too much tendency to confuse medical eye health with refractive clarity. Yes, they're related, but the use of Rx expirations is not consistent with eye health risk management for all individuals. 
> 
> So either everyone has to get an eye exam every year or two, or logically, we should stop discriminating in favor of ammetropic eye health only.
> 
> B


Perfectly stated.

----------


## LandLord

To expand on Barry's argument:

If NOT having a full oculo-visual exam every 2 years is so dangerous then why don't we have laws preventing people from renewing their license plates until they have seen an optometrist?

----------


## chip anderson

Austin:    A very high percentage of those with Rx's of this magnitude are either poor or cheap, or unwilling to pay for two pair of _ugly thick glasses. _ They don't have back-ups.

Chip

----------


## uncut

I think that we *all* must at least agree, that the Rx *definitely* expires.....................................................  ..................... when the patient does. :Wink:

----------


## cocoisland58

If a customer presents an Rx that has an expired date on it then I could not fill it.  If a customer presents a pair of glasses without an Rx and asks that they be duplicated then I would do so but with a recommendation that an exam be done.  If a customer presents a broken pair of glasses I would do a repair if a repair was possible.  It seems fairly simple.

----------


## braheem24

> I think that we *all* must at least agree, that the Rx *definitely* expires.....................................................  ..................... when the patient does.


You've never repaired a pair for an open casket?  :Wink:

----------


## Barry Santini

> If a customer presents an Rx that has an expired date on it then I could not fill it. If a customer presents a pair of glasses without an Rx and asks that they be duplicated then I would do so but with a recommendation that an exam be done. If a customer presents a broken pair of glasses I would do a repair if a repair was possible. It seems fairly simple.


Yes, it does.  Yet it appears to my mind that *not* filling it is discrimintory to the first case, since their is very low risk of harm FROM EYEWEAR.  This is, however, very different from the harm that can arise frokm NOT having and eye exam, which should apply equally to all, regardless of vision error.  The truth is that epiration dates are really a covert way of trying to ensure the person comes back.  It is a very thinnly-veiled manipulation by the offices that employ it.  I for one, would NOT want to be on a TV panel discussion where I'm asked "why only Rx wearers with expiration dates are being directed to an exam every two years...or whatever time frame stated on the Rx.

B

----------


## LandLord

> If a customer presents an Rx that has an expired date on it then I could not fill it. If a customer presents a pair of glasses without an Rx and asks that they be duplicated then I would do so but with a recommendation that an exam be done. If a customer presents a broken pair of glasses I would do a repair if a repair was possible. It seems fairly simple.


Only from a training viewpoint.  Not from an education standpoint.  You can be trained to follow simple rules about when to fill an Rx.  Using your judgement to decide when to fill it takes education.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Austin:    A very high percentage of those with Rx's of this magnitude are either poor or cheap, or unwilling to pay for two pair of _ugly thick glasses. _ They don't have back-ups.
> 
> Chip


Our practice does not see this poor/cheap trend, I'd have to disagree that you can categorize a persons income by their Rx.  Most high Rx we see have multiple pairs of glasses simply because they have been in glasses for so long.  I'd have to say this is a small corner case of this discussion and does not warrant making the case against Rx expiration. (Someone has to have the other side of the position......   :Smile:   )

----------


## AustinEyewear

> To expand on Barry's argument:
> 
> If NOT having a full oculo-visual exam every 2 years is so dangerous then why don't we have laws preventing people from renewing their license plates until they have seen an optometrist?


There should be, its too easy to cheat on these exams and our requirements for getting a license in US are way too lax - way too many bad drivers.

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Today, my partner, in an extremely inciteful (!) piece of original thinking, put this whole expired Rx/duplicate thingy in proper perspective:
> 
> Said he: "If a person's glasses are _broken_, and the Rx connected to them has surpassed its expiration date, and I know that others say we shouldn't duplicate them...but...should we _repair_ them....or not?"
> 
> Which, he asks, would be more consistent with our duty to protect people's health? Which would be more consistent with those who say "No!" to using an expired Rx?
> 
> Me? "Expired Rx, my ***!" One of the all-time, biggest waste-of time and mental effort discussion points I can imagine in eyewear. Really really just plain silly.
> 
> B


In this case, you are likely repairing a frame, not an Rx.  Again, another corner case that does not warrant the case against Rx expiration. Rx expiration is done to protect the health of the pts eyes and to protect their wallets from unscrupulous dealers.  800-Contacts and Costal Contacts are case in point.

----------


## Barry Santini

> In this case, you are likely repairing a frame, not an Rx. Again, another corner case that does not warrant the case against Rx expiration. Rx expiration is done to protect the health of the pts eyes and to protect their wallets from unscrupulous dealers. 800-Contacts and Costal Contacts are case in point.


Yes, I agree with contacts (technically classed as drugs).

Not expirations connected with Rx eyewear.  At Best, we'll agree to disagree.

B

----------


## AustinEyewear

> Yes, I agree with contacts (technically classed as drugs).
> 
> Not expirations connected with Rx eyewear.  At Best, we'll agree to disagree.
> 
> B


I'll agree to that.....(my point was that types like  800/Coastal wouldn't recommend a refraction to someone who has an expired glasses Rx, which I think we all agree should be done before filling an old eyeglasses Rx,  hellck, they'll even fill an expired contact Rx)  Just don't shoot me.... someone has to take the other side of the discussion, otherwise its not a discussion  :Smile:

----------


## Barry Santini

> I'll agree to that.....(my point was that types like 800/Coastal wouldn't recommend a refraction to someone who has an expired glasses Rx, which I think we all agree should be done before filling an old eyeglasses Rx, hellck, they'll even fill an expired contact Rx) Just don't shoot me.... someone has to take the other side of the discussion, otherwise its not a discussion


+1!  Let's get a beer!

B

----------


## Lofussi

I have never worked in the eastern part of the US.   Only in Arizona and New Mexico where I went to school.   New Mexico is a Non License state but Rx's  especially CL Rx's  expire in 1 year,  as they should.   Now Arizona where I currently practice,  dispensing that is,  There is legislation and the State Law states 1 year from date written unless otherwise stipulated by the doctor on the written RX.  Duplication is allowed if the Dr.  approves it in writing,  but otherwise the filling or duplication of an expired RX is a class 2 Misdemeanor that is Punishable by Law so It truly doe depend upon which State you are in and whether or not there is a regulatory Board in place.

----------


## rdcoach5

> I have never worked in the eastern part of the US.   Only in Arizona and New Mexico where I went to school.   New Mexico is a Non License state but Rx's  especially CL Rx's  expire in 1 year,  as they should.   Now Arizona where I currently practice,  dispensing that is,  There is legislation and the State Law states 1 year from date written unless otherwise stipulated by the doctor on the written RX.  Duplication is allowed if the Dr.  approves it in writing,  but otherwise the filling or duplication of an expired RX is a class 2 Misdemeanor that is Punishable by Law so It truly doe depend upon which State you are in and whether or not there is a regulatory Board in place.


In Ohio a licensed optician is allowed to duplicate an Rx for spectacles

----------

