# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Optician Mark Ups

## Excalibur

What is the average mark up for lenses in your store? What is the average mark up for frames? What is the average mark up for add-ons such as A/R coating? Does your mark up differ from industry averages?

How many opticians charge cost plus a flat dispensing rate for their wares?

----------


## k12311997

> What is the average mark up for lenses in your store? What is the average mark up for frames? What is the average mark up for add-ons such as A/R coating? Does your mark up differ from industry averages?
> 
> How many opticians charge cost plus a flat dispensing rate for their wares?


As per posting guidelines costs are not permitted to be discussed in the general forums.  

I'd ask that you'd join the professional forum to discuss these things, but I realize that wouldn't help that ax you have to grind.

----------


## Excalibur

> As per posting guidelines costs are not permitted to be discussed in the general forums.  
> 
> I'd ask that you'd join the professional forum to discuss these things, but I realize that wouldn't help that ax you have to grind.


You are right. Why would opticians want to discuss their mark ups??  :Confused:

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Seriously? Again? You seriously have to stop making new threads just to take pot shots.

Look, there are specific guidelines on what is appropriate on this forum, and what is not. There IS a forum for discussing pricing, etc, but it's not open to the public, and it SHOULDN'T be. You know damn well that markups are fairly even (atleast when it comes to independants) or else there would be no way for them to be competitive. Do you go around telling all your patients how much markup is on YOUR glasses? I doubt it. So don't get snippy when we don't want to discuss it in open forums. It's $5 to join the professional forum and get your answer. With your 16,000 patients I would think you could scrape that up.

----------


## Ory

Excalibur,

You are embarassing yourself, and by association all the other optometrists who post here.

The posting guidelines for this forum are quite clear.  We do not discuss markups, wholesale prices, etc. because it is an open forum.  It is just not appropriate because none of us want someone coming into our office saying "I know you only pay X for these lenses so you can discount them for me."  Consumers will ignore the thousands of dollars in edging systems, etc. needed to cut the lenses.

All three Os have their place in the eyecare industry.  Personally I don't believe opticians should refract, but I also don't believe optometrists should be doing surgical procedures.  Not what I signed up for.

Optiboard is a great resource.  I get a lot out of it.  It becomes a lot less enjoyable when a pointless bout of name calling starts.  You're not the only one to blame here, and some of these guys will take every opportunity to tell you how optometrists are somewhere between bellybutton lint and pond scum in their opinion.  Trying to stir things up only reinforces this opinion and the rift between our two professions.  How annoyed do you get when you read an ophthalmologist's opinion that only medically trained doctors should do anything ocular health related?

----------


## Excalibur

Several things:

1. My question about mark-ups is fair, but granted it could be dealt with in another forum.
2. Optiboard is a very good resource. I learned a few interesting things about several progressives whilst perusing the board.
3. I don't see optometry lobbying for surgical procedures, and I don't foresee that for a very long time... if ever.
4. Optometrists have an excellent track record in caring for patient's ocular health. Please read the following report by an academic panel struck to study this issue:
http://hprac.org/en/reports/resource...il_2006_EN.pdf
If you read pages 115-129 of this report, it will clarify your misconceptions.
5. I am not allowed to mark up in my jurisdiction. Unlike opticians who typically charge 250% or 300% markups. 

Sorry to induce the shrill responses that I received from my post.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

You're not allowed to mark up? So you charge COST for everything in your dispensary? I somehow doubt that.

----------


## Excalibur

> You're not allowed to mark up? So you charge COST for everything in your dispensary? I somehow doubt that.



Believe it. Cost plus a flat dispensing fee for services. No hidden markups.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

So, not cost then. You charge a 'dispensing fee', I include the fee in my price, or 'markup' as you say. Everything is 'marked up' in this world. How much do you think medication costs? You wanna talk markup, heh. As much as we're optical professionals, we still need to make a living. You're the oddball when it comes to pricing, as most other dispensarys will have similar markup to eachother to be competitive.

----------


## k12311997

> Believe it. Cost plus a flat dispensing fee for services. No hidden markups.


Are your patients aware of the dispensing fee?  Is the dispensing fee fixed for all optometrists in your area or is it a maximum allowable model?  Are your exam fees set by the regulating agency or do you have freedom to determine what your exam service is worth?  

on a side note of consumers in general.  they don't care about the rent, utilities, insurance, payroll, equipment, shipping and other expenses. They see a widget costs a retailer $.50 and sells for $1.50 a 300% mark up :Eek:  so they feel they should be able to get it for $.55 what they don't realize and what you refuse to take into account it costs the retailer $1.12 per widget to bring it to the consumer, less than a 35% mark up.

----------


## Excalibur

> Are your patients aware of the dispensing fee?  Is the dispensing fee fixed for all optometrists in your area or is it a maximum allowable model?  Are your exam fees set by the regulating agency or do you have freedom to determine what your exam service is worth?  
> 
> on a side note of consumers in general.  they don't care about the rent, utilities, insurance, payroll, equipment, shipping and other expenses. They see a widget costs a retailer $.50 and sells for $1.50 a 300% mark up so they feel they should be able to get it for $.55 what they don't realize and what you refuse to take into account it costs the retailer $1.12 per widget to bring it to the consumer, less than a 35% mark up.


Maximum dispensing fee is set by our association/regulatory bodies. My fee is lower than the maximum amount and is not hidden like a mark up would be in an optical shop.

----------


## Excalibur

> So, not cost then. You charge a 'dispensing fee', I include the fee in my price, or 'markup' as you say. Everything is 'marked up' in this world. How much do you think medication costs? You wanna talk markup, heh. As much as we're optical professionals, we still need to make a living. You're the oddball when it comes to pricing, as most other dispensarys will have similar markup to eachother to be competitive.


Of course we need to make a living. The bill to the patient is itemized -- our wholesale cost of the appliance plus a flat service fee as per regulation. Do you supply your customer with your wholesale cost?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

No, I don't. As I said, you're a little bit of an oddball when it comes to things like this. You asked about Industry standards when it comes to pricing, and yes, we fall within that standard, infact are lower than most of the chains around us.

----------


## Just Optician

Their is room for both type of systems.  I think consumer confusion will be allayed when optometrist go to a retail pricing system in the future.  In my area I think some have already begun this practice(quietly).  If you are in a dispensing fee model and you chose frames and lens price carefully your markup (sorry dipensing fee) is greater than most opticians.  As well most optometrists sell lenses only at the same dispensing fee.  It doesn't pay to bring in expensive lines that bring your inventory up as you make more on a cheaper brand.  But all this doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  The customer/patient will pay more if they get value for their money.  Some will want to choose something that not everybody is wearing and they're willing to pay more for it.  That is why some dispensaries will bring in more exclusive product at higher pricing for the discriminating customer.  If we pay more for a product so does the patient/customer.  This model allows for a reasonable risk versus reward scenario and that is why we use this model.  The other side of the coin is the price houses.  They are the ones with the high markups.  So when you wish to complain about your lot in life don't blame the independents as they are only providing a service for the patient/customer that purchase elsewhere anyway.

----------


## For-Life

To clarify the laws, ODs in Ontario are forced to charge Cost Plus (correct me if I am wrong).  The fitting fees are between $75 and $125 (that I have seen).

So if you fit up a pair of Physio 360s with Alize and Transitions in a Sihlouette rimless, the final price of the item is the cost charged to the OD for the Physio, AR, Transitions and frame + the dispensing fee of $75 to $125.

In my opinion it is a lose/lose situation for ODs and Opticians.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> I think consumer confusion will be allayed when optometrist go to a retail pricing system in the future. In my area I think some have already begun this practice(quietly).


There is no Cost-Plus in Nova Scotia. Most (all?) OD offices use retail pricing systems. Including mine. Yes, I work for an OD, and we have a markup! GASP!:drop:

----------


## chip anderson

I think in some parts of Canada the O.D. is compensated by  either state sallary or fee per exam and spectacles are cost+ dispensing fee.  Presumeably the salary or fee per exam is concidered to be adequate compensation.  I don't know if it really is or not.    
If the fee per exam is adequate, and the optical fees are not why should an O.D. dispense at all?   Why not promote a good symbiotic relation ship (I first miss-typed this as elationship, which would probably be the case) with an independent optical dispensary?

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> I think in some parts of Canada the O.D. is compensated by  either state sallary or fee per exam and spectacles are cost+ dispensing fee.  Presumeably the salary or fee per exam is concidered to be adequate compensation.  I don't know if it really is or not.    
> If the fee per exam is adequate, and the optical fees are not why should an O.D. dispense at all?   Why not promote a good symbiotic relation ship (I first miss-typed this as elationship, which would probably be the case) with an independent optical dispensary?
> 
> Chip


Not really.  We have gone over this before. 

The only thing the OD can get compensated for is if the patient has an eye disease is under 20 or over 64.  

As for relationship between ODs and Opticians, it is illegal in the Province of Ontario for ODs and Opticians to hire each other.  Yes.  So we have non-opticians dispensing for ODs.  Now in some cases, these individuals were Opticians and just dropped their licenses.  But in some, they are 18 year old girls who know absolutely nothing.

----------


## Excalibur

> I think in some parts of Canada the O.D. is compensated by  either state sallary or fee per exam and spectacles are cost+ dispensing fee.  Presumeably the salary or fee per exam is concidered to be adequate compensation.  I don't know if it really is or not.    
> If the fee per exam is adequate, and the optical fees are not why should an O.D. dispense at all?   Why not promote a good symbiotic relation ship (I first miss-typed this as elationship, which would probably be the case) with an independent optical dispensary?
> 
> Chip


The state paid exam fee is less than 50% of the 3rd party fee rate. State fees are inadequate.

----------


## Ory

> Several things:
> 
> 1. My question about mark-ups is fair, but granted it could be dealt with in another forum.


It was an inflammatory question when taken in context with your other posts.




> 2. Optiboard is a very good resource. I learned a few interesting things about several progressives whilst perusing the board.


Great.  I hope you learn lots.  This board has certainly increased my interest in our office dispensary, and has encouraged me to try new things.





> 3. I don't see optometry lobbying for surgical procedures, and I don't foresee that for a very long time... if ever.


There are a couple US states where there are surgical procedures being performed by optometrists.  Things like blepharoplasties and YAG capsulotomies.  When I was at the AAO in October I could have participated in workshops for ocular injections and ocular suturing.




> 4. Optometrists have an excellent track record in caring for patient's ocular health. Please read the following report by an academic panel struck to study this issue:
> http://hprac.org/en/reports/resource...il_2006_EN.pdf
> If you read pages 115-129 of this report, it will clarify your misconceptions.


I'm not sure if you're directing this at me or not.  You do realize I'm an OD in Ontario as well......




> 5. I am not allowed to mark up in my jurisdiction. Unlike opticians who typically charge 250% or 300% markups.


Again, this should not be discussed too much on an open forum.  I'll send you a PM.

----------


## LandLord

*markup*_noun_1. 
the amount added to the cost to determine the asking price 


*A simple math problem for a smart optometrist*

*Asking price for an eye exam = $75*
*Cost of an eye exam = $____*
*Dr. Excalibur's Markup = $____*

----------


## Excalibur

The fee in my practice for a consultation varies with complexity, but is less than the recommended rate advised by our provincial fee schedule. The consultation includes retinal imaging, field testing, ultrasound, applanation tonometry, refraction, biomicroscopy, and several other procedures as required as well as an information package of topics relevant to their consultation. 

In fact, we routinely hear from new patients that their consultation was the most thorough they have ever experienced-- far more thorough than the doc-in-a-box that saw them beside the optical shop at their last visit.

----------


## LandLord

*red herring* 
_–noun_ 

1.a smoked herring. 

2.something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue. 

Example of a red herring:



> The fee in my practice for a consultation varies with complexity, but is less than the recommended rate advised by our provincial fee schedule. The consultation includes retinal imaging, field testing, ultrasound, applanation tonometry, refraction, biomicroscopy, and several other procedures as required as well as an information package of topics relevant to their consultation. 
> 
> In fact, we routinely hear from new patients that their consultation was the most thorough they have ever experienced-- far more thorough than the doc-in-a-box that saw them beside the optical shop at their last visit.

----------


## PresbyopicBiker

I left Ontario many years ago due to the strange rules set up by their College of Optometry.  In BC we hire opticians in office, charge an exam fee that is appropriate, and we have our choice of dispensing fees or markup.  Some practices are even more multi-disciplanary with ophthalmologists on staff.

The government pays towards an eye exam for under 19 and over 64.  The other age group the government pays towards any ocular pathology and certain systemic conditions like diabetes, MS, MD.  Normally if it is an emergency or children I do not  bill over and above.

Hope this adds to the discussion for the left coast.

----------


## Excalibur

> *red herring* 
> _noun_ 
> 
> 1.a smoked herring. 
> 
> 2.something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue. 
> 
> Example of a red herring:


Yes, you are correct. It is not possible to calculate a mark-up for a service such an eye consultation. It is, however, possible to calculate a mark-up for a an item such as a pair of eyeglasses.

Since this thread was initiated to discuss optician's marks, perhaps you can share with the forum why you feel it is necessary to mark-up a pair of generic frames at a different rate than a pair of 'name-brand' frames in your shop.

----------


## Excalibur

> I left Ontario many years ago due to the strange rules set up by their College of Optometry.  In BC we hire opticians in office, charge an exam fee that is appropriate, and we have our choice of dispensing fees or markup.  Some practices are even more multi-disciplanary with ophthalmologists on staff.
> 
> The government pays towards an eye exam for under 19 and over 64.  The other age group the government pays towards any ocular pathology and certain systemic conditions like diabetes, MS, MD.  Normally if it is an emergency or children I do not  bill over and above.
> 
> Hope this adds to the discussion for the left coast.


Things are looking good in Ontario for optometrists. Optometrists in Ontario will soon be able to hire opticians. Optometrists here share excellent working relationships with ophthalmologists too. The government health plan here insurances children and seniors. Other patients receive coverage if they are referred by their family doctor for eye disease or problems where a patient may be at higher risk of eye disease such as diabetic retinopathy. Ontario optometrists will also soon be able to prescribe medicines for eye conditions, include oral medicines too. As for dispensing fees for eyewear, I think this regulation is progressive as it separates the cost of obtaining the good from the cost of providing the service -- very professional and justifiable. It also keeps the cost of the appliance reasonable to the patient.

----------


## For-Life

> Things are looking good in Ontario for optometrists. Optometrists in Ontario will soon be able to hire opticians. Optometrists here share excellent working relationships with ophthalmologists too. The government health plan here insurances children and seniors. Other patients receive coverage if they are referred by their family doctor for eye disease or problems where a patient may be at higher risk of eye disease such as diabetic retinopathy. Ontario optometrists will also soon be able to prescribe medicines for eye conditions, include oral medicines too. As for dispensing fees for eyewear, I think this regulation is progressive as it separates the cost of obtaining the good from the cost of providing the service -- very professional and justifiable. It also keeps the cost of the appliance reasonable to the patient.


I think the cost-plus regulation is a joke and only encourages poorer services and products to consumers.

My proof is in my competition.

----------


## Excalibur

> I think the cost-plus regulation is a joke and only encourages poorer services and products to consumers.
> 
> My proof is in my competition.


Please demonstrate some verifiable examples that "cost-plus encourages poorer services and products to consumers."

Please describe why a mark-up percentage on a name-brand frame must differ from a generic. Is any mark-up difference between the two types of products justifiable, and is it ethical?

Thank you.

----------


## For-Life

> Please demonstrate some verifiable examples that "cost-plus encourages poorer services and products to consumers."
> 
> Please describe why a mark-up percentage on a name-brand frame must differ from a generic. Is any mark-up difference between the two types of products justifiable, and is it ethical?
> 
> Thank you.


Mark up difference on a name brand frame should not differ from a generic.  I never said that, so do not put words in my mouth.

----------


## LandLord

> Please demonstrate some verifiable examples that "cost-plus encourages poorer services and products to consumers."
> 
> Please describe why a mark-up percentage on a name-brand frame must differ from a generic. Is any mark-up difference between the two types of products justifiable, and is it ethical?
> 
> Thank you.


Actually I disagree with For-Life.  If you know anything about business you would know that there will be a different markup.  

Generally, the markup on a name brand frame will be lower because the cost of acquiring it is higher and the availablity of comparison is higher.  However, the value to the customer will be similar.  An item should be priced according to value, not cost.

Maybe Excalibur would gladly sell a name brand frame at a loss just to compete with Costco, but most businesses can't afford to do that.

----------


## For-Life

> Actually I disagree with For-Life.  If you know anything about business you would know that there will be a different markup.  
> 
> Generally, the markup on a name brand frame will be lower because the cost of acquiring it is higher and the availablity of comparison is higher.  However, the value to the customer will be similar.  An item should be priced according to value, not cost.
> 
> Maybe Excalibur would gladly sell a name brand frame at a loss just to compete with Costco, but most businesses can't afford to do that.


Yeah, that makes sense too.  You make money off of the volume.  Saying that, designer names are not driving the volume, so I keep it the same.

Also, I know you did not mean anything by it, but be careful with using the line "if you know anything about business."

----------


## MarcE

> Please describe why a mark-up percentage on a name-brand frame must differ from a generic. Is any mark-up difference between the two types of products justifiable, and is it ethical?
> 
> Thank you.


Pardon me for interupting w/ my blatently American capitalistic views - but you charge what the market will bear.

Frame companies make two identical frames, put the name-brand logo on one and no-name on the other.  The brand name cost me more, because Ralph Lauren must get his cut.  IF I mark up the Ralph more than the generic and the patient sees value in the brand they will buy.  If they don't, they won't, so I have to reduce the price.  If my margin on a name-brand doesn't justify the higher cost I paid, then I won't buy.  This is customer choice, customer value, and supply and demand.  Regardless of what your views are, supply and demand is a law of economics.  It's like gravity, you can't ignore it.  It's not an ethial question, it's a market driven question.  Is it "ethical" to charge $400K for an Astin Martin, just because you or I don't think it's worth it?  No, because someone else might think it's worth it.

The answer to "What SHOULD that item cost" is always "Whatever the market will bear"

BTW, If you are so good at providing a thourgh exam at a clip of 20/day at a fee below "recommended" rates, then I suggest you raise your fees, see less patients, work less and make more money.  If you knew anything about business, that is.

----------


## Excalibur

> Pardon me for interupting w/ my blatently American capitalistic views - but you charge what the market will bear.
> 
> BTW, If you are so good at providing a thourgh exam at a clip of 20/day at a fee below "recommended" rates, then I suggest you raise your fees, see less patients, work less and make more money.  If you knew anything about business, that is.


With properly trained staff, tests that can be delegated this is more than attainable. I am actually raising my fees closer to the maximum allowable amount advised by our association, which should make the practice even more successful.

----------


## HarryChiling

> *red herring* 
> _noun_ 
> 
> 1.a smoked herring. 
> 
> 2.something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue. 
> 
> Example of a red herring:


LMAO :D

----------


## Excalibur

> Actually I disagree with For-Life.  If you know anything about business you would know that there will be a different markup.  
> 
> Generally, the markup on a name brand frame will be lower because the cost of acquiring it is higher and the availablity of comparison is higher.  However, the value to the customer will be similar.  An item should be priced according to value, not cost.
> 
> Maybe Excalibur would gladly sell a name brand frame at a loss just to compete with Costco, but most businesses can't afford to do that.


We charge the patient our cost for the materials, and a flat fee for our service to dispense that device. Therefore, we are not charging below cost on the device. We make a reasonable profit, and the patient pays a reasonable fee for the item. There is disclosure on what the materials cost and what our service cost too. Fair and square. Costco is not our competition, as we are a busier high-end practice.

----------


## Excalibur

> Mark up difference on a name brand frame should not differ from a generic.  I never said that, so do not put words in my mouth.


The question about pricing a generic different from a name brand was not directed to you alone but to the forum. I would not dare put words in your mouth, as you are quite capable of articulating your position. I think.

----------


## HarryChiling

> The fee in my practice for a consultation varies with complexity, but is less than the recommended rate advised by our provincial fee schedule. The consultation includes retinal imaging, field testing, ultrasound, applanation tonometry, refraction, biomicroscopy, and several other procedures as required as well as an information package of topics relevant to their consultation. 
> 
> In fact, we routinely hear from new patients that their consultation was the most thorough they have ever experienced-- far more thorough than the doc-in-a-box that saw them beside the optical shop at their last visit.


 
Ultrasound?  Why would you need to do ultrasound?

----------


## AdmiralKnight

We charge the same markup for all frames. Except when we get more expensive frames in. As a rule, we don't like having many frames above $300 retail, so when our normal markup brings the frames above that, we actually round down. Is that unethical? I would say no.

----------


## Excalibur

> Ultrasound?  Why would you need to do ultrasound?


a.k.a.  pachymetry

----------


## HarryChiling

> a.k.a. pachymetry


:hammer:




> Ultrasound? Why would you need to do ultrasound?


a.k.a. Why?  Does your office perform LASIK?  Does your office do IOL's?  Do you work with a surgeon?  Just seems unnecessary since you won't be doing much with the data.

----------


## Excalibur

> :hammer:
> 
> 
> 
> a.k.a. Why?  Does your office perform LASIK?  Does your office do IOL's?  Do you work with a surgeon?  Just seems unnecessary since you won't be doing much with the data.


Not to get off track here but low CCT is a risk factor for glaucoma.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Not to get off track here but low CCT is a risk factor for glaucoma.


You don't find that a bit over the top?

----------


## Excalibur

> You don't find that a bit over the top?


Not at all. Measuring pachymetry is a necessary factor. I trust you are not familiar with the OHTS. 

http://www.nei.nih.gov/glaucomaeyedrops/

you may wish to review this important study.

----------


## Ory

Pachymetry is very useful Harry. It allows us to determine risk of glaucoma, candidacy for LASIK, etc.

 Cost-plus is crummy as there is increased risk and decreased compensation for high end products. Why would I sell Alize when CHC gives the same compensation. Or why AR at all?(yes, it is for my patients' benefit, but financially there is no incentive.)

----------


## MarcE

> Not to get off track here but low CCT is a risk factor for glaucoma.


I don't mean to split hairs here (Actually I do).  But I thought that CCT was not an actual risk factor but that a thick cornea can interfere with getting an accurate pressure and cause a high reading.  Whereas a thinner CCT can cause the pressure reading to be higher than actual, Right?

Pachymetry is now pretty much the standard of care if you are treating glaucoma.  We also use it also for Lasik screenings.  People don't like to drive 120 miles to the lasik clinic just to find out they aren't a canidate.

Most insurance will pay for pachymetry once in a LIFETIME.  So at $19 or so for the reimbursement; I can guarantee you that we aren't performing "unnessary" tests just to bill insurance. After 4 years of performing pachymetry, I still don't think we have paid for the instrument.  Actually I know we haven't, because at year 3 we had to replace the circuit board at a cost of $1600.

Oh, I just noticed.  This is posted in the Canadian Discussion forum.  Didn't mean to intrude.  But when folks start talking mark-ups, I just naturally join in.

----------


## For-Life

> Pachymetry is very useful Harry. It allows us to determine risk of glaucoma, candidacy for LASIK, etc.
> 
>  Cost-plus is crummy as there is increased risk and decreased compensation for high end products. Why would I sell Alize when CHC gives the same compensation. Or why AR at all?(yes, it is for my patients' benefit, but financially there is no incentive.)


exactly.  Even think of it this way, why spend 15 extra minutes discussing the benefits of AR or photochromic add ons.  You will not see a return for that (well you will hopefully in the long term, but not many people think about that anymore).  It has cheapened our profession and has not provided the best resources to patients.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Pachymetry is very useful Harry. It allows us to determine risk of glaucoma, candidacy for LASIK, etc.
> 
> Cost-plus is crummy as there is increased risk and decreased compensation for high end products. Why would I sell Alize when CHC gives the same compensation. Or why AR at all?(yes, it is for my patients' benefit, but financially there is no incentive.)


I am familiar with pachymetry and it's use and am familiar with the OHTS, but most offices rely on the goldman alone, I am aware of the fact that central corneal thickness of 555 is the norm and too thin could be a risk factor, but most offices would just use pressures of above 21mm/Hg as being a risk fcator or family history. So then comes the question how often does it gets used? Is it a necessity or a luxury?

I just don't see how someone can equip their office to the brink, charge lower than the norm, and still complain about opticians having too high of a mark-up.

----------


## Excalibur

> I am familiar with pachymetry and it's use and am familiar with the OHTS, but most offices rely on the goldman alone, I am aware of the fact that central corneal thickness of 555 is the norm and too thin could be a risk factor, but most offices would just use pressures of above 21mm/Hg as being a risk fcator or family history. So then comes the question how often does it gets used? Is it a necessity or a luxury?
> 
> I just don't see how someone can equip their office to the brink, charge lower than the norm, and still complain about opticians having too high of a mark-up.


Pachymeters are not expensive. Approx 3-4k. 

Harry-- I believe that it the mark-ups I see being charged by retail optical shops is simply excessive, however, if that is what the market can be bear then so be it. You have given me an idea, and that is... raise my fees!  That will give me an opportunity to upgrade from a BMW! :D

----------


## For-Life

> Pachymeters are not expensive. Approx 3-4k. 
> 
> Harry-- I believe that it the mark-ups I see being charged by retail optical shops is simply excessive, however, if that is what the market can be bear then so be it. You have given me an idea, and that is... raise my fees!  That will give me an opportunity to upgrade from a BMW! :D


That is because you are an OD who has the convenience of seeing many patients for eye-exams during th week.  I can tell you that a private, independent dispensary cannot live off of cost plus.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Pachymeters are not expensive. Approx 3-4k. 
> 
> Harry-- I believe that it the mark-ups I see being charged by retail optical shops is simply excessive, however, if that is what the market can be bear then so be it. You have given me an idea, and that is... raise my fees! That will give me an opportunity to upgrade from a BMW! :D


Good, I don't think that opticians mark ups are excessive I think Optometry's fee's are too low, you guys cut your own throats every chance you get.  If you raise your fees maybe you won't have to work so hard and then you'll have more time to see someone elses point of view.

----------


## Excalibur

> That is because you are an OD who has the convenience of seeing many patients for eye-exams during th week.  I can tell you that a private, independent dispensary cannot live off of cost plus.


Honest answer. Fair enough.

----------


## Excalibur

> Good, I don't think that opticians mark ups are excessive I think Optometry's fee's are too low, you guys cut your own throats every chance you get.  If you raise your fees maybe you won't have to work so hard and then you'll have more time to see someone elses point of view.


Your second line is a back-handed compliment, and given our recent detente, I expected a more suitable reply.

Thankfully I have good certified optometric techs. They are doing the leg-work for me now so I have time to reply to your post.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Your second line is a back-handed compliment, and given our recent detente, I expected a more suitable reply.
> 
> Thankfully I have good certified optometric techs. They are doing the leg-work for me now so I have time to reply to your post.


Touche.

----------


## LandLord

> Yeah, that makes sense too.  You make money off of the volume.  Saying that, designer names are not driving the volume, so I keep it the same.
> 
> Also, I know you did not mean anything by it, but be careful with using the line "if you know anything about business."


For-Life, I know YOU are very business savvy.  I meant to imply that anyone who criticizes opticians for marking up frames must know very little about business.  Thanks for clearing that up.

----------


## tmorse

> a.k.a. pachymetry


Don't kid the regular players... pachymetry is done using a pachometer (small device  attached to a biomicroscope) to measure cornea thickness, and doesn't involve ultrasound at all.:finger:

----------


## Oedema

> Don't kid the regular players... pachymetry is done using a pachometer (small device  attached to a biomicroscope) to measure cornea thickness, and doesn't involve ultrasound at all.:finger:


Correction, pachymeters are not attached to the slit lamp, typically hand held, and DO use ultasound technology to measure the corneal thickness.:p

----------


## k12311997

Excalibur,

Is it unfair to our patients that we charge a mark up or is it unfair to you because of the very unusual regulations in your corner of the world?

I'm_ sure_ that if you practiced elsewhere you would still follow cost plus after all it is the only right thing to do.

----------


## Ory

> Correction, pachymeters are not attached to the slit lamp, typically hand held, and DO use ultasound technology to measure the corneal thickness.:p


There was a dusty old optical pachymeter at UW which was attached to a slit lamp.  Used a split prism much like a tonometer tip.  I don't remember the exact mechanics of it but it sure was ancient.  Pretty similar results to the ultrasound devices though.

----------


## bhess25

> So, not cost then. You charge a 'dispensing fee', I include the fee in my price, or 'markup' as you say. Everything is 'marked up' in this world. How much do you think medication costs? You wanna talk markup, heh. As much as we're optical professionals, we still need to make a living. You're the oddball when it comes to pricing, as most other dispensarys will have similar markup to eachother to be competitive.


 

i seen that little "heh" comming!!!...jk

----------


## opti-refractonator

I worked as a sales rep for a small company for about a year after getting my opticianry license as I was trying to figure out what end of the business I wanted to start in.  I had several optometrists in ontario as customers that asked that I increase the cost of the frame on the invoice and give a larger volume discount at the end of each quarter.  So od, spare us the "I only charge the wholesale cost" bs.   Od's are just as smart, slick, slimy, and ballsy as any other business person out there.  You may fool the public with what you are saying, but don't think that you can fool the rest of us.

I will reply again later, I am angry and need to go bend some frames!!!!

----------


## For-Life

> I worked as a sales rep for a small company for about a year after getting my opticianry license as I was trying to figure out what end of the business I wanted to start in.  I had several optometrists in ontario as customers that asked that I increase the cost of the frame on the invoice and give a larger volume discount at the end of each quarter.  So od, spare us the "I only charge the wholesale cost" bs.   Od's are just as smart, slick, slimy, and ballsy as any other business person out there.  You may fool the public with what you are saying, but don't think that you can fool the rest of us.
> 
> I will reply again later, I am angry and need to go bend some frames!!!!


Yep, Optiq gives a 40 percent discount.  The reason is specifically because of ODs (as told to me by two of their reps).  So the frame costs $69, but with the discount, the office only pays $41.40; however, when sold to the client, the frame is priced out at its cost of $69 (which is not the real cost).

----------


## LandLord

LandLord comtemplates asking the question that is burning his tongue.  The fear of opening a can of worms is almost too much for him to bear.  Nevertheless, he is couragous.

"Excuse me, Dr. Excalibur, sir," he asks apologetically.

"WHAT IS IT, YOU LOWLIFE RETAIL OPTICIAN!!!  CAN'T YOU SEE YOU'RE DISTURBING ME????  HOW CAN I COUNT ALL THIS CASH IF YOU KEEP BOTHERING ME?!!" shouts Lord Excalibur to the unworthy optician.

"Do you........ have a volume discount on your frames, your majesty?"

----------


## LandLord

Excalibur:  You want answers?

LandLord:  I want the truth!

Excalibur:  *YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!*
LandLord:  *DID YOU RECEIVE A VOLUME DISCOUNT ON YOUR FRAMES!!*

----------


## tmorse

> There was a dusty old optical pachymeter at UW which was attached to a slit lamp. Used a split prism much like a tonometer tip. I don't remember the exact mechanics of it but it sure was ancient. Pretty similar results to the ultrasound devices though.


That pachometer is as dusty (and old)  as I am, so I stand corrected.:shiner:

----------


## Excalibur

> LandLord comtemplates asking the question that is burning his tongue.  The fear of opening a can of worms is almost too much for him to bear.  Nevertheless, he is couragous.
> 
> "Excuse me, Dr. Excalibur, sir," he asks apologetically.
> 
> "WHAT IS IT, YOU LOWLIFE RETAIL OPTICIAN!!!  CAN'T YOU SEE YOU'RE DISTURBING ME????  HOW CAN I COUNT ALL THIS CASH IF YOU KEEP BOTHERING ME?!!" shouts Lord Excalibur to the unworthy optician.
> 
> "Do you........ have a volume discount on your frames, your majesty?"


Are you suffering from optometry-envy? If you wish to enjoy the justified rewards enjoyed by optometrists, you may wish to become more studious and apply to optometry school. Warning: you require excellent grades as it is quite competitive -- so start studying hard!

----------


## Excalibur

> Excalibur:  You want answers?
> 
> LandLord:  I want the truth!
> 
> Excalibur:  *YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!*
> LandLord:  *DID YOU RECEIVE A VOLUME DISCOUNT ON YOUR FRAMES!!*


I trust you receive volume discounts too, which further increases your exorbitant profit margins.

----------


## Excalibur

> I worked as a sales rep for a small company for about a year after getting my opticianry license as I was trying to figure out what end of the business I wanted to start in.  I had several optometrists in ontario as customers that asked that I increase the cost of the frame on the invoice and give a larger volume discount at the end of each quarter.  So od, spare us the "I only charge the wholesale cost" bs.   Od's are just as smart, slick, slimy, and ballsy as any other business person out there.  You may fool the public with what you are saying, but don't think that you can fool the rest of us.
> 
> I will reply again later, I am angry and need to go bend some frames!!!!


Is it true that many optical shops don't pay their bills regularly too? I have heard from several suppliers that numerous opticals don't pay their bills regularly or they close up shop (only to open under a different business name) and leave the vendor hanging. In the end, the good accounts have to pay for this sort of business practice.

----------


## LandLord

> Are you suffering from optometry-envy? If you wish to enjoy the justified rewards enjoyed by optometrists, you may wish to become more studious and apply to optometry school. Warning: you require excellent grades as it is quite competitive -- so start studying hard!


Yes.  I might.  And if I do, I won't criticize opticians for trying to make an honest living doing what they love while at the same time competing with people like you who hire a receptionist to dispense because you really don't give a crap about dispensing.

----------


## For-Life

> Yes.  I might.  And if I do, I won't criticize opticians for trying to make an honest living doing what they love while at the same time competing with people like you who hire a receptionist to dispense because you really don't give a crap about dispensing.


Landlord, you know each optician is a money grubbing millionaire.  We have our huge secrets

----------


## LandLord

> I trust you receive volume discounts too, which further increases your exorbitant profit margins.


I don't pretend to sell things at cost and then charge a fee for services not even rendered by a licensed professional. ie receptionist.


Look, there's nothing wrong with you making a mint at your job.  Let's face it, OD's are well paid.  Why do MD's refract?  Because an eye exam is much easier and more profitable than a basic medical visit.

Just don't go around with a holy attitude and try to yank the skeletons out of opticians closets.  What's that old expression?  

"When you try to open the little guy's closet, be sure your own is empty first."  Okay I just made that up but it works.

----------


## MarcE

> Is it true that many optical shops don't pay their bills regularly too? I have heard from several suppliers that numerous opticals don't pay their bills regularly or they close up shop (only to open under a different business name) and leave the vendor hanging. In the end, the good accounts have to pay for this sort of business practice.


Your axe is not getting any sharper. Grind away, it just shows your true character.

I heard from supplier that an optometrist once bought frames from a mortician that was stealing them from his dead clients. I think all ODs must do the same - At least that's the rumor I'm starting.

I find your posts insulting and pointless. You have been rude, and you need to apologize.

That must be pretty bad coming from an American to a Canadian.

----------


## Excalibur

> Yes.  I might.  And if I do, I won't criticize opticians for trying to make an honest living doing what they love while at the same time competing with people like you who hire a receptionist to dispense because you really don't give a crap about dispensing.


I'm sure that when my certified optometric tech and I put our puny little heads together when we are dispensing a patient, we are doing no worse than you would. :p

----------


## Excalibur

> Your axe is not getting any sharper. Grind away, it just shows your true character.
> 
> I heard from supplier that an optometrist once bought frames from a mortician that was stealing them from his dead clients. I think all ODs must do the same - At least that's the rumor I'm starting.
> 
> I find your posts insulting and pointless. You have been rude, and you need to apologize.
> 
> That must be pretty bad coming from an American to a Canadian.


You are obviously not reading the posts that are being written to counter mine. You think it's fair too that I pose a question only to be attacked by several others for trying to make a point? 

Let me make my position clear:

1. Opticians should not be permitted to perform independent sight testing. 
2. Optometrists should be permitted to hire opticians. 

You may not like #1. Fine. We can argue this one until the cows come home, but as a profession you are not qualified to independently sight test. Independent sight testing is something that occurs in Third World countries and is a minimalist approach to 'eye care'. 

You may like #2, but I'm not sure because it seems you don't like anything I post.

----------


## Excalibur

> Excalibur,
> 
> Is it unfair to our patients that we charge a mark up or is it unfair to you because of the very unusual regulations in your corner of the world?
> 
> I'm_ sure_ that if you practiced elsewhere you would still follow cost plus after all it is the only right thing to do.



Patients are shown the math. When we go over the cost of our frame and lenses and add-ons such as A/R and compare them to an average mark-up in a retailer, they are shocked to see how much value we provide them.

I am not allowed to advertise to anyone but my patients. Opticians and retailers can advertise in the media as much their pocketbook will allow. And they most certainly exercise that option!

----------


## Excalibur

> Don't kid the regular players... pachymetry is done using a pachometer (small device  attached to a biomicroscope) to measure cornea thickness, and doesn't involve ultrasound at all.:finger:


Ooops!

Pachymetry does use ultrasound. You are referring to much, much older technology which has been replaced a long time ago. 

As a regular player you may wish to read up on this topic. Are you currently a sight tester? Is this the type of outdated knowledge you are being given in your courses? If so, this is not good!

----------


## Excalibur

> "When you try to open the little guy's closet, be sure your own is empty first."  Okay I just made that up but it works.


Interesting quote. Thanks.

Opticianry is dying a slow death because as a 'profession' it is not contributing very much new knowledge to science. How many optician studies are being funded conducted at the university level? Probably none. 

Opticians should try and develop doctoral level programs so that they can train researchers to further their knowledge base. If they do not evolve and increase their knowledge base, they will slowly become extinct.

In the future, I see optician programs being rolled into optometric programs as technical assistant programs to allow for their survival.

----------


## LandLord

> I am not allowed to advertise to anyone but my patients. Opticians and retailers can advertise in the media as much their pocketbook will allow.


If you believe this, you must be over 50.  Have you opened the yellow pages recently?

Do you also follow the written regulation that *no frames may be visible* through the window of an optometrists office?

You must be the only OD left in Ontario who still follows these rules.  FYI, they are no longer applicable or enforced.

----------


## For-Life

> Interesting quote. Thanks.
> 
> Opticianry is dying a slow death because as a 'profession' it is not contributing very much new knowledge to science. How many optician studies are being funded conducted at the university level? Probably none. 
> 
> Opticians should try and develop doctoral level programs so that they can train researchers to further their knowledge base. If they do not evolve and increase their knowledge base, they will slowly become extinct.
> 
> In the future, I see optician programs being rolled into optometric programs as technical assistant programs to allow for their survival.


Opticianry is doing very well in every other Province.  It is not about being University educated, it is a trade.  These places do not have the OD pricing model as used in Ontario (or do they have the same restrictive laws).

How many of your dispensers are University educated?  I bet none.  You said yourself that you would hire an OA because they are cheaper than Opticians.  Funny, because it would be illegal for an Optician to do the same.

----------


## Excalibur

> Opticianry is doing very well in every other Province.  It is not about being University educated, it is a trade.  These places do not have the OD pricing model as used in Ontario (or do they have the same restrictive laws).
> 
> How many of your dispensers are University educated?  I bet none.  You said yourself that you would hire an OA because they are cheaper than Opticians.  Funny, because it would be illegal for an Optician to do the same.


Opticianry is a trade-- you are correct. And opticians do hire assistants all the time, although they may not be called that. There are retail assistants working in optical shops all the time.

----------


## Excalibur

> If you believe this, you must be over 50.  Have you opened the yellow pages recently?
> 
> Do you also follow the written regulation that *no frames may be visible* through the window of an optometrists office?
> 
> You must be the only OD left in Ontario who still follows these rules.  FYI, they are no longer applicable or enforced.


Optometrists are not permitted to advertise their prices to the public. My frames are not visible through the windows, and there are many, many optometrists in Ontario who follow these rules.

----------


## For-Life

> Opticianry is a trade-- you are correct. And opticians do hire assistants all the time, although they may not be called that. There are retail assistants working in optical shops all the time.


The assistants cannot dispense

----------


## Excalibur

> The assistants cannot dispense


ooops... they do it at all the retails I've cold-called.

----------


## For-Life

> ooops... they do it at all the retails I've cold-called.


Not the ones here.  I got to Winnipeg and the Chains have usually two opticians, and are far more busier.  Here, they have many.  Because they have to have Opticians dispense.  The assistants can show frames and fill in information, but not dispense.

----------


## LandLord

It depends on your definition of dispense.  Legally, dispensing is a controlled act.  Only portions of the act can be delegated.  Interpreting the prescription, verifying the appliance, and counselling the patient cannot be delegated by anyone.  The other aspects can.  Pd's, heights, adjustments, etc.

----------


## HarryChiling

I would say stop argueing with this boob and let him self distruct in his rampage.  He's obviously the bottom of the barrel when it comes to optometry and does not represent their profession as a whole.  His outdated thinking and dim wit has nothing of value to contribute, I am putting him on my ignore-amous list.:D

----------


## Excalibur

> I would say stop argueing with this boob and let him self distruct in his rampage.  He's obviously the bottom of the barrel when it comes to optometry and does not represent their profession as a whole.  His outdated thinking and dim wit has nothing of value to contribute, I am putting him on my ignore-amous list.:D


Thanks Harry-- they have been arguing and not debating! 

Looks like they've lost the debate!

----------


## LandLord

Trying to debate with Excalibur is like arguing with teenagers or politicians.  As soon as you prove them absurd, they move on to another ridiculous argument.

----------


## Excalibur

> Trying to debate with Excalibur is like arguing with teenagers or politicians.  As soon as you prove them absurd, they move on to another ridiculous argument.


And debating with you and several other of your merchant friends has been like like mudwrestling with swine, or trying to engage in a peeing contest with skunks. :p

Most opticians are good people who just want to earn a living. They want to dispense eyewear and help people see better. Don't blame your shortfalls on others. The biggest enemy they have is corporate opticianry rather than any other profession. You have no place trying to independently work up patients, and taking a minimalist approach to eye care. You must elevate your trade yourselves-- educate better, attract the best students,  develop credible research programs across all of your schools, and standardize your licensing across the country to legitimize your trade. Don't look for other professionals to help you. Do it yourself.

So peace to you and your brethren! Happy Holidays!

----------


## hcjilson

> Interesting quote. Thanks.
> 
> Opticianry is dying a slow death because as a 'profession' it is not contributing very much new knowledge to science. How many optician studies are being funded conducted at the university level? Probably none. 
> 
> Opticians should try and develop doctoral level programs so that they can train researchers to further their knowledge base. If they do not evolve and increase their knowledge base, they will slowly become extinct.
> 
> In the future, I see optician programs being rolled into optometric programs as technical assistant programs to allow for their survival.


It's been a long time since pomposity has been as well defined as it is in this post. Excaliber does, however, make some valid points about education as being the key to the salvation of Opticianry. It is interesting to note that he places the future of Opticianry firmly under the thumb of Optometry. 
I'd wager if you took what the ophthalmic manufacturers contribute out of the "funding" that is creating all this "new knowledge to science" given to us by Optometry, you would not have much money left. I might also inquire to specify what the "new knowledge to science" has been.

To get back to the point of thread, I was interested that Excaliber is only allowed the cost of materials plus a dispensing fee. I was wondering if the savings of belonging to a buying group are passed along to the patients, or are the materials billed out at their MSRP. And I would ask the same of lab fees passed on the the patient. I can see an average of 20&#37; of billable materials going into the OD's pot from that alone, while we sit here and feel sorry for the poor OD's who can't charge what they want. I think its high time to call a spade a shovel and say that everyone is entitled to make a profit, and spectacles cost what they cost, no matter how you choose to describe it.
Pardon me for butting into this conversation .

----------


## hcjilson

> And debating with you and several other of your merchant friends has been like like mudwrestling with swine, or trying to engage in a peeing contest with skunks. :p
> 
> Most opticians are good people who just want to earn a living. They want to dispense eyewear and help people see better. Don't blame your shortfalls on others. The biggest enemy they have is corporate opticianry rather than any other profession. You have no place trying to independently work up patients, and taking a minimalist approach to eye care. You must elevate your trade yourselves-- educate better, attract the best students,  develop credible research programs across all of your schools, and standardize your licensing across the country to legitimize your trade. Don't look for other professionals to help you. Do it yourself.
> 
> So peace to you and your brethren! Happy Holidays!


You may not like this Excaliber but you are a merchant as well- get over it!

----------


## tmorse

> Are you currently a sight tester? Is this the type of outdated knowledge you are being given in your courses? If so, this is not good!


This question was answered in another thead  "Ontario Opticians Refracting" in Post #154, (12/05/2007), whereafter you added your own posts, #157 and #159, remember?:hammer:

----------


## Excalibur

> It's been a long time since pomposity has been as well defined as it is in this post. Excaliber does, however, make some valid points about education as being the key to the salvation of Opticianry. It is interesting to note that he places the future of Opticianry firmly under the thumb of Optometry. 
> I'd wager if you took what the ophthalmic manufacturers contribute out of the "funding" that is creating all this "new knowledge to science" given to us by Optometry, you would not have much money left. I might also inquire to specify what the "new knowledge to science" has been.
> 
> To get back to the point of thread, I was interested that Excaliber is only allowed the cost of materials plus a dispensing fee. I was wondering if the savings of belonging to a buying group are passed along to the patients, or are the materials billed out at their MSRP. And I would ask the same of lab fees passed on the the patient. I can see an average of 20% of billable materials going into the OD's pot from that alone, while we sit here and feel sorry for the poor OD's who can't charge what they want. I think its high time to call a spade a shovel and say that everyone is entitled to make a profit, and spectacles cost what they cost, no matter how you choose to describe it.
> Pardon me for butting into this conversation .


Don't confuse my frankness and candidness with pomposity. Please demonstrate any PhD level programs in any opticianry programs -- there aren't any. Optometry and ophthalmology churn out a ton of vision care research whereas opticianry unfortunately does nothing to contribute to scientific evolution in eye care. Since it's unlikely you read any eye care journals beyond a few industry trade magazines, I'm not surprised you are not aware of any aforementioned peer-reviewed clinical research.

----------


## Excalibur

> You may not like this Excaliber but you are a merchant as well- get over it!


Aren't we all merchants at least one time in our lives? 

Yes, we dispense eye wear to patients who choose to use our services. But, as you are well aware, we provide diagnostic and treatment services. We follow a fee guideline set by our professional association. Opticians, on the other hand, do not follow any professional fee guideline as they are not professionals but merchants that charge what they think the market will bear.

----------


## For-Life

> Aren't we all merchants at least one time in our lives? 
> 
> Yes, we dispense eye wear to patients who choose to use our services. But, as you are well aware, we provide diagnostic and treatment services. We follow a fee guideline set by our professional association. Opticians, on the other hand, do not follow any professional fee guideline as they are not professionals but merchants that charge what they think the market will bear.


Many people would argue that the difference between prescribed objects are blurred by suggested products in said relationship.  Ie: If a doctor suggests AR, the patient may see that as a prescription.

----------


## hcjilson

> Don't confuse my frankness and candidness with pomposity. Please demonstrate any PhD level programs in any opticianry programs -- there aren't any. Optometry and ophthalmology churn out a ton of vision care research whereas opticianry unfortunately does nothing to contribute to scientific evolution in eye care. Since it's unlikely you read any eye care journals beyond a few industry trade magazines, I'm not surprised you are not aware of any aforementioned peer-reviewed clinical research.


You have absolutely no idea of what I do or do not read, or what I am, or am not aware of. I don't confuse your frankness and candor with anything other than what it is. Its pompous with a capital P. If you wish to contiune to bait people, go to one of your other forums where it may be tolerated. If you are so well read, perhaps you should re-read the posting guidelines  and pay a little closer attention this time and see if you can get into the spirit of what Optiboard is about. We prefer to build, not tear down.

----------


## MarcE

THis has nothing to do with opticianry, optometry, or sight-testing, or "frankness".  You are just rude.

I don't do sight-testing and don't try to lobby for it - you are rude.

If you are really focused on ethics, maybe you shouldn't dispense at all.  You could be writing scripts for unneeded specs just to make money? You are rude.

Since you disclose your costs, I'm sure that you are showing your discounts, right?  Because anything less is not just unethical, it's lying.  You're not lying are you?  This question has been asked before and like a child, you haven't answered.  I can only assume that is because you don't want to disclose the truth.

Why are you checking if retail outlets have Optician's doing the dispense?  Your office doesn't.  Legal or not, it's an unfair double standard.  You are rude.

The cost of doing business is rolled up in optician mark-ups; rent, utilities, etc.  Your cost of doing business is rolled up in your exam fees.  It's not fair to compare.  Why do you question the "ethics" of an optician that makes $50K/yr when you make 2-4 times that amount?  And before you pull another bait-and-switch, I do not deny that you should make more money because the entry requirements for ODs is much higher.

Based on your comments, I highly doubt that you are an ethical player.  You endorse too many double standards.

I told you in my previous post that you needed to apologize.  You didn't. In fact, you made more comments that you need to apologize for.  If you were my child, I would punish you.  Because you need to learn that this type behavior does not serve you very well in adulthood.  Since you place a high value on education and learning, I'm sure that you realize that it's possible to learn something from anyone: patients, old people, even non-doctoral level opticians :Eek: .  Study hard and continue to learn and to improve your "Emotional intelligence"

Congratulations, you have earned my first ever negative feedback.:(

When you apologize for being rude, I will give you a green star.

----------


## MarcE

BTW to all the Ontario opticians.  I don't know alot about your laws.  But it does sound like you have a legal case against the Ontario "optometry board" or college or whatever you call it.

A recommended fee schedule is price-fixing.  No other way to look at it.

----------


## hcjilson

MarcE, 
Perhaps price fixing is allowed in Canada where things are done a little differently than here. I only come into this forum on occasion, usually to wish my northern brethren a Happy Canada Day or Thanksgiving, but on this occasion I was intrigued by the title of the thread. I was somewhat dissappointed to see the direction it took when excaliber decided to head in another direction. I would not hold your breath waiting for an apology. Excaliber will be continuing his education soon. The next lesson may well be one of entomology, it's up to him.

----------


## For-Life

> MarcE, 
> Perhaps price fixing is allowed in Canada where things are done a little differently than here. I only come into this forum on occasion, usually to wish my northern brethren a Happy Canada Day or Thanksgiving, but on this occasion I was intrigued by the title of the thread. I was somewhat dissappointed to see the direction it took when excaliber decided to head in another direction. I would not hold your breath waiting for an apology. Excaliber will be continuing his education soon. The next lesson may well be one of entomology, it's up to him.


Price fixing is not allowed in Canada, but for some reason this has been.  I always felt there was a case there, but no one ever wanted to pursue it.  It is one thing from our government that has just made me sick and disillusioned.

----------


## hcjilson

It's similar to the position of our government concerning monopolies. They are against the law and yet the cranberry industry is controlled by Ocean Spray which is a monopoly! During a question and answer portion of a meeting, I asked the president of Ocean Spray how his company was allowed to be a monopoly. "Great question" he replied,......"Next question!)

I think the only way to pursue the issue is to bring suit. Surely Canada has a conusmer protection divison or something of that nature.They would be the entity to bring it to a head.

----------


## MarcE

> It's similar to the position of our government concerning monopolies. They are against the law and yet the cranberry industry is controlled by Ocean Spray which is a monopoly! During a question and answer portion of a meeting, I asked the president of Ocean Spray how his company was allowed to be a monopoly. "Great question" he replied,......"Next question!)
> 
> I think the only way to pursue the issue is to bring suit. Surely Canada has a conusmer protection divison or something of that nature.They would be the entity to bring it to a head.


I disagree.  The opticians need to sue the Ontario College of Optometry.  It's the ODs rule.  They are the ones colluding.  The opticians are the victims.

----------


## Excalibur

> THis has nothing to do with opticianry, optometry, or sight-testing, or "frankness".  You are just rude.
> 
> I don't do sight-testing and don't try to lobby for it - you are rude.
> 
> If you are really focused on ethics, maybe you shouldn't dispense at all.  You could be writing scripts for unneeded specs just to make money? You are rude.
> 
> Since you disclose your costs, I'm sure that you are showing your discounts, right?  Because anything less is not just unethical, it's lying.  You're not lying are you?  This question has been asked before and like a child, you haven't answered.  I can only assume that is because you don't want to disclose the truth.
> 
> Why are you checking if retail outlets have Optician's doing the dispense?  Your office doesn't.  Legal or not, it's an unfair double standard.  You are rude.
> ...


For every one comment, observation or counterpoint I have posted there have been a number of visceral and venomous replies about me and my posts. Apologize? Indeed!

My income is irrelevant. The fact is, I make it fair and square within the laws and regulations of the land. I am merely questioning the ethics of opticianry trying to act like a health profession when in fact it is a trade. Opticians have no doctoral level research programs, publish no scientific journals beyond a few trade magazines, yet they feel they are somehow health professionals. And then a number of you wish to independently sight test, practicing what I like to label a 'minimalist approach' to eye care further confusing the public. As if there aren't enough ophthalmologists and optometrists around to generate scripts for you. 

Your worst enemy is not organized ophthalmology or optometry. It is you. Opticianry needs to work to develop accredited training programs, doctoral level scientific programs, as well as standardization of licensure. It needs to de-commercialize itself.  If I put anyone's nose out of joint by being brutally honest, I apologize. But those of you who attacked me should re-read your posts too and see where you have gone wrong in your commentary -- you have hardly acted civil yourselves and if anything, you have been crude and obscene.

----------


## Excalibur

> I disagree.  The opticians need to sue the Ontario College of Optometry.  It's the ODs rule.  They are the ones colluding.  The opticians are the victims.


Ahem. 

The regulations that are being followed by optometry in this province were dictated by the government in 1974. Perhaps the opticians could launch a lawsuit against the government too? Frankly, they have no case because there is no collusion. If they did, I'm certain they would have been wise enough to launch a lawsuit 33 yrs ago. Or are they NOT smart enough??

----------


## For-Life

> Ahem. 
> 
> The regulations that are being followed by optometry in this province were dictated by the government in 1974. Perhaps the opticians could launch a lawsuit against the government too? Frankly, they have no case because there is no collusion. If they did, I'm certain they would have been wise enough to launch a lawsuit 33 yrs ago. Or are they NOT smart enough??


They were not powerful enough.  

And you know what, seriously stop questioning the intelligence of Opticians.  This is probably the sixth or seventh time you made that backhanded comment.  It really does nothing for you.  There are some very bright Opticians out there.  My father worked very hard to provide our family with what he has.  He ran and still runs a successful business, and he didn't do it by being a dummy.  I was in dispensing for years while getting by Honours in Business and then my Masters Degree.  I am now thinking of doing my PHD.  So you can stop with trying to make it seem like Opticians are just dumb hicks.

----------


## Excalibur

> They were not powerful enough.  
> 
> And you know what, seriously stop questioning the intelligence of Opticians.  This is probably the sixth or seventh time you made that backhanded comment.  It really does nothing for you.  There are some very bright Opticians out there.  My father worked very hard to provide our family with what he has.  He ran and still runs a successful business, and he didn't do it by being a dummy.  I was in dispensing for years while getting by Honours in Business and then my Masters Degree.  I am now thinking of doing my PHD.  So you can stop with trying to make it seem like Opticians are just dumb hicks.


Not powerful enough? Surely the money they collect from their members is ample enough funding to launch legal action? I trust that the relevant organizations have commissioned a legal team only to find that there is no case. After 33 yrs I'm certain they would have done something.

I'm sure there are opticians with PhDs or some graduate degree. That is not my point -- please read my words and posts carefully before you attack me again. I am indicating that opticianry has no doctoral or post-graduate degrees in their training programs-- if there is one in North America, please post the link to the program on this forum. I do not believe they have any formal research programs either... or do they? Thank you.

----------


## For-Life

> Not powerful enough? Surely the money they collect from their members is ample enough funding to launch legal action? I trust that the relevant organizations have commissioned a legal team only to find that there is no case. After 33 yrs I'm certain they would have done something.
> 
> I'm sure there are opticians with PhDs or some graduate degree. That is not my point -- please read my words and posts carefully before you attack me again. I am indicating that opticianry has no doctoral or post-graduate degrees in their training programs-- if there is one in North America, please post the link to the program on this forum. I do not believe they have any formal research programs either... or do they? Thank you.


No, you are indicating that Opticians are stupid.  I have bit my tongue against several of your comments throughout this, but you continue to slide them in there.  

Education does not make you more intelligent.  By-products of education can help you become more aware, further your theoretical teachings, and open your mind.  But these Opticians have been learning through practical and educational ways for years now.  All they do is study lenses and frames.  They regularly attend conferences and go for training to keep their skills up to date.  Many of them have taken the initiative to further their education through taking University or College business courses.  

I have nothing but respect for the trade, and I think you deserve them the same respect too.

----------


## LandLord

> I am merely questioning the ethics of opticianry trying to act like a health profession when in fact it is a trade.


*WRONG AGAIN, EXCALIBUR!!*

*Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991*

*The Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) is an omnibus or umbrella law, which applies equally to 23 health professions. These professions include: Audiologists, Chiropodists, Chiropractors, Dental Hygienists, Dentists, Denturists, Dietitians, Massage Therapists, Medical Laboratory Technologists, Medical Radiation Technologists, Midwives, Registered Nurses and Registered Practical Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Opticians, Optometrists, Pharmacists, Physicians, Physiotherapists, Podiatrists, Psychologists, Respiratory Therapists, and Speech-Language Pathologists.* 


> you have hardly acted civil yourselves and if anything, you have been crude and obscene.

----------


## hcjilson

The instigators have been put on notice by a moderator. If you have not received an email, you are not one of them. Let's all take a deep breath and proceed as professionals. This donnybrook is over.

 Now, where were we ?

----------


## HarryChiling

It is interesting that the medical and the visual needs of a patient are often referred to as inseperable by many of the Optometrists that I know and in this case this optometrists (Excaliber) consistently points back to the fact that he has attended optometry school to attain his privledges when that is not the case.  As far as I know a majority of the medical privledges given to optometry has come from successfull legislation and the same arguements that he poses are ones his profession has heard from ophthalmology.  It is also interesting to note he consistently refers to ophthalmology and optometry not wanting or wanting something.  As far as I know he is an optometrists and does not represent optometry, but is extremely arrogant to think his views spill over into ophthalmology.

The optometric techs he reffers to is a carbon copy of an ophthalmic tech which should not be confused.  Ophthalmic Techs are considered health care professionals and write many journal articles and publish research side by side with ophthalmolgy.  If you are lookign for more info check out http://www.jcahpo.org, in an ophthalmologists office a OMP (Ophthalmic Medical Professional) has all the very same privledges as an optometrist (with exception to prescribing or diagnosing).  Optometry has emulated this with the optometric technician as a ways of fractureing this area of opticianry.  These optometrists do not consider their optometric staff as professionals and as far as I am aware they publish no journals or do no research.

For any optician out there considering the optometric technician program take a good hard look at the type of person you will be working under.

----------


## Excalibur

> No, you are indicating that Opticians are stupid.  I have bit my tongue against several of your comments throughout this, but you continue to slide them in there.  
> 
> Education does not make you more intelligent.  By-products of education can help you become more aware, further your theoretical teachings, and open your mind.  But these Opticians have been learning through practical and educational ways for years now.  All they do is study lenses and frames.  They regularly attend conferences and go for training to keep their skills up to date.  Many of them have taken the initiative to further their education through taking University or College business courses.  
> 
> I have nothing but respect for the trade, and I think you deserve them the same respect too.


You raise some very interesting points, and I agree with your post. Thank you for sharing them with me. Although opticians can (and some do) attend post-optician programs as you state, optician curricula do not have any university level training programs. Thank you for your post.

----------


## Excalibur

> It is interesting that the medical and the visual needs of a patient are often referred to as inseperable by many of the Optometrists that I know and in this case this optometrists (Excaliber) consistently points back to the fact that he has attended optometry school to attain his privledges when that is not the case.  As far as I know a majority of the medical privledges given to optometry has come from successfull legislation and the same arguements that he poses are ones his profession has heard from ophthalmology.  It is also interesting to note he consistently refers to ophthalmology and optometry not wanting or wanting something.  As far as I know he is an optometrists and does not represent optometry, but is extremely arrogant to think his views spill over into ophthalmology.
> 
> The optometric techs he reffers to is a carbon copy of an ophthalmic tech which should not be confused.  Ophthalmic Techs are considered health care professionals and write many journal articles and publish research side by side with ophthalmolgy.  If you are lookign for more info check out http://www.jcahpo.org, in an ophthalmologists office a OMP (Ophthalmic Medical Professional) has all the very same privledges as an optometrist (with exception to prescribing or diagnosing).  Optometry has emulated this with the optometric technician as a ways of fractureing this area of opticianry.  These optometrists do not consider their optometric staff as professionals and as far as I am aware they publish no journals or do no research.
> 
> For any optician out there considering the optometric technician program take a good hard look at the type of person you will be working under.


Harry-- are you aware of any optician programs that have doctoral level training? I am not aware of any. Optician programs are generally community college or correspondence programs... aren't they? There are certainly no optician programs affiliated with any university. Chiropractors are doctoral-level, but even they do not have any university-affiliated programs as far as I know. Optometry's legislative successes have been very successful too because this group has been very diligent at further their education -- developing research programs, attracting good applicants, etc etc which has very much helped the legislative lobbying efforts. This is something opticianry has been largely unable to do -- although there are pockets of highly educated opticians, as a group they are nowhere close to where they should be to be given the responsibility to assess people independent of others such as OMDs and ODs.

----------


## Excalibur

> It is interesting that the medical and the visual needs of a patient are often referred to as inseperable by many of the Optometrists that I know and in this case this optometrists (Excaliber) consistently points back to the fact that he has attended optometry school to attain his privledges when that is not the case.  As far as I know a majority of the medical privledges given to optometry has come from successfull legislation and the same arguements that he poses are ones his profession has heard from ophthalmology.  It is also interesting to note he consistently refers to ophthalmology and optometry not wanting or wanting something.  As far as I know he is an optometrists and does not represent optometry, but is extremely arrogant to think his views spill over into ophthalmology.
> 
> The optometric techs he reffers to is a carbon copy of an ophthalmic tech which should not be confused.  Ophthalmic Techs are considered health care professionals and write many journal articles and publish research side by side with ophthalmolgy.  If you are lookign for more info check out http://www.jcahpo.org, in an ophthalmologists office a OMP (Ophthalmic Medical Professional) has all the very same privledges as an optometrist (with exception to prescribing or diagnosing).  Optometry has emulated this with the optometric technician as a ways of fractureing this area of opticianry.  These optometrists do not consider their optometric staff as professionals and as far as I am aware they publish no journals or do no research.
> 
> For any optician out there considering the optometric technician program take a good hard look at the type of person you will be working under.


On another note, I think this thread has been bled and beaten dry. Perhaps we should call it a truce and move on.

----------


## obxeyeguy

, done.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Harry-- are you aware of any optician programs that have doctoral level training? I am not aware of any. Optician programs are generally community college or correspondence programs... aren't they? There are certainly no optician programs affiliated with any university. Chiropractors are doctoral-level, but even they do not have any university-affiliated programs as far as I know. Optometry's legislative successes have been very successful too because this group has been very diligent at further their education -- developing research programs, attracting good applicants, etc etc which has very much helped the legislative lobbying efforts. This is something opticianry has been largely unable to do -- although there are pockets of highly educated opticians, as a group they are nowhere close to where they should be to be given the responsibility to assess people independent of others such as OMDs and ODs.


You seem to be caught up in this doctoral thing, my sister was just sworn in as a lawyer does she go around calling herself doctor, NO (by the way technically she is).  Optometry has been trying to emulate Ophthalmology since forever ago, and now the optometric technician program is trying to emulate the ophthalmic technician program.  If you want to be an Ophthalmologist go to med school, sound familiar?  Instead of emulateing opticians are chooseing to create a whole new model of refraction only visits.  This is not as you suggested independent of a health assesment, it is just independent of a health visit from every refraction which is overkill in some circumstances.

You seem to like to ignore the insignificance statistically of pathology in the segment of the population that opticians want to sight test.  (considering that the person should have been tested at some point before and the screening).  I would bet that their are more OD's doing damage down the road from me at the 2 for $69.95 Americia's something that see patinets every 5 minutes and in some cases are running between two lanes.  I wonder how muach pathology they miss?  Independent sight testing can and will be done it's a shame you have nothing constructive to say about it, and yet you keep voiceing your opinion about it here like you are some sort of guru on the subject.  

_By the way if a patient needs a medical exam why would they opt to go see you rather than an OMD?_

If you can answer that question truthfully and not see how opticians can play a roll in independent sight testing, I think we did beat this horse dead.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Optician programs are generally community college or correspondence programs... aren't they? *There are certainly no optician programs affiliated with any university*.


http://www.opt.indiana.edu/ - Correct me if I am wrong but that is an Optometry school.  Dr. Clifford Brooks  a great OD teaches opticians at that school if I am correct.  He is also author to many books that have been used in various optometry programs.  Again not all optometrists have the narrow views that you seem to have towards my profession.  You also mentioned in a previous post that you could have gone to medical school if you had wanted too.  Many of the opticians on this board that you refer to as uneducated could have done many other things but chose opticianry as a career.  I know 2 Phd opticians, 2 lawyer opticians, Nurses as opticians, and even doctors from other coutries as opticians.  Many countries have more respect for opticianry as a profession than you do and in countries their is no such profession as optometry.  Your profession is the baby on the block.  Your professionn has done man things right and just as many wrong.  Wait a few years nad the supply of OD's will be through the roof, their are already far to many OD's and the corporate OD far outweights the private practice OD even today, the future of optometry and opticianry are far more intertwined than you would like to imagine, but like you said corporate opticianry has been our biggest enemy, you are right, but often optometry has sided with corporations to help keep the profession down (most notably in the cases involving licensure) even to this day you hire and use unlicensed untrained individuals in your offices.  This has lead to rampant devalueing of both our services, maybe when the dust settles we might both be working for Walmart, you will be my boss and make more money, but you won't be any happier than me and chances are I will give you a hard time then as I am now.

----------


## LandLord

> There are certainly no optician programs affiliated with any university.


Forgive me, Excalibur, but yes there are.  It's a BSc in Ophthalmic Dispensing.

http://www.city.ac.uk/optometry/programmes/ugrad/bsc%20aod.html

You're welcome.

----------


## Excalibur

> Forgive me, Excalibur, but yes there are.  It's a BSc in Ophthalmic Dispensing.
> 
> http://www.city.ac.uk/optometry/prog...bsc%20aod.html
> 
> You're welcome.


OK.. here we go again...

you haven't read my posts carefully enough. 

Dispensing opticians are known as optometrists in the U.K. 
You are referring to practitioners in the U.K.. I am referring to practitioners in North America. Opticianry is largely taught by correspondence or at community colleges in N. America. They are not taught at university or college level.

----------


## Excalibur

> http://www.opt.indiana.edu/ - Correct me if I am wrong but that is an Optometry school.  Dr. Clifford Brooks  a great OD teaches opticians at that school if I am correct.  He is also author to many books that have been used in various optometry programs.  Again not all optometrists have the narrow views that you seem to have towards my profession.  You also mentioned in a previous post that you could have gone to medical school if you had wanted too.  Many of the opticians on this board that you refer to as uneducated could have done many other things but chose opticianry as a career.  I know 2 Phd opticians, 2 lawyer opticians, Nurses as opticians, and even doctors from other coutries as opticians.  Many countries have more respect for opticianry as a profession than you do and in countries their is no such profession as optometry.  Your profession is the baby on the block.  Your professionn has done man things right and just as many wrong.  Wait a few years nad the supply of OD's will be through the roof, their are already far to many OD's and the corporate OD far outweights the private practice OD even today, the future of optometry and opticianry are far more intertwined than you would like to imagine, but like you said corporate opticianry has been our biggest enemy, you are right, but often optometry has sided with corporations to help keep the profession down (most notably in the cases involving licensure) even to this day you hire and use unlicensed untrained individuals in your offices.  This has lead to rampant devalueing of both our services, maybe when the dust settles we might both be working for Walmart, you will be my boss and make more money, but you won't be any happier than me and chances are I will give you a hard time then as I am now.


Me be your boss? Impossible! You would be my boss, n'est pas? ;)

As I've indicated before, I can hire one optician at $30/hr or hire two certified optometric techs for $15/hr each. That gives me 2 people for the price of one. The two together can cover more 'ground' than the optician most of the time. Because they are constantly consulting with me all the time during the course of managing our patients, we cover all of our bases really well. 

As for your colleagues who changed from law or nursing to opticianry. Did they lose their license in their previous professions, or did they merely wish to change careers?

Yes, IUSO is an optom school. It is not a school of opticianry. There is no such thing as an opticianry school in any university in N. America.

As for how well optometry has done in North America-- I would say they've done very, very well. Every state has experienced practice scope expansion, and absolutely no retraction of scope.

----------


## Excalibur

> You seem to be caught up in this doctoral thing, my sister was just sworn in as a lawyer does she go around calling herself doctor, NO (by the way technically she is).  Optometry has been trying to emulate Ophthalmology since forever ago, and now the optometric technician program is trying to emulate the ophthalmic technician program.  If you want to be an Ophthalmologist go to med school, sound familiar?  Instead of emulateing opticians are chooseing to create a whole new model of refraction only visits.  This is not as you suggested independent of a health assesment, it is just independent of a health visit from every refraction which is overkill in some circumstances.
> 
> You seem to like to ignore the insignificance statistically of pathology in the segment of the population that opticians want to sight test.  (considering that the person should have been tested at some point before and the screening).  I would bet that their are more OD's doing damage down the road from me at the 2 for $69.95 Americia's something that see patinets every 5 minutes and in some cases are running between two lanes.  I wonder how muach pathology they miss?  Independent sight testing can and will be done it's a shame you have nothing constructive to say about it, and yet you keep voiceing your opinion about it here like you are some sort of guru on the subject.  
> 
> _By the way if a patient needs a medical exam why would they opt to go see you rather than an OMD?_
> 
> If you can answer that question truthfully and not see how opticians can play a roll in independent sight testing, I think we did beat this horse dead.


In Canada, we have a huge shortage of ophthalmic surgeons. Optometrists provide the overwhelming majority of primary eye care in this country, and according to government authorities they do it very, very well. Just read the HPRAC report I cited in an another thread. In fact, optometrists in this country have extremely good working relationships with family docs so... if the family docs are referring more and more of their patients that isn't a bad thing, is it?

And how did you become such an authority on sight testing? Unfortunately, you wish to take eye care back to the proverbial Stone Ages by using a minimalist approach. Dial-spinning is not eye care however much you wish to believe it. I'm sure you're not a bad fellow, and (in a perverse way) I enjoy 'debating' with you but your posts are so poorly written they almost lack credibility. Nonetheless, you continue to emit a foul literary odor by continuing to post when I set this thread is dead. 

*Have you finished or what?*

----------


## Excalibur

> , done.


*Thank you. And perhaps some of your colleagues should take your lead and take heed.*

----------


## hcjilson

I am sending this thread to Roy Ferguson and Warren McDonald, both educators, and both opticians who hopefully will share some insight. As I have previously stated, Excalibur has made some excellent points, however I am not aware of what is currently available in the US educationally. It may take them some time to catch up on the 5 pages here. In any event they are the most well versed to speak on Opticianry and education today. I'm taking a back seat because I'm out of my league here. I would be embarassed to invite either of these gentle men into a cat fight so please excercise your manners. I have never been in their company and failed to learn something so please listen to what they have to say (if they care to comment)
Thanks from hcj

----------


## Oedema

I'm going to avoid commenting on much of what has been said in this thread for obvious reasons....  but:
1. Indiana University offers a two year associates degree in opticanry
2. UK BSc dispensing opticans are not optometrists, the link to the program at city university is a one year degree in opticianry.  The Optometry program in the UK is a three year BSc Optom.
3. I really don't understand how anyone thinks that cost+plus is a good thing for optometry.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Yes, IUSO is an optom school. It is not a school of opticianry.


So then is opticianry bringing the academic stature of the school down or is optometry bringing the level of opticianry up from that school?  Since they teach opticianry they are an opticianry school.




> And how did you become such an authority on sight testing? Unfortunately, you wish to take eye care back to the proverbial Stone Ages by using a minimalist approach.


It is obvious you cannot seperate refraction from the health assesment.  If this was the opinion of the optometrists that paved the way for you you would be an optician today.  I am suggesting that optometry has evolved so far from what it was that their is a large gap between optometry and opticianry that needs to be filled.  I think opticians can fill it well, you see to think that no one should fill it.




> I'm sure you're not a bad fellow, and (in a perverse way) I enjoy 'debating' with you but your posts are so poorly written they almost lack credibility.


My posts don't need credibility, they are just opinion and conjecture.  You on the other hand have doen irreperable damage to your credibility to the members of this board it seems.  It's ashamed since you seem to think highly of yourself, it would have been nice to share your obvious wealth of knowledge with this board.




> In Canada, we have a huge shortage of ophthalmic surgeons. Optometrists provide the overwhelming majority of primary eye care in this country, and according to government authorities they do it very, very well.


That is the same excuse used in the states to legislate medical privledges to optometrists.  To an extent I agree it is nice to be able to see your local optometrist and have certain conditions treated and monitored without a trip to an ophthalmologist, but these medical privledges none the less have been granted by legislation.  Some medical professionals think optometry does not deserve these privledges.  

Sight testing to me is very similar, it can be done independent of an OD or OMD.  This does not mean it should be done in lieu of a health assesment.




> are you aware of any optician programs that have doctoral level training?


I don't think their would ever be a need for one, so it isn't necessary.  You could say in a way that optometry is a doctoral level optician. :D




> *Have you finished or what?*


No it seems you have more self destructing to do so I will continue to be exalted by your banter.  As for my spelling I am glad to see it bothers you so, I will continue to ignore the spell check button.

----------


## LandLord

> Dispensing opticians are known as optometrists in the U.K.


WRONG, AGAIN!  Please check simple facts so that I don't have to correct you so much.  In the UK, the names are the same.

Dispensing opticians are known as _dispensing_ opticians (DO's).  Optometrists are known as optometrists ~ _or_ ~ _ophthalmic_ opticians.  They are not called "eye doctors."  This term is reserved for eye practitioners who graduate from medical schools.

In Canada, opticianry is taught at accredited colleges, such as Georgian or Seneca.

You're welcome.

----------


## LandLord

> I'm going to avoid commenting on much of what has been said in this thread for obvious reasons


At times, I wish I had the same restraint.


> 3. I really don't understand how anyone thinks that cost+plus is a good thing for optometry.


More restrictions are obviously not good.  The question is, is cost+ a good thing for the patient?  The answer is No! Although, that was presumably the intention. Optometrists are humans and their practices are businesses.  With cost+ there is no financial incentive to promote a better appliance.  When you align patient benefit with practitioner benefit you will get a better result every time.  (Unless your name is Excalibur. :Mad: )

----------


## Oedema

> At times, I wish I had the same restraint.More restrictions are obviously not good.  The question is, is cost+ a good thing for the patient?  The answer is No! Although, that was presumably the intention. Optometrists are humans and their practices are businesses.  With cost+ there is no financial incentive to promote a better appliance.  When you align patient benefit with practitioner benefit you will get a better result every time.  (Unless your name is Excalibur.)


Thats the argument Dr. Angle from IRIS gives against cost+plus.  I don't remember where he was pulling this quote from, but the country with the worst avg quality of spectacles in the developed world is the USA, but the avg the in Ontario is even further behind...

Oh i think he was referring to something from Essilor looking at what percentage of premium lenses are sold worldwide.

----------


## HarryChiling

> Thats the argument Dr. Angle from IRIS gives against cost+plus. I don't remember where he was pulling this quote from, but the country with the worst avg quality of spectacles in the developed world is the USA, but the avg the in Ontario is even further behind...
> 
> Oh i think he was referring to something from Essilor looking at what percentage of premium lenses are sold worldwide.


I think the problme with the US is in the last link in the chain, opticians.  Many are not qualified to call themselves opticians, but dispense despite of that, nationally their needs to be licensure to make sure that all professional meet some standard of competence.  If there isn't then we all suffer.

----------


## tmorse

> In Canada, opticianry is taught at accredited colleges, such as Georgian or Seneca.


In Canada the ONLY accredited post-secondary facility teaching Opticianry is BC College of Optics, which offers a two (2)-semester, six (6)-month course of instruction.

However, Georgian College has just completed their accreditation audit on Nov 30th, 2007 and may soon achieve formal accreditation. Seneca has yet to apply for same.;)

----------


## For-Life

I think we would be surprised at what occupations must have University requirements.

- Financial Planners do not need to get a degree in business or finance.  They have to go through their courses.
- Up until next year, Human Resource specialists could get their CHRP with only a College (community College is the term in the US) diploma.
- You can get your CGA without a University education

I am a member of academia and I will tell you straight out, University is not the best field for all professions.  Trade schools, apprenticeships, and community colleges can be a far better environment for many professions.

----------


## bhess25

there are a few schools here in ohio that have 2 year opticianry programs...I do know a couple opticians that went to 2 of those schools...one had been an optician for 11 years and the other for 5, they are the absolute worst opticians ive ever seen...the people that weve hired off the street and trained have proven to far better than anyone from those schools...but im not blaming the opticians, it must be poor curriculum in the schools...i would love to see some required courses from an accredited school...mabye one day!

-Billy

----------


## tmorse

> there are a few schools here in ohio that have 2 year opticianry programs...I do know a couple opticians that went to 2 of those schools...one had been an optician for 11 years and the other for 5, they are the absolute worst opticians ive ever seen...the people that weve hired off the street and trained have proven to far better than anyone from those schools...but im not blaming the opticians, it must be poor curriculum in the schools...i would love to see some required courses from an accredited school...mabye one day! -Billy


Why not blame the Opticians? I can tell you from bitter experience that sometimes those with a bit of optical experience have this idea that they don't have to work in class, or they will 'learn it later', etc. And if they went to a 2-year program... but did they complete it? ...did they pass it?

*A full 50% of all Opticians finish in the bottom half of their class.* 

Blaming the school's curriculum is similar to a poor mechanic blaming his tools.;)

----------


## For-Life

> *A full 50&#37; of all Opticians finish in the bottom half of their class.* 
> 
> Blaming the school's curriculum is similar to a poor mechanic blaming his tools.;)


Not only that, but the ones who failed the exams and quit the industry, never had to take the exam again  :drop:

----------


## HarryChiling

> *A full 50% of all Opticians finish in the bottom half of their class.*


That number seems a little hih to me. ;)

----------


## hcjilson

You guys *DO* have a sense of humor after all........ a refreshing change!  :):)  hj

----------


## HarryChiling

> You guys *DO* have a sense of humor after all........ a refreshing change! :):) hj


Quiet,, I don't think anyone wants the word getting out.:)  I am trying to portray myself as a ball buster here don't ruin it for me.;)

----------


## LandLord

> In Canada the ONLY accredited post-secondary facility teaching Opticianry is BC College of Optics, which offers a two (2)-semester, six (6)-month course of instruction.
> 
> However, Georgian College has just completed their accreditation audit on Nov 30th, 2007 and may soon achieve formal accreditation. Seneca has yet to apply for same.;)


Interesting.  Please give your definition of "accredited."

----------


## tmorse

> Interesting. Please give your definition of "accredited."


NACOR has decided to become an accrediting body, and all public Canadian opticianry schools and ourselves have agreed to achieve NACOR accreditation to aid in labour mobility for Opticians. Georgian College volunteered to undergo the first NACOR accreditation, which recently completed its Audit stage.

NACOR accreditation details and requirements are very extensive, and can be found in Nacor's website. Until this time, all public Colleges had only a simple reporting function to be done annually... ie. that it stayed within its budget, etc and the program was reviewed by the public College's Regents and government every 5 years to determine if government funding would continue.

A very detailed NACOR 'Self-Study' document is produced and, once approved by NACOR, an independant AUDIT TEAM (consisting of an opticianry instructor, a NACOR official and an accreditation expert) attends at the school to verify its contents. Then NACOR decides whether to grant a full, a partial or a denial of accreditation status. www.naco.ca

BC College of Optics is a private-school and the Private Career Training Institute Agency (PCTIA) performs a similar accreditation function for Career Colleges. But whereas the NACOR accreditation consists of a curriculum accreditation, the PCTIA accreditation performs the same curriculum audit and also examines the entire school itself, including administration, building, refund policies, Enrolment Agreement, advertising, etc. to ensure student protection. 

The PCTIA Audit Team chosen to verify our BC College of Optics self-study materials included a representative of our regulatory College of Opticians of BC (COBC) as opticianry expert, a UBC department head as administrative expert, and an accreditation expert from PCTIA. Our accreditation was granted almost 10 years ago, in Oct 1998, and has been renewed annually since.  www.pctia.bc.ca

----------


## bhess25

> Why not blame the Opticians? I can tell you from bitter experience that sometimes those with a bit of optical experience have this idea that they don't have to work in class, or they will 'learn it later', etc. And if they went to a 2-year program... but did they complete it? ...did they pass it?
> 
> *A full 50% of all Opticians finish in the bottom half of their class.* 
> 
> Blaming the school's curriculum is similar to a poor mechanic blaming his tools.;)


 
yes they graduated with an associates...besides i have to be nice and blame the school...i was friends with one of those people for a few years before i started working with her....but if i had to be honest....

----------


## LandLord

> NACOR has decided to become an accrediting body, and all public Canadian opticianry schools and ourselves have agreed to achieve NACOR accreditation to aid in labour mobility for Opticians. Georgian College volunteered to undergo the first NACOR accreditation, which recently completed its Audit stage.
> 
> NACOR accreditation details and requirements are very extensive, and can be found in Nacor's website. Until this time, all public Colleges had only a simple reporting function to be done annually... ie. that it stayed within its budget, etc and the program was reviewed by the public College's Regents and government every 5 years to determine if government funding would continue.
> 
> A very detailed NACOR 'Self-Study' document is produced and, once approved by NACOR, an independant AUDIT TEAM (consisting of an opticianry instructor, a NACOR official and an accreditation expert) attends at the school to verify its contents. Then NACOR decides whether to grant a full, a partial or a denial of accreditation status. www.naco.ca
> 
> BC College of Optics is a private-school and the Private Career Training Institute Agency (PCTIA) performs a similar accreditation function for Career Colleges. But whereas the NACOR accreditation consists of a curriculum accreditation, the PCTIA accreditation performs the same curriculum audit and also examines the entire school itself, including administration, building, refund policies, Enrolment Agreement, advertising, etc. to ensure student protection. 
> 
> The PCTIA Audit Team chosen to verify our BC College of Optics self-study materials included a representative of our regulatory College of Opticians of BC (COBC) as opticianry expert, a UBC department head as administrative expert, and an accreditation expert from PCTIA. Our accreditation was granted almost 10 years ago, in Oct 1998, and has been renewed annually since. www.pctia.bc.ca


Oh, you mean NACOR?  Well, I was referring to the College of Opticians.

----------


## bhess25

> NACOR has decided to become an accrediting body, and all public Canadian opticianry schools and ourselves have agreed to achieve NACOR accreditation to aid in labour mobility for Opticians. Georgian College volunteered to undergo the first NACOR accreditation, which recently completed its Audit stage.
> 
> NACOR accreditation details and requirements are very extensive, and can be found in Nacor's website. Until this time, all public Colleges had only a simple reporting function to be done annually... ie. that it stayed within its budget, etc and the program was reviewed by the public College's Regents and government every 5 years to determine if government funding would continue.
> 
> A very detailed NACOR 'Self-Study' document is produced and, once approved by NACOR, an independant AUDIT TEAM (consisting of an opticianry instructor, a NACOR official and an accreditation expert) attends at the school to verify its contents. Then NACOR decides whether to grant a full, a partial or a denial of accreditation status. www.naco.ca
> 
> BC College of Optics is a private-school and the Private Career Training Institute Agency (PCTIA) performs a similar accreditation function for Career Colleges. But whereas the NACOR accreditation consists of a curriculum accreditation, the PCTIA accreditation performs the same curriculum audit and also examines the entire school itself, including administration, building, refund policies, Enrolment Agreement, advertising, etc. to ensure student protection. 
> 
> The PCTIA Audit Team chosen to verify our BC College of Optics self-study materials included a representative of our regulatory College of Opticians of BC (COBC) as opticianry expert, a UBC department head as administrative expert, and an accreditation expert from PCTIA. Our accreditation was granted almost 10 years ago, in Oct 1998, and has been renewed annually since. www.pctia.bc.ca


 
it would be great to have something like this...we dont have that right now..at least not at these 4 local schools.

----------


## LandLord

> Thats the argument Dr. Angle from IRIS gives against cost+plus. I don't remember where he was pulling this quote from, but the country with the worst avg quality of spectacles in the developed world is the USA, but the avg the in Ontario is even further behind...
> 
> Oh i think he was referring to something from Essilor looking at what percentage of premium lenses are sold worldwide.


Surprised you know Daryan, being from Chicago.  Is IRIS trying to buy practices in Illinois?

----------


## Oedema

Dr. Angle was in Chicago recently speaking at the Illinois College of Optometry.  They are not looking to expand to Illinois, but he did mention they are looking at doing a trial practice in Washington state.  Not too sure how their model will work out for them with the preponderance of managed care in the USA since their model depends on higher professional fees and premium priced eyewear.

----------

