# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Ontario Optometrists' Restrictions - Time for positive change?

## eyemanflying

A Coalition to free commercial restrictions on Ontario Optometrists
      2008-02-14 16:45:00

Dr. Don MacQueen, an independent optometrist, and Dr. Patrick Quaid, one of the four optometrists associated with IRIS in Ontario, are using their skills to incite reform in the regulations of the Ontario College of Optometrists. 

Created in February 2008, the « Coalition of Ontario Optometrists for Reform » (COOR) was initiated following recent measures taken by the College on Ontario optometrists  for more on this subject, see article published on the 6th Nov. 

This coalition, which consists of optometrists from diverse practice backgrounds, aims to influence both the College of Optometrists and the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care to repeal the regulatory amendments submitted to Ministry of Health, which still contain restrictions on association. The coalition is invoking their right to free association which is guaranteed under the Canadian Charter and is requesting a complete revision of the current conflict of interest regulations with a view to eliminating any business restrictions. 

The Ontario College of Optometrists state that in the interest of public protection, the provincial law (Ontario Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act) was created to demonstrate independence and to avoid any potential conflict of interest. The Director of the Ontario College re-affirmed in the media that to practice optometry in association with anyone other than another optometrist or physician constitutes a conflict of interest. 

To be followed

----------


## For-Life

hopefully the government will wake up.  This set up has been the biggest joke in the industry.

----------


## eyemanflying

> hopefully the government will wake up. This set up has been the biggest joke in the industry.


An continues to be...the changes would be good for everyone.

----------


## eyemanflying

I received another letter from Iris yesterday providing an update.  The Ontario College of Optometrists have a tough fight ahead of them and seem to be grasping at straws already.

----------


## Golfnorth

> I received another letter from Iris yesterday providing an update.  The Ontario College of Optometrists have a tough fight ahead of them and seem to be grasping at straws already.


I for one am intersted in hearing from other optometrists in this forum about how they feel about what is happening here. Come on don't be shy. Let us know how you feel!

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## eyemanflying

> I for one am intersted in hearing from other optometrists in this forum about how they feel about what is happening here. Come on don't be shy. Let us know how you feel!
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


 
I agree.  There are many out there, but nobody speaking up.

----------


## Ory

> I agree. There are many out there, but nobody speaking up.


Why would we?  I've already posted on a similar issue and you called me a liar.  http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27203

----------


## eyemanflying

> Why would we? I've already posted on a similar issue and you called me a liar. http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27203


Why wouldn't you speak up if you support the change? That is exactly the purpose of this forum. If you back the fight, then take a stand and support your colleagues for positive change. Had you shared the information in the first place, there would have been no doubt to the authenticity and truthfulness of your post.;)

----------


## Oedema

I have to say that I support pretty much all of the changes (allow OD's to employ opticians, retail pricing, etc.) however the IRIS charter challenges concerns me b/c I'm hesitant about corporations directly employing OD's.  I know that is not necessarily the aim of IRIS, however I'm sure their case would open the doors to it.  In Illinois OD's are employed by a number of optical chains, and I have to say in some cases it can really lower the bar on the level of optometry practiced by some presumably b/c of their time constraints.

----------


## eyemanflying

I'm sure there are many OD's out there that don't want the hassles, frustrations and time/money investments of owning their own practice/business.  A practice is merely a business.  If their paycheck can come from a 9-5 job at a chain without the headaches, what's so wrong with that??  To each their own.

----------


## Oedema

> I'm sure there are many OD's out there that don't want the hassles, frustrations and time/money investments of owning their own practice/business.  A practice is merely a business.  If their paycheck can come from a 9-5 job at a chain without the headaches, what's so wrong with that??  To each their own.


Nothing wrong with that, however when OD's can't be bothered to even dilate their own patients b/c of time constraints and instead refer them out for simple dilated fundus exams, I do think that is a problem.  The prime example of what I've seen is of a patient seen at the college, referred by an OD in corporate setting, for a DFE b/c the pt. was hypertensive, had a history of hospitalization for severely increased blood pressure, but had absolutely no hypertensive retinal findings.  Now why wasn't the referring OD able to manage this pt. himself???:(

My guess is that it has somthing to do with the practice setting.  At this particular chain OD's sign a contract where they agree to see all patients that present during the work day.  It is apparenty not ususual for an OD in these particular stores to see 50+ patients in a day with standard tech. work-up.  I'm not saying that all OD's working there can't/don't handle their own dilations (I in fact personally know some that do), but it is a problem.

BTW what I'm talking about here is real employment of OD, not independent contractors.

----------


## Golfnorth

> I have to say that I support pretty much all of the changes (allow OD's to employ opticians, retail pricing, etc.) however the IRIS charter challenges concerns me b/c I'm hesitant about corporations directly employing OD's.  I know that is not necessarily the aim of IRIS, however I'm sure their case would open the doors to it.  In Illinois OD's are employed by a number of optical chains, and I have to say in some cases it can really lower the bar on the level of optometry practiced by some presumably b/c of their time constraints.


Odema;

I see that you are in favour of optometrists employing opticans. Are you also in foavour of opticians employing optometrists?

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Oedema

> Odema;
> 
> I see that you are in favour of optometrists employing opticans. Are you also in foavour of opticians employing optometrists?
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


That's a difficult one.  I understand if opticians were to employ OD's they would most likely be much more benevolent than the chains I've mentioned above.  However, I'm not sure a legislative/regulatory distinction could be made.  Eitherway, I think it's a moot point since this IRIS challenge could very well open the doors to everything.

----------


## eyemanflying

> That's a difficult one. I understand if opticians were to employ OD's they would most likely be much more benevolent than the chains I've mentioned above. However, I'm not sure a legislative/regulatory distinction could be made. Eitherway, I think it's a moot point since this IRIS challenge could very well open the doors to everything.


Legislation and rules aside, OD's are quite arrogrant in the sense that only some would admit employing opticians is a good idea.  And reverse scenario, I have yet to see one OD swallow their pride and admit that they would be willing to be employed by the optician.  One word, ego.

----------


## Oedema

What benefits are there for an optician to employ an optometrist vs. independent lease holder?  what does it accomplish that you can't already get with such an arrangement?

----------


## Golfnorth

> What benefits are there for an optician to employ an optometrist vs. independent lease holder?  what does it accomplish that you can't already get with such an arrangement?


I haven't really thought through the above scenario in order to answer your question properly. I was just wondering if you were in favour of full reciprocal freedom of association both ways not just one way. I gather from your response that you are not in favour of full freedom of association.

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## eyemanflying

> What benefits are there for an optician to employ an optometrist vs. independent lease holder? what does it accomplish that you can't already get with such an arrangement?


Exactly my point.

----------


## Oedema

> I haven't really thought through the above scenario in order to answer your question properly. I was just wondering if you were in favour of full reciprocal freedom of association both ways not just one way. I gather from your response that you are not in favour of full freedom of association.
> 
> Regards,
> Golfnorth


 I'm not necessarily against it, but my feelings are very tentative.

----------


## optical maven

Employing someone means you pay them a salary for their services.  Optometrists, like physicians, are paid by OHIP for services which are still insured.  If an optometrist is employed by someone, they are not allowed to share or split these fees.  Cost sharing arrangements can be done.  So does the optician hire an optometrist, pay him/her a salary, and forego any OHIP collection?  I'm an optometrist and I employ an optician.  I pay her a salary.  As an optician, what is your business model?

----------


## For-Life

> So does the optician hire an optometrist, pay him/her a salary, and forego any OHIP collection?


Yes

That is how the other Provinces do it

----------


## Golfnorth

> Employing someone means you pay them a salary for their services.  Optometrists, like physicians, are paid by OHIP for services which are still insured.  If an optometrist is employed by someone, they are not allowed to share or split these fees.  Cost sharing arrangements can be done.  So does the optician hire an optometrist, pay him/her a salary, and forego any OHIP collection?  I'm an optometrist and I employ an optician.  I pay her a salary.  As an optician, what is your business model?


What I am saying is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yes OD's are paid by OHIP for some exams. Forgetting my business model and the benefits, if any, under current market conditions.....are you in favour of complete freedom of association both ways? Are you in favour of having legislation that will allow an OD to employ and optician and an optician to employ an OD regardless if it fits or not with the current optical climate and government paid for exams? Yes or no.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Speaking as an Optician who has just recently started working for an OD in Ontario, I can tell you that I think there are quite a few Docs out there who want to be a little more free when it comes to their hireing as well as their prices. From the month I've been here, I can tell you right now, cost plus is horrible. Not only from a business aspect, but also from a quality aspect. Charging cost for your product, then adding on a fee might sound good, but where's the incentive to try new things? Where's the incentive to help your patient find a great looking frame? Where's the incentive to see if they actually need more than what they have? In the end, you'll make the exact same ammount off the job if you go with a VIP with a discontinued, marked down to $25.00 frame, then you do with the the newest in progressive technology with the most expensive frame available. You still get the same dispensing fee. And that's it. So, to me, it just doesn't make any sense. Get rid of it. In the end, it's a business. The dispensary is there to bring in extra money. As a business, the government should keep it's nose out of it in saying how much you're 'allowed' to charge.

----------


## Oedema

> So does the optician hire an optometrist, pay him/her a salary, and forego any OHIP collection?
> 			
> 		
> 
> Yes
> 
> That is how the other Provinces do it


What??  Don't you have to give away the exam for free if the patient is actually covered by the provincial plan since it is illegal to charge for services that are covered?  For example, OD employed by optician, examines a senior covered by provincial health care plan.  Can't bill said plan, and can't bill the patient, so you give the service away for free??:drop:

What provinces allow opticians / lay corporations to employ OD's anyways?

----------


## eyemanflying

> Speaking as an Optician who has just recently started working for an OD in Ontario, I can tell you that I think there are quite a few Docs out there who want to be a little more free when it comes to their hireing as well as their prices. From the month I've been here, I can tell you right now, cost plus is horrible. Not only from a business aspect, but also from a quality aspect. Charging cost for your product, then adding on a fee might sound good, but where's the incentive to try new things? Where's the incentive to help your patient find a great looking frame? Where's the incentive to see if they actually need more than what they have? In the end, you'll make the exact same ammount off the job if you go with a VIP with a discontinued, marked down to $25.00 frame, then you do with the the newest in progressive technology with the most expensive frame available. You still get the same dispensing fee. And that's it. So, to me, it just doesn't make any sense. Get rid of it. In the end, it's a business. The dispensary is there to bring in extra money. As a business, the government should keep it's nose out of it in saying how much you're 'allowed' to charge.


Glad to see you've made it to Ontario.  Don't get homesick.  I agree with your comments.  But I'm puzzled...you actually found an OD that's charging cost, not inflating or accepting vendor rebates?  I have to sit down...
:drop:

----------


## optical maven

First on employment.  As an optometrist, you want to hire me, go for it.   (is there a pension plan).  I am curious though why opticians don't make a stink about hiring MD's and reciprocity.  Refracting MDs work inside opticals, but are not hired by a store and paid a salary.
Second, the dispensing fee model works exactly opposite to what was said.  It is in my best interests to provide people with the best products since I am most competitive at the high end and not the low end of the price scale.  Frame $1.00 + lens $30 + fee $100 doesn't work.  Frame $100 + lens $120 + fee $100 is competitive in the market.  In an optical the mark ups are usually 2.4 X cost (or more).  That is why optometrists (in Ontario) are always less expensive for glasses when comparing the same products.  I only use trivex in rimless (the optician at Hakim told me trivex and poly were the same) and freeform in progressives (Hoya ID, Essilor Physio).  We don't have 2 for 1 (the Adaptar specialist).  It also is better in the long run to give people the best, since their adaptation and long term satisfaction is what is important.

----------


## For-Life

> What??  Don't you have to give away the exam for free if the patient is actually covered by the provincial plan since it is illegal to charge for services that are covered?  For example, OD employed by optician, examines a senior covered by provincial health care plan.  Can't bill said plan, and can't bill the patient, so you give the service away for free??:drop:
> 
> What provinces allow opticians / lay corporations to employ OD's anyways?


Every Province allows Opticians to employ ODs (except Ontario).

I am confused, if you see a Senior now, what do you do?

----------


## Golfnorth

> First on employment.  As an optometrist, you want to hire me, go for it.   (is there a pension plan).  I am curious though why opticians don't make a stink about hiring MD's and reciprocity.  Refracting MDs work inside opticals, but are not hired by a store and paid a salary.
> Second, the dispensing fee model works exactly opposite to what was said.  It is in my best interests to provide people with the best products since I am most competitive at the high end and not the low end of the price scale.  Frame $1.00 + lens $30 + fee $100 doesn't work.  Frame $100 + lens $120 + fee $100 is competitive in the market.  In an optical the mark ups are usually 2.4 X cost (or more).  That is why optometrists (in Ontario) are always less expensive for glasses when comparing the same products.  I only use trivex in rimless (the optician at Hakim told me trivex and poly were the same) and freeform in progressives (Hoya ID, Essilor Physio).  We don't have 2 for 1 (the Adaptar specialist).  It also is better in the long run to give people the best, since their adaptation and long term satisfaction is what is important.


Optical Maven;

I thought my question was a simple one. I will re-state it once again. "Are you in favour of complete freedom of association legislation that would allow an optometrist to hire an optician and an optician hire an optometrist?" Yes or no.

----------


## Oedema

> Every Province allows Opticians to employ ODs (except Ontario).
> 
> I am confused, if you see a Senior now, what do you do?


What's to be confused about?  If an OD see's a patient covered by the provincial health plan they can bill the province for services rendered.  However, if the OD is employed the employer cannot bill the province b/c that would be fee-splitting (bad).

Now, are there really any OD's out there in Canada employed by OD's? I've never come across any such employment offers anywhere.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> Glad to see you've made it to Ontario.  Don't get homesick.  I agree with your comments.  But I'm puzzled...you actually found an OD that's charging cost, not inflating or accepting vendor rebates?  I have to sit down...
> :drop:



 Well, for frames, we do cost. I'm sure there's some discounts there, but just your average ones. No, we don't use the discounted cost, but on a per-frame basis, the difference is quite small. For lenses though, It's definatly not cost. I don't deal too much with the lab end, buying wise, atleast, but I know we're charging more than cost for the lenses. It's still less, even with the fee, than they'd get elsewhere.

----------


## eyemanflying

That's my point exactly and frankly, I couldn't care less.  We all know that every OD out there does this....but rarely one ever admits it.  I suppose it's mostly the denial and arrogance that are most annoying as I didn't see those two courses on the curriculum for optometry.

----------


## For-Life

> What's to be confused about?  If an OD see's a patient covered by the provincial health plan they can bill the province for services rendered.  However, if the OD is employed the employer cannot bill the province b/c that would be fee-splitting (bad).
> 
> Now, are there really any OD's out there in Canada employed by OD's? I've never come across any such employment offers anywhere.


If the OD is employed by the optician and there is an ohip billing, then the OD would make the money from that.  Actually, the agreements I have heard about have always centred on the OD making the full fee for the examinations.

Is this done in Canada?  Yes, everywhere.  Just not in Ontario.

----------


## For-Life

> That's my point exactly and frankly, I couldn't care less.  We all know that every OD out there does this....but rarely one ever admits it.  I suppose it's mostly the denial and arrogance that are most annoying as I didn't see those two courses on the curriculum for optometry.


Even so, they still have many frames with only a 20% most discount.  So they make a few more dollars.

----------


## eyemanflying

Not one is starving...Most I know have big homes, cottages and all of the toys to go with it and that certainly isn't generated from 20% vendor discounts.

----------


## eyemanflying

The funny thing is I enjoy every aspect of the optical industry, except optometry with all due respect.  I had the grades, but it never gave me any interest and seemed 'rather boring' as the guy on Molson's Canadian commercials indicates.

----------


## For-Life

> The funny thing is I enjoy every aspect of the optical industry, except optometry with all due respect.  I had the grades, but it never gave me any interest and seemed 'rather boring' as the guy on Molson's Canadian commercials indicates.


You may be on to something there.  Drinking Molson Canadian for a living.  Unfortunately, it is Molson Canadian

----------


## eyemanflying

Fezz is truly the beer man on this forum.

----------


## Oedema

> Actually, the agreements I have heard about have always centred on the OD making the full fee for the examinations.


Then that's not really true "employment" is it?  Does the optician withhold taxes and CPP?  Just wondering b/c when you say the OD makes the full exam fee it starts to sound like independent contractor situation where the OD is really self-employed, leasing space from an optician.

----------


## For-Life

> Then that's not really true "employment" is it?  Does the optician withhold taxes and CPP?  Just wondering b/c when you say the OD makes the full exam fee it starts to sound like independent contractor situation where the OD is really self-employed, leasing space from an optician.


usually that is the case.  However, that is currently illegal in Ontario

It is not that opticians want to necessarily make exam revenue.  It is the fact that by having the OD there, they can make dispensing revenue.

----------


## optical maven

Yes.  Now are you equally unhappy about not being able to hire a physician?  Are you pushing your association to negotiate with the Ontario Medical Association to allow physicians to be hired in the same way as you are pushing for optometry?
As for boring, if you think any of these fields are exciting, you must be an accountant.

----------


## For-Life

> Yes.  Now are you equally unhappy about not being able to hire a physician?  Are you pushing your association to negotiate with the Ontario Medical Association to allow physicians to be hired in the same way as you are pushing for optometry?
> As for boring, if you think any of these fields are exciting, you must be an accountant.


Yes

However, I am sure we are allowed to work with a physician.  

Let me ask you, is there a problem with Opticians and ODs working together?  Do you think it is a better idea that ODs hire uneducated individuals to do the dispensing?

----------


## Oedema

> usually that is the case.  However, that is currently illegal in Ontario
> 
> It is not that opticians want to necessarily make exam revenue.  It is the fact that by having the OD there, they can make dispensing revenue.


Employment is the case or leasing doctor is the case?  Just wondering b/c it is not illegal for optometrists in ontario to lease a side by side location - it happens all over the province.

----------


## optical maven

Let me be clear:  The association rules are absurd and should be changed.  MD's already work within opticals.  OD's and opticians should work together.  I have an optician working for me.  (Someone earlier was upset about salary.  Every employer has a right to offer any job for any amount.  Every employee has a right to accept or reject.  No animosity or hurt feelings.  It's just business).  I don't think opticians want to hire an optometrist, any more than they want to hire an MD.  I think they want to associate.  Finally professionalism is not where or how you work, but what you do.
In Ontario opticians are not allowed to have an employee place a frame on someone's face.  How absurd is that?   In most major retailers the optician or staff is limited to sell whatever is on the board and whatever lens is on the list.  What education do you need to do that?  At Costco they only use two types of progressives from Essilor.  Hakim only uses poly and never uses trivex.  I had a woman working for me 20 years ago who was not an optician.  She had been employed for 10 years and worked for The Bay optical, mostly by herself.  There was an optician there, but not on a full time basis.  They asked her to fit contact lenses and she refused and then came to work for me.  I hired a woman 2 years ago who regularly ran her friend's optical store by herself.  These are not exceptions, but part of the industry.  Opticians are creating these situations, and therefore creating  these standards.

----------


## For-Life

> *Finally professionalism is not where or how you work, but what you do.*
> In Ontario opticians are not allowed to have an employee place a frame on someone's face.  How absurd is that?   In most major retailers the optician or staff is limited to sell whatever is on the board and whatever lens is on the list.  What education do you need to do that?  At Costco they only use two types of progressives from Essilor.  Hakim only uses poly and never uses trivex.  I had a woman working for me 20 years ago who was not an optician.  She had been employed for 10 years and worked for The Bay optical, mostly by herself.  There was an optician there, but not on a full time basis.  They asked her to fit contact lenses and she refused and then came to work for me.  I hired a woman 2 years ago who regularly ran her friend's optical store by herself.  These are not exceptions, but part of the industry.  Opticians are creating these situations, and therefore creating  these standards.


Your first quote, that i highlighted, goes against what else has been said.

If you have a regular employee putting frames on people's faces, then it hurts the professionalism of it all.  The Optician should do it, because (s)he is the one who has years of training on how to adjust, position, tilt ect.  These items can affect how a person can see from a pair of glasses.  It is the same reason why Opticians should not be able to refract.  How difficult is it to come up with a refraction?  

When it comes to glasses, there are trouble spots, and the Optician should know what they are and how to solve them, just like in Optometry.  

and PS - Hakim does use trivex, and CR-39, and 1.6, and 1.67.

----------


## Stonegoat

I really don't see why any optometrist would want to be employed by an optician.  It's much better from a tax perspective to be an independant contractor.  I have a fairly large practice with a dispensary, and about 8 full-time staff.  Lots of headaches.  It would be tempting to work beside an optician, let him or her have the dispensary, and just do exams, keep 100%  of my fees, and only have to hire one or two assistants.  I would still want to maintain my status as a Professional Corp, however, so being an employee would be out of the question.

Even when I use to work for another OD a few years ago, I did so as an independant contractor.

----------


## optical maven

I was referring to frame selection and not the final delivery/dispensing of the appliance.  Dispensing of glasses and prescribing of glasses are both controlled acts because they pose a risk to the public.  Refracting is a physical measurement no different than using an automated device to measure blood pressure or a PD.  It is interpreting the results for what we are trained.  The final decision in frame selection needs to be professionally reviewed for proper fit, appropriateness for the Rx, seg height, etc.

----------


## eyemanflying

> I really don't see why any optometrist would want to be employed by an optician. It's much better from a tax perspective to be an independant contractor. I have a fairly large practice with a dispensary, and about 8 full-time staff. Lots of headaches. It would be tempting to work beside an optician, let him or her have the dispensary, and just do exams, keep 100% of my fees, and only have to hire one or two assistants. I would still want to maintain my status as a Professional Corp, however, so being an employee would be out of the question.
> 
> Even when I use to work for another OD a few years ago, I did so as an independant contractor.


 50/50 partnership is the ideal.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

Ideal for who though? Depending on how many patients the OD sees, it could cost him quite a bit to split 50/50 with an Optician. I don't see any real point in an Optician hiring an OD. Working with one? Definately. I think honestly the best relationship between the two O's would be an OD in the same office, maybe splitting on the rent/bills. OD keeps all their fees, hands the scrip to the patient, and let them walk out his door. Is it pressuring the patient? A bit, I suppose, but with script in hand, they have the choice. More often than not, they'll most likely choose to go with you, for convenience  sake. So, the OD gets all his fees, with less overhead, and you get more scripts. Win win.

But that's the problem with the law. An agreement like this is illegal.

----------


## eyemanflying

Ideal for both.  The 'mine' thinking wouldn't exist.  An even split on all  start up costs, investments, revenues and expenses and each makes the same salary.  Any profits after year end are paid out as dividends to each share holder, hopefully only 2.  It's simple and would work.  OD's and opticians would have to check their egos and differences at the door and stop being so territorial and narrow minded.  I would do it in a heartbeat.

----------


## LandLord

I would like to see the eye exam split up so that a patient would go to an optometrist for an *eye health screening only*, for a small fee.  Then with a "healthy eyeball certificate" they would come into my dispensary to have a free refraction done by my receptionist.

Of course, she would be a fully certified opticianry assistant.  The OPTICIANS ASSOCIATION could offer a short course in refraction to train her for this purpose.

Then if the province would lift the free association ban, I could have the freedom to hire a receptionist/optometrist to do this job at a fair hourly wage.

----------


## AdmiralKnight

> Ideal for both.  The 'mine' thinking wouldn't exist.  An even split on all  start up costs, investments, revenues and expenses and each makes the same salary.  Any profits after year end are paid out as dividends to each share holder, hopefully only 2.  It's simple and would work.  OD's and opticians would have to check their egos and differences at the door and stop being so territorial and narrow minded.  I would do it in a heartbeat.


Of course you would, but you have to take a step back and look at the big picture for both parties. A situation like this would have tons of advantages for an Optician, but very little for an OD. In the end, they'd probably make less money than they would if they just did their exams, and had no dispensary. The example I made earlier would be the ideal for BOTH ends. Yours would be ideal for the Optician, no doubt, but not for the OD.

----------


## optical maven

I like the idea.  I can dilate the person, examine the fundus, do a glaucoma test, test for binocular functioning and note it's impact relative to the refractive error.  Being the receptionist I can also answer the phone and do the filing.  Is $10/hour asking too much?

----------


## kws6000

> I like the idea.  I can dilate the person, examine the fundus, do a glaucoma test, test for binocular functioning and note it's impact relative to the refractive error.  Being the receptionist I can also answer the phone and do the filing.  Is $10/hour asking too much?



Yes,$8.00/hr is more like it.

----------


## kws6000

> Ideal for both.  The 'mine' thinking wouldn't exist.  An even split on all  start up costs, investments, revenues and expenses and each makes the same salary.  Any profits after year end are paid out as dividends to each share holder, hopefully only 2.  It's simple and would work.  OD's and opticians would have to check their egos and differences at the door and stop being so territorial and narrow minded.  I would do it in a heartbeat.


Why would any OD split exam fees?

----------


## kws6000

> I would like to see the eye exam split up so that a patient would go to an optometrist for an *eye health screening only*, for a small fee.  Then with a "healthy eyeball certificate" they would come into my dispensary to have a free refraction done by my receptionist.
> 
> Of course, she would be a fully certified opticianry assistant.  The OPTICIANS ASSOCIATION could offer a short course in refraction to train her for this purpose.
> 
> Then if the province would lift the free association ban, I could have the freedom to hire a receptionist/optometrist to do this job at a fair hourly wage.


Im sure lots of ODs would be jumping at the chance to do this?

----------


## opti-refractonator

It is very easy to see after reading all of the opinions expressed so far, that opticians want some more influence as to the prescribing and availability of prescriptions.  Opticians want something that they could have had many years ago(refracting for a valid rx), however, opticians are a very complacent group of people that given the medium will complain to the high heavens that **** is not fair but when it comes down to actually doing something about it, they are too busy.  Opticians as a group cannot seem to get organized to get any progress towards achieving professional goals.  The one main association is more concerned about giving a ****ing optician of the year award to some a-hole and bending over for the lobby groups than they are at actually achieving any goals.  Optometrists on the other hand, although they couldn't measure a seg height if their life depended on it, were able to push the OMA into giving them TPA's.  

Opticians will NEVER gain any progress on any issue, be it refracting, delegating, professional associations, deregulation, unless we get organized.  Organization is the way forward.  I am tired of pussy opticians who love to complain but don't do **** about it.   

Don't take this reply as a slam against opticians but rather a reality check.  When the rest of you opticians are ready to get organized and make some ****ing progress give me a shout.  

til then, peace out!

----------


## Ory

> Don't take this reply as a slam against opticians but rather a reality check. When the rest of you opticians are ready to get organized and make some ****ing progress give me a shout. 
> 
> til then, peace out!


Sounds pretty complacent to me. "Call me when you are ready"
 :Rolleyes:

----------


## opti-refractonator

just as i thought

----------


## LandLord

> I like the idea. I can dilate the person, examine the fundus, do a glaucoma test, test for binocular functioning and note it's impact relative to the refractive error. Being the receptionist I can also answer the phone and do the filing. Is $10/hour asking too much?


Actually I was thinking, the receptionist can dilate, perform goldman, binocular function and refract. You can do the rest. 

And instead of $10/hour, how about $0.50 per fundus (half pair)? That way, if you see 12 patients an hour it works to your advantage.

----------


## LandLord

> pussy opticians


I've seen my share of those!

----------


## eyemanflying

> It is very easy to see after reading all of the opinions expressed so far, that opticians want some more influence as to the prescribing and availability of prescriptions. Opticians want something that they could have had many years ago(refracting for a valid rx), however, opticians are a very complacent group of people that given the medium will complain to the high heavens that **** is not fair but when it comes down to actually doing something about it, they are too busy. Opticians as a group cannot seem to get organized to get any progress towards achieving professional goals. The one main association is more concerned about giving a ****ing optician of the year award to some a-hole and bending over for the lobby groups than they are at actually achieving any goals. Optometrists on the other hand, although they couldn't measure a seg height if their life depended on it, were able to push the OMA into giving them TPA's. 
> 
> Opticians will NEVER gain any progress on any issue, be it refracting, delegating, professional associations, deregulation, unless we get organized. Organization is the way forward. I am tired of pussy opticians who love to complain but don't do **** about it. 
> 
> Don't take this reply as a slam against opticians but rather a reality check. When the rest of you opticians are ready to get organized and make some ****ing progress give me a shout. 
> 
> til then, peace out!


Opticians are organized and making progress...and we certainly will not require your services on our bandwagon.  And I'm assuming from this post, you are the recipient of this year's 'A-hole' Award.  Congratulations.

----------


## opti-refractonator

yes you are right, great progress that opticians have made in the last few years.  We have relaxed our tolerances on lens fabriction and gave away most of our duties through delegation.  BC opticians are a dime a dozen in Ontario now with their 8 month opticianry course.  Our COO cannot seem to get great glasses to stop the bull**** that they are running.  There is no direct vision of what our main associations seem to be fighting for.

I know that this board is sponsored by transitions (winner/sponsor of Optician of the year) but if you think for a minute that i give a **** and i may censor my comments than you are foolling yourself.  Opticians in the lensc/walm/costc/any chain need to realize that they are earning money for companies that are trying to change the industry in their benefit.  It Is okay to work for them but only if they support our profession and not go behind our backs to lobby against us.   Wake up and smell the bed of **** that we have made for ourselves.  We keep complaining about od's yet they have never gone to our coo or oma and lobbied against us.  

If you would like to have a debate about what our 'leaders' have done for opticianry so far, i will be coutreous and let you start.  Please start with real improvements that have happened in the last five years and don't tell me about the pioneers and icons that were true leaders back in the 70's and 80's.  I have much respect for those who started the industry and taught in colleges.

----------


## eyemanflying

Thanks for the invite, but your comments would be better heard and addressed if they were sent to the appropriate body.  Their address is listed on the back of your badge.  I agree it's frustrating at times, but forwarding concerns in a professional manner will result in a professional response.

----------


## For-Life

delete

----------

