Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006
Online contacts
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Charles - 09 Mar 2006 02:00 GMT Why can't I buy contacts without an eye doc being in the loop? I find this annoying. I have a fresh eyeglass prescription, and some contacts I like in my old prescription. Now I need to pay someone to say it's okay to get the contacts in the right Rx. Looks to me like the eye docs must have lobbied congress to for this little perk...
Mike Tyner - 09 Mar 2006 06:52 GMT > Why can't I buy contacts without an eye doc being in the loop? I find > this annoying. I have a fresh eyeglass prescription, and some contacts > I like in my old prescription. Now I need to pay someone to say it's > okay to get the contacts in the right Rx. Looks to me like the eye > docs must have lobbied congress to for this little perk... I feel the same way about my Toprol.
-MT
CatmanX - 09 Mar 2006 10:42 GMT You also like the valium you had once, you can buy that online now without a script. Who needs a stupid doctor anyway?
Dumb bastards, just ripping the public off.\
\dr grant
Charles - 09 Mar 2006 13:19 GMT > You also like the valium you had once, you can buy that online now > without a script. Who needs a stupid doctor anyway? > > Dumb bastards, just ripping the public off.\ > > \dr grant In what way is it even close to being the same thing?
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Mar 2006 13:23 GMT if your pescription expired, youll need to get another eye exam and a new pescription. contacts are medical device class II so their sale is regulated to a pescription. Glasses are in class I so its easy to get them without a pescription as they arent controlled really.
CatmanX - 09 Mar 2006 20:36 GMT What sort of dumbass are you?
How is a prescription for contacts any different from a prescription for Valium or Lithium? Would your doctor send you a script for drugs without seeing you first?
Contact lenses are classified as a therapeutic agent by your FDA. They are a prescription item, and the optometrist is liable for them. Online providers are compelled to have a current script to dispense lenses.
Now where is that different from your valium and Lithium?
dr grant
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 09 Mar 2006 21:11 GMT Those two optometrists said it well. If you are too lazy to get an updated contact pescription, stick to your glasses! The worst that can happen is you wont see as well as you should due to outdated glasses, but it wont damage your eyes like contacts
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 01:23 GMT > Those two optometrists said it well. If you are too lazy to get an > updated contact pescription, stick to your glasses! The worst that can > happen is you wont see as well as you should due to outdated glasses, > but it wont damage your eyes like contacts How will I damage my eyes exactly?
Dan Abel - 09 Mar 2006 22:08 GMT > What sort of dumbass are you? Someone who at least knows how to quote so we know who is being referred to.
> How is a prescription for contacts any different from a prescription > for Valium or Lithium? Would your doctor send you a script for drugs > without seeing you first? All the time. I put in an order yesterday on the web site. I expect that my doctor will approve it and forward the prescription to the pharmacy, which will then mail me my drugs. I believe that with some exception, Valium is specifically excluded from this process.
> Contact lenses are classified as a therapeutic agent by your FDA. They > are a prescription item, and the optometrist is liable for them. Online > providers are compelled to have a current script to dispense lenses. > > Now where is that different from your valium and Lithium? I still don't think prescriptions make a lot of sense, but then, many things don't. I can buy all the reading glasses I want without a prescription, but not minus lenses.
I worked with a woman for a long time who's father owned a pharmacy, and she worked there when young. Perhaps Oz is more sensible, but despite the fact that the normal dose of aspirin for an adult is 650mg, those pills require a prescription. You can buy a bottle of a zillion 325mg aspirin, and take two, which the label says is the normal dose, without a prescription. Same thing with Motrin. I had some shoulder pain a few years back. The doctor wrote a prescription for 600mg Motrin. I asked him what the difference was between that and the OTC stuff. He said that the prescription was covered under my drug plan and would cost US$1.00 for a big bottle, and the OTC 200mg tablets would cost a lot of money for a little bottle. The drug itself was the same. He asked if I'd rather buy OTC, and I replied that, no, I was just curious. [note - my information is quite old]
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 01:12 GMT > What sort of dumbass are you? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > dr grant Do you think it's good advertising for your practice being such an a.s on a public forum?
I don't think contact lenses are even in the same ballpark as addicitve and/or potentially fatal chemicals. What do you think my OD will do if I go in there and pay him $100 do provide a contact lens Rx? He'll hand me some off the shelf and tell me to come back and tell me how they worked out. If I say they worked, he'll sell me a supply at a premium price. If they don't work out, he'll try a different brand until I say it's okay.
As far as I can tell, the entire prescription process boils down to the subjective impressions of the patient.
Do you think you are protecting me from myself somehow by prohibiting me from buying my own contacts? If so, how? Besides, what do you care if I walk around with the wrong contacts anyway?
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 01:36 GMT > In what way is it even close to being the same thing? I think requiring periodic exams is a good idea. Contacts are worn over one of our very important organs, the eyes. Having check up exams is smart. I tend to be a procrastinator and also forgetfull of how long it has been since my eyes are examined. Before you know it a few years have gone by. With the legal requirement I'll get the exams. I think that is good when we are talking about contacts and maintaining healthy eyes. I'd hate to lose my eyesight.
 Signature Charles
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 02:15 GMT > > In what way is it even close to being the same thing? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exams. I think that is good when we are talking about contacts and > maintaining healthy eyes. I'd hate to lose my eyesight. There's not really a requirement for periodic exams, if you are willing to just keep wearing your old lenses.
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 02:37 GMT > There's not really a requirement for periodic exams, if you are willing > to just keep wearing your old lenses. You can't order replacements without a current prescription. 1-800 Contacts for example will call and verify your prescription and the date. I use them because while I like my Optometrist they charge four times the price of what I can get Softlens Multifocals for online. I explained to them I would order from them if their price was reasonable and there was something wrong with their price cause of the difference, for the previous brand I used, their price was only a few dollars different, but they said they had no input on what the business charged.
Although I did not ask mine to do so I suspect practitioners will not renew a prescription without an exam and I don't think they should. Also an exam is not just a refraction, they do examine the health of your eyes.
 Signature Charles
CatmanX - 10 Mar 2006 11:45 GMT Correct, because we hate stupid pricks like you who think they know everything. When things go bad, who do you blame???
I would not have you for a patient. Anyone who accepts your business deserves you.
dr grant
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 12:06 GMT > I would not have you for a patient. Anyone who accepts your business > deserves you. I would not want to have a sociopath like you as a doctor and I doubt anyone else would either. If you are a doctor. More likely you are just another troll.
 Signature Charles
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 10 Mar 2006 12:25 GMT "I would not want to have a sociopath like you as a doctor and I doubt anyone else would either. If you are a doctor. More likely you are just
another troll."
Hes rude to me and everyone else. I have generally refrained from being rude. His lack of manners will come back to bite him. If hes even a doctor, hes an incompentent, vulgar one. Someone is going to sue him soon for his poor demonar.
drgranthatesyou@hotmail.com - 10 Mar 2006 13:08 GMT You are too stupid to comprehend.
Youy need to get a life and do something other than tell optometrists how to do their jobs. They know a bit more about it than you do.
dr grant
drgranthatesyou@hotmail.com - 10 Mar 2006 13:11 GMT Not a troll, someone who knows about stupid people like you. It is too much work to get an eye test. Why should I see the optometrist. However, when I get an eye infection, I will sue the optometrist because he is incompetent.
You are too stupid to breathe.
dr grant
Charles - 11 Mar 2006 01:43 GMT > Not a troll, someone who knows about stupid people like you. It is too > much work to get an eye test. Why should I see the optometrist. > However, when I get an eye infection, I will sue the optometrist > because he is incompetent. > > You are too stupid to breathe. I said one should see an Optometrist because of contacts are more than the prescription as it is important to examine the health of the eye. You are too busy insulting people to notice there is more than one Charles posting here. Even though the other Charles is wrong---- your replies indicate you are a sociopath. Talk about stupid, a sociopath can't be cured, you will always be a worm.
 Signature Charles
Dan Abel - 11 Mar 2006 01:52 GMT > You are too busy insulting people to notice there is more than one > Charles posting here. IMNSHO, it's pretty hard to tell. Lot's of people post using more than one address. I've done that myself (a work address and a home address). If two people choose to use the same name, they will almost certainly be confused.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Charles - 11 Mar 2006 02:23 GMT > IMNSHO, it's pretty hard to tell. Lot's of people post using more than > one address. I've done that myself (a work address and a home address). > If two people choose to use the same name, they will almost certainly be > confused. It can be confusing but if you actually read the posts you can tell it is different people. There are many people with the same name, not much that can be done about that. I am not going to make one up like some do.
In any case the sociopath does not care. He is just looking for targets to spew abuse. CatmanX or Dr. Grant or whatever it morphs into next is one sick puppy.
 Signature Charles
CatmanX - 11 Mar 2006 03:55 GMT No, Chucky, just sick of dumb sh.ts complaining about stuff that is really stupid - like not getting your eyes tested when you need new contacts.
I am sorry your feelings were hurt.
dr grant
Charles - 11 Mar 2006 04:57 GMT > I am sorry your feelings were hurt. My feelings arn't hurt. I recognize a sociopath like you when I see one. You don't give a fig about anyones eye health or whatever. You are a worm who likes abusing people.
 Signature Charles
CatmanX - 11 Mar 2006 05:04 GMT You are quite wrong there Charlie. I spend all day giving figs to my patients and their eye health.
You are miffed because I confused you with Charles: OOPS same name, how could I ever confuse you two?
I am actually happy to have a conversation with you.
Cheers,
dr grant
Dan Abel - 11 Mar 2006 17:52 GMT > > IMNSHO, it's pretty hard to tell. Lot's of people post using more than > > one address. I've done that myself (a work address and a home address). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It can be confusing but if you actually read the posts you can tell it > is different people. I just thought you were schizophenic.
:-)
> There are many people with the same name, not much > that can be done about that. I am not going to make one up like some > do. Just telling us is a big step. That will help quite a bit. Another name is a good idea, and it doesn't have to be fake. "Charles B." or "Charles from Florida" might identify you (and I just made those up, since I don't know your last name or where you are from).
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
CatmanX - 11 Mar 2006 21:25 GMT Sounds like someone forgot to take his prozac last night Dan. Charles B may in fact be Charles from Florida as well.
grant
CatmanX - 10 Mar 2006 11:42 GMT So what you are really saying is that dumb sh.ts like you should be protected from themselves.
I agree, you are a dumb sh.t and need protection.
This is why there are laws on the expiry of CL scripts as you are compelled to get a check and make sure you have the correct fitting lens.
You are the sort of person who sues the optom after you get an infection from having worn a lens for 3 years and not removing it. That bastard OD should pay for your suffering, shouldn't he?
There are totally stupid dumb sh.ts like Nancy, aqnd then there is Charles.
You are one dumb f.cker and no OD should prescribe for you as you are too stupid to deserve their care.
dr grant
The Real Bev - 14 Mar 2006 05:05 GMT >> In what way is it even close to being the same thing? > > I think requiring periodic exams is a good idea. Contacts are worn over > one of our very important organs, the eyes. Having check up exams is > smart. No problem. I see my ophthalmologist once a year because of non-glaucoma elevated IOP. She doesn't fit contacts.
I have had 3 different licensed contact fitters. My astigmatism is such that even if the trial lenses are perfect, the lenses ordered in the same prescription have a better than 50-50 chance of not fitting. I have not yet found one fitter (1 optometrist, 2 opticians) who will stand behind me and talk to the manufacturers about WHY the lenses don't fit.
From my standpoint, the docs aren't doing the job they're paid for. This has nothing at all to do with my eye health, which is dealt with by someone else. If I could finally get a prescription with reproducible fit, I'd be pretty pissed if I had to pay a guy $85 just to change the date on the paper. I can do that myself, come to think of it.
> I tend to be a procrastinator and also forgetfull of how long it > has been since my eyes are examined. Before you know it a few years > have gone by. With the legal requirement I'll get the exams. I think > that is good when we are talking about contacts and maintaining healthy > eyes. I'd hate to lose my eyesight. So would I, but let's hear about what ought to be done about giving me a prescription that's guaranteed to be half bad and then throwing their hands up in the air and blaming it on... well, they never actually blamed it on anybody, they just say "that's all I can do for you".
</rant>
 Signature Cheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off."
Charles - 14 Mar 2006 05:51 GMT > No problem. I see my ophthalmologist once a year because of non-glaucoma > elevated IOP. She doesn't fit contacts. Same here somewhat but in my case I see a Retina specialist once a year because of a detached retina a number of years ago. He does not fit contacts. I don't think he would be up on most contact lens issues.
If there were a problem with the contact fit he would only tell me to see the optometrist. In any case my response to the "other" Charles was based on the presumption that he was not seeing any other eye doctor to check his eye health.
> I have had 3 different licensed contact fitters. My astigmatism is such > that even if the trial lenses are perfect, the lenses ordered in the same > prescription have a better than 50-50 chance of not fitting. I have not yet > found one fitter (1 optometrist, 2 opticians) who will stand behind me and > talk to the manufacturers about WHY the lenses don't fit. The fitters are definitly a mixed lot. I had to try different ones before finding a good one.
> From my standpoint, the docs aren't doing the job they're paid for. > This has nothing at all to do with my eye health, which is dealt with > by someone else. If I could finally get a prescription with > reproducible fit, I'd be pretty pissed if I had to pay a guy $85 just > to change the date on the paper. I can do that myself, come to think > of it. There is more to it than the refraction.
> So would I, but let's hear about what ought to be done about giving me a > prescription that's guaranteed to be half bad and then throwing their hands > up in the air and blaming it on... well, they never actually blamed it on > anybody, they just say "that's all I can do for you". My experience is that it has taken some trial and error to get the right prescription. But that is because I desire multi-focal contacts. And I ended up with a prescription that is not perfect. I don't think it is an issue with the Optometrist. I think the issue is my eyes. There is not going to be a perfect prescription for my eyes with the current products and state of the manufactorers art for multifocal contacts. At least I don't have to use readers. The non-multifocal contacts were a perfect fit for distance vision but I had to use readers. I prefer the less than perfect multifocals and not having to use the readers. My choice.
 Signature Charles
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 09 Mar 2006 15:00 GMT This is far from being a perk...yhis is protection for the industry and the consumer. Its the moron who continuously re-orders his contacts without an eye health examination that gets the corneal ulcers and erosions. The contact lens industry doesn't need a lot of sick eyes running around out there any more than the doctor does.
> Why can't I buy contacts without an eye doc being in the loop? I find > this annoying. I have a fresh eyeglass prescription, and some contacts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 09 Mar 2006 15:05 GMT I'm just guessing, but do you buy a six pack of underwear and wear each pair until they're gross? Thats what consumers often do with contacts. Do you buy disposable razors and keep using the same one until you have bled too many times? That's what overwear looks like in contacts.
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 01:22 GMT > I'm just guessing, but do you buy a six pack of underwear and wear > each pair until they're gross? Thats what consumers often do with > contacts. Do you buy disposable razors and keep using the same one > until you have bled too many times? That's what overwear looks like > in contacts. I guess it just depends how "libertarian" of a person you are. I think people ought to be left to their business if they aren't hurting anyone else. I don't see how I can harm anyone but myself with contact lenses.
I do also resent having to go to the doctor and pay $150 for an antibiotic prescription when I get a sinus infection. In that case, however, there _is_ a concern of people overusing them and creating resistant strains of bacteria. Having said that, I think it's lining doctors pockets, because it doesn't take 8 years of education to properly dispense antibiotics and such.
Maybe we should require a podiatrist Rx to buy shoes. After all, we wouldn't want people to buy the wrong sized shoe and damage their feet, or worse yet, continue wearing old shoes once they have become too small or infected within fungus.
To your comment, how does requiring an doctor permission slip keep people from overwearing contacts? Seems to me it would encourage it since all cheap and convenient avenues are being closed.
Neil Brooks - 10 Mar 2006 01:28 GMT > > I'm just guessing, but do you buy a six pack of underwear and wear > > each pair until they're gross? Thats what consumers often do with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people ought to be left to their business if they aren't hurting anyone > else. I don't see how I can harm anyone but myself with contact lenses. In reality, though, the dispensing optician (or company, or manufacturer, or eye doctor) incurs liability if they participate in your insouciant method. Such is reality.
> I do also resent having to go to the doctor and pay $150 for an > antibiotic prescription when I get a sinus infection. In that case, > however, there _is_ a concern of people overusing them and creating > resistant strains of bacteria. Having said that, I think it's lining > doctors pockets, because it doesn't take 8 years of education to > properly dispense antibiotics and such. Pretty heady stuff. Maybe something to take up with a state, or national, legistlature, but that system doesn't get changed here, where the participating doctors will still tell you that they can't dispense without a prescription and that they (very likely) won't prescribe without a visit.
> Maybe we should require a podiatrist Rx to buy shoes. After all, we > wouldn't want people to buy the wrong sized shoe and damage their feet, > or worse yet, continue wearing old shoes once they have become too > small or infected within fungus. Charles, I think you've made your point here, but I don't think you're getting anywhere with it in the context of your original question. In the old days, "Write your congressman" would have been an appropriate answer.
Continued good luck with your vision therapy, and best of luck with your new contacts ... however you get them.
Neil
Charles - 10 Mar 2006 02:13 GMT > > I guess it just depends how "libertarian" of a person you are. I > > think people ought to be left to their business if they aren't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > manufacturer, or eye doctor) incurs liability if they participate in > your insouciant method. Such is reality. Perhaps. I'm not really sure how much liability lens.com would be taking on. After all, I can buy all kinds of dangerous things on-line and, for the most part, sellers aren't concerned. If they are, they could refuse to sell without a prescription or purchase more liability insurance.
> > I do also resent having to go to the doctor and pay $150 for an > > antibiotic prescription when I get a sinus infection. In that case, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dispense without a prescription and that they (very likely) won't > prescribe without a visit. Understood. I was mostly just venting frustration; I know you can't change anything. I just wonder how these things become law in the first place. Kind of like requiring a licenses for barbers.
> > Maybe we should require a podiatrist Rx to buy shoes. After all, we > > wouldn't want people to buy the wrong sized shoe and damage their [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the old days, "Write your congressman" would have been an appropriate > answer. Fair enough.
> Continued good luck with your vision therapy, and best of luck with > your new contacts ... however you get them. Thanks.
Beermonster - 10 Mar 2006 03:10 GMT Up until last October/November,it was perfectly legal to purchase plano cosmetic contact lenses without a prescription. These lenses could be obtained pretty much anywhere as they were not regulated. However, due to problems associated with these lenses, FDA has now brought them under the medical device regulations. This is taken from the FDA website (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2002/NEW00846.html)
"Decorative contact lenses present significant risks of blindness and other eye injury if they are distributed without a prescription or without proper fitting by a qualified eye care professional. FDA has received reports of corneal ulcer associated with wear of decorative contact lenses in excess of the recommended period. Corneal ulcer can progress rapidly, leading to internal ocular infection if left untreated. Uncontrolled infection can lead to corneal scarring and vision impairment. In extreme cases, this condition can result in blindness and eye loss.
Other risks associated with use of decorative contact lenses include conjunctivitis (an infection of the eye); corneal edema (swelling); allergic reaction; corneal abrasion from poor lens fit; and reduction in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and other visual functions, resulting in interference with driving and other activities".
The unrestricted sale of normal contact lenses would pose the same risks, plus the additional risks of not having the correct optical correction ( a prescription for glasses does not necessarily translate to that for a contact lens). Joe Blow could buy an incorrect power, compromise his vision and choose to barrel down the freeway at high speed.
Another factor here is if you take away the heavy restriction on the supply of contact lenses which results in them being a prescription only item, you open the door to substandard lenses from shonky backstreet labs hitting the market. These will sell because they will be cheap.
>> > I guess it just depends how "libertarian" of a person you are. I >> > think people ought to be left to their business if they aren't [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks. The Real Bev - 14 Mar 2006 05:15 GMT >> I'm just guessing, but do you buy a six pack of underwear and wear >> each pair until they're gross? Thats what consumers often do with >> contacts. Do you buy disposable razors and keep using the same one >> until you have bled too many times? That's what overwear looks like >> in contacts. The last guy who fit me for contacts said that, contrary to everything written, I could wear my current lenses for a year. This is his solution to my problem, which is two known good pair, two known bad pair, and one unopened pair of lenses, and the assumption that any lenses re-ordered will exhibit the same good/bad ratio. I've paid $350 for the lenses and service.
So yeah, I guess I DO have to wear the underwear until it's grungy because it's the last underwear I'm going to be able to get.
> I guess it just depends how "libertarian" of a person you are. I think > people ought to be left to their business if they aren't hurting anyone [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doctors pockets, because it doesn't take 8 years of education to > properly dispense antibiotics and such. Moreover, they hand out antibiotics for colds just to get the whining patient off their back, which is exactly wrong.
> Maybe we should require a podiatrist Rx to buy shoes. After all, we > wouldn't want people to buy the wrong sized shoe and damage their feet, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people from overwearing contacts? Seems to me it would encourage it > since all cheap and convenient avenues are being closed. I'll buy that, but I don't have that much sympathy -- at least you've found contacts that fit.
BTW, Costco offers the best price on my prescription, much better than the on-line places. The doc matched that price, providing I show him my Costco card. Have you tried asking if he'll sell you the contacts for the best price you can find outside his office?
 Signature Cheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off."
The Real Bev - 14 Mar 2006 04:53 GMT > Why can't I buy contacts without an eye doc being in the loop? I find > this annoying. I have a fresh eyeglass prescription, and some contacts > I like in my old prescription. Now I need to pay someone to say it's > okay to get the contacts in the right Rx. Looks to me like the eye > docs must have lobbied congress to for this little perk... Why didn't your optometrist just renew your contact prescription when he gave you the spectacle prescription?
 Signature Cheers, Bev ======================================================================= "Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people who pissed me off."
doctor_my_eye@msn.com - 15 Mar 2006 01:01 GMT The online contact lens suppliers fought like hell to get a mandatory prescription release law. They fought hard enough that they won. BUT, the FTC agreed that there should be limits on how long the patient can refill an Rx. The resulting legislation has turned out to be a blessing and a curse to online sales. There has been a drop off in sales from those people who never had a valid Rx or had an expired Rx. The new law established rules for how the retailer has to verify that the Rx is not out-of-date.
Here's the FTC's guidelines about the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act:
For Release: June 29, 2004
FTC Issues Final Rule Implementing Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act
The Federal Trade Commission has issued its final rule implementing the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. The Act, which was enacted on December 6, 2003, requires that contact lens prescribers provide patients with a copy of their contact lens prescriptions after a contact lens fitting and verify those prescriptions to any third party designated by a patient, such as an online seller. The Act mandates that a third-party seller may sell contact lenses to consumers if the seller obtains a copy of the prescription, or if the prescriber verifies the prescription information, either by confirming it or by correcting inaccuracies, or if the prescriber does not respond within eight business hours to the seller's verification request - so-called "passive verification."
The Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on February 4, 2004, and accepted comments through April 5, 2004. The Commission received more than 8,000 comments from prescribers, trade associations, sellers, state attorneys general, and consumers.
The final Rule closely tracks the Act, and is consistent with the Act's overall goal of enabling consumers to comparison shop and purchase contact lenses from the seller of their choice. Specifically, the final Rule:
Requires prescribers (such as optometrists and ophthalmologists) to provide patients with a copy of their contact lens prescription immediately upon completion of a contact lens fitting; Requires prescribers to provide or verify contact lens prescriptions to any third party designated by a patient; Prohibits prescribers from placing certain conditions on the release or verification of a contact lens prescription; Requires contact lens sellers either to obtain a copy of a patient's prescription or verify the prescription before selling contact lenses, and deems a prescription "verified" if, among other things, a prescriber fails to respond to a seller's verification request within eight business hours; and Establishes minimum expiration dates for contact lens prescriptions. The final Rule also allows third-party sellers flexibility in communicating with prescribers and requires sellers to keep records of all direct communications with prescribers.
"This Rule focuses on competition and convenience for consumers," said Howard Beales, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It really gives consumers, prescribers, and sellers a 'clear view' about their rights and responsibilities under the law."
The Commission vote to approve the final Rule and the publication of the Federal Register Notice was 5-0.
Copies of the Federal Register Notice are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs
|
|
|