Archive for December, 2011
The Most Authoritative View of Online Optical from FTC So Far
On Jan 13, 2011, FTC (Specifically Office of Policy Planning, Bureau of Economics, Bureau of Competition) wrote a 17-page reply-letter to Ms. Sue M. Kornegay of NC State Board of Opticians who wrote earlier to FTC officials proposing to redefine the meaning of “Prescription” for eyeglasses, contact lenses, so that the “measurements taken by opticians are not considered part of the patients’ prescription, and are not required to be released as part of a RX. In Ms. Sue’s letter, she proposed to impose certain requirements solely on electronic optical business, including internet sites, but not “B&M” vendors, and impose certain new requirements on out-of-state vendors, including Internet sites.
FTC’s reply said that the existing federal and state regulations already provide extensive protections for the health and safety of contact lens and eyeglass wearers. Rather, the NC’s provision will likely impose higher costs on vendors of prescription eyewear, which may raise prices to NC consumers of optical goods.
FTC thinks the NC proposal will hamper affordable access to optical goods which is more strictly than patient protection requires. The federal laws of the Eyeglass Rule and Contact Lenses Rule may preempt any state and local laws restricting patients’ ability to obtain their contact lens and eyeglasses prescription, so that they can comparison shop for the deals that best suit their preferences.
FTC further emphasizes that competition is the core of America’s economy, and vigorous competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers the benefits of lower prices, higher quality, more choices and greater innovation. Because of the importance of health care competition to the economy and consumer welfare, anticompetitive conduct in health care markets has long been a key target of FTC law enforcement, research and adovacy.
FTC pointed out that particularly about the Eyeglass Rule. Before 1978, many prescribers( ECPs) either refused to release RX to their customers or charge an additional fee to do so. Prices for glasses varied widely as much as 300%. To address the problem, the Eyeglass Rule requires optometrists and ophthalmologists to provide their patients immediately after completion of eye exam, a free copy of RX.
Now in the minds of some conservative ECPs, PD is the number that is NOT required to be released to patients. Here is the FTC’s definition of “Prescription” by Eyeglass Rule, which defines “PRESCRIPTION” to mean the “Written specifications for lenses for eyeglasses which are derived from an eye examination, including ALL THE INFORMATION specified by state law, in any, NECESSARY TO OBTAIN LENSES FOR EYEGLASSES”. Before Internet optical sites arise, NO PD in RX is not a problem, and opticians can capture this number easily in the store. In the Internet era, the ALL THE NECESSARY info then automatically should INCLUDE the PD which is hotly discussed among ECPs recently. Eyeglass Rule as the only law in the industry of retail RX eyewear, it applies to all likely situations.
To address the safety concerns as pointed our in Ms. Sue’s letter to FTC, that online optical goods may cause harm to public’s eyecare health, FTC for this point replied that they are following up the cases of online purchase of eyewear and contacts, and so far there is no documentation showing that contacts and eyeglasses bought online are imposing harms to the consumers.