Optometry visit

Hey all,

I went to see an optometrist for an eye exam. I went to Lenscrafters wearing contacts that I had from my last 6 months supply. I went in to get a new 6 month supply. So, anyways, I was wondering do you guys do retinal imaging on all patients even if you are like me who is in his mid 30s with no medical history? Anyways, I was never told I had to pay out of pocket for this. I got a partial refund after I told the optometrist I was never told I was going to be charged.

So I got my eye exam and found out I was charged a contact fitting fee of 54 dollars. I was never fitted for any NEW contacts. After the eye exam, I think the optometrist made sure the contacts which I came into the store fitted me and not newly purchased contacts (which I thought should have been the case). I got my bill from the eye insurance company and there was the charge of contact fitting and followup. Today, I just picked up my contacts and was never "followed up" as to whether these newly purchased contacts "fit" me. So I was upset as to how can I be charged a contact fitting fee on old contacts I went into the store with and not newly purchased contacts.

Yes I understand that there is a contact fitting fee. I just dont understand how you can charge me on my old pair of contacts. Can someone clarify this for me?

How much did you pay out of pocket?

Originally Posted by Unty

So I got my eye exam and found out I was charged a contact fitting fee of 54 dollars. I was never fitted for any NEW contacts. After the eye exam, I think the optometrist made sure the contacts which I came into the store fitted me and not newly purchased contacts (which I thought should have been the case). I got my bill from the eye insurance company and there was the charge of contact fitting and followup.

Was this your first visit to this optometrist? The answer to this question would change my opinion of how much the contact lens fitting should cost.

Did the optometrist look at the contact lenses on your eye? Did the optometrist discuss contact lens options with you (or at least if you were happy in your current lenses)? Did the optometrist use clinical judgement to decide if your previous fit was still adequate/appropriate? Did the optometrist consider test results that would not be done on a non-contact lens wearer (keratometry, fluorescein stain, etc)?

The answer to the above is likely "yes".

Do you feel you should have to pay for these things? If not, why not?

To answer your question from my opinion..

the retinal photo thing is a complete scam.As medically necessary as taking a photo of your face to compare to 10 years from now to see if skin cancer develops. If you have no retinal pathology there is no need for retinal photos period..A 30 yr old with no pathology needs a retinal photo as much as I need a photo of my penis to compare to in case I develop penile cancer..This just pisses me off..

You might have been charged a new contact refitting fee if the contacts you brought in were not a new fit since they have to recheck everything...not everyone does things that way.. (I don't for example) but some people do.

Sounds like this optometrist was trying to maximize his profit from the photos thing..

Originally Posted by mclem222

To answer your question from my opinion..

the retinal photo thing is a complete scam.As medically necessary as taking a photo of your face to compare to 10 years from now to see if skin cancer develops. If you have no retinal pathology there is no need for retinal photos period..A 30 yr old with no pathology needs a retinal photo as much as I need a photo of my penis to compare to in case I develop penile cancer..This just pisses me off..

You might have been charged a new contact refitting fee if the contacts you brought in were not a new fit since they have to recheck everything...not everyone does things that way.. (I don't for example) but some people do.

Sounds like this optometrist was trying to maximize his profit from the photos thing..

I am a physician and I confronted the optometrist about the retinal imaging. The little I know about retinal pathology, I do know that unless you have hypertension, diabetes or macular degeneration you most likely do not have retinal pathology and therefore do not need imaging. I asked if this was clinically indicated in a patient my age with no medical history and if he did this on all patients. He stated he does it on children as well. Well, unless you have retinoblastoma I can understand but again I dont think this is clinically indicated in all children. I just hope this guy is not ripping off other customers. In addition, he went over the images with me after the pictures were developed and mentioned macular degeneration. I lost respect for him after that. Seriously, macular degeneration in a 35 year old. You have got to be kidding me.

Instead of telling me that the retinal imaging was not indicated (which I think he ethically should have done) he did not. Therefore I am not ever going back to this moron. I just hope he isnt screwing over other patients and giving them some lame excuse to do the retinal imaging. That machine was set next to all the other devices and if you weren't told you were going to be charged, you wouldve just gotten the test because you thought it was part of the exam. Patients dont know right from wrong and I can see this guy milking these poor ppl.

I personally do not feel that I should have been charged the contact lens fitting fee on the contacts I came in with (of course they are fitting me correctly Ive been wearing them for the last six months!!!). If he charged me for the new set of contacts I received, then yes I can understand the charge because these are newly purchased contacts and he would like to see if they fit you correctly.

Originally Posted by Unty

I personally do not feel that I should have been charged the contact lens fitting fee on the contacts I came in with (of course they are fitting me correctly Ive been wearing them for the last six months!!!). If he charged me for the new set of contacts I received, then yes I can understand the charge because these are newly purchased contacts and he would like to see if they fit you correctly.

The retinal photo aside, as you would be hard pressed to find many optometrists who feel it a necessary procedure, if you had a contact lens evaluation of any kind you will be charged. I know that you were not fit into a new lens but there was still clinical decision making involved (again, given that this was a new optometrist to you) and the optometrist can expect to be reimbursed for that. The level of reimbursement should be less than that of a new lens/new patient, although many ODs do not make that distinction.

It is important to note that I've seen enough patients in ill fitting contact lenses to know that the fact that you've worn them for 6 months matters very little. In the future, given that you are a physician, just write your own contact lens Rx and be done with it. You can then charge yourself whatever your contact lens clinical decision making is worth.

Originally Posted by Unty

I personally do not feel that I should have been charged the contact lens fitting fee on the contacts I came in with (of course they are fitting me correctly Ive been wearing them for the last six months!!!). If he charged me for the new set of contacts I received, then yes I can understand the charge because these are newly purchased contacts and he would like to see if they fit you correctly.

Totally agree on the retinal imaging. Sadly, Optos (which I'm sure was what you were photographed with) cameras are being used to increase revenue for OD and OMD offices all over the US. The leases aren't cheap so they're heavily marketed to patients at annual checkups and most of the time, patients pay out of pocket. Macular pigment testing is the same deal. I've been in offices that test macular pigments on 20 year olds at 50 bucks a pop - totally ridiculous, but not at all uncommon.

Here's where I take issue with what you're saying. You absolutely should have been charged for the contact lens fee. At $54, you're paying less than many, if not most, private offices would charge for a normal, no-changes CL evaluation. I charge $79 to look at CLs even if I do nothing to them. What you're paying for is the expertise required to evaluate the lens fit and the prescription, not the time it takes to do so.

If I come see you for a general physical and you order routine blood work which comes back normal, I don't say "Hey, I don't want to pay for that blood work since I had no complaints and you didn't have to do anything to treat me as a result of any of the results, it was all normal." I have to pay for that blood work because it took expertise to draw the blood, have the lab work done, and it took a lot of previous knowledge for you to sit there and read over and interpret the results. It might take you 20 seconds to read the results of the blood work or an xray, but you're not paid for that 20 seconds, you're paid for the expertise and training it takes to read and interpret that information. That training took years to develop, even though it only takes you a minute or two to use it in a given situation.

Doing a quick CL check is no different. The consequences of blowing off a CL eval can result in permanent vision loss for the patient and a giant lawsuit for the OD. It is not at all uncommon for patients to come in for a "CL check" wearing lenses that were not prescribed, ordered online without an Rx, or bought in a beauty shop. If I were to sign off on those lenses because the patient reported no problems, I'd be liable for any problems that resulted from problems with the fit. If the patient ends up with a penetrating keratoplasty due to severe stromal scarring that results from complications from a tight-fitting lens (which is not necessarily uncomfortable), it's my name on the Rx and I'm going to be holding the grenade when it goes off.

I don't know why an OD looking at CLs on a patient is considered any different than any other doctor doing a well-check on any other patient. Personally, I think it probably has to do with the fact that optometrists are notorious for giving away services for a variety of reasons, depending on the setting. Just keep in mind that, just like in your practice, what patients are paying for is expertise and assumption of risk, not time.

Totally agree with Jason. My boss charges $85 per fitting.

Very nice and informative post Jason K. A departure from your usual doom and gloom. I applaud thee.

I believe this guy and many other ophthalmologists/optometrists do the retinal photography on every patient because:
A) It goes around insurance since it is direct cash pay
B) Most patients might not have anything but its sure easier to have a tech do a photo than to do a DFE yourself
C) For patients that do have something and you don't catch it you have a pending lawsuit usually and photographs are a great way of preserving the pathology

So they might take the easy road.

Should they do it? Well, right now anything that gets around insurance is sought after.

Originally Posted by Jason K

Totally agree on the retinal imaging. Sadly, Optos (which I'm sure was what you were photographed with) cameras are being used to increase revenue for OD and OMD offices all over the US. The leases aren't cheap so they're heavily marketed to patients at annual checkups and most of the time, patients pay out of pocket. Macular pigment testing is the same deal. I've been in offices that test macular pigments on 20 year olds at 50 bucks a pop - totally ridiculous, but not at all uncommon.

Here's where I take issue with what you're saying. You absolutely should have been charged for the contact lens fee. At $54, you're paying less than many, if not most, private offices would charge for a normal, no-changes CL evaluation. I charge $79 to look at CLs even if I do nothing to them. What you're paying for is the expertise required to evaluate the lens fit and the prescription, not the time it takes to do so.

If I come see you for a general physical and you order routine blood work which comes back normal, I don't say "Hey, I don't want to pay for that blood work since I had no complaints and you didn't have to do anything to treat me as a result of any of the results, it was all normal." I have to pay for that blood work because it took expertise to draw the blood, have the lab work done, and it took a lot of previous knowledge for you to sit there and read over and interpret the results. It might take you 20 seconds to read the results of the blood work or an xray, but you're not paid for that 20 seconds, you're paid for the expertise and training it takes to read and interpret that information. That training took years to develop, even though it only takes you a minute or two to use it in a given situation.

Doing a quick CL check is no different. The consequences of blowing off a CL eval can result in permanent vision loss for the patient and a giant lawsuit for the OD. It is not at all uncommon for patients to come in for a "CL check" wearing lenses that were not prescribed, ordered online without an Rx, or bought in a beauty shop. If I were to sign off on those lenses because the patient reported no problems, I'd be liable for any problems that resulted from problems with the fit. If the patient ends up with a penetrating keratoplasty due to severe stromal scarring that results from complications from a tight-fitting lens (which is not necessarily uncomfortable), it's my name on the Rx and I'm going to be holding the grenade when it goes off.

I don't know why an OD looking at CLs on a patient is considered any different than any other doctor doing a well-check on any other patient. Personally, I think it probably has to do with the fact that optometrists are notorious for giving away services for a variety of reasons, depending on the setting. Just keep in mind that, just like in your practice, what patients are paying for is expertise and assumption of risk, not time.

Excellent post and I agree 100%. Retinal screening photos are not necessary unless you have pathology to document to monitor at your next visit. Retinal screening photos are almost never covered by your vision plan, so you would have to pay out of pocket. Yes, it absolutely should have been disclosed to you in your paperwork you filled out. If not, I would be quite upset as well.

There are many OD's out there that will offer you to pay for a retinal screening photo instead of having your dilated fundus exam (DFE), which is complete BS if you ask me. The OD will make money off of the photo, and won't have to "waste" time doing a DFE and be able to see more patients... but that screening photo does not capture your entire retina, therefore it is NOT a replacement for a dilated fundus exam.

There are many other conditions besides HTN and DM that can cause unsymptomatic and symptomatic retinal pathology (such as a choroidal melanoma). You may have had macular drusen, but more than likely not macular degeneration based ONLY on statistics. Is it normal to have some drusen, somewhat, but not so much in a 30 year old and I would want it documented with a fundus photo, but that would have been billed to your medical carrier... in my office.

You were charged for a contact lens evaluation. Contact lens evaluation = contact lens fitting. It's really the same verbage, even though it does cause some confusion. You better believe you will be charged for me to evaluate your habitual contact lenses to make sure they are "fitting" your eyes, you are seeing well through them, and to make sure the lenses themselves are in good shape (i.e. you are caring for them appropriately). Many offices have a tiered fee structure based on the complexity of your contact lens evaluation. For example, to evaluate your habitual lenses and re-new your Rx could be $50. To select a new lens for your needs, evaluate the "fit", and perform a 2 week follow up could be $170... and if you need a custom lens it could be $300, etc.

I shadowed an OD that never dilated. Only used the Optomap. I was a little unsure of the practice, thoughts?

The guy was a bit off his rocker. Took 55 pills a day and pitched the same vitamins to every patient.

Originally Posted by Unty

I am a physician and I confronted the optometrist about the retinal imaging. The little I know about retinal pathology, I do know that unless you have hypertension, diabetes or macular degeneration you most likely do not have retinal pathology and therefore do not need imaging.

Wrong! How do you know what you have without being tested? You would be surprised at how many retinal pathologies can present in a perfectly healthy individual. The imaging is mainly done on people who view having their pupils dilated an inconvenience; people like you.

Originally Posted by Unty

I lost respect for him after that. Seriously, macular degeneration in a 35 year old. You have got to be kidding me.

He may have said "possible macular degeneraion". Regardless, it seems you are not as healthy as you made yourself out to be. But coming from a "physician" we do not expect any less. You should be more appreciative of the care and explanations the optometrist gave you; instead of questioning a few extra tests that actually showed some pathology. Seems like the moron was the one in the exam chair....

Originally Posted by Unty

I personally do not feel that I should have been charged the contact lens fitting fee on the contacts I came in with (of course they are fitting me correctly Ive been wearing them for the last six months!!!). If he charged me for the new set of contacts I received, then yes I can understand the charge because these are newly purchased contacts and he would like to see if they fit you correctly.

Personally, he gave you a pretty nice discount if you ask me. So next time just ask him for a free trial pair of contacts and STFU with all the whining

Exactly, you are a physician. Why are you bitching about an extra fee for retinal imaging like it is going to sink you economically for the next 5 years? He even gave you a partial discount because of your whining. There is only one line talking about how this might affect the other patients while the rest of your post is focused on you yourself and how you had to pay fees that you don't like paying because you might be cheap.

Originally Posted by Meibomian SxN

Wrong! How do you know what you have without being tested? You would be surprised at how many retinal pathologies can present in a perfectly healthy individual. The imaging is mainly done on people who view having their pupils dilated an inconvenience; people like you.


He may have said "possible macular degeneraion". Regardless, it seems you are not as healthy as you made yourself out to be. But coming from a "physician" we do not expect any less. You should be more appreciative of the care and explanations the optometrist gave you; instead of questioning a few extra tests that actually showed some pathology. Seems like the moron was the one in the exam chair....



Personally, he gave you a pretty nice discount if you ask me. So next time just ask him for a free trial pair of contacts and STFU with all the whining

Why is it that when someone identifies themselves as an MD your whole tone and logic changes? I know you don't like MDs or whatever but geez don't make it so obvious. The inferiority complex can be seen by everyone on the board.

For one, imaging is for documentation NOT for picking up sh9(*(T that you couldnt see. The optos doesn't cover the whole retina. If you cant see on a DFE what an optos map picks up I can't help you. People who are diabetic, hyptertensive or have ARMD get more imaging because they tend to have more pathology. Stuff is found like hemorrages, CSME or a CNV and then it needs to be imaged etc.. Imaging totally healthy people just in the hopes that it will pick up something is a LIE. I will go on record to say that if you are saying this you are lying. You are lying to yourself and more so to the patient mostly likely to make a buck. This is like when my dad told me about PRP laser, when it used to be paid per session. Docs were rationalizing why it was better for the patient to have many treatment sessions. People used to do PRP 7-8 sessions to get the whole retina. Then they changed it to getting paid for prp for the whole treatment and people started saying it was all of a sudden better for the patient to get it all done in one session. Its amazing what people will convince themselves if it suits them financially.

About this stupid concept of imaging everyone to "try an find something". Stick with that mentality, they why don't they put this imaging system in an internist office. He can image everyone, bill for it and have it read by some "eye imaging" doctor or technician. Who needs an eye provider for retinal problems then? Double that with the autorefactor that is being developed RIGHT now for the iphone and all you need is a imaging slit lamp and a something to check pressure and goodbye entire profession of optometry. All because some OD genius somewhere thought, Hmmm I can make an extra 10K a year by trying to convince healthy people that this non-indicated test is somehow necessary. My dad is an ophthalmologist and he taught me that if you do imaging on a patient for anything (photos, Fluorescein) and it picks up something that you shouldve seen, you should be embarrassed. These MFers are probably happy and think "Great I can bill insurance for this now Yay!" Hmm doesn't take away from the profession does it? Sickening...

Second, the guy threw out the words macular degeneration he didn't say that this guy had it. Sort of like throwing out the word glaucoma when someone doesn't want to have their pressure checked. Just throw out some fear factor to intimidate. Unfortunately he underestimated this guys knowledge level of eye stuff. Chances are he didn't know he was an MD.

Doctors (MDs, ODs, Chiros) do all sorts of unethical stuff all the time. It isn't a surprise. No one is saying that only ODs do it. Because of our retail background, we tend to be more visible because 50% of the population comes to see us. How many people will run into a crooked urologist? But if you are a crooked OD, chances are a lot of people will see you and the word gets out there fast. When people rape and milk the system, they are causing reimbursements to go down, stealing from patients, taxpayers and fellow doctors. That guy is probably causing me, meibomian sx, shruken, etc to get lower reimbursements because he is billing unncessary stuff. He not only rips off that doctor, other patients, you, me, our parents, patients, neighbors. Those people are more likely to try to bend the rules and when they do, I hope they get caught and raped in prison.

Originally Posted by mclem222

Why is it that when someone identifies themselves as an MD your whole tone and logic changes? I know you don't like MDs or whatever but geez don't make it so obvious. The inferiority complex can be seen by everyone on the board.

It has nothing to do with me "not liking MDs". That's like me saying: Why are you licking his boots because he and your daddy are a physician? Pal, EVERYONE has someone in their family who is a doctor nowadays. And trust, I am sure your dad is not the founder of any ophthalmic devices etc, so put your trump cards away; you're embarrassing him.

In my opinion, it had more to do with the way he expressed that "he's a physician" yet he knowingly signed up for some extra tests, and then whines about it afterwards? It just made his claim of being an MD look pathetic.

Originally Posted by mclem222

For one, imaging is for documentation NOT for picking up sh9(*(T that you couldnt see. The optos doesn't cover the whole retina.

Do you even HAVE an Optos in office; because I do? Do you perform DFEs on 100% of your patients? And of those, do you reach out to ora in every quadrant and on every patient? I never said it was a substitute, but don't act like its the equivalent of a kodak camera or a gimmick. Some may present the option as deceiving but it is an alternative to those who do not want the inconvenience of a DFE. Simple as that. It sure is better than an undilated 90D.

Originally Posted by mclem222

Imaging totally healthy people just in the hopes that it will pick up something is a LIE. I will go on record to say that if you are saying this you are lying. You are lying to yourself and more so to the patient mostly likely to make a buck.

Agreed, but again it was an optional test that the "physician" knowingly consented to. So why whine if it was "normal"? The "physician" could've just declined and opted for a dilation.

Originally Posted by mclem222

Its amazing what people will convince themselves if it suits them financially.

Tell your dad that did he ever think that doctors are struggling to make ends meet because of reimbursement cuts, etc? Most doctors do not like screwing their patients, but we did not undertake this profession in health care to be paupers.

Originally Posted by mclem222

About this stupid concept of imaging everyone to "try an find something". Stick with that mentality, they why don't they put this imaging system in an internist office.

This program is already underway. Its called retinal telecenters. They have photos taken and sent to an outside site to be analyzed by a retina doc.

Originally Posted by mclem222

Second, the guy threw out the words macular degeneration he didn't say that this guy had it. Sort of like throwing out the word glaucoma when someone doesn't want to have their pressure checked. Just throw out some fear factor to intimidate. Unfortunately he underestimated this guys knowledge level of eye stuff. Chances are he didn't know he was an MD.

Underestimated? The physician knowingly consented to an extra test and then whined about it. Seems like you're knowledge is just as equivalent to his....

Why is it a crime to educate someone on a finding of drusen. You did not witness his exam. Patient's lie ALL the time. For all I know, the OD could've had a talk about macular drusen vs dry AMD vs window defect vs RPE drop out. Probably blew right over the "physician's" head; just like it did you.

I see nothing wrong in offering optional testing that insurance does not cover. Nothing unethical with that. The OD clearly stated this is optional. I believe the physician is more bitter because he has retinal drusen that was diagnosed by an OD.

Originally Posted by mclem222

A 30 yr old with no pathology needs a retinal photo as much as I need a photo of my penis to compare to in case I develop penile cancer..This just pisses me off..

Originally Posted by Unty

Hey all,

I went to see an optometrist for an eye exam. I went to Lenscrafters wearing contacts that I had from my last 6 months supply. I went in to get a new 6 month supply. So, anyways, I was wondering do you guys do retinal imaging on all patients even if you are like me who is in his mid 30s with no medical history? Anyways, I was never told I had to pay out of pocket for this. I got a partial refund after I told the optometrist I was never told I was going to be charged.

So I got my eye exam and found out I was charged a contact fitting fee of 54 dollars. I was never fitted for any NEW contacts. After the eye exam, I think the optometrist made sure the contacts which I came into the store fitted me and not newly purchased contacts (which I thought should have been the case). I got my bill from the eye insurance company and there was the charge of contact fitting and followup. Today, I just picked up my contacts and was never "followed up" as to whether these newly purchased contacts "fit" me. So I was upset as to how can I be charged a contact fitting fee on old contacts I went into the store with and not newly purchased contacts.

Yes I understand that there is a contact fitting fee. I just dont understand how you can charge me on my old pair of contacts. Can someone clarify this for me?

Try Costco next time if you really need to save money, I had a good experience there. Lenscrafters is a total scam, and I can say that cause I worked there. They don't even tell people you get a huge discount if you have AAA.

Originally Posted by Unty

Hey all,

I went to see an optometrist for an eye exam. I went to Lenscrafters wearing contacts that I had from my last 6 months supply. I went in to get a new 6 month supply. So, anyways, I was wondering do you guys do retinal imaging on all patients even if you are like me who is in his mid 30s with no medical history? Anyways, I was never told I had to pay out of pocket for this. I got a partial refund after I told the optometrist I was never told I was going to be charged.

So I got my eye exam and found out I was charged a contact fitting fee of 54 dollars. I was never fitted for any NEW contacts. After the eye exam, I think the optometrist made sure the contacts which I came into the store fitted me and not newly purchased contacts (which I thought should have been the case). I got my bill from the eye insurance company and there was the charge of contact fitting and followup. Today, I just picked up my contacts and was never "followed up" as to whether these newly purchased contacts "fit" me. So I was upset as to how can I be charged a contact fitting fee on old contacts I went into the store with and not newly purchased contacts.

Yes I understand that there is a contact fitting fee. I just dont understand how you can charge me on my old pair of contacts. Can someone clarify this for me?

This is just a case of misunderstanding about exam fees. Unlike in medicine where patients just have to pay a copay or co-insurance (i:e: 10% or 20% of the bill depending on their insurance plan) and the rest will be covered by their insurance, in optometry (and in dentistry as well), however; vision insurance is a joke. It pays optometrists next to nothing so patients are left with paying most, if not all, the bill out of pocket. The general public, unfortunately, thinks that their so-called "vision insurance," just like their medical insurance, pays for all of their eye care needs.

Because of this, from my experience, in order to reduce or eliminate this confusion and misunderstanding, I have created a sign in form where I detailed out all the charges up-front. Basically there's no "gray" areas in terms of exam fees. I also explained all the tests that we usually perform at my office (ie: DFE) and the charges that apply. Patients can therefore make an informed decision whether they want the test or not by checking the appropriate box and then they have to sign the form signifying that they have understood all the terms presented on the form before I even see them.

In optometry every office does things or charge professional fees differently, therefore it is important to make things easier for the patient.

So in this case, I can understand why the patient is upset b/c he was not informed about the procedure and to be charged for it without even expecting it. He could have refused the test had he knew about it.

In addition (to me this is the most important) I think all optometrists should explain to the patient the difference between vision and medical insurance. The general public is clueless and are confused about the two different types of insurance that optometrists accept. Vision insurance covers for routine eye exam. Their medical insurance covers for all their medical eye problems, that is, if that optometric office accepts medical insurance and does medical billing.

Ever since I created a form that I spell out everything that I think could potentially cause a misunderstanding, I have eliminated much confusion and arguments with patients about their exam fees. Seriously, it is ridiculous to have to argue with patients about their fees and in return they think we are scamming them. Also, if you have everything written down for them to read for themselves when they show up, you don't have to repeat yourself every single time you have a patient seating in your exam chair. This allows you more time to concentrate on patient care and helps things go more smoothly.

Originally Posted by NYCBlues

Unlike in medicine where patients just have to pay a copay or co-insurance (i:e: 10% or 20% of the bill depending on their insurance plan) and the rest will be covered by their insurance, in optometry (and in dentistry as well), however; vision insurance is a joke. It pays optometrists next to nothing so patients are left with paying most, if not all, the bill out of pocket. The general public, unfortunately, thinks that their so-called "vision insurance," just like their medical insurance, pays for all of their eye care needs.

Bingo. This is an important point. If you see a physician and you have insurance, almost 100% of the time, you only pay a co-pay. You don't pay for tests. If a test is not covered by insurance the physician's office needs to notify the patient. As patients we have become accustomed to this. Most people don't know that dental or vision insurance may not cover ancillary tests. I think all health care providers have a responsibility to notify patients of any out-of-pocket expenses they may incur ahead of time. That way there are no surprises.

Originally Posted by Shnurek

Or the prostate cancer overzealous treatment: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/he...7prostate.html

mclem I know you probably hate getting advice from a 1st year opto student but nowadays Doctors are not that special. Maybe before the internet and in the 50's and 60's MDs were viewed as on the level of supreme court justices. But nowadays Doctors are just professionals and not anything special beyond that. Especially with the MDs losing their monopoly on medicine, the "high horse" factor is really dissipating. Almost anyone can look up certain pathology online. Medical information is all over the place and no longer in the minds of physicians only. So accept that you are a professional and make the most of it.

Doctors are and will always be a well respected profession. Research was done and women said that their dream spouse's profession is a doctor. Some for the respect, some for the money and some for both. Overall, in many cultures, they claim doctors highly prestigious people.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by OATAcer

Doctors are and will always be a well respected profession. Research was done and women said that their dream spouse's profession is a doctor. Some for the respect, some for the money and some for both. Overall, in many cultures, they claim doctors highly prestigious people.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

haha, too bad the opposite doesn't really matter

Originally Posted by Meibomian SxN

And you're 99% ? So where's the comparison study? How much pathology did the McClem, Visionary and others miss? Yeah, that's what I thought.

That's the point. It IS a comparison! How do you think they got the percentages, for crying out loud?

Sent from my Droid Incredible on SDN Mobile