That's the point - they don't. Do you think anyone in a Walmart, VisionMart, Cohen's, Target, Sam's, Costco, Walgreens, America's Best, etc, etc, etc....actually gives a Cleveland Steamer about their ocular health assessment? No, it's viewed as an inconvenience that they must get through in order to get their piece of cheese, the Rx.
No, I'm not, because they'll be doing independent refractions, not independent health assessments. That's the point - they won't be doing health assessments. I'm puzzled as to why this is so difficult to understand. As an objective observer, I don't personally subscribe to the idea that someone should be forced into a medical exam, in order to get a prescription for glasses. However, as an optometrist, I recognize that refractions are the life blood of the the profession, and taking away our turf would spell disaster for a large portion of us. Why are you unable to separate yourself from the "sphere" in which you sit? Look at things from the outside and you might see them differently.
The rules are inconsistent, and that inconsistency demonstrates that my standpoint is valid. Ask an OD why an Rx is required for a pair of glasses, and he/she will likely tell you it has to do with public safety. Then ask the same OD why a person can buy otc readers right next to the light bulbs in Walgreens, and you'll likely hear crickets chirping. Why the inconsistency? Are emmetropes or low hyperopes not worthy of the same protection as myopes and high hyperopes, who need prescription glasses to see clearly? It proves, quite nicely, that the driving force behind the Rx requirement is in the interest of prescribing doctors, not the public. The public might benefit indirectly from the rule, there's no question about that, but it's not in place because of public safety. If you don't see that, you're not looking at the issue objectively.
