SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads) Yeah, ok. So is there something wrong with documenting normal? Makes for an excellent teaching tool etc. I show the patients the effects of hypertension, diabetes, AMD, hypercholesterolemia; just to name a few. And Rev-Eyes is no magic bullet, hardly ever works. I never said "in place of". Interesting enough, I haven't seen studies saying the Optos missed anything. The study (which I witnessed as a student being done) actually showed DFEs can miss pathology because there's more variability between practitioners. Go figure... If its helpful in management of a known disease why would you not charge for it? Would you not explain that to the patient and they sign a BOV stating that if the insurance does not cover it then it is the patient's responsibility? Don't compare apples and oranges. Doing a test that may reveal more information about a known disease is normal eye care practicing. And the patient can always refuse any service. Nowhere did it say the OD presented it in a scamming way. The dentist is charging for the technology. Whether in your opinion its useful info or not is not your concern, its the patient's decision. So its wrong for a doctor to stock vitamins? Wow, you sound like a real profitable doctor; smh. Yeah, I guess you're the "give services out for free" type doc. Treat pathology on vision insurance type. And we wonder why we are in the state we're in now as a profession.