- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's an interesting article out of California that my prof had forwared to usall. What do you all think?
Subject: Fw: SFGate: Eye care giant slapped in court/Ruling could lead to separation of optometrists and opticians
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/14/BUGHTJDP7Q1.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Eye care giant slapped in court/Ruling could lead to separation of optometrists and opticians
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
One-stop shopping for eye care in California, specifically in businesses housing optometrists and opticians under the same roof, could be
endangered by a state Supreme Court ruling against retail giant Pearle Vision.
The court ruled unanimously Monday that the company, a subsidiary of Italy's Luxottica, is covered by a state law that limits relationships
between providers of eyeglasses and eye exams.
Pearle Vision had argued that California's Knox-Keene Act, a 1976 law regulating health maintenance organizations, allowed its optometry
company, Pearle VisionCare, to operate as an HMO free of any such restrictions. VisionCare optometrists work in the same stores as opticians
employed by Pearle Vision Inc., a structure the company adopted after its previous format -- in which it sold franchises to optometrists -- was
struck down by a state appeals court in 1983.
The court said the Knox-Keene Act allowed optometrists and other health professionals to work for HMOs but did not repeal earlier laws that
prohibit opticians from employing optometrists, maintaining them on or near the premises, or having landlord-tenant relationships with
optometrists.
The case involved a turf battle in the health care industry, with the California Medical Association and independent optometrists siding with
the state in defense of its restrictions, while Pearle Vision was backed by an organization of affiliated opticians and optometrists and the
California Association of Health Plans.
Both sides claimed to be on the side of the consumer. Pearle argued that its interpretation of the law would lower costs and prices by allowing
customers to obtain comprehensive health care in fewer visits. Its opponents warned of assembly-line eye exams, disclosure of private medical
information to retailers and potential health problems when eye doctors are affiliated with sellers of optical products.
The court said such disputes were matters for the Legislature to resolve. "We must take the law as it is written," said Justice Ming Chin.
In the short run, the ruling upholds an injunction obtained by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer that prohibits Pearle Vision Inc., the optician subsidiary, from advertising eye exams, and allows Lockyer to continue a lawsuit filed in San Diego four years ago that challenges the company's relationships with VisionCare. But Lockyer's office and a private lawyer in a related suit said the case has broader implications.
"Our goal is to make sure optometrists are truly independent, that doctors write the prescriptions which can be taken to any eyewear store to be
filled and that that store does not control the doctor," Aaron Carruthers, a spokesman for Lockyer, said Tuesday.
"All business models that have optometrists inside the optician's shop, that business model is in deep trouble," said San Francisco attorney Matt
Davis.
He said the same structure is used in numerous eye care businesses in California, including LensCrafters, another Luxottica subsidiary that is
the target of a proposed class-action suit filed by Davis in San Francisco Superior Court in 2002. The suit, which was on hold until Monday's ruling,
seeks changes in LensCrafters' structure as well as damages of $1,000 each for as many as 1.3 million California customers who bought eyeglasses or
lenses from the company, from 1998 to the present, after having an eye exam on the premises.
LensCrafters has countered with a suit of its own, in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, seeking to overturn the California law.
Luxottica's North American retail division issued a statement Tuesday noting that the court had not yet resolved the legality of the relationship between the optician and optometry subsidiaries, an issue to be addressed in Lockyer's San Diego suit as well as the federal court
case.
"We will continue to provide the highest standard of patient care and customer service in all states, including California," the company said.
The case is People vs. Cole, S121724.
Subject: Fw: SFGate: Eye care giant slapped in court/Ruling could lead to separation of optometrists and opticians
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/14/BUGHTJDP7Q1.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Eye care giant slapped in court/Ruling could lead to separation of optometrists and opticians
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
One-stop shopping for eye care in California, specifically in businesses housing optometrists and opticians under the same roof, could be
endangered by a state Supreme Court ruling against retail giant Pearle Vision.
The court ruled unanimously Monday that the company, a subsidiary of Italy's Luxottica, is covered by a state law that limits relationships
between providers of eyeglasses and eye exams.
Pearle Vision had argued that California's Knox-Keene Act, a 1976 law regulating health maintenance organizations, allowed its optometry
company, Pearle VisionCare, to operate as an HMO free of any such restrictions. VisionCare optometrists work in the same stores as opticians
employed by Pearle Vision Inc., a structure the company adopted after its previous format -- in which it sold franchises to optometrists -- was
struck down by a state appeals court in 1983.
The court said the Knox-Keene Act allowed optometrists and other health professionals to work for HMOs but did not repeal earlier laws that
prohibit opticians from employing optometrists, maintaining them on or near the premises, or having landlord-tenant relationships with
optometrists.
The case involved a turf battle in the health care industry, with the California Medical Association and independent optometrists siding with
the state in defense of its restrictions, while Pearle Vision was backed by an organization of affiliated opticians and optometrists and the
California Association of Health Plans.
Both sides claimed to be on the side of the consumer. Pearle argued that its interpretation of the law would lower costs and prices by allowing
customers to obtain comprehensive health care in fewer visits. Its opponents warned of assembly-line eye exams, disclosure of private medical
information to retailers and potential health problems when eye doctors are affiliated with sellers of optical products.
The court said such disputes were matters for the Legislature to resolve. "We must take the law as it is written," said Justice Ming Chin.
In the short run, the ruling upholds an injunction obtained by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer that prohibits Pearle Vision Inc., the optician subsidiary, from advertising eye exams, and allows Lockyer to continue a lawsuit filed in San Diego four years ago that challenges the company's relationships with VisionCare. But Lockyer's office and a private lawyer in a related suit said the case has broader implications.
"Our goal is to make sure optometrists are truly independent, that doctors write the prescriptions which can be taken to any eyewear store to be
filled and that that store does not control the doctor," Aaron Carruthers, a spokesman for Lockyer, said Tuesday.
"All business models that have optometrists inside the optician's shop, that business model is in deep trouble," said San Francisco attorney Matt
Davis.
He said the same structure is used in numerous eye care businesses in California, including LensCrafters, another Luxottica subsidiary that is
the target of a proposed class-action suit filed by Davis in San Francisco Superior Court in 2002. The suit, which was on hold until Monday's ruling,
seeks changes in LensCrafters' structure as well as damages of $1,000 each for as many as 1.3 million California customers who bought eyeglasses or
lenses from the company, from 1998 to the present, after having an eye exam on the premises.
LensCrafters has countered with a suit of its own, in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, seeking to overturn the California law.
Luxottica's North American retail division issued a statement Tuesday noting that the court had not yet resolved the legality of the relationship between the optician and optometry subsidiaries, an issue to be addressed in Lockyer's San Diego suit as well as the federal court
case.
"We will continue to provide the highest standard of patient care and customer service in all states, including California," the company said.
The case is People vs. Cole, S121724.
