16 CFR Part 315; Agency Information Collection Activities: Review; Comment Request; Contact Lens Rule: FTC Project No. R511995 #03768

Submission Number:
03768
Commenter:
Jeffrey Schultz
State:
Ohio
Initiative Name:
16 CFR Part 315; Agency Information Collection Activities: Review; Comment Request; Contact Lens Rule: FTC Project No. R511995
Chairwoman Edith Ramirez Federal Trade Commission Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center 400 7th Street WW, 5th Floor, Ste 5610 (Annex C) Washington, DC 20024 Dear Chairwoman Ramirez, Contact lenses are medical devices, and have been regulated as such by the FDA. Contact lenses are not created equal even if the base curve, diameter and power are the same. Different materials fit the cornea differently, allow for different levels of oxygen transmission, or impact the health of the cornea and internal ocular surfaces differently. When the contact lens manufacturers tried to implement Universal Product Pricing (UPP), 1-800 Contacts and other on-line sellers went to the courts to strike down this practice. Fair trade products abound in the retail world, the most notable would be Apple's iPhone that has a minimum market price. It simply can't be sold for less than MSRP. However, 1-800 Contacts and other on-line sellers have succeeded in confusing the issue, and the courts have struck down UPP. Now, 1-800 Contacts and other on-line sellers, have again confused the issue further brainwashing the courts and now the FTC. 1-800 Contacts and other on-line sellers have confused the issues with many well-meaning but naive articles. Again, as I stated above, contact lenses are medical devices, and have been regulated as such by the FDA. The majority of the Eye Care Providers have followed the existing Contact Lens Rule, despite the claims of 1-800 Contacts and other on-line sellers. The majority of the ECPs are compliant with the current Rule. Enforcement of the current rules rather than enacting onerous and unjustifiable new regulations would just make more sense. In addition, the administrative burden of the new rules would add more patient cost. Does the possibility of slight consumer benefit outweigh the rare but devastating loss of an individual's sight? In the end, we will be left to deal with the misery of the patient who suffers a large, visually debilitating corneal ulcer. Sincerely, Dr Jeffrey E Schultz, OD, MS, FAAO