FTC 16 CFR Part 315 Public Workshop Examining Contact Lens Marketplace And Analyzing Proposed Changes To The Contact Lens Rule #3270

Submission Number:
3270
Commenter:
Christen Jankowski
Organization:
State:
Washington
Initiative Name:
FTC 16 CFR Part 315 Public Workshop Examining Contact Lens Marketplace And Analyzing Proposed Changes To The Contact Lens Rule
Sometimes I wonder where all this went off the rails. Having practiced in the military and abroad, I've seen enough of the deleterious effects of what a contact lens can do when patients overwear their lenses, fail to properly disinfect their lenses and/or just plain ignore medical advice. Lord knows, the patient's in pain, health care costs go up and it's Dr. J to the rescue, 24-7 (yes, I feel obligated to treat any and all that walk in my practice). That's what I signed up for. I'm close to retirement and marvel at my son's abilities to practice in 2018 vs. 1984 when I raised my right hand and took an Oath. It's my patients welfare that come first, and I do my utmost to protect that. If a patient wished to get their glasses or contact lenses elsewhere, I"m 100% in favor off that as I'm a big believer in our form of free enterprise. If they choose to get contact lenses or glasses with us, fine, we strive for 100% accuracy to get EXACTLY what was prescribed. We all know of cases where various corporate and garage store lens providers peddling unauthorized, expired product or substituted lenses because "these are just as good". Need we be reminded of imported products not meeting the minimum of US safety standard, eg, drywall, laminated flooring etc? I fear this just leads to more and more fake products and diversions of inappropriate products to the patient. Once this line is crossed, they are long longer a patient, but a customer...a mere...customer. As for the administrative burdens, it's just another thing we have to deal with, whether the patient wants it or not. We're constantly entreated to "go green", yet I use more paper now than I did in 1989 when I opened. It's just "one more thing"..."one more mandate" that is unnecessary and frankly offensive, inferring that medical and vision providers cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" by their patients. And I reject that thesis. It's bad enough that people are peddling "eye exams" via your smart phone, your TV set, or some kid showing up at your house or the local gin mill (no joke on that one either) to administer this fancy "eye [sorry, I just had to take a peak at a patient my son asked me to consult on--elevated retina, and the patient said he was just having some fuzzy vision in his eye]. Most like we're looking at a non-pigmented choroidal melanoma. It's a Friday, and time for me to dial up a secondary care provider (who takes the patients insurance) and refer for an CT scan to rule out a tumor. I"m semi-retired, but luckily my son is all in as a vision and medical provider. This is his focus. Let's let health care providers provide and operate with the realm of what is in the patients best interest by someone who took an oath to put the patients welfare above that of corporate interests.