AdminWolf – Page 7 – ODwire.org

One of the flaws with online refraction systems (beyond the fact that they aren’t a substitute for a full eye exam) is that it can be difficult – or impossible – to tell who the patient actually is when working with them online. Indeed, issues of identity are serious problems for all sorts of online transactions.

But in this case, it could lead to the writing and filling of fraudulent Rx’s.

An anonymous poster writes of a story where he saw one system – Opternative – write an Rx for a non-existent patient – and even e-mailed a copy of the Rx for use elsewhere.

Read the details of the case here.

What does this mean for the physicians (MDs) who are signing off on these Rx’s?
How is your state responding to internet-based refractions?
New regulations?
Whole-hearted approval?

Weigh in!

According to an insider as reported on DisabledVeterans.org, the secretary of Veterans Affairs, David Shulkin, MD, suggested VA healthcare directors get rid of both optometry and audiology services.

The rationale is (of course) to save money by removing these services, and to plow the savings into upgrading VA facilities.

He allegedly stated that there are “LensCrafters on every corner“, presumably meaning that the private sector has adequately met the demand for these services, and thus it is unnecessary for the VA to replicate them.

The AOA has issued a forceful statement in response.

Would this move actually save money? Would it help or hurt the quality of care?

Read the full story and weigh in.

The Huffington Post ran a commentary today by an author who asserts that the AOA’s fight against online refraction is nothing more than an example of “crony capitalism”, similar to the war that taxi companies are engaged in vs. Uber and Lyft —

Their main argument is that this new technology cannot check for concerns like eye infections. Of course, what they are forgetting to mention is that there is a difference between an eye prescription and eye health exam. Even consumers that use ocular telemedicine still need to receive eye health exams, but even the American Optometric Association ― the group leading the push against telemedicine ― admits that this is only necessary for health adults once every 1-2 years.

In short, Big Eye is pushing a false media narrative in order to kill technology that is jeopardizing the safety of their business model. Thankfully for us, this cartel isn’t coming even remotely close to winning their fights. Last week in New Mexico, the eye care industry quivered as Deborah Armstrong and Sheryl Williams-Stapleton’s anti-ocular telemedicine legislation received the veto stamp from the state’s governor, Susana Martinez, who is well aware that the new technology should be encouraged, not prohibited, by the state government. A similar veto came in South Carolina last year, when then-Gov. Nikki Haley affirmed that the medical lobby was “[using] health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry.”

This editorial has been seen by hundreds of thousands of folks around the world.

But is the picture tthe author is painting accurate?
As a clinician, how do you feel about signing off on an Rx of a patient you’d never seen?
And how would you respond to these assertions?

Weigh in!