The banter about VSP's opening of a vision center on the Cisco campus in San Jose has been significant. Announced on this blog on May 11th, the topic is hot enough for VSP to feel compelled to respond with various PR efforts, including releases to the press and a national "town hall" tour. These efforts are likely the work of an expensive PR firm retained by VSP for just such events.
In one recently released communication, VSP works hard to rationalize their action as a competitive response. "If not us, then it would have been someone else," they say. OK, I get that. Competitive actions require competitive response. I'm a firm believer in the law of the marketplace. But had VSP done just two things…only two…they could have turned this sow's ear into a silk purse. And the fact that VSP doesn't do these things generates other questions, for sure. So I have two questions for VSP:
a) If this is so good for your providers, why not announce the action back last fall when you took it instead of hiding it and then reacting once it was discovered? Why not transparency?
b) If this is so good for the providers, why not take the profits from the activity and return them to the VSP providers within a 20 mile radius of the Cisco Campus. After all, this can't be a highly profitable activity, with only 1000 on-site claims. Why not give the money back to your providers, VSP?
My own opinion of VSP's strategy is well documented in this blog. Let's see if VSP has the cojones to respond.
VSP blew this one big time, but then that’s par for the course for “optometry’s friend.”
Looking at this from the outside Al, why wouldn’t VSP announce it last fall and why would they be as you say, less than transparent? Why do you think that is?
In terms of distributing profits, I’m confused. Cisco made the decision to open this clinic along with their entire campus of clinics for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with ECP’s or the Eye Care Industry.
That said, why do you imply VSP is responsible for their employees that are CHOOSING themselves NOT to go to surrounding area ECP’s that have been there for years?
What role are those surrounding ECP’s playing in terms of those patients care? Why would the benefits of the onsite clinic not be distributed to the entire network of VSP Providers? What makes the surrounding ECP’s special? Are they losing gobs of patients because of this? If they lost 1, 2, 5, 10 of them, who is responsible for that? Again, what role does THAT ECP play in the end result? Aren’t THEY responsible for THEIR business? Al, are you aware of the many ways VSP Does redistribute profits earned back to their ECP panel providers?