I believe in the “law of the marketplace.” Under that “law,” businesses and professions operate without artificial restrictions (but with reasonable regulation necessary for consumer protection). Artificial control of one party over another — whether the result of oligopoly, policy manipulation, or special-interest statutory interference — is bad. Competition is good. Competition results in continuous improvement. With fair competition, the consumer ultimately prevails. With fair competition, everyone wins.
As you read this release, consider if there are implications for private practice optometrists? While perhaps a stretch, is this a precursor to the elimination of the ability for optometrists to sell eyeware? What impact might this have on Vision Plans, who both secure exams and sell eyeware direct to consumer? How about impact […]
I read a report of a recent meeting between representatives of a group of Texas providers and EyeMed. The following is in regards to the recent bill passed by the Texas legislature that prohibits vision plans from enforcing discounts on non-covered services (Texas SB 632). “EyeMed’s new contract will honor the option of doctors to […]
Maryland House Bill 1160 passed into law on May 16th. Similar to that of the Texas bill noted in my last post, the Maryland bill “prohibits a carrier from including in a vision plan contract a provision that requires a vision plan provider to …provide discounts on materials that are not covered benefits.” In my opinion, this […]
I have often commented that most vision plan’s contractual requirement that providers extend a discount for all services, regardless of coverage, is both patently unfair and a brand-destroyer. Well, apparently our friends in dentistry have seen the light. Dentistry appears to have their act together on this issue and optometry can take a lesson from their […]
VSP Vision Care and Johnson & Johnson Vision Care’s Vistakon division recently announced that they are partnering to offer VSP