Leading laser eye clinics have dismissed findings of an undercover Which? investigation which concluded that that some high street clinics are giving unsatisfactory advice about the risks associated with laser eye surgery and are pressuring customers into treatment options that cost hundreds of pounds more than the advertised price.
According to the consumer watchdog, more than half of the clinics visited by its investigators including the leading high street names - Optical Express, Optimax and Ultralase - gave unsatisfactory advice and played down the level and possible duration of risks and complications. The report estimates that 80 per cent of patients use the three chains investigated. Five Which?undercover researchers with a range of eye conditions visited 18 clinics at the end of last year.
Moreover, almost half of the Which? undercover researchers werenot told about the possibility that laser eye surgery wouldnot guarantee they wouldnot need spectacles when they were older.
The report also pointed out that Optimax and Optical Express both advertised surgery from £790 for both eyes, but the lowest price offered to Which? was £1,090. The watchdog quoted an Optical Express employee stating to a researcher: 'We keep the lower prices for advertising, really.'
According to the report, premium treatments were heavily promoted and discounts up to £200 were offered for reasons including quick booking, including one case where a 19-year-old was repeatedly asked to contact her parents to get a deposit.
Commenting on the findings, Which? editor, Martyn Hocking, said: 'Laser eye surgery can be an attractive option for people who want to be free from glasses and lenses, and in most cases it gives good results with few side effects. But people need to be aware of the potentially serious long-terms risks, so that they have realistic expectations and commit to the procedure with their eyes open.'
He added: 'Clinics must give accurate information and ensure customers are fully aware of risks, the benefits and the likely price tag.'
In response to the Which? findings, Steven Schallhorn, chief medical director of Optical Express, told Optician that the sample size of the survey was not very 'scientific' and therefore findings could be 'misleading'.
'It is very misleading of them [Which?] to come out with the statements that they did because of a number of reasons. Firstly, you have a very small sample size - four visits. Secondly, we don't know who their experts were. Were they experts in their field? Did they harbour any bias? There is no way of knowing any of this information because there was no disclosure. Thirdly they could have easily taken things out of context.'
He added: 'The entire inform/consent process is not just confined to the time that the patient has with a qualified optometrist. It begins when materials are sent to the patient and it encompasses the entire patient journey with the various counsellors and consultations.
'They [Which? researchers] did not look at the entire process, they looked at a snippet in a short amount of time with an incredibly low sample size with the possibility of bias in their results.'
On this issue of pricing, Schallhorn added: 'The whole issue of pricing is a non-issue. The Advertising Standards Authority last year adjudicated in favour of the way that Optical Express advises on price.'
Mark Korolkiewicz, clinical services director of Ultralase, told Optician: 'We have robust and very stringent processes in place and we are exceptionally open about the risks of treatments. Our consent process is lengthy. The first stage of the consent process is when they [customers] are first sent out information. The consent process continues in a very detailed consultation and they are given very clear information, including the consent form, and a document that is bespoke to them. The next stage involves talking through all the risks and any associated aspects personal to them with a qualified surgeon, which completes the consent process.'
He added: 'We operate a clear pricing policy and are very open about our pricing. We are engaging with Which? and are due to meet up with them shortly to discuss their findings.'
Commenting on the Which? findings, Russell Ambrose, proprietor of Optimax, said: 'As sole proprietor of Optimax, I am personally liable (without any limit to my liability) to all of my patients. They also enjoy the reassurance of a lifetime guarantee to treat any complications which may arise from laser treatment. Rarely is remedial treatment necessary.
'Which? magazine has yet to provide us with details of their complaints. Until then we are unable to thoroughly investigate them but be assured that Optimax will take on board any criticism to improve our service.' ?