As chairman of the BSI Sunglass Committee and a delegate to the ISO Sunglass Committee, I was pleased to see that sunglasses with a larger eye size are being demonstrated through the pages of Optician.
However, there remains a problem. The frames are beautiful, but what about the lenses? Do the sunglass lenses, or if you prefer the alternative term ‘filters’, give all the protection needed by the sunglass wearer? Do the sunglass lenses conform to the internationally recognised European Sunglass Standard, EN 1836?
Without this assurance, wearers of sunglasses could be at risk. The natural defence mechanism of the eye – the pupil – could be dilated behind a pair of dark sunglass lenses which may not absorb sufficient UV to give full protection to the eye. In this case you would be safer wearing no sunglasses and letting the eye’s natural defence mechanism kick in. Optician, as a responsible professional journal, must surely take the lead in ensuring that the sunglasses which adorn its pages, are not only good to look at, but also give the full protection which compliance with EN 1836 demands.
Incidentally, these larger eye size sunglasses could pass the toughest sunglass standard in the world, the Australian one, which has a minimum eye size requirement, and I sincerely hope that this would also apply to the lenses. Over to you Optician.
John Redwood
BSI Sunglass Committee
The NHS optical voucher states that the amount claimed must be the actual cost of glasses if less than the voucher value. Why does the NHS not also limit the claim for a sight test to the actual amount charged to non-NHS patients, where this is lower?
Perhaps overpayments to those who subsidise examinations from dispensing, could better be used to fund an enhanced NHS examination, as in Scotland, via those who chose further training for accreditation?
Hugh Barker
Folkestone, Kent
Like many ‘baby-boomers’, who qualified with the early degree courses, I am now contemplating retirement. Consequently, I approached a local competitor to negotiate a sale and we both contacted the AOP for advice.
The current guidelines indicate that for sale of an optical business, 50 per cent of turnover is the going rate. However, for the sale of the records a mere £1 for every card no more than two years-old is suggested. So what happened to the principle of ‘goodwill’?
By my calculations, an independent working on 50 tests a week would do a maximum of 2,400 a year, with holidays. Some of these, who are over-70, children or diabetics, would return each year, giving around 3,600 over two years. For most practices, this would not cover the redundancy payments for long-standing staff, let alone give anything to show for years of effort.
My father-in-law was a director of a national pharmaceutical company for many years. He impressed on me the importance of preserving my records safely, as these constitute the value of the business. He’ll be rotating in his urn while I’m writing this.
Having bought my business for the 50 per cent turnover in 1985, only to discover that the business was badly run down and a struggle to pull back up, I cannot see the argument for this figure.
Equally, I was offered the cards from a competitor, who needed to retire quickly, paid the small amount he asked and had recouped that within three months. Where is the consistency here? For every card sold with a recommendation, the buyer could expect to get at least the £19 plus NHS fee, unless they undercut the private fee, without any dispensing income. The strength of any business is the client base, not the equipment or premises.
I would ask anyone who agrees with me to lobby the AOP to rethink this advice.
Pat Hillman
Brynmawr, Gwent