Omen writes

One year on

As we approach the first anniversary of the implementation of the Section 60 order, which amended the 1989 Opticians Act, it is timely to look at what impact it has had. Most of the complaints surrounding the introduction of compulsory CET have disappeared, although I suspect that as the end of the first period in December approaches more difficulties will surface. Let’s hope that the General Optical Council uses a gentle touch the first time around.

The main focus of interest has been on the relaxation of the law governing the supply of contact lenses. Inevitably there has been a flood of new entrants to the market all keen to get a slice of the cake. Many of the offers claim to undercut conventional supply sources but give no indication as to how they calculate this when professional charges have traditionally included clinical care. Yet no one has challenged these claims.

Optician’s mystery shopper investigation threw up the expected abuses of the new system but also some surprisingly accurate advice being given to prospective purchasers. But the most extraordinary initiative has been taken by Daysoft which is prepared to substitute its  own brand of lenses for the type specified in the specification.

Hiding behind an excuse that it is supporting independent practitioners the company is apparently flouting the new regulations which require the specification to be written so that the lenses can be replicated and a requirement to supply in accordance with that specification; surely a clear indication that substitution is not permitted.

The General Optical Council has sat on its hands so far, this may have been understandable as the market settled down but surely there is now no excuse for not taking action to protect the public?