Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?

Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.

Good question.

I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called, they
said I could come in right away, for him to see me.

Whereas, if I went to my family doctor, he is farther away (very
significant that day--as my eyes were so bad, I could hardly open them,
probably unsafe to drive at all, but I had no one to drive me, so at least
this drive was close), and it probably would have been more difficult to
get an appointment.

The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts
now. I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.

It certainly would have cost me less, to go to my general practitioner, as
it would have been covered by my medical insurance, with a $10 co-pay.
Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my
contact lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office
that my vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I
had to pay $65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.

Not sure if going to an ophthalmologist would be covered by my medical
insurance, or if they only take vision insurance as well. Anyone know? In
any case, as my Blue Cross med insurance is mostly HMO (with some minor
PPO benefits as well), I would probably need a referral from the GP to go
to an opthal covered by med insurance. All that takes time. So, for the
benefit of time (able to go in right away), and nearness to my house
(although I'm sure there are opthals just as near or nearer), it was
convenient to go to the optometrist.

That said, one does wonder if an ophthalmologist would be better-trained
in dealing with something like an eye infection, than an optometrist, and
whether it could have been covered by insurance that way.



"douglas" <Protoman2050 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33a77731-9cee-489b-9b90-b44bcff267be at (no spam) b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?

Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.

Yes. Many insurers require that you see only the doctors who are on their
provider list, and some insurance companies make it very hard for
optometrists to become providers, particularly HMOs. In most cases, state
insurance commissions will insist that companies include optometrists'
services. Only ERISA plans can lawfully exclude optometrists. Medicare is
the flagship in this area, and Medicare has covered non-surgical medical
services by qualified optometrists for the last 30-odd years.

What's the difference between Zymar prescribed by an OD and Zymar
prescribed by an MD? Your GP would likely have tried to treat it with
erythromycin or tobrex.

Medical insurance should pay for medical care. Optometrists provide
medical care and most of us are on Blue Cross panels. HMOs make their
profit by NOT paying.

So you're saying you should have to wait a week because optometrists
aren't "supposed to" do what they're trained to do? Optometry schools
aren't "supposed" to teach microbiology and pharmacology?

Who does fillings better, a family dentist or an oral surgeon?

-MT



"MS" <ms at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Md7ek.52$2A5.32 at (no spam) fe127.usenetserver.com...
Good question.

I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called,
they said I could come in right away, for him to see me.

Whereas, if I went to my family doctor, he is farther away (very
significant that day--as my eyes were so bad, I could hardly open them,
probably unsafe to drive at all, but I had no one to drive me, so at
least this drive was close), and it probably would have been more
difficult to get an appointment.

The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts
now. I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.

It certainly would have cost me less, to go to my general practitioner,
as it would have been covered by my medical insurance, with a $10 co-pay.
Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my
contact lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office
that my vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I
had to pay $65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.

Not sure if going to an ophthalmologist would be covered by my medical
insurance, or if they only take vision insurance as well. Anyone know? In
any case, as my Blue Cross med insurance is mostly HMO (with some minor
PPO benefits as well), I would probably need a referral from the GP to go
to an opthal covered by med insurance. All that takes time. So, for the
benefit of time (able to go in right away), and nearness to my house
(although I'm sure there are opthals just as near or nearer), it was
convenient to go to the optometrist.

That said, one does wonder if an ophthalmologist would be better-trained
in dealing with something like an eye infection, than an optometrist, and
whether it could have been covered by insurance that way.



"douglas" <Protoman2050 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33a77731-9cee-489b-9b90-b44bcff267be at (no spam) b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?

Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.

Optometry schools aren't "supposed" to teach microbiology and
pharmacology?

And why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist.

Just to carry on this discussion a little farther, I have another
question. (And it is purely a question, out of curiosity, I am not making
any assumptions.) (I am not arguing at all here, just asking.)

I doubt you would say that the training, and areas of practice specialty,
of an optometrist and an ophthalmologist, are exactly the same. (If they
were, there would be no need for two different types of eye doctors.

It is clear to me, that your opinion is that in the case of an eye
infection, as I have, that an optometrist is just as well-trained in
treating it, as an ophthalmologist is. You may well be right about that,
and in fact, that is exactly what I did.

However, is there any eye condition that, if it occurred to you
personally, might cause you to see an ophthalmologist for a consultation,
rather than an optometrist?

So again, not making any kind of argument, but just asking---what do you
consider to be the differences between the two types of eye doctors, and
for what kind of condition would you choose one rather than the other?

glasses and contact lenses for them. I don't know if either of his
speculations have any validity--but just pointing out to you, that it was
not one-sided.

I am curious, however, about your statement about insurance. Are you
saying that medical insurance, such as Blue Cross, will normally cover
medical care provided by optometrists?

I'll look into that in my medical plan. If that is the case, however,
wouldn't it have made sense for the ODs office staff to ask what medical
insurance I had, or at least to suggest that it might be covered by my
medical insurance, rather than just saying "not covered by insurance"
(meaning the vision insurance)? (They had never asked for info about my
medical insurance.)

I doubt you would say that the training, and areas of practice specialty,
of an optometrist and an ophthalmologist, are exactly the same. (If they
were, there would be no need for two different types of eye doctors.

It is clear to me, that your opinion is that in the case of an eye
infection, as I have, that an optometrist is just as well-trained in
treating it, as an ophthalmologist is. You may well be right about that,
and in fact, that is exactly what I did.

However, is there any eye condition that, if it occurred to you
personally, might cause you to see an ophthalmologist for a consultation,
rather than an optometrist?

So again, not making any kind of argument, but just asking---what do you
consider to be the differences between the two types of eye doctors, and
for what kind of condition would you choose one rather than the other?

So you're saying you should have to wait a week because optometrists aren't
"supposed to" do what they're trained to do? Optometry schools aren't
"supposed" to teach microbiology and pharmacology?

Who does fillings better, a family dentist or an oral surgeon?

Most physicians would love to opt out of the plans. In my area,
finding a dermatologist on our health plan is almost impossible as
most of them are busy doing cosmetic treatments not covered by
insurance. Cosmetic dentistry is another area.

I think most people, including doctors, would agree, that the current US
health insurance system is pretty messed up, and needs some serious
reform. So the question is--what type of reform?