O.D. to O.D.

IT’S OUR JOB AND OUR OBLIGATION

EVERYONE WITH “O.D.” AFTER HIS OR HER NAME SHARES ONE COMMON TRAIT

Scot Morris
O.D., F.A.A.O.
Chief Optometric Editor

IT SEEMS odd that I would receive the exact same question twice in one week — once in an email and once at a speaking engagement. But what was even odder was the question itself: “How do I get my associate O.D. to treat more medical?” This isn’t the first time I have heard this question. What I really wanted to say to both O.D.s — and will now — is: “Does your associate really have a choice?”

YOU ALREADY DO IT

Philosophically, every optometrist treats medical conditions. The four “most common” diagnoses we see everyday are medical: Myopia, astigmatism, presbyopia and hyperopia are all abnormal refractive states and, thus, they are diseases. They also all have ICD-10 classifications as diseases.

It just so happens that we treat these conditions with a visual solution (i.e. prescription), such as contact lenses and eyewear. The rest of the diseases we regularly encounter in practice are also deviations from normal, regardless of their actual ICD-10 classification.

Similarly, we write prescriptions as a form of treatment. It may be a pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, environmental change or even something OTC. See a disease, treat a disease. Pretty simple, right?

IT’S ALL MEDICAL

Somewhere along the way, this “medical eye care is different from vision care” concept got us off track. IT IS ALL MEDICAL EYE CARE. Sure, there may be some well care when a consumer just wants “to be checked” or has a pre-paid managed care benefit. Let us be clear though, unless he or she is an emmetrope with perfectly white eyes, perfectly intact retinas, no crystalline lens changes, no binocular vision issues and no other systemic medical conditions, the consumer has a disease. He or she represents the large majority of people who sit in our chairs.

If associates, or any O.D. for that matter, are not treating disease then they are not “seeing” it or have chosen not to treat it. The first is a lack of education or failure to ask the right questions because there is plenty of disease out there. We know that ocular surface disease alone affects 20% to 40% of one’s patient base. The choosing “not to treat” is just flat out wrong and unethical. If that statement bothers you, then I am talking to you. It is time to change your practice patterns.

A PROFESSIONAL FAILURE

If the associate does not treat disease, does he/she understand that the failure to do so could lead to:

• the consumer going somewhere else (bad for the business)

• significant loss of revenue that the business doesn’t even know it is losing (bad for business)

• in rare instances, legal issues (bad for everyone)

Ultimately, the single biggest implication of failure to treat disease in our chairs is that it is bad for both the consumer and the profession. After all, all of us with “O.D.” after our names share one common trait: We are doctors. Treating our patients is our job and our responsibility. It is just that simple! OM