Contact Lens Rule
Commenter response to the Commission’s proposal in the SNPRM was varied. Some commenters applauded the proposed amendments as improvements to the prior signedacknowledgment proposal, and as a balanced response to competing interests of consumers, sellers, and prescribers.66
66 R Street Institute (SNPRM Comment #15) (“The Commission’s proposal is both reasonable and not overly burdensome.”); Grimm (SNPRM Comment #36) (“There is no doubt that the modified Contact Lens Rule should be embraced by prescribers, sellers, and consumers as an improvement to consumer products trade rules.”); Americans for Tax Reform (SNPRM Comment #72) (“These changes strike the correct balance between promoting the free market and protecting important consumer rights.”); Lens.com (SNPRM Comment #85) (“We believe you have struck the correct balance . . . .”); Coalition for Contact Lens Consumer Choice (SNPRM Comment #89) (“What the FTC is proposing is a common sense, minimallyburdensome rule that optometrists, ophthalmologists, and consumers alike can and should support.”); Taxpayers Protection Alliance (SNPRM Comment #118) (“Although we are often critical of government overreach and work hard to make government smaller, we believe that the FTC’s proposed Contact Lens Rule is a government rule that works for taxpayers and consumers and creates an open transparent contact lens market in the US where taxpayers have real choice and there is real competition in the marketplace.”); Attorneys General of 27 States (SNPRM Comment #139) (“We believe the proposed modifications in the SNPRM are reasonable modifications that balance the interests of consumers, eye care professionals, and the eye care industry.”).
…
Some thought patients might prefer a paper copy instead of an electronic copy of their prescription, including people who are older, reluctant to use technology or worried about online privacy or identity theft, unable to navigate a cumbersome portal, without internet or smartphone access, or not proficient in English.193
193 R Street (SNPRM Comment #15); Americans for Tax Reform (SNPRM Comment #72); Coalition for Contact Lens Consumer Choice (SNPRM Comment #89); American Optometric Association (SNPRM Comment #96); National Hispanic Medical Association (SNPRM Comment #146); National Taxpayers Union (SNPRM Comment #149).
…
…or (3) prescribers might intentionally make portals difficult to use, post prescriptions without telling their patients, or confuse patients into thinking that they must buy lenses from them.198
198 R Street (SNPRM Comment #15); Lens.com (SNPRM Comment #85); Coalition for Contact Lens Consumer Choice (SNPRM Comment #89); Consumer Action (SNPRM Comment #101); Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (SNPRM Comment #103); 1-800 CONTACTS (SNPRM Comment #135); National Hispanic Medical Association (SNPRM Comment #146); Senator Mike Lee (SNPRM Comment #159).
…
They urged the Commission to require that prescribers notify patients when a prescription is available on the portal, provide instructions on how to access the portal, or confirm that the prescription has been received.199
199 R Street (SNPRM Comment #15); Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (SNPRM Comment #103); Consumer Reports (SNPRM Comment #133); 1-800 CONTACTS (SNPRM Comment #135); Senator Mike Lee (SNPRM Comment #159).
…
…patients who do not consent might not realize that they received their prescription electronically, or might be unable to access it.212
212 R Street (SNPRM Comment #15); Coalition for Contact Lens Consumer Choice (SNPRM Comment #89); Consumer Action (SNPRM Comment #101); National Hispanic Medical Association (SNPRM Comment #146); National Taxpayers Union (SNPRM Comment #149).
