Is That Legal?

Point well taken, but I'm not sure about the example. Do eyeglass prescriptions work like drug prescriptions? That is, I can't say I dropped my sleeping pills in the parking lot and buy more with the same prescription, but I'm not sure that's true of eyeglasses. I've used one prescription to buy two pair (e.g., sunglasses and regular). As for Oklahoma in 1955, no idea.

Back in law school, I was convinced that Williamson illustrated most that Douglas just didn't give a damn about anyone's right to earn a living. He protected only stuff HE cared about.

Now I have come to a somewhat more sophisticated way of articulating it: "rent seeking." The best illustration of how this stuff would work in teh real world is still "Atlas Shrugged."

OK, you've had your libertarian crank make his appearance for today. Carry on.

This is some truly idiotic legislation, but I didn't think it could be unconstitutional.

A number of counties in N.C. don't even even have an optemetrist, and many parents can ill afford spending $100 for an exam that is not needed -- routine free screenings can determine who needs a full exam.

Hopefully the measure will be repealed in May when the legislature is back in session, but a number of parents will have already had their children tested by then, and they won't be happy.

Kevin is right; the example is wrong. While I've never lived in Oklahoma, in every state where I have lived, prescriptions were required by identical-sounding laws, but the prescriptions were re-usable -- essentially they have unlimited refills. The purpose of the Rx is not to restrict quantity but to force regular eye exams. These exams have real health benefits, so the legislatures requiring them are not obviously wrong.

The key moral/economic issue, here, then, is not whether the law absurdly requires people with broken glasses to get new prescriptions, but whether the law unfairly forces poor people with bad eyesight to choose between going completely without glasses or paying high prices for comprehensive eye health exams. It is similar to the economic issues involved in state minimum standards for health insurance coverage.

Re: eye exams, when I was in elementary school we had to spend a day or two waiting our turn for mandatory eye chart and hearing tests. Why can't NC do the exams more cheaply in school?

Eyeglass prescription forms have a space for a "not valid after" date. I'm not sure if it's legal for the opticion to fill or refill the precription if the date is left blank by the prescribing optometrist or opthalmologist. But all of mine have always had the date filled in, generally with a date either 1 or 2 years after the date the prescription is issued. Until that expiration date of the prescription, any optician(s) can fill or refill the prescription any number of times, for any number of pairs.

I don't know etiher what the rules were in Oklahoma in 1955, but your example may not apply.

Rules differ in other countries, in some of which where you can have an expired prescription filled, or specify that you want the glasses made differently from the prescription. (And it might be cheaper: I had a spare pair made in the Phillipines in 2 hours for US$25, at an expert optometrist with European and American equipment in an upscale mall.)

DK: "when I was in elementary school we had to spend a day or two waiting our turn for mandatory eye chart and hearing tests. Why can't NC do the exams more cheaply in school?"

How about: "because optometrists then wouldn't make any money off of it?"

Did you just get hacked by David Bernstein? :)

I'm afraid that your broken glasses hypothetical is simply a false one. The Court's opinion makes clear that the challenged law "does not require a new examination of the eyes every time the frames are changed or the lenses duplicated. For if the old prescription is on file with the optician, he can go ahead and make the new fitting or duplicate the lenses." 348 U.S. 483, 487. Thus, in your hypothetical, it would not have been illegal for the optician to replace the broken lenses, so long as he or the customer still had the original prescription.

Fair enough; I made that up on the fly. The point is that there are lots of absurd scenarios one can imagine in which prescriptions are required but no reasonable health-based reason is in sight (so to speak).

An even more egregious example is the licensing of florists in Louisiana. A flower seller needs a license to arrange flowers. According to the Institute for Law and Justice, (http://www.ij.org/publications/liberty/2004/13_1_04_a.html)
there is a test with a significant failure rate. If that can pass a "rational basis" test, anything can.

Bryan,
There's a similar situation here in New York, where hair braiders are subject to the same testing and licensing requirements as hairdressers. It makes sense that hairdressers, who often work with potentially dangerous chemicals, should be licensed, but even the most incompetent braider can't really do much harm.

(Note: this may have changed by now. It was in the news few years ago, and I don't really keep up-to-date on the legal aspects of braiding.)

ditto with DK....

Well, the two cases are obviously different. There is no conceivably public health benefit from the law in Williamson. But the new law that you mention would have the health benefit of discovering eye problems early. This is important, as I found out with a relative of mine not too long ago. Some kids have a weak eye -- amblyopia, I think it's called. If you catch it early and make the kid wear special glasses or a patch, the eye can be forced to start working. If you leave the condition untreated (which can happen if you simply don't know about it), the kid could end up permanently blind in that eye.

So yes, the law in question would benefit optometrists, but it would also benefit those children whose eye conditions would otherwise go unnoticed.

eanAs i have reviewed some comments here- i find it crazy that some think that the doctors want this - only for the increased eye exams- I am in he field - and a Ct state LO and understand that many folks feel that " oh my eye site has not changed and there is no reason for another exan even though its been 5 years since my last one- I hear this almost daily - however you will not believe things that we see come up all the time from these folks- from tumors seen thru the dilations - to increased occular pressures- to bleeds- see the pateint does not always know best - as for the $ some may think these ODs will get - you say to have a 100 dollar exam for nothing - well - the eyecare insurance works just as your health insureance does- yes the retail cost of a exam may be 100 but the negotiated rate thru insurance maybe half- if not 25 % of that - so i would not want some to do some crazy calulations thinking these doctors are going to be hitting the lottlo on this - lastly - as for the rx's - here in ct there are 2 differant issues- yes the doctor had the right to expire the rx as he sees fit - and we are unable to fill it after that date- however - you are right when you say the quanity is not limitted - but on the other hand - some biunesses do use the work around this to much - and if they decided that making the sale is more important then their pts health - they can always duplicate the rx- and for paperwork purposes - sell the pair under this standard - however i find it very troubling that they either know the rx is old and expired and use this work around for a sale - lastly - bit off subject but not to far- the new contact lens fairness act and mail order contacts - continues to have issues with this quanity per rx issue - these mail order vendors usually know that cl rx is good for 1 yr- (( a 1 yr supply of lenses that is ) but they still try to sneak in orders a few days prior to the expiration dates for another entire year of lenses - although some pts might have been wearing contacts for many years - you will be amazed what 2 mnths of damge can do with a lens not fitting properly any longer - never mind another 12 mnths of wearing a lens that is not correct -but i have seen more and more - buiness thinking about the al mightly sale - then what they know is right and wrong - and i feel these vendors should be held accountable to the laws-
just my thoughts -- sean form milford ct

Rx's are good for a certain number of years, depending on the patient's eye condition, Dr's preferance, and individual state law. You can use it as many times as you want until it expires.
ALSO, the dispencing opticians are required to keep files for a certain number of years, so they would have a valid rx with dr's signature ON FILE. That example is ridiculous.
When I see a new patient, I wont fill an rx, just by neutralizing their current glasses, I want to see that they have a valid rx, then I'll fill it like crazy till it expires.
:D
I guess I completely agree with Sean.... And I can't stand when people over fill their cl rx! At one of my jobs I'd keep track of how many boxes I've sold and wouldn't sell them any more. But my new job says that if their money is green, sell them 500 boxes if they want em. I hate it. not to mention the automated 800contacts thing that calls us all the time.grrr
-Liz

today, i had an eye exmination which i have once a year,and my eye exmination went well.however,the doctor wanted me to buy a new pair of glasses,which i rejected almost right away.more to the point, i felt like being at a used car dealership.the doctor tried nickel and diming me to death, with little charges here and there. i left the office shaking my head in disgust.need to say, i wont be returning to see him next year. walmarts is the place for me for my next eye exmination.

I believe the lobby was very strong in Oklahoma for the Optometrists in 1955,finding Lee optical guilty of duplicating an Lens without an Rx.
Wonder if a study has been done where a patient could take a pair of eyeglasses prescribed by an OD
taken and duplicated lets (say) 10 times from Different American Board Certified Opticians.
and have the same person see (say) 10 different ODs and see the RX differences in the end.....LOL
I would put my money on the Opticians being more accurate than even 2 OD's, What is it with Dr. Error anyway.... (ooopps made a mistake here) like those word ever come out. It's more like---UM these arn't really made right I mean there not perfect but have them remade to this prescription instead when they re-make them. Even One OD is to many in some cases.
Hey if a patient sees 20/30 and J3 why does an Rx need to be change 8 steps (2 Diopters) to let the patient see 20/30 J3. Hello....