 
|
|||||||||||||
              
|
Lawsuit alleges eye doctors, industry conspire to horde contact-lens customers
Friday, January 26, 2001 By Patricia Sabatini, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Do you shy away from using contact lenses because they cost too much? Or buy them anyway, but feel like you're getting ripped off? You're right. You are paying too much, according to a multistate lawsuit set to go to trial in March.
The suit, brought by attorneys general in Pennsylvania and 23 other states in late 1996, claims major contact lens makers, eye care associations and prominent optometrists conspired to stifle competition by restricting sales of contacts from mail order companies, pharmacies, buying clubs or other less expensive alternatives to eye doctors.
If it weren't for their actions, contact lenses would be more widely available and cost significantly less, the suit contends.
In addition to pressuring lens makers to limit sales to outside sources, the suit claims, a group of leading optometrists and various industry associations coached eye-care practitioners nationwide to refuse to give patients copies of their contact lens prescriptions needed to buy lenses elsewhere.
"We say it is a two-pronged approach," said Jim Donahue, Pennsylvania's chief deputy attorney general in charge of the antitrust section.
The defendants tried to "keep lenses out of pharmacies [and other retail outlets] so people are less inclined to ask for their prescriptions, and if they do, we allege ... a core group of optometrists circulated plans or practice guides to optometrists nationally saying if someone asks for their prescription, this is how to dissuade them."
The tactics cost consumers up to an estimated $600 million between the late 1980s and late 1996, when the complaint was filed, Donahue said. More states have since joined the suit, bringing the number of states involved to 32.
An attorney for the American Optometrics Association (AOA) in St. Louis, a leading defendant in the case, denied the charges.
All parties "deny there was any conspiracy between them to stop the sale of lenses to mail order houses," said Ed Groobert, an attorney with Dykema Gosset in Washington, D.C.
"Manufacturers set their own sales policies," he said.
"You may have a situation where some individuals may have written to manufacturers and urged them to do certain things. The question is, 'Was there a conspiracy?' The parties uniformly deny there was."
Groobert also denied charges concerning the release of contact lens prescriptions.
"Did the AOA engage in some form of conspiracy or collaborative effort to stop the release of prescriptions? The AOA says adamantly, 'No.' The AOA doesn't have a policy opposing prescription release. It hasn't tried to identify or punish those that do."
Although the Federal Trade Commission requires eye doctors to give patients eyeglass prescriptions so they can price-shop for glasses, the regulation doesn't cover contacts.
And while roughly 25 states have their own laws mandating the release of contact prescriptions, in Pennsylvania, the decision is up to the eye care practitioner.
Some doctors say they don't release prescriptions because of health concerns, such as wanting to ensure a proper fit.
But Pennsylvania's Donahue said the primary motive is profits.
Selling contacts "is a big money maker for them. They don't want the competition from these other outlets."
Not surprisingly, an executive at a leading discount lens mail order firm agreed.
"There are risks with wearing contacts, but they have nothing to do with where you purchase them," said Kevin McCallum, vice president of marketing with 1-800-Contacts. Eye doctors "try to hide behind those risks," he said.
"So many people tell us, 'My doctor won't give me my prescription.' Even in states where it's mandatory to release it."
Eye doctors are the only medical practitioners able to sell products they prescribe, he noted. "It's a conflict of interest."
One local optometrist, David Rosenbloom of the Vision Center, Downtown, said he will release contact lens prescriptions, but only if patients buy their first pair, or at least a three months' supply of disposable lenses, from him.
"We have to make sure the eye is healthy and the lenses aren't causing any damage to the eye," he said.
His prescriptions are good for one year. After that, patients must return for another exam.
The states' lawsuit is seeking to recover unspecified damages and to force lens makers to end restrictive sales practices, Donahue said. Lens discounters such as 1-800-Contacts currently get their supplies of major brands from distributors or other middlemen, ultimately raising the price for consumers, he said.
The suit also seeks to end other alleged anticompetitive practices, such as promoting ways to restrict prescriptions.
But even if the states prevail in their suit, it won't force eye doctors in Pennsylvania or other states without laws mandating the release of contact lens prescriptions to actually release the prescriptions.
Still, attorneys probably will try to get associations to back an "ethical rule" endorsing the practice, Donahue said. Moreover, states have filed comments with the FTC asking that the regulation requiring the release of eyeglass prescriptions be extended to contacts, contending that doing so would benefit consumer health by making it cheaper and easier to replace contacts more frequently. The FTC is reviewing the matter.
In 1997, the states settled with one of the original defendants, lens maker Ciba Vision Corp. The company admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to offer rebates on future lens purchases and to begin selling to mail order companies and other mass merchandisers.
McCallum said that since Ciba began supplying 1-800-Contacts directly, prices have fallen an average of 20 percent.
|
||||||||||||
