To qualify you need only make an appointment to visit Sterling's Contact Lens Department with two or more of your friends. You and your group will each be given a complete contact lens examination and all of your questions will be thoroughly answered. This is available with no cost or obligation. Should two or more members in your group decide to order Contact Lenses, the student reduction will be in effect. To make arrangements for your Contact Lens examination, simply telephone and convenient appointments will be made for you. Yours truly, DENNISON MANUFACTURING CO., Washington, D.C., May 9, 1967. Mr. HORACE WHITE, Executive Director, Optometric Association of Virginia and District of Columbia, DEAR MR. WHITE: In October, 1966, my 11-year old daughter was examined by Dr. Michael L. Cohen of 3509 South Jefferson Street, Leesburg Pike Plaza, Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia, and found to be suffering from astigmatism. Dr. Cohen prescribed and made corrective glasses for her. These glasses were very satisfactory and resulted in correction to normal vision. In January, 1967, she broke the frames to these glasses. With the false belief that I could save money by having the lenses reset in frames by a discount optical company, I took her to Sterling Optical Company, Inc., 520 Tenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., where they fitted her with new frames in which they placed her old lenses. Shortly thereafter she complained that her glasses were no longer improving her vision. Thinking that perhaps she was suffering from a deterioration of her optical condition, I returned to Dr. Cohen and found that Sterling Optical had merely reset the lenses without regard to the prescription. I am enclosing a copy of Dr. Cohen's letter describing his findings. I feel fortunate that this occurred with my oldest daughter rather than with my youngest who would not have been able to communicate on recognizing the optical discomfort. You can be assured of my support in your attempts to obtain greater regulations on optical companies of this type. Sincerely yours, MYLES S. FISCHER. BAILEY'S CROSSROADS, VA., April 28, 1967. Mr. MILES FISCHER, 611 North Pegram Street, Alexandria, Va. DEAR MR. FISCHER: The discomfort and strain that Jenny has been suffering as of late, can be directly blamed on the improper optics of her correction, resulting from a frame replacement. The discrepancies were due to astigmatic power being placed 19° off in the right eye and 15° off in the left. Jennies original ophthalmic measurement was 42/20, the replacement measured 42/19 decreasing the bridge size and displacing the optical center as prescribed. It is my feeling that the lenses were placed in the first available frame without thought as to size or original prescription. Sadly enough there are many people who can commiserate with you, due to this type of optical establishment. Sincerely, AMERICAN OPTOMETRIC ASSOCIATION, MICHAEL L. COHEN, O.D. FAIRFAX, VA., June 1, 1967. GENTLEMEN: I need help! Two years ago, I received a pair of lenses from Vent-Air Contact Lenses Specialists. Unfortunately, I was unable to wear the lenses without a lot of discomfort and was never able to obtain wearing time of any length of time. I just recently discovered the reason. I visited an optometrist who was astonished to discover the irregularity and defectiveness of the lenses which were prepared for me by Vent-Air. He sent them to another laboratory for their opinion, which is enclosed. I am very disturbed to realize that Vent-Air would allow me to walk out of their office with such irregular lenses, which could have adversely affected my eyes. I wrote to Vent-Air on 9 April and again on 5 May and requested a refund so that I could purchase a pair of lenses by a competent doctor. But, Vent-Air has avoided me and has refused to answer my letters. I am not only concerned about my immediate problem of getting a new pair of properly fitted lenses, but also the fact that other people are being fitted by this doctor and they may not be as fortunate as I have been-they may lose their sight. What can be done? Sincerely, JOAN MADISON. CAPITOL CONTACT LENSES, INC., DEAR DR. NELSON: The lenses you sent in to be adjusted for Mrs. Madison are in such poor shape mechanically that no further modification could remedy their poor fit. There are extensive lathe marks through the entire inside surface of both lenses and these cannot be eliminated. The peripheral levels on the OD lenses are deeply gouged and are completely irregular. We are sorry that we cannot repair them, and for the benefit of the patient are recommending a complete refit. DEAR MR. WHITE: As per our telephone conversation of this afternoon, I am forwarding a copy of my letter to Vent Air Contact Lens Specialists. I regret that our most pleasant conversation was in regard to such an unpleasant subject. For your information, I have made an appointment for July 12 with Dr. Marvin Berlin as you suggested. Thank you and please feel free to contact me at any time for further information. Very sincerely, Mrs. ROBERT BORKENHAGEN. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, VENT AIR CONTACT LENS SPECIALISTS, Colorado Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention, Mr. Pierce.) GENTLEMEN: The gross inefficiency and rudeness of everyone I encountered associated with Vent Air shall not go unremember or unreported. Not only did I find your advertisements misrepresentational, but I feel that your actions have reflected an immensely unprofessional attitude toward prospective patients and toward your work. The following are a few examples upon which I shall be glad to elaborate at length: (1) Telephone information I received was incorrect in that I was specifically informed that I would have new lenses by the end of June. I gave the telephone receptionist pertinent background information and assumed, because she was employed, that her information would be correct. (2) I was repeatedly addressed as "Connie," a familiar term reserved only for my friends, rather than my correct business and legal name, "Mrs. Borkenhagen." (3) For undisclosed reasons I was not accepted as a patient at Vent Air despite my patience with the rudeness encountered and despite my attempts to be cooperative. (4) I found the strong preoccupation with immediate payment distasteful despite faultless credit references. I wondered at the time if that was not the major objective of the business, rather than adequate fitting of lenses. (5) The telephone receptionist stated that I could not have received incorrect information because my husband made the appointment. I can understand her unwillingness to accept responsibility for a mistake, but that she must. I personally made the appointment; I am fully responsible for all my activities; and my husband's attendance at school precludes his making any appointments. I am grossly insulted. I have never been treated discourteously to such a degree for most individuals respond to courtesy when it is extended. Your firm shall be slandered at every opportunity. Mrs. ROBERT BORKENHAGEN. [From the Herald-Journal, Apr. 10, 1967] (An editorial, permission of the New York Post, Copyright 1967, New York Post Corporation) "A MATTER OF VISION" "In the blind rush to pass legislation on a wholesale basis, the New York State Assembly and Senate slipped through a bill on optical services that would hit more than half a million New Yorkers right between the eyes. This bill would inhibit "third party" practice in furnishing eyeglasses to those who presently can get this service on a high-quality low-cost basis. The bill is pure special interest legislation, an exact replica of the onetime efforts of the AMA to block "third party" medicine in America. It would not improve the quality of optical service, since at the present time all such care is handled in "third party" practice by licensed optometrists. It would merely favor the private practitioner who can monopolize the practice at exorbitant rates and without quality supervision. What is most scandalous is that this important measure was allowed to slide through without hearing, without debate, without any chance to be exposed to public view or review. In all good conscience, Gov. Rockefeller must veto this bill not only for its danger to the consumer but also because of the sly, secret way it was whisked past the eyes of the public." We urge you to protect your own interests. Please write to Gov. Rockefeller and urge him not to approve the legislation which would amend the law in the practice of Optometry [From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 1964] DEXTER OPTICAL. EYE CLINIC FOR D.C. POOR OPENED BY OPTOMETRISTS The previously unpublicized operation of an eye clinic for the poor here was announced yesterday by District and nearby Maryland and Virginia optometrists. Called the Optometric Center of the National Capital, Inc., the clinic at 421 4th st. nw., began accepting patients on Aug. 1, after months of planning, fund raising and gathering of equipment. Jack H. Mericle. president of the nonprofit center, said the clinic offers eye examinations, needed prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses and other alleviation of vision problems and conducts basic research in non-medical eye problems. The center is the eighth such facility in the Nation. Other are in New York City, Denver, Atlanta, Lansing, Newark, Richmond and Harrisburg. Staffing the local center are 101 volunteer optometrists in private practice in the Greater Washington area. Another 25 military optometry officers also are serving. Most persons examined at the center so far have been beneficiaries under the Manpower Development and Training Act. This is one of the key programs of the War on Poverty which takes unemployed heads of households and retrains them for profitable employment. Mericle said all area health practitioners and recognized agencies may refer patients to the center. He said most of its patients come under the category of medical indigents and receive all services withoute harge. They may or may not pay small admission and prescription fees. The clinic will not accept unreferred patients, but counsel on obtaining necessary referral can be obtained by calling offices of the Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital Area, at DEcatur 2–7330, or the center itself at 628-8053. Dr. BERLIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dr. Marvin Berlin, an optometrist practicing in the District, representing the Optometric Society of the District of Columbia of which I am President. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of revisions in the District of Columbia Optometry licensing law. Accompanying me is Dr. Evart Warren, also a practicing optometrist here in Washington. On my left I have Dr. Robert Corns from Indiana, Legal Administrative Assistant to the AOA Committee, and next to him is Mr. Willian MacCracken, who is counsel for the District of Columbia Optometric Association. This is a summary of my full testimony, and with the permission of the Chairman, I would like to present my full statement for the record. As Immediate Past Secretary, District of Columbia Board of Examiners in Optometry, Dr. Warren agreed to join me should the committee have questions dealing with optometry licensing and any difficulties experienced by the Board in enforcing the practice of optometry in the District. The Optometric Society of the District of Columbia estimates that today there are 67 full-time practicing optometrists here in Washington for a population, according to the 1960 Census, of 763,956. In 1924 when the Optometry Licensing Act became law, 92 optometrists registered under the law-92 optometrists for approximately 437,571 people, the 1920 Census figure. During a 40-year period, there are 27 percent fewer optometrists and 57 percent more people. The primary reason why the nation's capital fails to attract recent optometry school graduates is the poor environment for professional practice. Rather than lower his standards, the young optometrist establishes his practice outside the District of Columbia. It seems to me a sad situation when only two optometrists under the age of 35, the draft age for optometrists, practice optometry in the District today. The outdated optometry law affords little inducement to practice here. This past July, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals upheld a conviction of practicing optometry without a license in a case relating to adaptation and fitting of contact lenses. Attachment No. 1 filed with this statement gives you some indication of popular feeling about this case, in the form of a letter to the editor of the Washington Daily News. In 1964 the Senate's Special Committee on Aging-after investigating frauds and deceptions affecting the elderly--recommended that the Senate District of Columbia Committee examine the adequacy of present District laws on . . ."(a) widespread fixed-price advertising for regular glasses and contact lenses; (b) sale of over-the-counter, nonprescription glasses; (c) possible need for greater authority to the District Commissioners for regulation of the corporate practice of optometry." In relation to these recommendations by the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I refer you to a clipping from the Washington Evening Star of February 1965. This is attachment 1-A. For several years many of us optometrists here in the District saved local newspaper ads offering specials, discount prices and other "bargains" on eyeglasses and examinations in the hope that the Board of Optometry could do something to prohibit them. We finally stopped collecting those ads after being told repeatedly that the present law in no way regulates such practices. At this point I refer you to our attached document No. 3, which illustrates the type of advertising to which I refer. The advertisements in the classified telephone directory "Yellow Pages" are equally unbefitting health care services, and I ask that you note the content of ads shown in our attachment No. 4. Such statements as "Moderate Prices-We keep our costs low by volumeEyes Examined-Prescriptions Filled-Lenses Duplicated-Contact Lenses Children's Eyes Examined-two-hour Service", or "Eyes Examined-Glasses Fitted-Budget Terms Available-Discounts to Government Employees, Union Members, Diplomatic and Military Personnel and Families", confuse and frequently mislead the public. The companies which place such quarter-page directory ads, the largest size sold, sell eyeglasses. Their term "Eyes Examined" pertains only vaguely to the term "Vision Care". The so-called examinations they make are called "quickies" and rarely take more than 15 minutes, sometimes as few as five minutes; a complete professional vision examination requires at least 45 minutes. As to the glasses these "discount" operations sell, there is a strong chance that something will be wrong with them. The prescription may not be filled accurately. For example, in a pair of $7.25 glasses, while one lens may meet prescription specifications, the other lens may be so inaccurate that it fails to give the needed correction. Additionally, the lenses themselves frequently are other than first quality. Cut-rate operations often rely on inferior foreign-made lenses or on rejects and second or third quality American-made lenses which can have various defects which may seriously affect light transmission. Anyone operating as an eyeglass merchant simply cannot devote more than minimal time to fitting the eyeglasses. As stated in one of the "Yellow Pages" ads, "We keep our costs low by volume." And volume depends on heavy traffic and fast turnover. I would like to call your attention at this time to attachment No. 5, which will give you some idea of the quality of materials frequently purchased by eyeglass merchandisers. You will note note that some of these materials are available to the eyeglass peddler at 30 cents a pair, when purchased in lots of 100 pairs. The suppliers of these ophthalmic materials are so sure these factory seconds are defective, they say "Guaranteed usable or replaced"-which obviously means that if the particular pair fitted to a patient's face is so unsatisfactory that the |