Not the only opticians out there!

So in answer to OP, "No, advertising helps pay for the site"
And as far as eye testing is concerned, Specsavers is no different from any other High Street Optometrists in offering us a choice of eye testing facilities.
I can't honestly see what the problem is.

There are several types of training involved in eye care and vision. The hospital ophthalmologists deal with the serious problems, but all optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners are trained to recognise them while conducting routine tests. Specsavers are one chain, but there are others with qualified staff, plus independents.

Surely we don't want hospital departments clogged up with routine examinations, any more than we want an A&E visit for every splinter or graze? What we do need is for the service to be cost effective - do we have figures to show that it is money wasted to do it one way or the other? And are we creating a monopoly?

No I am sure I would have received the same good treatment anywhere,it just happens I go there anyway.

I think any optician these days will spot a health issue that can be seen through a modern day eye examination. Doesn't have to be Specsavers for that TBH.

Specsavers diagnosed my Wet AMD and referred me to a consultant from whom I am receiving treatment. No complaints here. Referral was swift and competent. I had always thought or opticians as a part of the NHS in the same way as Dentists. They treat patients on benefits and get reimbursed by the relevant authority.

If Specsavers are taking some pressure off the NHS what is the problem? It has already been said that detected serious issues are referred for further investigation - bit of a "Harbinger of Doom" attitude IMO.

They do pay tax. It's defining their "share" that is the difficult bit.
Tax laws are written by politicians. Who allow them to be open to interpretation. Accountants interpret, companies do what law allows.
Don't like it, fine - change your politicians, cos they're the ones who fucked it up. Don't vote in some bloke who's been an MP for 30yrs.

That is quoted from @fleetstreetfox

It's our politicians' fault if companies don't pay enough tax. Blame them (all colours), not the companies.

Thanks, jingl.

dj

The whole point is that money is being taken out of the NHS and given to Specsavers to do these tests. It's the same pot of money whether it's NHS or Specsavers. The difference is that Specsavers does not pay the right tax, and it can claim back VAT, thereby undercutting the NHS.

Where did I say I expect to get everything on the NHS?
I have to go to a hospital opthalmologist next week because of something picked up in the eye I can see out of. If it's nothing serious, I will need yet another pair of glasses, costing £500+ because of the problems caused by getting an arrow in my eye on my fifth birthday. I need different lenses but am not considered different enough to get any subsidy.
I have also been deaf in one ear since I was eleven. I go to ENT at the hospital, or I have until now, to check my ear drum graft.
Again, if Specsavers get the NHS money for this, they will not pay the right taxes, and save VAT, undercutting the NHS on price. CCGs have to take the contract with the smallest price.

On another point, this is a waste of money.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-cancels-open-meeting-7-6533123

It's also a waste of time that could have been spent in hospitals instead of going to a meeting arranged by Jeremy Hunt.

I still wouldn't trust 'em.

According to queenMab99's post of 17.45 hearing tests and aids from Specsavers are free if you're referred by your GP. Makes more sense than wasting NHS resources, especially if you live miles from a hospital.

Caps lock on?

Initial testing is very important. Hearing aids are costly. And I wouldn't trust Specsavers to encourage someone to have one unnecessarily just to get a sale.

Quite. Which seems to be what's happening - no need to shout!

I am a massive fan of the NHS and am seriously concerned about privatisation. And yet, for some things, like eye and audiology testing- with the current huge shortage on medical staff- specialists must be used for specialist and complicated cases, and not wasted on simple and basic testing. Makes sense, financially too. To save the NHS, UN-NECESSARY COSTS MUST BE GOT RID.

So that's all right then. What was all the fuss about?

Just Googled Audioloy tests and found the NHS direct site info.

Looks like you can do a basic test on line or even on the phone. Or for a longer test, you have 3 routes, your GP, the audiology dept at your hospital or a private audiologist (NOT just Specsavers). For us in the UK, much much easier to get it down at an optician or GP rather than travel all the way to the main town to go to the hospital.

www.nhs.uk/Livewell/hearing-problems/Pages/getting-your-hearing-tested.aspx

They haven't taken over ENT here (MK) unless you choose them. DH got his first hearing aid from the ENT department of MKH, and we both use a local independent optometrists, a family business run by a good friend and her brother among other partners. So all that Specsavers advertising has gone straight over my head.
However if they help to foot the bill for the site, good luck to them.

However, it is wrong if the only business given a chance to do the testing is just Specsavers- totally! Any business who can show they have the qualified staff and equipment to do ti properly should be given a chance- not just one business. That needs to be examined asap- how that privileged link came about- dodgy.

An opthtalmologist extremely long training and experience is wasted on the basic testing- and only need to be seen if there are complications found by opticians. Same for hearing tests- at a time of teal doctor shortages.

In France and here, children under 15 are systemically seen by a peadiatrician- even for a boil or cold- what a nonsensical waste.

I don't like the way Specsavers seems to have been given first dibs at the hearing test market. I wouldn't go to them. The last time I had an eye test with them I had to go back four or five times before they got my prescription back.

I think I know where Hilda is coming from. But of course, it all comes down to money. Gransnet is a business and has to make a profit. As ga says, just enjoy the threads.

but then we could say the same about eye tests, no? There will always be a need for audiology and ophtalmology departments for special difficult case to be referred to- surely? In this case, I must say I agree that opticians, but NOT just chains- can serve a real purpose in leaving specialists for difficult cases and cutting down costs DJ.

Here in Switzerland, opticians do NOT test for field vision or glaucoma, do not examine the fundus (back of the eye) properly- so in rural areas visits to an ophtalmologist in a hospital a long way away is necessary and so inconvenient- and dangerous too. My mum became blind because she didn't go as it was far too far and inconvenient. Had she been tested at the local opticians, she would not have become blind.

Why do you expect the NHS to provide everything durhamjen? (oops, daft question given your political leanings)
The Significant Other with be making a 58 mile journey for an appointment with an opthalmist, the fee for the examination will be met by a 'mutuelle', the rest by the state. We will then take the subsequent prescription to a private optician and pay up and look cheerful for the lenses. This is how the health service works in almost every other western country. You find your own insurance company as soon as you are in paid employment. The state will look after you if you are in financial straits but until then you are responsible for your own health provision. The NHS is doomed unless a UK government adopts a similar principle. But while the Labour party has such dinosaurs (no names, no pack-drill) within its ranks nothing will change. Things have changed in the Uk beyond recognition since 1947 and the welfare system has failed to adjust to them..

I got hearing aids from Specsavers, free on the NHS, I was referred by my GP, she gave me the choice of the local hospital, (parking charges no convenient bus, long wait) or Specsavers in town centre (near a bus stop, free bus pass) I chose Specsavers, in three days I recieved a letter asking me to book an appointment on line, appointment was in two days, walked out of the shop with two hearing aids and a supply of batteries, which I can replace free of charge whenever needed plus follow up appointments when needed. I am very happy with the service. the NHS still treats serious eye problems such as cataracts and MD even though opticians prescribe glasses, so I don't see why they will close down ENT departments because of this.

But why should I have to go to Specsavers first to then be directed to a hospital consultant? It's putting an extra step in the process and costing more to the NHS.
Have you read the link about private companies being able to undercut the NHS because they can reclaim VAT?