Not the only opticians out there!

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

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.

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.

I still wouldn't trust 'em.

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.

dj

Thanks, jingl.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

My sister works in a large audiology department in a hospital (clerical). She tells me that there are a lot of old people who believe that the hearing aids they are given (for free) are actually free. Astonishingly they have a lot of "patients" who go through over 5 hearing aids a year and one or two who lose them almost every other week. On average they cost £70-100 at time and that is just for the actual aid itself and doesnt take into account audiology time/moulding etc.

At present they are not allowed to charge for losses but I can't help but wonder if you had to pay for something if you lost it, you might actually take more care of it. I appreciate that there will always be genuine cases but this is just one hospital.

On a totally separate note, does anyone know if there is a charitry who takes used spectacles? I have about 8 pairs (belonging to my late grandma) all in very good condition. Thanks.

Gilly Most opticians will take old specs and pass them on to somewhere they can be used - Specsavers do.

That's interesting Gillybob, at our hospital ENT/Audiology department there are big posters all over the waiting area saying that the charge for a replacement damaged or lost hearing aid is £75.
Is this MKH being enterprising or have things changed. Perhaps patients on e.g benefits, pension credit etc are exempt?
I know I was quick off the mark when DH's hearing aid which was removed when he had his MRI scan after his stroke "disappeared" as the department did not send it back with him to the ward. They returned it with sincere apologies!

Another thought, nothing we receive on the NHS of course is free, we have all paid N.I.throughout our working lives.

I must admit, that although I am pleased to recieve free hearing aids, I would have been happy to pay something as we do for glasses and dental treatment, my glasses are more of a necessity to me than hearing aids, and yet cost me over £300, even with the cheapest frames as I have to have thinned down lenses not just for the way they look, but the weight of the jam jar bottom type lenses is intolerable. It seems logical to me to treat hearing aid providers in the same way as dentists and opticians.

If Specsavers to not pay taxes as they should, like Starbucks, Amazon and co- then it is totally out of order- and I do hope this tax evasion for big corps will soon be dealt with. A totally different issue though.

"Specsavers is based in Guernsey and pays corporation tax there, but profits made in the UK are taxed in the UK. "We have long conversations with tax authorities. They have to come and see that we are actually working in Guernsey and not just a plate on the door. But we have a massive office there, are the biggest employer. I think we worked out last year that we paid several hundred million in tax to the UK Treasury. I think they were a bit surprised about that."

Mary Perkins, www.theguardian.com/business/2009/oct/01/specsavers-mary-perkins-opticians

Also:-
" . . . operating joint ventures with the opticians . . . . . based in their own shops and own half the business. The optician keeps the profits from the store and Specsavers takes a management fee for marketing, shop fittings, auditing, training, and other support"

gj, and others, you are failing to understand the salient point: Specsavers, Starbucks, etc are paying tax as they should, i.e. what the law says they must pay. It is tax law that is at fault for not making them pay more than they do and that is not the fault of anyone but our politicians.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/10/01/will-osborne-go-for-the-tax-gap/

Unfortunately, this government says one thing and does another on tax.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/10/01/osbornes-crack-down-on-non-doms-is-a-sham/

The salient point, bags, is that every time a private company takes a contract with the NHS, money leaves the NHS in the form of profit for that company, instead of being recycled within the NHS.
We also lose VAT as a private company is allowed to claim it back,but the NHS is not.