CRSQA Surgeon advertising GUARANTEES and $295 lasik per eye?
sqrrlbird
In this Sunday's paper, I noticed that one of the "$295*" an eye lasik
advertisers now shows a CRSQA certified seal and they are offering
GUARANTEES for wavefront! Do you check to make sure your surgeons are
not involved in questionable advertising practices?
One of the two surgeons at this clinic holds a new CRSQA certification
as of July 19, 2003. They regularly run ads, but this is the first
week that I noticed the CRSQA seal.
http://www.usaeyes.org/surgeons/michael_mockovak.htm
In the Sunday Oregonian's Comic section (11/02/03) there is a full
page color advertisement (1/2 page front and back) for King & Mockovak
Lasik Center. I wrote these phrases in the same order that they
appear in the ad.
(The caps are in the ad this way, large print)
"ANNOUNCING WAVEFRONT GUIDED LASIK! This breakthrough technology
allows us to GUARANTEE YOU 20/20 vision or your money back!"
(large print, [small print])
"Lasik [from] $295* [per eye limited time offer]"
(tiny print)
"Prices vary according to Rx and astigmatism. Call for details.
Prices subject to change without notice."
(small print)
"We also have conventional laser technology that allows us to offer
LASIK from $295. If you think you will receive a better price
elsewhere for conventional lasik, bring in a competitor's ad."
(tiny print)
"*All inclusive price includes pre-procedure examination, laser vision
correction, post-procedure care. Pre-operative screening exams are
free of charge. Deposit of $125 at pre-operative evaluation is
applied to procedure fee. VISA, M/C, cash, or money orders accepted.
Limited time offer. Nidek laser only."
I hope CRSQA looks into this. It doesn't give the certification much
value if surgeons are using this kind of advertising while displaying
the CRSQA seal.
-sb
Ragnar Suomi
I didn't see the ad for the $295 LASIK, but if it's true, that doctor
should have his CRSQA certification revoked for deceptive bait and
switch marketing practices. Also... lo and behold.. this center you
have referenced has acquired the services of the infamous "doctor" who
has lost his license once already, got it back, then got fired.. and
is now at the King&Mockovak Center. These people brag that they are
the "most experienced" LASIK surgeons. When you cut corners including
not doing your own followups and having no ethics, you can do two
dozen patients a day and get over 50,000 LASIK procedures done.
Note that like SE, the resumes of those doctors on that website
conveniently leave out the truth. No where in the one doctor's resume
does it mention that he ever worked at Tampa LVI where he caused what
just might be the most complications inflicted on a group of patients
in one day. He should be in the Guiness Book.
I think it would be an excellent test of how credible the CRSQA seal
is in dealing with that doctor. I suspect that his certification is
as good as gone.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
thing - and it is not - but the assumptions that can arise may be
problematic.
CRSQA's evaluation and certification is based upon patient outcomes,
not advertising taste or business techniques. Only if a CRSQA
Certified Refractive Surgeon makes false statements or uses illegal
business tactics would there be a legitimate reason for review. It
appears to me that the claims made are, in fact, accurate.
Being accurate does not make them appropriate, but appropriate is a
matter of opinion and perspective. CRSQA's certification is not based
upon opinion or perspective, but upon represented fact.
My personal opinion and perspective is that a "guarantee" of any kind
is a potentially problematic method to promote any medical procedure.
A money back if not 20/20 guarantee is only a contract that a
financial response will arise if particular evaluation criteria are
not met, however such money-back guarantees imply a guarantee that the
patient will be satisfied. As I've said many times, one cannot
guarantee a particular outcome - and this doctor does not guarantee
that a particular outcome will occur, but this doctor makes a contract
to provide a monetary response if Snellen 20/20 is not achieved. It
may seem like semantics, but it is the crux of the matter and the crux
of the potential problem.
Heavy discount pricing on a limited range of patients is an issue that
I personally find problematic for many, many reasons. The obvious is
the appearance of "bait and switch", even if actual bait and switch
does not exist. Another is the productization of a medical procedure.
If price becomes the issue, then the more important issues such as
quality of care and patient expectations can become less important. I
am delighted, however, that some people in the Pacific Northwest are
able to receive refractive surgery at such a low cost from a doctor
who has been independently evaluated.
This doctor meets or exceeds our organization's patient outcome
requirements and has received our certification. Those outcome
requirements are clearly stated for anyone to see. Although this
particular doctor may utilize business methods that I personally
believe are problematic, the quality of the surgery provided is
affirmed. If people want surgery from a doctor who has been
independently evaluated, with the possibility of a low price, and a
contractual obligation for remuneration if particular criteria are not
met, then they know whom to consider.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.USAeyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
I am not a doctor.
Ragnar Suomi
four locations and it implies that all of them are CRSQA certified.
Only 1 of the 3 is.
That chain has 3 surgeons. There are chains that employ dozens of
surgeons. Imagine that a hypothetical chain such as "LasikMart"
employed 25 surgeons - one of them had a CRSQA certification - and
they stuck the CRSQA seal on the website along with the pictures of
the 25 surgeons. No where on the website does it mention that the
CRSQA certification covers only one of those surgeons. The rest of
them might be the worst surgeons in the world.
There was a local surgeon making blatant lies in his yellow pages ads
for years. Only after 2 years of repeated complaints did ABES force
the man to knock it off. He was not at all pleased about that.
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:00:53 GMT, Glenn Hagele - Council for
Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
sqrrlbird
I have to admit that I am a little surprised that buisiness ethics
don't play a role in the CRSQA certification process. You are right
though, nothing in the 50 questions asks anything about misleading
advertising, bait and switch, or the implications of promissing money
back guarantees.
While it is true that a surgeon can be the most qualified technically,
if I felt that (s)he was a crook, I don't think I would want to give
the clinic my credit card or social security number. When I think of
quality, I think of more than what takes place in the surgical suite.
I am willing to accept that you are focussing the CRSQA as solely a
quality stamp of approval for the surgical suite, but I would hope
that you would consider adding advertising and buisiness ethical
questions to the 50 questions you already have. It's a fact that when
your seal appears on a misleading ad, it trivializes your
organization.
-sb
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance <glenn.hage...@USAeyes.org> wrote in message news:<9dvcqvsuf7er368br...@4ax.com>...
Ragnar Suomi
do what they please unless it is tied in with the misuse of the CRSQA
seal.
I think you will find that Glenn takes care of the problem real fast.
He doesn't compromise his integrity even if it costs him money. That
is the complete opposite approach that SE has. SE is a whore-like
enterprise that will stop at nothing to get "donations". I think even
the loonies there realize that SE was created to get donations from
people in distress - sort of like in the movie Paper Moon with Tatam
and Ryan O'Neal where they sell fancy bibles to grieving widows.
One thing that is amusing about that $295 deal and the guarantees is
that one of the conditions of the $295 deal is that you sign off on
all the guarantees! The guarantees only apply to the much higher
priced operations.
Sites that portray the highest volume of surgeries as being a reason
to go there bother me. I would never knowingly go to a place that
operates on a high volume basis.
Ragnar Suomi
one of them is using his credentials to cover his 2 cohorts.
One of those 2 cohorts is a proven menace in the operating room.
The other is one of the doctors listed at SE. I am not Joeking but he
is.
It looks like of the 3 doctors, each one is pulling one incredible
stunt. One with marketing, another with high volume cut rate tactics,
and the third is going the advertising on the whore site of SE.
Here's a new thought. Assuming a doctor wanted cheap and easy
advertising, they might decide that SE is the place for them. What I
don't understand is why CRSQA surgeons would risk their credibility
and dirty their reputations by allowing themselves to be listed along
with those other nuts. One analogy to that could be Michael Jackson,
donating tons of money to charities and childrens organizations and
the Make a Wish foundation. He more than destroys all of the good he
does by luring boys into bed and molesting them. Why a surgeon would
crawl into the SE bed is beyond me.
One could excuse a doctor who didn't know any better from joining the
SE team. SE's agenda and methods have been well established now, so
there is no excuse for new doctors to sign up there. The voluminous
archives there are a trove of crap. Whatever useful information that
may have been there at one time has been purged, leaving nothing but
the pure essence of crap.
Here's a fundamental flaw of SE. The SE site is clearly anti-RS.
They don't think anybody should have RS. Yet the surgeons of SE all
perform refractive surgery. An institution founded on complete
hypocrisy is some institution indeed.
BTW.. nice surprise coming in 5 days. Everyone is likely to approve
of it.
Rebecca
> Normally, one would not think a low price and a guarantee is a bad
> thing
Sure, when you're buying widgets.
I got a nice low price and a guarantee with the little microwave I
bought to heat eye compresses in my office. I'm happy with it, and if
ever I'm not, I'll take it back to the shop where I bought it.
We're talking EYE SURGERY here and advertising tactics that promote it
like a commodity. That is a subtle but highly effective way of making
people pay less, not more, attention to understanding the "product"
and the associated risks.
Steve
[snip]
>It's a fact that when your seal appears on a misleading ad, it trivializes your
>organization.
[snip]
No, that's an opinion--your opinion.
The Surgical Eyes Foundation Board of Trustees
The Surgical Eyes Foundation was founded by and for people with
negative outcomes following refractive surgery. Our goal is the
rehabilitation and management of the visual and physiologic
complications of our primary constituents.
Visitors to our web site are welcome to participate in our moderated
bulletin board provided they observe the terms of use and respect
other members of the Surgical Eyes community.
The views and opinions expressed here on alt.LASIK-eyes do not
represent the Surgical Eyes Foundation or its board of trustees.
The Surgical Eyes Foundation Board of Trustees
www.surgicaleyes.org
The Surgical Eyes Foundation Board of Trustees
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
posting, but you ignored it as well.
As I stated, I find advertising price problematic, primarily because
it focuses the decision making process on price, not on quality. I
have stated many times - and it is on our website - that a potential
patient must first focus on the quality of the surgeon. If the best
available surgeon happens to also be the cheapest, then good for that
patient. Nobody wants to pay more than necessary for anything.
Equally, a high price does not necessarily indicate a high quality
surgeon. With both high price and low price, the issue should always
be about the quality of the surgeon.
In this particular instance, the low price surgeon is also a surgeon
who has been independently evaluated and the quality of his outcomes
has been affirmed to meet our requirements, such requirements are
clearly stated on our website
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/expectations.htm).
The argument that medicine is not a product or a business was put to
bed in the US in 1977 with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona. Medicine is
a business and has the same rights and responsibilities as any other
business, including marketing techniques that you and I might find
distasteful - even problematic - but are totally legal.
The ad discussed is not illegal, does not promote any illegal acts,
and I have subsequently learned was submitted to the FTC for prior
approval. This issue is not legality; it is taste. It is reasonable
to expect someone who had a poor refractive surgery outcome to find
aggressive discount advertising of refractive surgery to be
distasteful. It is also reasonable to expect that someone seeking
refractive surgery from an evaluated surgeon will find the information
in this ad delightful.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Hi Glenn,
>
>I have to admit that I am a little surprised that buisiness ethics
>don't play a role in the CRSQA certification process.
Your implication is disingenuous, at best, but I respone to the issue
of ethical values later.
>You are right
>though, nothing in the 50 questions asks anything about misleading
>advertising, bait and switch, or the implications of promissing money
>back guarantees.
Actually, the 50 Tough Questions DO cover illegal advertising and
illegal bait and switch. Normally, conviction of such offences
automatically elicits a review of the doctor's medical license. Our
question regarding this issue would bring up any these illegal events.
On a more direct note, the question regarding history of felony
conviction would also play a role.
It is important to note that the advertising to which you originally
referred is not illegal, nor is it bait and switch.
>While it is true that a surgeon can be the most qualified technically,
>if I felt that (s)he was a crook, I don't think I would want to give
>the clinic my credit card or social security number. When I think of
>quality, I think of more than what takes place in the surgical suite.
If the doctor were a crook, certification would not be appropriate.
>I am willing to accept that you are focussing the CRSQA as solely a
>quality stamp of approval for the surgical suite, but I would hope
>that you would consider adding advertising and buisiness ethical
>questions to the 50 questions you already have. It's a fact that when
>your seal appears on a misleading ad, it trivializes your
>organization.
We do, in fact, consider such issues. An illegal act would
undoubtedly cause certification to be reviewed, not issued, and/or
revoked. What you are implying is that the advertisement referenced
is illegal, or that an illegal act has occurred. That is not the
case.
When it comes to ethics, well that is quite a different situation.
Ethics are the morals, values, and principles of an individual. CRSQA
is not the morality police. These are not issues of illegality, but
are of taste and perception. Is it ethical to advertise low prices?
Some people will say yes, some people will say no. I may personally
find it troubling, but it is not illegal. Is it ethical to advertise
money back if Snellen 20/20 is not achieved? Some think this is a
great way to show confidence in the doctor's success rates. Others
find it an affront to the issue of quality of vision. It is not
illegal.
Since you have stated clearly and repeatedly that you don't think
refractive surgery should be allowed, it is not surprising that you
would similarly attack anything and everything that either promotes
refractive surgery or legitimizes refractive surgery. It seems clear
to me that you really have no concern if these doctors are actually
doing something illegal. You are just using what many may consider
tasteless in an effort to forward your anti-LASIK agenda. I'm sure
the anti refractive surgery/surgeon/industry folks will cheer you on,
but reasonable people will see through the charade.
sqrrlbird
that is misleading and I see a seal on the add claiming that the
clinic is "quality certified," I find it highly suspect. It makes me
wonder if CRSQA is aware of the usage of their seal, and if they are
aware, did they give permission for such usage?
It brings up the question of whether CRSQA sets up standards for the
use of their logo in the advertising of refractive surgery. If they
don't, then their seal could be used in misleading ways. It could be
used to make a clinic appear certified, not just a surgeon. It could
be used to offer legitamacy to otherwise seedy advertisements. If
CRSQA allows this to happen, then their seal will lose any value it
has.
Again, this is just my opinion.
-sb
Steve <stop...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<t32fqv007rfeeq354...@4ax.com>...
sqrrlbird
I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not anti-lasik
and I do not think it should be outlawed. I am 2.5 months post-op and
very happy with my results. I did get 20/20 out of the gate with
wavefront, with no guarantee. I found CRSQA to be among the sights
that were very helpful in my pre-op search for information. I even
used a CRSQA surgeon.
It is because I care that I raised this red flag. I assumed
(incorrectly) that CRSQA would have a problem being used in
advertising such as the ad I described. I figured that you didn't
know. Had I seen ads like this prior to my surgery, I would have
disregarded CRSQA as a credible organization.
Perhaps advertisements like this haven't been brought to your
attention before in the context of the usage of the CRSQA seal. Maybe
this is an oportunity to examine standards an ad must meet in order to
use the seal? I could make suggestions:
1) No guarantees
2) No advertised prices contigent on Rx.
3) No advertised prices based on the laser used (Nidek only seems to
be a current favorite).
Further responses are below:
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance <glenn.hage...@USAeyes.org> wrote in message news:<iplfqvkp29oiehft9...@4ax.com>...
> >Hi Glenn,
> >
> >I have to admit that I am a little surprised that buisiness ethics
> >don't play a role in the CRSQA certification process.
>
> Your implication is disingenuous, at best, but I respone to the issue
> of ethical values later.
>
> >You are right
> >though, nothing in the 50 questions asks anything about misleading
> >advertising, bait and switch, or the implications of promissing money
> >back guarantees.
>
> Actually, the 50 Tough Questions DO cover illegal advertising and
> illegal bait and switch. Normally, conviction of such offences
> automatically elicits a review of the doctor's medical license. Our
> question regarding this issue would bring up any these illegal events.
> On a more direct note, the question regarding history of felony
> conviction would also play a role.
Advertising can be unethical and not illegal. If you are granting
quality certifications, I would expect the standard to be a rung above
what is simply legal. Maybe this isn't realistic. Perhaps this is
simply a matter of the CRSQA quality seal appearing on the ad.
CRSQA retains the legal ownership of the logo, right? Can't you add
some standards to how your logo is used? If a surgeon/clinic chooses
to offer guarantees then maybe they shouldn't be able to use the seal
on the ad.
> It is important to note that the advertising to which you originally
> referred is not illegal, nor is it bait and switch.
>
> >While it is true that a surgeon can be the most qualified technically,
> >if I felt that (s)he was a crook, I don't think I would want to give
> >the clinic my credit card or social security number. When I think of
> >quality, I think of more than what takes place in the surgical suite.
>
> If the doctor were a crook, certification would not be appropriate.
Crook was a poor choice of words, but I think con artist may apply :).
Seriously though, I would not give my personal information to an
organization that practices deceptive advertising. It may not be
illegal, but it approaches the line of what is ethical.
> >I am willing to accept that you are focussing the CRSQA as solely a
> >quality stamp of approval for the surgical suite, but I would hope
> >that you would consider adding advertising and buisiness ethical
> >questions to the 50 questions you already have. It's a fact that when
> >your seal appears on a misleading ad, it trivializes your
> >organization.
>
> We do, in fact, consider such issues. An illegal act would
> undoubtedly cause certification to be reviewed, not issued, and/or
> revoked. What you are implying is that the advertisement referenced
> is illegal, or that an illegal act has occurred. That is not the
> case.
An illegal act should bring up questions. I was just hoping for a bit
more for a quality certification.
> When it comes to ethics, well that is quite a different situation.
> Ethics are the morals, values, and principles of an individual. CRSQA
> is not the morality police. These are not issues of illegality, but
> are of taste and perception. Is it ethical to advertise low prices?
> Some people will say yes, some people will say no. I may personally
> find it troubling, but it is not illegal. Is it ethical to advertise
> money back if Snellen 20/20 is not achieved? Some think this is a
> great way to show confidence in the doctor's success rates. Others
> find it an affront to the issue of quality of vision. It is not
> illegal.
This is where CRSQA could chose to limit the use of it's seal. If ads
are in poor taste, they don't use the seal. If they are tasteful,
they use the seal. They shouldn't have the benefit of a quality seal
if the ad is in any way deceptive.
Another question I have is how an ad that advertises two surgeons can
use the seal without specifying who is certified? If there is one
surgeon, it is unambiguous. If there are two or more, the implication
is that all are certified.
> Since you have stated clearly and repeatedly that you don't think
> refractive surgery should be allowed, it is not surprising that you
> would similarly attack anything and everything that either promotes
> refractive surgery or legitimizes refractive surgery. It seems clear
> to me that you really have no concern if these doctors are actually
> doing something illegal. You are just using what many may consider
> tasteless in an effort to forward your anti-LASIK agenda. I'm sure
> the anti refractive surgery/surgeon/industry folks will cheer you on,
> but reasonable people will see through the charade.
Glenn, you have me confused with someone else. I am not anti-lasik,
and despite posting on this forum, I don't think I am a nut. I have
never attacked refractive surgery, nor do I have a problem with lasik
ads in general. I do have a problem with deceptive lasik ads, and I
have a problem with an ill used quality seal.
I understand why you are a bit defensive, I probably would be too if I
felt I needed to respond to every anti-lasik fruitcake that finds this
group. Rest assured that I am simply a concerned citizen who read an
ad that I felt wasn't worthy of the CRSQA seal.
-sb
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Your right, it is my opinion. It's a fact that when *I* see an add
>that is misleading
The ad is not misleading. Exactly what is stated is offered and this
has been affirmed by the FTC. The concern is what individuals may
infer by the advertisement, not what is actually said.
>and I see a seal on the add claiming that the
>clinic is "quality certified," I find it highly suspect.
That is bovine fertilizer and you know it. You don't like CRSQA, have
been critical for a long time, and are making an issue out of nothing
in order to forward your own agenda. There is nothing suspect.
>It makes me
>wonder if CRSQA is aware of the usage of their seal, and if they are
>aware, did they give permission for such usage?
It is appropriate for any current CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon
to acknowledge that fact with statements and/or the use of our seal in
any legal advertising form or medium. The ad to which you refer is
legal, even if you don't like it.
>It brings up the question of whether CRSQA sets up standards for the
>use of their logo in the advertising of refractive surgery. If they
>don't, then their seal could be used in misleading ways.
If you find an instance where our seal is being used in a misleading
way, let me know. We own the rights to the use of the seal and will
respond appropriately.
>It could be
>used to make a clinic appear certified, not just a surgeon. It could
>be used to offer legitamacy to otherwise seedy advertisements.
"Seedy" is a matter of opinion. Legality and fact are a different
issue altogether. There are certainly instances where CRSQA Certified
Refractive Surgeons may use marketing techniques which I personally
find "seedy", but if the ads are legal (and in this case the FTC has
given the okay) then they certainly have the right to state they are
CRSQA certified.
> If
>CRSQA allows this to happen, then their seal will lose any value it
>has.
The value of our organization's certification is based upon the
process by which the doctor is evaluated. We do not certify
advertisements. We don't certify taste. We certify doctors.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Glenn,
>
>I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not anti-lasik
>and I do not think it should be outlawed. I am 2.5 months post-op and
>very happy with my results. I did get 20/20 out of the gate with
>wavefront, with no guarantee. I found CRSQA to be among the sights
>that were very helpful in my pre-op search for information. I even
>used a CRSQA surgeon.
Then I apologize for my previous comments in this and other threads.
Obviously, my opinion was inaccurate.
>It is because I care that I raised this red flag. I assumed
>(incorrectly) that CRSQA would have a problem being used in
>advertising such as the ad I described. I figured that you didn't
>know. Had I seen ads like this prior to my surgery, I would have
>disregarded CRSQA as a credible organization.
Of course you can disregard any evaluation system for any reason, but
CRSQA does not certify that advertisements are tasteful. We certify
that the doctor has a particular quality of patient outcomes.
If you don't want to use the services of a doctor whose ads you
personally find tasteless, that is certainly your option. It does not
mean, however, that the outcomes are any different because the doctor
uses aggressive marketing techniques.
>Perhaps advertisements like this haven't been brought to your
>attention before in the context of the usage of the CRSQA seal. Maybe
>this is an oportunity to examine standards an ad must meet in order to
>use the seal? I could make suggestions:
>
>1) No guarantees
>2) No advertised prices contigent on Rx.
>3) No advertised prices based on the laser used (Nidek only seems to
>be a current favorite).
This would be imposing a restriction on legal advertising. This is,
in essence, legislating taste. CRSQA is not the advertising police -
the FTC and state laws take care of that - but we do encourage what
you suggest. More on that later in this post.
I would not say that Nidek is the "current favorite" for advertising.
It is advertised as the laser used for the low price surgery because
they do not charge a per-usage fee. Mentioning the Nidek laser is
necessary as a part of stating the limitations of the offer.
>Advertising can be unethical and not illegal. If you are granting
>quality certifications, I would expect the standard to be a rung above
>what is simply legal. Maybe this isn't realistic. Perhaps this is
>simply a matter of the CRSQA quality seal appearing on the ad.
CRSQA evaluates patient outcomes, not advertisements. The use of our
seal is not stating that we approve of a particular marketing method,
only that the doctor has met our patient outcomes requirements.
>CRSQA retains the legal ownership of the logo, right? Can't you add
>some standards to how your logo is used? If a surgeon/clinic chooses
>to offer guarantees then maybe they shouldn't be able to use the seal
>on the ad.
We do not certify that a doctor's ads are ethical. We certify a
doctor's patient outcomes. We do encourage doctors to meet the
ethical guidelines of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) and
the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS). In
fact, we encourage it with cash.
We have grant funds available that will pay for a portion of a CRSQA
Certified Refractive Surgeon's advertising, but as a condition of
receipt of those funds the doctor must meet the AAO and ASCRS
guidelines. We really cannot dictate that a doctor be tasteful, but
we can provide an incentive.
>> If the doctor were a crook, certification would not be appropriate.
>
>Crook was a poor choice of words, but I think con artist may apply :).
> Seriously though, I would not give my personal information to an
>organization that practices deceptive advertising. It may not be
>illegal, but it approaches the line of what is ethical.
Deceptive advertising is illegal. This ad is not.
There are many individuals who would never step foot in the office of
a doctor who advertises in any manner. Others are flocking to this
particular ad. It is a matter of individual taste, perception, and
values. We try to influence the patient's choice toward a surgeon
with evaluated outcomes. The rest is up to the individual.
>> We do, in fact, consider such issues. An illegal act would
>> undoubtedly cause certification to be reviewed, not issued, and/or
>> revoked. What you are implying is that the advertisement referenced
>> is illegal, or that an illegal act has occurred. That is not the
>> case.
>
>An illegal act should bring up questions. I was just hoping for a bit
>more for a quality certification.
I bit more than what? We evaluate what we say we will evaluate, and
that is the quality of the patient outcomes. We don't evaluate if the
doctor is Republican or Democrat or Green. We don't evaluate if the
doctor drives American. Our certification is what it is and is,
nothing less and nothing more.
>
>This is where CRSQA could chose to limit the use of it's seal. If ads
>are in poor taste, they don't use the seal. If they are tasteful,
>they use the seal. They shouldn't have the benefit of a quality seal
>if the ad is in any way deceptive.
Good heavens! I do not want to be the one who is deciding on what is
tasteful or not! Considering my wife's opinion of my choice of
clothes, I don't think I would qualify for the job. 8^)
Seriously, we cannot possibly attempt to determine what is tasteful
for a country of 260 million.
>
>Another question I have is how an ad that advertises two surgeons can
>use the seal without specifying who is certified? If there is one
>surgeon, it is unambiguous. If there are two or more, the implication
>is that all are certified.
We have responded to this issue with the doctor and have been assured
that clarification will be made. A patient can decide if s/he wants
only the certified surgeon in the practice or any surgeon in the
practice, but the patient needs to know who is which.
>Glenn, you have me confused with someone else. I am not anti-lasik,
>and despite posting on this forum, I don't think I am a nut. I have
>never attacked refractive surgery, nor do I have a problem with lasik
>ads in general. I do have a problem with deceptive lasik ads, and I
>have a problem with an ill used quality seal.
>
>I understand why you are a bit defensive, I probably would be too if I
>felt I needed to respond to every anti-lasik fruitcake that finds this
>group. Rest assured that I am simply a concerned citizen who read an
>ad that I felt wasn't worthy of the CRSQA seal.
I repeat my apology above.
I guess the real question here is if as a patient you want a doctor
whose outcomes have been independently evaluated, or you want an
unevaluated doctor whose ads you find tasteful. As much as I dislike
distasteful ads and cringe at some of them, I still think the
evaluated doc is probably the more appropriate choice - but that is my
opinion.
sqrrlbird
I understand your position, and I agree that it is rational. My
reaction to ads for medical procedures that closely resemble ads
spawned by the local auto malls hit me more in the gut than in my
brain. I suppose that if people are going to buy cars, they are going
to buy lasik, and any other mass advertised product. It's
unfortunate, but we do live in a world of buyer beware. I suppose I
can find a little comfort in knowing that at least one of the Sunday
"$295" surgeons isn't the bottom of the barrel :).
Advertising by its nature is designed to reach certain audiences, and
these Sunday comic ads must not be designed to reach people like me...
I've noticed that the only place I see the lasik price war ads is in
the comics. I'm sure that's no mistake. Perhaps they are looking to
reach those that only read the funnys for their lasik research,
afterall us informed patients are a pain in the neck ;). (Just
kidding)
-sb
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance <glenn.hage...@USAeyes.org> wrote in message news:<tc7iqv4nv0ifu2t87...@4ax.com>...
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Hi Glenn,
>
>I understand your position, and I agree that it is rational. My
>reaction to ads for medical procedures that closely resemble ads
>spawned by the local auto malls hit me more in the gut than in my
>brain. I suppose that if people are going to buy cars, they are going
>to buy lasik, and any other mass advertised product. It's
>unfortunate, but we do live in a world of buyer beware. I suppose I
>can find a little comfort in knowing that at least one of the Sunday
>"$295" surgeons isn't the bottom of the barrel :).
>
>Advertising by its nature is designed to reach certain audiences, and
>these Sunday comic ads must not be designed to reach people like me...
> I've noticed that the only place I see the lasik price war ads is in
>the comics. I'm sure that's no mistake. Perhaps they are looking to
>reach those that only read the funnys for their lasik research,
>afterall us informed patients are a pain in the neck ;). (Just
>kidding)
>
>-sb
Something that may be of interest is that a couple of years ago we did
a detailed analysis of exactly who was getting refractive surgery. At
that time, the vast majority were people who were in groups that were
not normally price responsive. At that same time, the big discount
LASIK chains were all over the place and were going out of business
left and right.
Today, these ads are bringing in people by the thousands. The
perception of refractive surgery has changed in the last two years.
It is becoming perceived as a commodity just as so many Toyotas and
Fords. So now we have the chicken and the egg question. Do ads like
this commodify LASIK, or do people who consider LASIK a commodity
respond to ads like this?
BTW, it was the egg that came first. Finally proven through the logic
of genetics.
lasik advocate with flap melt
people in so they can be injured catastrophically for life (1 in 200
or so?)?
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance <glenn.hage...@USAeyes.org> wrote in message news:<pgskqvke8pbm7v6pk...@4ax.com>...