[171333]
On 4/99 rptr was diagnosed with a uv sensitive eye condition. Prescription, which clearly calls fo uv protection, was filled at optical dept. After wearing the glasses for 6 months, the eye condition seemed worse so rptr had the uv protection checked to find that it was only 70%, not the legal standard of 95%. Neither store nor vista eye care, the lab that makes the lenses for store, appear interested in the problem. While trying to settle the matter, rptr had the prescription filled at another store, requesting documentation as to the degree of uv protection. When the glasses were sent back to the lab the servies the second store for documentation, rptr was told that the protection was 60%, that it was corrected, and that no documentation was provided since "when you ask for it, you get it. " this was clearly not the case. Rptr states that this industry appears to suffer from a significant lack of quality control, a lack that can have severe consequences to the public. According to rptr the potential for injury to the eye as a result of uv irradiation has been known for a long time. In rptrs case, these dangers are augmentated by a degenerative eye condition that is aggravated by uv light. Many other conditions including cataracts and retinal dystrophies also enhance risk of visual loss from uv exposure. Unfortunately, there are no obvious means of identifying the presence of required/requested uv protection. According to rptr most individuals assume that they did receive what they had requested. Both service a large number of individuals in the us. Rptr hopes that something can be done to protect these individuals from situations such as theirs.
Patient Sequence No: 1, Text Type: D, B5