I mean to be a complainer, sometimes. I was struck by how blatantly LensCrafters® is abusing clients. They provide an essential service but set conditions on their customers that are not going to offer treatment to more people in need. The wealthy need not worry, but the rest of us may find that we will not get the care we need.
I wrote a letter to the Luxottica® corporation with a copy to the local store. I do appreciate that vision care is available, but in order to “secure a more perfect” healthcare system, I have offered some suggestions.
Here is the letter. You may want to write your own to the healthcare corporations you use.
The role of corporations in healthcare has been impactful. Many services would not be widely available without them. The reward of profits has encouraged their development and expansion. Their mission to yield profit has been accomplished to an abusive level in our current economic environment.
Your store has kept me and my wife in glasses for several years. We have taken advantage of the optician and optometrist being in a single location. Your courteous service to adjust frames and answer questions has been appreciated.
There is a built-in conflict with your corporate structure. The offering of an essential service to consumers and the legal obligation to maximize profit are in conflict. The profit necessity comes from the 1919 Supreme Court of Michigan decision in Dodge Motor versus Henry Ford. Henry Ford wanted to increase the wages of his workers so they could afford to buy a car. Dodge Motor challenged that because it would mean they would have to compete for labor by increasing their wage expense which would reduce their profit.
The law requires that you pay the lowest wage, use the cheapest materials, and limit durability. Incorporation diminishes the value of the service.
Examples of abuse of the consumer that make your service inaccessible and of limited use-value are:
- Prescriptions over 12 months old will not be processed. Many people have had no appreciable change in their prescription for years. Consumers can be reminded that eyes change over time and take the risk themselves to use an old prescription. If you are so noble as to insist on annual exams and with a prescription over one year old, you can apply the cost of an eye exam toward a new purchase when there is no significant change in correction. That would put the delivery of your service as the most valued part of your mission.
- Your requirement that lenses will only be done in pairs is not rational though profitable if the consumer can afford it. If a single lens is damaged, it can be replaced by the lab, as a matter of fact. (The terms of a warranty or no warranty do not affect the lens itself.)
- The Federal Trade Commission may be interested in investigating your discount policy. One of your employees of several years admitted to me that they have never sold any lenses or frames at full price. There is always a discount. This is a misrepresentation that will suck in purchasers.
