Why do optometrists do things an ophthalmologist should do, and vice versa?

Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?

Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.

Good questions, interesting topic.
I think that ophthalmologists can do all the things an optometrist can
do, i.e. refract patients, because theoretically they have more
training than an optometrist plus the additional training needed for
ophthalmology, therefore they are 'qualified' for anything an
optometrist is. In real terms, though, I think you are right about
optometrists being more experienced with refraction and thereby better
specialized and accomplished refractionists. So if you were to compare
the overall refractive ability of an ophthalmologist versus an
optometrist the latter would be higher. Also, I heard that
optometrists can take additional training mid-way through their career
to give them some of the qualifications of an ophthalmologist, so they
have the legal ability to prescribe and medicate patients with
medicine or eye drops and stuff like that for people with eye
pathologies like glaucoma and cataracts.
You may be right about non-specialized people doing the job that in an
ideal world a specialized person should do, but in the profession I
think there is often a lack of 'ideal', for example all the
ophthalmologists might be too busy dealing with other cases so they
have to let the next best qualified person, i.e. an optometrist, do
the job they would have otherwise done.

I meant 'because theoretically they have exactly the same training as
an optometrist'

Good question.

I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called, they
said I could come in right away, for him to see me.

Whereas, if I went to my family doctor, he is farther away (very significant
that day--as my eyes were so bad, I could hardly open them, probably unsafe
to drive at all, but I had no one to drive me, so at least this drive was
close), and it probably would have been more difficult to get an
appointment.

The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts now.
I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.

It certainly would have cost me less, to go to my general practitioner, as
it would have been covered by my medical insurance, with a $10 co-pay.
Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my contact
lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office that my
vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I had to pay
$65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.

Not sure if going to an ophthalmologist would be covered by my medical
insurance, or if they only take vision insurance as well. Anyone know? In
any case, as my Blue Cross med insurance is mostly HMO (with some minor PPO
benefits as well), I would probably need a referral from the GP to go to an
opthal covered by med insurance. All that takes time. So, for the benefit of
time (able to go in right away), and nearness to my house (although I'm sure
there are opthals just as near or nearer), it was convenient to go to the
optometrist.

That said, one does wonder if an ophthalmologist would be better-trained in
dealing with something like an eye infection, than an optometrist, and
whether it could have been covered by insurance that way.



"douglas" <Protoman2050@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:33a77731-9cee-489b-9b90-b44bcff267be@b9g2000prh.googlegroups . com ...
> Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?
>
> Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
> vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
> let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
> convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
> etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
> one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
> why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
> vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
> qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
> have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
> other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.

What's the difference between Zymar prescribed by an OD and Zymar prescribed
by an MD? Your GP would likely have tried to treat it with erythromycin or
tobrex.

Medical insurance should pay for medical care. Optometrists provide medical
care and most of us are on Blue Cross panels. HMOs make their profit by NOT
paying.

So you're saying you should have to wait a week because optometrists aren't
"supposed to" do what they're trained to do? Optometry schools aren't
"supposed" to teach microbiology and pharmacology?

Who does fillings better, a family dentist or an oral surgeon?

-MT



"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:Md7ek.52$2A5.32@fe127.usenetserver . com ...
> Good question.
>
> I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
> ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
> ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called, they
> said I could come in right away, for him to see me.
>
> Whereas, if I went to my family doctor, he is farther away (very
> significant that day--as my eyes were so bad, I could hardly open them,
> probably unsafe to drive at all, but I had no one to drive me, so at least
> this drive was close), and it probably would have been more difficult to
> get an appointment.
>
> The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
> ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
> antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts
> now. I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.
>
> It certainly would have cost me less, to go to my general practitioner, as
> it would have been covered by my medical insurance, with a $10 co-pay.
> Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my
> contact lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office
> that my vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I
> had to pay $65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.
>
> Not sure if going to an ophthalmologist would be covered by my medical
> insurance, or if they only take vision insurance as well. Anyone know? In
> any case, as my Blue Cross med insurance is mostly HMO (with some minor
> PPO benefits as well), I would probably need a referral from the GP to go
> to an opthal covered by med insurance. All that takes time. So, for the
> benefit of time (able to go in right away), and nearness to my house
> (although I'm sure there are opthals just as near or nearer), it was
> convenient to go to the optometrist.
>
> That said, one does wonder if an ophthalmologist would be better-trained
> in dealing with something like an eye infection, than an optometrist, and
> whether it could have been covered by insurance that way.
>
>
>
> "douglas" <Protoman2050@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:33a77731-9cee-489b-9b90-b44bcff267be@b9g2000prh.googlegroups . com ...
>> Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?
>>
>> Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
>> vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
>> let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
>> convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
>> etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
>> one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
>> why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
>> vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
>> qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
>> have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
>> other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.
>
>

Sorry, Dr. Tyner, but I did not say that one should wait a week, or that
"optometrists aren't "supposed to" do what they're trained to do".

I actually didn't say any of the things, that you assume I said. You can
read what I actually wrote farther down this message.

I was just wondering about a couple of questions, responding to what Douglas
had written. I did not make any assumptions. And in fact, as I wrote, I DID
go to my optometrist, and as I wrote, I think it was the right choice for
the situation.

Also, not to defend Douglas, whom I don't know, but notice that his post was
not one-sided, as he also speculated that perhaps optometrists were better
than ophthalmologists in refracting patients, and better in prescribing
glasses and contact lenses for them. I don't know if either of his
speculations have any validity--but just pointing out to you, that it was
not one-sided.

I am curious, however, about your statement about insurance. Are you saying
that medical insurance, such as Blue Cross, will normally cover medical care
provided by optometrists? I'll look into that in my medical plan. If that is
the case, however, wouldn't it have made sense for the ODs office staff to
ask what medical insurance I had, or at least to suggest that it might be
covered by my medical insurance, rather than just saying "not covered by
insurance" (meaning the vision insurance)? (They had never asked for info
about my medical insurance.)


"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring . com > wrote in message
news:N8SdnWg54L-PjuTVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews . com ...
> What's the difference between Zymar prescribed by an OD and Zymar
> prescribed by an MD? Your GP would likely have tried to treat it with
> erythromycin or tobrex.
>
> Medical insurance should pay for medical care. Optometrists provide
> medical care and most of us are on Blue Cross panels. HMOs make their
> profit by NOT paying.
>
> So you're saying you should have to wait a week because optometrists
> aren't "supposed to" do what they're trained to do? Optometry schools
> aren't "supposed" to teach microbiology and pharmacology?
>
> Who does fillings better, a family dentist or an oral surgeon?
>
> -MT
>
>
>
> "MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote in message
> news:Md7ek.52$2A5.32@fe127.usenetserver . com ...
>> Good question.
>>
>> I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
>> ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
>> ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called,
>> they said I could come in right away, for him to see me.
>>
>> Whereas, if I went to my family doctor, he is farther away (very
>> significant that day--as my eyes were so bad, I could hardly open them,
>> probably unsafe to drive at all, but I had no one to drive me, so at
>> least this drive was close), and it probably would have been more
>> difficult to get an appointment.
>>
>> The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
>> ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
>> antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts
>> now. I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.
>>
>> It certainly would have cost me less, to go to my general practitioner,
>> as it would have been covered by my medical insurance, with a $10 co-pay.
>> Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my
>> contact lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office
>> that my vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I
>> had to pay $65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.
>>
>> Not sure if going to an ophthalmologist would be covered by my medical
>> insurance, or if they only take vision insurance as well. Anyone know? In
>> any case, as my Blue Cross med insurance is mostly HMO (with some minor
>> PPO benefits as well), I would probably need a referral from the GP to go
>> to an opthal covered by med insurance. All that takes time. So, for the
>> benefit of time (able to go in right away), and nearness to my house
>> (although I'm sure there are opthals just as near or nearer), it was
>> convenient to go to the optometrist.
>>
>> That said, one does wonder if an ophthalmologist would be better-trained
>> in dealing with something like an eye infection, than an optometrist, and
>> whether it could have been covered by insurance that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> "douglas" <Protoman2050@gmail . com > wrote in message
>> news:33a77731-9cee-489b-9b90-b44bcff267be@b9g2000prh.googlegroups . com ...
>>> Any thoughts on optometrists treating non-refractive eye problems?
>>>
>>> Could any one compare the refraction abilities of an ophthalmologist
>>> vs. those of an optometrist, or are they both equal? And why do they
>>> let optometrists --in the US-- treat things like glaucoma, cataracts,
>>> convergence disorders, accomadation pathologies, conjunctivitides,
>>> etc.? Optometrists should refer their patients to
>>> one who is more qualified to treat them, ie an ophthalmologist. And
>>> why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
>>> vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
>>> qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist. Both types of eye doctors
>>> have their place in the healthcare system...but they shouldn't do each
>>> other's jobs, it's less productive and could lead to misadventures.
>>
>>
>
>

> And why do ophthalmologists refract patients for lenses, or treat low
> vision? They too should refer their patients to one who is more
> qualified to treat them, ie an optometrist.

Because it is profitable, especially if they can get the patient to buy the
glasses or contacts from them.

"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote

> glasses and contact lenses for them. I don't know if either of his
> speculations have any validity--but just pointing out to you, that it was
> not one-sided.

And I confess to being sensitive. :)

> I am curious, however, about your statement about insurance. Are you
> saying that medical insurance, such as Blue Cross, will normally cover
> medical care provided by optometrists?

Yes. Many insurers require that you see only the doctors who are on their
provider list, and some insurance companies make it very hard for
optometrists to become providers, particularly HMOs. In most cases, state
insurance commissions will insist that companies include optometrists'
services. Only ERISA plans can lawfully exclude optometrists. Medicare is
the flagship in this area, and Medicare has covered non-surgical medical
services by qualified optometrists for the last 30-odd years.

> I'll look into that in my medical plan. If that is the case, however,
> wouldn't it have made sense for the ODs office staff to ask what medical
> insurance I had, or at least to suggest that it might be covered by my
> medical insurance, rather than just saying "not covered by insurance"
> (meaning the vision insurance)? (They had never asked for info about my
> medical insurance.)

There would be some reason. Not many years ago, there were no "vision plans"
to speak of, and there are still optometrists who don't participate in _any_
insurance. In most cases you can turn in your bill from that office and your
insurance co will treat it as an "out-of-network" claim, which in the case
of HMOs probably means they ignore it.

The requirements for billing medical insurance are pretty stringent. It is a
game. Insurers habitually shave off charges and "disallow" services and and
create paper mazes (now electronic mazes) that are more work than many
doctors want to fool with, even MDs. Many medical doctors are opting out of
major medical plans like Medicare for just this reason. IF you get all the
i's dotted and t's crossed, they MIGHT pay you 80% of what THEY think your
services are worth. When you get your money (30-60-90 days later), they
sometimes come back a year or two later after deciding "Oops, we paid you in
error. Send us that money back or we'll hold it out of your next check."
Never mind that you've already refunded the money to the patient.

Many optometrists have never signed up with medical insurers, just like many
medical doctors are dropping out of it.

Stay tuned for my next rant - "Oh, so you think HIPAA is about PRIVACY?"

-MT

On Jul 13, 9:05 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring . com > wrote:

> Yes. Many insurers require that you see only the doctors who are on their
> provider list, and some insurance companies make it very hard for
> optometrists to become providers, particularly HMOs. In most cases, state
> insurance commissions will insist that companies include optometrists'
> services. Only ERISA plans can lawfully exclude optometrists. Medicare is
> the flagship in this area, and Medicare has covered non-surgical medical
> services by qualified optometrists for the last 30-odd years.

I just want to emphasize that part of the problem of optometric
service inclusion has been the lack of a national standard of
licensure for optometrists. What optomerists can treat and the drugs
they can use (formulary) varies by state. Curriculums and training
continually evolve with the times, but laws are slow to change.

Most physicians would love to opt out of the plans. In my area,
finding a dermatologist on our health plan is almost impossible as
most of them are busy doing cosmetic treatments not covered by
insurance. Cosmetic dentistry is another area.

"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma . com > wrote in message
news:6e7efe17-848f-452d-891d-b74d2dcf8758@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
On Jul 13, 9:05am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring . com > wrote:

>Most physicians would love to opt out of the plans. In my area,
>finding a dermatologist on our health plan is almost impossible as
>most of them are busy doing cosmetic treatments not covered by
>insurance. Cosmetic dentistry is another area.

Getting OT here, but it would certainly be unfortunate if most physicians
opted out of insurance plans. Medical care is way too expensive for most
people to afford it, without insurance. If most physicians opted out of
insurance, medical care would only be for the wealthy, and many people would
not get necessary health care, as some do not now (who do not have
insurance). With less people getting health care, there would be a rise in
epidemics, etc.

I'm curious--which do physicians find more difficult to deal with--medicare,
or private insurers? (I know this is the wrong forum to be discussing this,
as most ODs tend to deal more with the vision plans, which isn't really what
I'm discussing here. But since we started to discuss the difficulties
physicians have with insurance, I'll carry it a little farther.)

I think most people, including doctors, would agree, that the current US
health insurance system is pretty messed up, and needs some serious reform.
So the question is--what type of reform?

I wonder what people would think of the following? What if, instead of the
plethora of different insurance plans that doctors have to deal with now,
there was (as everywhere else in the developed world), a national insurance
plan, i.e. single-payer? Let's say that that one plan was not anything like
an HMO, but more like a PPO. Or, perhaps, like Medicare, just expanded to
cover all ages?

I'm sure docs would have problems with such a plan as well, as bureaucracies
of all types tend to be--well, bureaucratic! However, wouldn't it be simpler
to deal with only one insurer and plan, that covers everyone, rather than
with the plethora of different insurers, plans, and forms one has to deal
with today? And wouldn't it be nice if there were no more HMOs??

Of course there would still be a role for private health insurers under such
a system, who I'm sure would offer supplemental coverage, as they do with
Medicare, to offer a higher level of coverage above that offered by the
national plan. So, there would still be some dealing with private insurers
as well. But in general, I would think that the paperwork would be simpler
for doctors with a single-payer plan, than the current system, with all its
different kinds of plans, HMOs, etc.

As said, just about all (or I think all) of the rest of the developed world
does have such a system, including Europe, Japan, etc. And one sees that,
once a nation has adopted such a system--no matter what problems they might
have in such a system (of course, nothing created by human beings is
perfect, and especially anything administered by bureaucracy!), and what
reforms are proposed to their system, no country has ever (under
administrations of different political parties) gone back, from a national
single-payer system, to the type we have here in the US. No country has
every abandoned that type of system. Of course problems arise in the system,
they try to improve it, but would never consider in general abandoning the
concept of national health insurance. Even when a conservative party is in
power, no politician would dare propose scrapping a national system, to
replace it with something like ours. So in general, people must like having
such national health systems, even if there are some problems that they wish
to correct, reform, and improve.

Well, I wrote too much, and as I said, it's off-topic for this thread, and
even for the NG. (I guess once I get started on a topic, it's hard to stop!)
Curious to hear other's opinions on this.

"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote in message news:58sek.15935$Oq1.6500@fe95...
> I think most people, including doctors, would agree, that the current US
> health insurance system is pretty messed up, and needs some serious
> reform. So the question is--what type of reform?

I'll just add one more point that comes to mind, regarding my recent post
about what people would think of a single-payer health plan, something that
might actually affect optometrists.

How many of you provide health insurance benefits to your office staff? If
you do, I'm sure you are aware of the skyrocketing cost of health insurance
premiums, increasingly difficult for employers to afford, and especially for
small business, like your offices!

Wouldn't it be nice if the government did the insuring (as with medicare),
and employers were not expected to provide such benefits any more, taking it
off your backs?

In fact, that would be good for American business in general. One reason
that U.S. companies are finding it harder to compete with foreign companies,
is the immense amount that U.S. companies have to pay in health insurance
premiums. For instance, the U.S. auto industry--the fact that they have to
pay so much of their income in health insurance premiums, makes it hard to
compete with European and Japanese companies, who don't have to pay a cent
in health insurance premiums--since that is handled by the government, not
by employers.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be costs involved in a national health care
plan. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, taxes would have to
be higher (as they are in those other countries), to pay for the plan.
However, I think the cost involved in the increased taxes, would be much
lower than what is now being paid in private health insurance premiums, cost
of emergency room care for the uninsured, etc. In general, I think the
overall financial cost to society, would be much less than with the present
system, and it would be a great relief for employers, not to have to deal
with providing health insurance for their employees any more. (As well, of
course as the humanitarian boon that everyone would be covered--employed or
not.)

Something I forgot to mention, in what I wrote below about the cost of
medical insurance for your office staff.

Since you (O.D.s) are generally self-employed, therefore having no employer
to insure you, I would guess that you are paying extremely high medical
insurance premiums (individual premiums being much more expensive than the
per person cost of group premiums), to insure yourselves and your family
medically. (Not to mention if you or a family member have a "pre-existing
condition"--in which case your premium would skyrocket many times higher!)

How much are you paying monthly overall in medical insurance premiums--for
yourselves, your families, and your employees?

As I wrote, no such thing as a free lunch. If there were a national plan,
and you had no health insurance premiums to pay, you would probably be
paying more in taxes. However--I doubt that the increase in taxes, would add
up to nearly as much, as the amount you are paying now in health insurance
premiums!

"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:Assek.101065$c5.54710@fe101.usenetserver . com ...

> How many of you provide health insurance benefits to your office staff? If
> you do, I'm sure you are aware of the skyrocketing cost of health
> insurance premiums, increasingly difficult for employers to afford, and
> especially for small business, like your offices!
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if the government did the insuring (as with medicare),
> and employers were not expected to provide such benefits any more, taking
> it off your backs?
>
> In fact, that would be good for American business in general. One reason
> that U.S. companies are finding it harder to compete with foreign
> companies, is the immense amount that U.S. companies have to pay in health
> insurance premiums. For instance, the U.S. auto industry--the fact that
> they have to pay so much of their income in health insurance premiums,
> makes it hard to compete with European and Japanese companies, who don't
> have to pay a cent in health insurance premiums--since that is handled by
> the government, not by employers.
>
> I'm not saying there wouldn't be costs involved in a national health care
> plan. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, taxes would have
> to be higher (as they are in those other countries), to pay for the plan.
> However, I think the cost involved in the increased taxes, would be much
> lower than what is now being paid in private health insurance premiums,
> cost of emergency room care for the uninsured, etc. In general, I think
> the overall financial cost to society, would be much less than with the
> present system, and it would be a great relief for employers, not to have
> to deal with providing health insurance for their employees any more. (As
> well, of course as the humanitarian boon that everyone would be
> covered--employed or not.)
>

"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring . com > wrote in message
news:N8SdnWg54L-PjuTVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews . com ...

> Optometry schools aren't "supposed" to teach microbiology and
> pharmacology?

Just to carry on this discussion a little farther, I have another question.
(And it is purely a question, out of curiosity, I am not making any
assumptions.) (I am not arguing at all here, just asking.)

I doubt you would say that the training, and areas of practice specialty, of
an optometrist and an ophthalmologist, are exactly the same. (If they were,
there would be no need for two different types of eye doctors.

It is clear to me, that your opinion is that in the case of an eye
infection, as I have, that an optometrist is just as well-trained in
treating it, as an ophthalmologist is. You may well be right about that, and
in fact, that is exactly what I did.

However, is there any eye condition that, if it occurred to you personally,
might cause you to see an ophthalmologist for a consultation, rather than an
optometrist?

So again, not making any kind of argument, but just asking---what do you
consider to be the differences between the two types of eye doctors, and for
what kind of condition would you choose one rather than the other?

"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote in message
news:z%kek.42416$fX5.16593@fe109.usenetserver . com ...
> Just to carry on this discussion a little farther, I have another
> question. (And it is purely a question, out of curiosity, I am not making
> any assumptions.) (I am not arguing at all here, just asking.)
>
> I doubt you would say that the training, and areas of practice specialty,
> of an optometrist and an ophthalmologist, are exactly the same. (If they
> were, there would be no need for two different types of eye doctors.
>
> It is clear to me, that your opinion is that in the case of an eye
> infection, as I have, that an optometrist is just as well-trained in
> treating it, as an ophthalmologist is. You may well be right about that,
> and in fact, that is exactly what I did.
>
> However, is there any eye condition that, if it occurred to you
> personally, might cause you to see an ophthalmologist for a consultation,
> rather than an optometrist?
>
> So again, not making any kind of argument, but just asking---what do you
> consider to be the differences between the two types of eye doctors, and
> for what kind of condition would you choose one rather than the other?

For any serious eye disease or injury, you are probably better off with an
ophthalmologist, who has an MD degree. For something simple like a simple
infection (if that is the correct diagnosis) an experienced OD is usually
OK.

In most states a physician's assistant (nurse) can prescribe antibiotics for
most infections (sinus, ear, skin, etc) and the patient may never see the
doctor. Same principle applies to an OD treating eye infections (it is not
rocket science). Of course, if the diagnosis is wrong and there is a more
serious problem, then you might have a more problems with an OD, just like
you might have problems with a nurse trying to treat a serious medical
issue.

A Ophthalmologist does not spend very much time in school learning about eye
care, since their medical school education is much more general (basically
the same training as all other MD's). An OD knows from day 1 when they enter
a School of Optometry that they will be focusing (no pun intended) on eye
care (and the curriculum reflects that), whereas an MD may not get much eye
care training until their residency. So experience (on-the-job training) is
often more important that education in dealing with these matters.

"MS" <ms@nospam . com > wrote

> I doubt you would say that the training, and areas of practice specialty,
> of an optometrist and an ophthalmologist, are exactly the same. (If they
> were, there would be no need for two different types of eye doctors.

No. But the principle difference is that OMDs (MD ophthalmologists) spend a
lot of time learning general medicine and surgery.

In the school I attended, the optometry program was very much like
dentistry, sharing many of the same lecture halls, instructors and
curriculum with dental students for the first two years.

> It is clear to me, that your opinion is that in the case of an eye
> infection, as I have, that an optometrist is just as well-trained in
> treating it, as an ophthalmologist is. You may well be right about that,
> and in fact, that is exactly what I did.

Not every optometrist, and not every infection. There are some infections
nobody wants to treat, and even general OMDs will refer those to corneal
specialists, for instance.

> However, is there any eye condition that, if it occurred to you
> personally, might cause you to see an ophthalmologist for a consultation,
> rather than an optometrist?

If I suspected I had acanthamoeba, I'd beat a path to the corneal
specialist. So would my cataract surgeon, if he had it.

> So again, not making any kind of argument, but just asking---what do you
> consider to be the differences between the two types of eye doctors, and
> for what kind of condition would you choose one rather than the other?

Generally you go to a surgeon for surgery.

-MT