Tales of the Marketplace, Vol. 1
I'm on vacation for two weeks, but for a consumer writer, time away from the office often doubles as field work. I've already had one experience that has me pondering whether an unfamiliar practice is fair or foul. I'm not ready to condemn it – for now, I'm just interested in hearing what other people think. If you have information or a reaction, hit the comment button and let me know.
The story takes place at Lenscrafters, where I was shopping for a new pair of eyeglasses that I needed in a hurry, before I hit the road. As I tried on frames, I saw a sign offering $100 off a new pair of prescription glasses. I even asked the manager about it; she assured me it applied to all prescription eyeglasses orders.
That was welcome news. Though I'm fortunate to have eye-care coverage under my health-insurance plan, I knew it paid a limited amount. I expected the balance for my bifocal, scratch-resistant lenses and new frame would still come to more than $200. When she totaled the tab, she confirmed I was right.
But a funny thing happened when it came time to pay. No $100 discount.
Why not? Because my insurance paid part of the cost, and the rule was one subsidy per order. "You don't get both," she told me.
I didn't raise a fuss – I wanted the glasses, and figured a protest might mean a delay. Besides, I could easily imagine a rationale, perhaps advanced by some thoughtful employee at a corporate retreat: "You know, these prices are pretty stiff, especially for folks who don't get a subsidy from their insurance company. Maybe we should target a discount for the people who have to pay he full price." I'd have no quarrel with a pharmacy taking that approach for prescription drugs, because I know cash-paying customers are stuck paying artificially high prices for them. In effect, they subsidize deep discounts negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.
But as far as I know, this Lenscrafters' policy is something else. My insurer hasn't negotiated a special price – unless there are some sorts of undisclosed rebates involved. The insurer simply pays part of the tab, and I pay the rest. The bottom line seems to be that Lenscrafters takes in $100 more for a pair of glasses from somebody with insurance than from somebody without.
Justified or not? Tell me what you think – or if I'm looking at this through a faulty lens.
The story takes place at Lenscrafters, where I was shopping for a new pair of eyeglasses that I needed in a hurry, before I hit the road. As I tried on frames, I saw a sign offering $100 off a new pair of prescription glasses. I even asked the manager about it; she assured me it applied to all prescription eyeglasses orders.
That was welcome news. Though I'm fortunate to have eye-care coverage under my health-insurance plan, I knew it paid a limited amount. I expected the balance for my bifocal, scratch-resistant lenses and new frame would still come to more than $200. When she totaled the tab, she confirmed I was right.
But a funny thing happened when it came time to pay. No $100 discount.
Why not? Because my insurance paid part of the cost, and the rule was one subsidy per order. "You don't get both," she told me.
I didn't raise a fuss – I wanted the glasses, and figured a protest might mean a delay. Besides, I could easily imagine a rationale, perhaps advanced by some thoughtful employee at a corporate retreat: "You know, these prices are pretty stiff, especially for folks who don't get a subsidy from their insurance company. Maybe we should target a discount for the people who have to pay he full price." I'd have no quarrel with a pharmacy taking that approach for prescription drugs, because I know cash-paying customers are stuck paying artificially high prices for them. In effect, they subsidize deep discounts negotiated by insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.
But as far as I know, this Lenscrafters' policy is something else. My insurer hasn't negotiated a special price – unless there are some sorts of undisclosed rebates involved. The insurer simply pays part of the tab, and I pay the rest. The bottom line seems to be that Lenscrafters takes in $100 more for a pair of glasses from somebody with insurance than from somebody without.
Justified or not? Tell me what you think – or if I'm looking at this through a faulty lens.
posted by Jeff Gelles at 8/15/2005 03:40:00 AM
5 Comments:
Re: Lenscrafters
If the sign did not have "small print" or a reference to "policy", then I belive they must honor the discount.
If there is a selfserving message about helping the needy, then they are justified.
Why not just pay the bill, with the discount and then file for reimbursement from the ins co ??
I agree with Mr. Cromer. They are using the program to lure in customers like you who might have been marginal about buying glasses but are then convinced when they see the discount. Unless there's a disclaimer, it's pure bait & switch, which is definitely wrong.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
After going to Lenscrafters for years I've decided I won't go back. In addition to the bait & switch you describe. They insist on putting anti-scratch and anti-reflective coatings on your lenses (for a fee of course) whether you want them or not. Even the doctor located in their store agreed that the coating was a waste. The coating begins to wear within a year leaving marks that look like small scratches - oops, now you have to buy new glasses. Of course, they can't just order the lenses, if there is a scratch on just one lens, you can't just order a new lens. Everything is geared to making you buy new glasses rather than repairing the ones you have. I am taking my business elsewhere.
Hi Jeff Gelles, I read your post which I find interesting and very informative! I was also looking for related info which I found
Some at Outsourcing
It's not exactly what I was looking for but it was nonetheless interesting to read.
Post a Comment
<< Home