Prescription glasses in Australia

[Quinkla]

My experience with Specsavers is that they are only interested in upselling - not in actually getting you the product you need. By way of example, everyone who goes to Specsavers suddenly discovers they need varifocals. They only sell glasses in pairs of two frames (buy one get one free), but they achieve this by just doubling all the prices to cover the free ones. And hand on heart, people only really need one pair, especially if they get reactive lenses. Plus, once they have persuaded you that you need varifocals, they then show you that all but the most expensive versions have such a narrow reading area that they are all but useless. Sure, your health fund might pay some of the bill, but at Specsavers you can guarantee you'll also be well out of pocket.

[Mazza227]

My glasses cost a small fortune as I have really bad eyesight and therefore opt for the extra thin lenses. I don't bother with getting prescription sunglasses as they don't have the thin lenses and are a pain to switch from normal to sunglasses and back again all the time so I have bought myself a pair of fit overs instead (https://fitovers.com). These are sunglasses that go over your regular glasses. This works much better for me. They also have the added advantage of covering the top of the glasses and around he sides therefore blocking much more sunlight from my eyes. I got mine from the cancer council shop here in Adelaide but you can also get them from some opticians.

 

Thats the problem with my daughters glasses, her prescription is high so I pay extra to get thinner lenses as otherwise they would be so heavy on her little face. Also pay for the anti-glare etc, it soon adds up! Still had to pay £117 for her normal glasses with the NHS voucher we get!

Oh so they don't do thinner lenses out there for sunglasses then? If that's the case, I will get them here then. They weren't going to thin them down as much as her normal glasses to save me some money, and she won't wear them as often, but she said they would be very thick if I left them as they would be!

[Mazza227]

Some people have stronger prescriptions or more complicated requirements. I had my eyes corrected with laser treatment a number of years ago but prior to that my glasses would typically cost £500 in the UK. The high cost was for the lens not the frame, I never had designer frames.

 

Never had glasses in Australia so don't know what my lenses would have cost there. Age is catching up on me now though and I think it will be time for reading glasses in the next year or so.

 

Yes I agree with this, my daughter has frames that cost between £30-40. It's the lenses that cost so much money, not the frames.

[newjez]

Some people have stronger prescriptions or more complicated requirements. I had my eyes corrected with laser treatment a number of years ago but prior to that my glasses would typically cost £500 in the UK. The high cost was for the lens not the frame, I never had designer frames.

 

Never had glasses in Australia so don't know what my lenses would have cost there. Age is catching up on me now though and I think it will be time for reading glasses in the next year or so.

 

 

My last pair were £400. It's not being frivolous. If I didn't get high index lenses I wouldn't be able to walk. I've tried, the normal lenses on my prescription are just not useable. Straight lines get bent and I can't judge anything. Plus I have variable focals, and the more expensive the lens the less sea sickness effect you get. Fortunately, I only buy a pair once every ten years as my prescription is stable.

 

I did look into getting a pair from China. But I opted for the professional fitting service you get from your high Street op. If I wanted a spare pair I might consider it. I bought my prescription goggles from China. Cost £6. Absolutely brilliant.

[newjez]

That is a great deal.

Funky frames too.

 

When I was a child in the UK you had one style with two colour choices. Pukey Pink or Poo Brown NHS glasses - so ugly.

 

Those days are gone. My son's glasses are very funky. You can even get designer frames by paying a fraction more.

[Marisawright]

lol, hope it does not worsen at a rate that outstrips my healthcare, but I'm using reading glasses only, so I do notice my first glasses (if i can find em!) are not that great for reading anymore

 

You don't need prescription lenses for reading. Reading glasses are just, basically, magnifiers - the ones in the chemist are every bit as good as the ones from an opticians (and I ws told that by an optician!).

[NicF]

Thats the problem with my daughters glasses, her prescription is high so I pay extra to get thinner lenses as otherwise they would be so heavy on her little face. Also pay for the anti-glare etc, it soon adds up! Still had to pay £117 for her normal glasses with the NHS voucher we get!

Oh so they don't do thinner lenses out there for sunglasses then? If that's the case, I will get them here then. They weren't going to thin them down as much as her normal glasses to save me some money, and she won't wear them as often, but she said they would be very thick if I left them as they would be!

 

It's that they don't do them, it's more that I refuse to pay for them. I used to pay about £350 for my glasses in the UK and here I was looking at $800ish before my health fund discount. Although I'm an adult my eyes still change regularly and I need new glasses every two years or so. I used to have a pair of prescription sunglasses and I hardly ever wore them unless I knew I was going to be outisde for ages as it's a pain to keep switching and I can't see to walk around without glasses.

[Marisawright]

The problem as I see it with the Extras part of the health cover (we are with NIB, we were with BUPA both the same rules) is that although we are entitled to $300 per year each for spectacles, to get that $300 you have to spend $500, ie out of pocket by $200. Even if you buy a pair of glasses say for $300 you will be out of pocket by $120. I'm talking about varifocals and decent quality lenses. I followed up an advert by Specsavers who offering varifocals at $99, when I went in to the store the assistant said that yes they were available at that price but were the most basic lenses, with no coating or glare reduction.

I would love to know of an Extra provider which would allow me to claim $300 per year without out of pocket expenses. Anybody know one???.

Mike

 

There are a couple of funds that will give you a pair of "free specs" with your extras cover - but that will usually just cover plain lenses with no anti-glare, anti-scratch, or any other fancy features. If you want more than that, it's back to paying the excess.

 

I'm like you - I can't be bothered carrying distance glasses, reading glasses and sunglasses, so I have one pair, which is varifocal with transition lenses. As you say, you see these ads in Specsavers for cheap spectacles, but when you go in, you find it's for cheap frames with NO extras, and by the time you've added everything in, it's $500.

[Bungo]

You don't need prescription lenses for reading. Reading glasses are just, basically, magnifiers - the ones in the chemist are every bit as good as the ones from an opticians (and I ws told that by an optician!).

 

Hmm I wonder what the truth is here. I went to get tested for reading glasses recently and she said to me that the ones you buy in Boots are just magnifiers, however she said, that is why people should get a proper prescription made pair from the optician.

[LKC]

My experience with Specsavers is that they are only interested in upselling - not in actually getting you the product you need. By way of example, everyone who goes to Specsavers suddenly discovers they need varifocals. They only sell glasses in pairs of two frames (buy one get one free), but they achieve this by just doubling all the prices to cover the free ones. And hand on heart, people only really need one pair, especially if they get reactive lenses. Plus, once they have persuaded you that you need varifocals, they then show you that all but the most expensive versions have such a narrow reading area that they are all but useless. Sure, your health fund might pay some of the bill, but at Specsavers you can guarantee you'll also be well out of pocket.

 

Actually, I disagree. As someone who has direct experience of working for Specsavers, I can assure you that this is not the case.

 

Firstly, regarding your point that everyone who goes to Specsavers suddenly finds themselves wearing varifocals, I can tell you from a clinical point of view that this is not possible. Until the age of 45 or so, only single vision lenses are needed (for myopia, hyperopia and/or astigmatism) and these are single vision lenses, not varifocals. After 45 or so, one becomes presbyopic, meaning that different prescriptions are needed for distance, intermediate and close vision. Two separate pairs are an option if both distance and near are needed (or three pairs if one uses a computer), as are bifocals and varifocals. However, varifocals are sold most commonly because they allow distance, intermediate and close vision, allowing you to drive, watch tv, use a computer and read all with one lens. As presbyopia is something that happens naturally as we age, and as modern life generally dictates that vision needs to be clear at all distances, I hardly think that Specsavers can be blamed when varifocals are needed.

 

Secondly, better lenses are more expensive to produce and, therefore, cost more to purchase. You wouldn't go to a car dealership with the expectation of purchasing a Mercedes for the cost of a Ford. Keeping with the car analogies, if you were offered the choice of a 1.4, 1.6 or 1.8 litre engine, whilst all will do the same job of getting you from A to B, performance will be better with the bigger engine. The production of spectacle lenses is a technical job. All multifocal lenses are custom made to the frame, measurements and prescription, it isn't just a matter of pushing a button on a machine. The more complicated lens designs are further individually modified for each customer's requirements. Of course they are going to cost more, and why shouldn't they? Do people not deserve to be fairly paid for the work that they do?

 

Thirdly, if you believe that Specsavers only sell glasses in pairs of two frames, a quick visit to the 'Offers' page of the Specsavers website will show you that this is not true.

 

The problem is how people perceive optometry. Because optometry practices are usually found in shopping centres and on the high street, they are thought of as retail outlets rather than part of the medical profession. I trained for almost five years to become a fully qualified optometrist and my husband trained for four to become a dispensing optician. A practice will have at least one optometrist (usually more), at least one fully qualified dispensing optician (they are called optical dispensers in Australia), plus other staff, most of whom are going through the training to become optical dispensers and all of whom do professional training through Specsavers. I can tell you from personal experience that running a practice is stressful, hard work and not that well paid. Worst of all, for all the hard work, working at weekends and late nights because people expect a 'shop' to be open all hours, people moan about the relatively cheap prices that Specsavers offer in comparison to most other places. People expect to pay dollar shop prices for a professional service.

 

If you want to buy cheap glasses made in unregulated factories in China then feel free to do so, but please don't moan about professionally prescribed and made spectacles without consideration of the processes involved.

 

Anyway, I had better go and get dinner ready for my husband for when he gets home, so that we can spend time with him since he has to work tomorrow and on the public holiday too (and no he doesn't get paid extra for the anti-social hours. He just can't afford to pay someone else the statutory required salary for Sundays and public holidays).

[LKC]

Hmm I wonder what the truth is here. I went to get tested for reading glasses recently and she said to me that the ones you buy in Boots are just magnifiers, however she said, that is why people should get a proper prescription made pair from the optician.

 

I am an optometrist. Short answer is, it depends on your prescription.

 

If you need addition for reading only, both eyes are exactly the same, and you have no astigmatism at all then the cheaper reading glasses are fine. You might find that if the optical centres of the lenses are vastly different to your interpupillary distance then your eyes might feel like they are 'pulling' a bit which can cause a headache/eyestrain, but you won't hurt your eyes in trying them.

 

If your eyes are different or if you have astigmatism at all (most people have some degree of this, it is tolerable without correction to a point), or if your interpupillary distance is different to how the optical centres are set, then prescription ones are better.

[Bungo]

I am an optometrist. Short answer is, it depends on your prescription.

 

If you need addition for reading only, both eyes are exactly the same, and you have no astigmatism at all then the cheaper reading glasses are fine. You might find that if the optical centres of the lenses are vastly different to your interpupillary distance then your eyes might feel like they are 'pulling' a bit which can cause a headache/eyestrain, but you won't hurt your eyes in trying them.

 

If your eyes are different or if you have astigmatism at all (most people have some degree of this, it is tolerable without correction to a point), or if your interpupillary distance is different to how the optical centres are set, then prescription ones are better.

 

Thanks LKC. I am pretty sure I don't have astigmatism of any significance as I had laser surgery seven years ago and they wouldn't do that if astigmatism was present. I was +1 in both eyes when I got tested recently and don't desperately need glasses, I just am finding myself struggling a bit more if the lights are dim or the font is particularly small. I don't find computer work difficult, I don't need anything now as I tap away on the iPad, my difficulty is generally reading menus in restaurants with romantically dimmed lighting lol.

[LKC]

Thanks LKC. I am pretty sure I don't have astigmatism of any significance as I had laser surgery seven years ago and they wouldn't do that if astigmatism was present. I was +1 in both eyes when I got tested recently and don't desperately need glasses, I just am finding myself struggling a bit more if the lights are dim or the font is particularly small. I don't find computer work difficult, I don't need anything now as I tap away on the iPad, my difficulty is generally reading menus in restaurants with romantically dimmed lighting lol.

 

You have trouble in dim light because your pupils dilate. If you think of how a pinhole camera works, the tiny hole focusses the light to sharpness to take the photo. Your pupils dilating is having the opposite effect. You would probably be fine reading in bright sunlight, with bigger print, and the computer screen is that bit further away so it is clear at the moment too. You will become more presbyopic as time goes on, but if you feel that just a pair of basic readers would work, give them a go when you need to. Bear in mind that the +1 on your prescription may be what is called an 'addition', that is it is added on to any small distance prescription that you have, so you may need to go up or down a bit in power accordingly.

[Quinkla]

Firstly, regarding your point that everyone who goes to Specsavers suddenly finds themselves wearing varifocals, I can tell you from a clinical point of view that this is not possible. Until the age of 45 or so, only single vision lenses are needed (for myopia, hyperopia and/or astigmatism) and these are single vision lenses, not varifocals.

Interesting. My wife and I are both under 45 and were both told by Specsavers that we were damaging our eyes by not using varifocals. Plus, they did not want to do visual fields test for me despite a family history of glaucoma (they suggested I should come back next week for it), and were very reluctant to give me a copy of the prescription and refused point blank to give me the measurement between pupils.

[Peachy]

Note the ref to reactive lenses. I have to wear glasses all the time. Now we have relocated was wondering if they would be better bet. Anyone with views on them?

Hope it is okay to link into this thread, if not feel free to delete.

[Quinkla]

Note the ref to reactive lenses. I have to wear glasses all the time. Now we have relocated was wondering if they would be better bet. Anyone with views on them?

I have reactive lenses and think they're great. There's no need for separate sunglasses. The only thing to be aware of is that over time (a couple or three years) they stop reacting so much and tend to stay at a very slightly tinted level (barely noticeable) all the time. I guess that's the time to get a new pair.

[AJ]

 

It's that they don't do them, it's more that I refuse to pay for them. I used to pay about £350 for my glasses in the UK and here I was looking at $800ish before my health fund discount. Although I'm an adult my eyes still change regularly and I need new glasses every two years or so. I used to have a pair of prescription sunglasses and I hardly ever wore them unless I knew I was going to be outisde for ages as it's a pain to keep switching and I can't see to walk around without glasses.

So thats only a difference of around 50gbp, not exactly a fortune

[NicF]

So thats only a difference of around 50gbp, not exactly a fortune

 

Never said it was. But paying another $800 for a pair of prescription sunglasses would be. Especially as I'd need new ones every couple of years.

[LKC]

Interesting. My wife and I are both under 45 and were both told by Specsavers that we were damaging our eyes by not using varifocals. Plus, they did not want to do visual fields test for me despite a family history of glaucoma (they suggested I should come back next week for it), and were very reluctant to give me a copy of the prescription and refused point blank to give me the measurement between pupils.

 

Presbyopia can start earlier or later than 45, that is just the median age. It can be first noticed anywhere from 40-ish to 50-ish, but it varies from person to person and can occur earlier or later than this. Whether multifocals are recommended will depend on lots of things. For example, I am 40 and very myopic and have noticed that I am having trouble in reading in my contact lenses. I could have reading glasses over the top of my contact lenses, or I could wear varifocals, or I could push my distance glasses down my nose when I read (when you increase the distance between the retina and the lens with a lens for myopia you weaken the effective power which is what I need to do to read - this is actually what I do most of the time), or I could take my lenses/glasses off to read (being short-sighted I can still see close up without my prescription). So for me, it is no bother at the moment, even though I have noticed the change. For someone with a different prescription (for example long-sighted or astigmatic) something different will need to be done.

 

Having said that, you shouldn't have been told that you were 'damaging your eyes' because that simply isn't true of glasses once you are passed the age of 8 or so (when the visual system is fully developed. Sure, you may get eyestrain and you may not be legal to drive without, but it won't hurt your eyes at all. Visual changes are multifactorial, in other words lots of things cause them, but not wearing a particular prescription is not a cause.

 

Have just had a chat with OH about the field test (I don't know the system here - I stopped working 7 years ago before we came to Australia) and Medicare have recently changed the rules for tests. You are entitled to a comprehensive test every three years covered by Medicare, at which you can have every test done. However, in between this you are only entitled to a partial test (brief exam or supplementary test). You can't have the brief exam and supplementary test (eg. visual fields) done on the same day as medicare won't allow them to be billed for. Most practices (OH's included) get patients back on a different day to do visual fields. If they were to do the test on the same day and then submit the claim on a different day, that is medicare fraud because the dates don't align and the directors would be in huge amounts of trouble. It may be that you were only entitled to the brief test and so the supplementary test had to be carried out at a later time, or the practice may have had other reasons such as the machine being used at the time, or being broken... there are a whole host of reasons. For your peace of mind, glaucoma can also be detected with a pressure test and by looking for something called 'cupping' of the optic nerve which is detected during ophthalmoscopy.

 

Again, I didn't know what the guidelines are in Australia for supply of prescription so I have looked it up. A copy of the prescription has to be supplied, but the interpupillary distance doesn't. The guidelines can be seen here http://www.optometry.org.au/media/341645/clinical_guideline_release_of_spectacle_and_contact_lens_prescriptions_by_optometrists.pdf. The IPD would usually be measured by the dispensing practice, so most optometrists would refuse to provide that.

 

I hope that was helpful, if you have any other questions please ask away

[tonyman]

don't think I would be keen buying glasses online ....surely you need to visit an optician first and would he be keen to let you use him and his testing methods just for you to walk out with a prescription to buy online or elsewhere ?

[Lindor]

I've never had a problem with Specsavers. I went to them years ago because I wanted varifocals. I get thin lenses, scratch resistant coating, anti reflective coating and prescription sunglasses. That was in the UK, can't remember how much, it was 3 years ago!

I had my eyes tested last month in the UK but didn't get time to choose new specs so I'll give the Aussie Specsavers a go. @Peachy I enquired about Reactive lenses last year and was told I couldn't drive with them because the windscreen stops them reacting properly!

[LKC]

I've never had a problem with Specsavers. I went to them years ago because I wanted varifocals. I get thin lenses, scratch resistant coating, anti reflective coating and prescription sunglasses. That was in the UK, can't remember how much, it was 3 years ago!

I had my eyes tested last month in the UK but didn't get time to choose new specs so I'll give the Aussie Specsavers a go. @Peachy I enquired about Reactive lenses last year and was told I couldn't drive with them because the windscreen stops them reacting properly!

 

Transitions lenses (the ones that change colour) don't work in the car because they need UV light to work, and that is cut out by the car windows.

[jumpingjellybean]

Those days are gone.

 

Yes as I said: when I was a child.

Back in the 1980's.

Even old Blighty would be up with the times now.

[Peachy]

I've never had a problem with Specsavers. I went to them years ago because I wanted varifocals. I get thin lenses, scratch resistant coating, anti reflective coating and prescription sunglasses. That was in the UK, can't remember how much, it was 3 years ago!

I had my eyes tested last month in the UK but didn't get time to choose new specs so I'll give the Aussie Specsavers a go. @Peachy I enquired about Reactive lenses last year and was told I couldn't drive with them because the windscreen stops them reacting properly!

 

For my purposes that would make them slightly pointless as I would still need to buy sunglasses for driving. Thanks for the heads up.

[Quinkla]

For my purposes that would make them slightly pointless as I would still need to buy sunglasses for driving. Thanks for the heads up.

Fair enough. Personally, I would never drive with sunglasses.