Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

How South Carolina’s eye care laws are blocking telemedicine innovation

Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James
Policy
September 14, 2024
Share
Tweet
Share

People learned during the COVID pandemic that getting limited care online via telemedicine can be a great way to expand access, especially in rural areas. But Visibly, founded in 2014, was ahead of the curve.

The Chicago-based company invented technology that lets people renew eyeglass prescriptions from home or anywhere with an internet connection. No appointment is necessary, no driving, and no waiting in a lobby. Licensed ophthalmologists review results and renew prescriptions remotely if they feel it would be safe.

This FDA-cleared technology could be a time-saver in South Carolina. Most states allow two-year prescriptions. The duration in Florida is five years. But prescriptions expire every year in South Carolina, a rule that forces extra visits to eye clinics.

This is great for business if you happen to be an eye doctor selling lenses and frames. But the rule is not so great if you happen to be a busy South Carolinian with near-sightedness.

Visibly was available in South Carolina until 2016, when state lawmakers passed a protectionist rule written by optometrists to fence out online competition. The South Carolina Optometric Physicians Association (SCOPA) led the campaign.

SCOPA drafted a bill targeting Visibly, then called Opternative. Lobbyists then found sponsors, drummed up support, and passed legislation forbidding prescriptions based on online vision tests.

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley saw through the power play and tried to stop it. “I am vetoing this bill because it uses health practice mandates to stifle competition for the benefit of a single industry … putting us on the leading edge of protectionism, not innovation,” she wrote.

SCOPA celebrated privately when a supermajority of lawmakers overrode the veto. “[T]ake that Opternative!!!!!!” SCOPA’s leadership wrote in a membership email. “It’s with the utmost pleasure to announce that Opternative and ‘eye exam’ kiosks are now PROHIBITED BY LAW in the great state of SC!”

Months later, when the American Optometric Association asked SCOPA to present what it had achieved with other state affiliates, SCOPA prepared a PowerPoint slide that showed Opternative’s name crossed out with a red circle and backslash—the universal symbol of cancellation.

A protracted legal battle ensued. On July 18, 2024—after eight years and one trip to the South Carolina Supreme Court—a state trial court granted SCOPA’s motion for summary judgment and declared the protectionist law constitutional.

Visibly appealed on Aug. 15, 2024, and will return once again to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents the company. Health care providers nationwide should pay attention to the dispute. So, should policymakers be tempted to come between doctors and patients?

Medicine is big business. Some hospital conglomerates pull in more than $300 billion annually. But nothing should matter more than patient welfare. Whether people need routine vision tests or something more, they deserve choices like any other customer in a market—even one as bogged down by regulations as health care.

Established providers often use political pull to limit options instead. Stopping a company like Visibly from using technology to connect doctors and patients online is just one example. Industry insiders also use certificate of need laws to protect their turf.

ADVERTISEMENT

This regulatory tool, informally called a “CON,” requires special government permission to open or expand services. Health and safety are not the concerns. CON boards focus exclusively on money.

They grant or deny CON applications—or even refuse to consider applications—based on the business concerns of existing providers. Some states even let existing providers participate in the CON review process, giving them veto power over potential rivals.

South Carolina previously played this game, but the state repealed most of its CON laws in 2023. Twelve other states, including California and Texas, have eliminated their CON regimes entirely.

Other protectionist schemes are common. Health systems need revenue to survive. But policymakers should not choose winners and losers. Nor should they punish innovation from companies like Visibly.

Doctors and patients can decide for themselves what treatment is best, if states will let them. This is the prescription for healthy competition.

Joshua Windham is an attorney. Daryl James is a writer.

Prev

How measurement-informed therapy is changing mental health [PODCAST]

September 13, 2024 Kevin 0
…
Next

Doctors beware: the hidden legal risks of following CME guidelines

September 14, 2024 Kevin 2
…

Tagged as: Ophthalmology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
How measurement-informed therapy is changing mental health [PODCAST]
Next Post >
Doctors beware: the hidden legal risks of following CME guidelines

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James

  • Online eye exams spark legal battle over health care access

    Joshua Windham, JD and Daryl James

Related Posts

  • The impact of certificate of need laws on rural health care

    Jaimie Cavanaugh, JD and Daryl James
  • The solution to a crumbling primary care foundation is direct primary care

    Sara Pastoor, MD
  • Health care’s hidden problem: hospital primary care losses

    Christopher Habig, MBA
  • Care is no longer personal. Care is political.

    Eva Kittay, PhD
  • Proactive care is the linchpin for saving America’s health care system

    Ronald A. Paulus, MD, MBA
  • Does socialized medical care provide higher quality than private care?

    Peter Ubel, MD

More in Policy

  • Black women’s health resilience: the hidden cost of “pushing through”

    Latesha K. Harris, PhD, RN
  • FDA loosens AI oversight: What clinicians need to know about the 2026 guidance

    Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA
  • Why the U.S. health care system is failing patients and physicians

    John C. Hagan III, MD
  • Putting health back into insurance: the case for tobacco cessation

    Edward Anselm, MD
  • Retail health care vs. employer DPC: Preparing for 2026 policy shifts

    Dana Y. Lujan, MBA
  • Ecovillages and organic agriculture: a scenario for global climate restoration

    David K. Cundiff, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • What is the minority tax in medicine?

      Tharini Nagarkar and Maranda C. Ward, EdD, MPH | Education
    • Why the U.S. health care system is failing patients and physicians

      John C. Hagan III, MD | Policy
    • Putting health back into insurance: the case for tobacco cessation

      Edward Anselm, MD | Policy
    • FDA loosens AI oversight: What clinicians need to know about the 2026 guidance

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Policy
    • Silence is a survival mechanism that costs women their joy [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Racial mistaken identity in medicine: a pervasive issue in health care

      Aba Black, MD, MHS | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why patient trust in physicians is declining

      Mansi Kotwal, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Physician on-call compensation: the unpaid labor driving burnout

      Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • How environmental justice and health disparities connect to climate change

      Kaitlynn Esemaya, Alexis Thompson, Annique McLune, and Anamaria Ancheta | Policy
    • Will AI replace primary care physicians?

      P. Dileep Kumar, MD, MBA | Tech
    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Is tramadol really ineffective and risky?

      John A. Bumpus, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Racial mistaken identity in medicine: a pervasive issue in health care

      Aba Black, MD, MHS | Physician
    • Artificial intelligence demands that doctors become architects of digital health [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Is testosterone replacement safe after prostate cancer surgery?

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Conditions
    • AI and moral development: How algorithms shape human character

      Timothy Lesaca, MD | Physician
    • The impact of war on the innocence of children

      Michele Luckenbaugh | Conditions
    • Overcoming the economic barriers of fee-for-service medicine [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • What is the minority tax in medicine?

      Tharini Nagarkar and Maranda C. Ward, EdD, MPH | Education
    • Why the U.S. health care system is failing patients and physicians

      John C. Hagan III, MD | Policy
    • Putting health back into insurance: the case for tobacco cessation

      Edward Anselm, MD | Policy
    • FDA loosens AI oversight: What clinicians need to know about the 2026 guidance

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Policy
    • Silence is a survival mechanism that costs women their joy [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Racial mistaken identity in medicine: a pervasive issue in health care

      Aba Black, MD, MHS | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why patient trust in physicians is declining

      Mansi Kotwal, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Physician on-call compensation: the unpaid labor driving burnout

      Corinne Sundar Rao, MD | Physician
    • How environmental justice and health disparities connect to climate change

      Kaitlynn Esemaya, Alexis Thompson, Annique McLune, and Anamaria Ancheta | Policy
    • Will AI replace primary care physicians?

      P. Dileep Kumar, MD, MBA | Tech
    • A physician father on the Dobbs decision and reproductive rights

      Travis Walker, MD, MPH | Physician
    • Is tramadol really ineffective and risky?

      John A. Bumpus, PhD | Meds
  • Recent Posts

    • Racial mistaken identity in medicine: a pervasive issue in health care

      Aba Black, MD, MHS | Physician
    • Artificial intelligence demands that doctors become architects of digital health [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • Is testosterone replacement safe after prostate cancer surgery?

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Conditions
    • AI and moral development: How algorithms shape human character

      Timothy Lesaca, MD | Physician
    • The impact of war on the innocence of children

      Michele Luckenbaugh | Conditions
    • Overcoming the economic barriers of fee-for-service medicine [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...