It is partly what "opens the purse strings" but also what makes a given diagnostic and treatment protocol available.
30 years ago you could be what is called autistic now, and you would have probably been diagnosed Asperger's, or "mentally retarded" actual words of the diagnosis.
For the Asperger's you would probably have been sent on your way, with an 80% chance of divorce, a 20-80% depending on who you trust higher chance of suicide than your neurotypical peers, and zero help. If you were "retarded" you would go on disability and into a group home if your parents couldn't take care of you until you died.
With an autism diagnosis you get treatment, and if you get enough early enough, a 50% chance of being indistinguishable from your neurotypical peers by adulthood.
So, you are right. It is much more about money than scientific taxonomy.
But we made the rules.
If doctors are following them to get best outcomes for their patients, aren't they doing their jobs?
So it comes down to our medical system being a mess.
Honestly the computers kids should have are the most barebones python and assembly beige boxes that can be found, and told they can play games when they can make them.
That's why I learned to code.
And beige boxes are WAY cheaper than Apple products (and make you do more with less)
Infants can see contrast. Including color contrast. Interpreting color is the bit they don't really have.
There is an interesting digression to be had about amblyopia and the difference between optic nerve presence and use here if you are into talking about it.
Progs are pretty great. Some minor downsides, but comparing them to a lined bifocal... Depends on personal preferences.
Neat Sherlock Holmes Ian trick, at about halfway up your lens, near the nose, and temple, there are some laser etchings (your progressives) these should tell you what kind of lens they are and how much add power you have
I mostly want to try to spread more information about this sector of the economy, it is interesting, and I really wish there were more competition.
Right now there are competitive garden walls if you want to use Zeiss, essilor, rodenstock, and Hoya lenses it is a nightmare to keep everyone current, and lab networks are very difficult to use for end user opticians let alone patients.
If you want to disrupt opthalmic dispensing
Start by making good EHR for offices with good product and lab network integration.
None of the big boys have gotten that or lims with solid legacy support going yet.
If you get any of essilor's scratch coats (or any of unity's they offer a warranty your optician may not tell you about (so he has more wiggle room, or he may buy without warranty to save money)
If people needed glasses "now" the local optician would not be a dying trade, and LensCrafters wouldn't have killed off half of their labs three years ago, while eliminating the one hour guarantee.
Davis optical also closed a load of their labs. Quick turnaround spectacles are seeing some changes.
Optician here with some relevant experience regarding the opthalmic space, recognizing that isn't primarily what the article is about.
For the most part glasses still have to be custom made to some extent.
That process has been getting more sophisticated (smarter edgers, free form surfacing everywhere) and faster processing times.
But getting the formula right on mail order is hard.
First you have limited information about and from the patient. You have a PD (pupillary distance) and all of these services, that I have seen only collect a binocular pupillary distance.
The lenses have to be, at the very least cut to shape to fit the frame selected with the optical center of the lens moved so it sits over the pupil of the wearer when they are in the "gaze posture" appropriate to the glasses
That is to say if they are distance glasses the pupils will be looking straight ahead, while using the glasses, but the person's eyes may be 3mm narrower than the frame selected, so before grinding the lens that 3mm must be taken out of the "middle"
If one eye was in two and the other was out eight though (very uncommon) you have a reject pair.
If the glasses were of high power and one eye was out 1 and the other eye were out 2, if we were over 14 diopters of correction we fail quality. But not because the glasses, how they fit the patient's face 2000 miles away.
30 years ago you could be what is called autistic now, and you would have probably been diagnosed Asperger's, or "mentally retarded" actual words of the diagnosis.
For the Asperger's you would probably have been sent on your way, with an 80% chance of divorce, a 20-80% depending on who you trust higher chance of suicide than your neurotypical peers, and zero help. If you were "retarded" you would go on disability and into a group home if your parents couldn't take care of you until you died.
With an autism diagnosis you get treatment, and if you get enough early enough, a 50% chance of being indistinguishable from your neurotypical peers by adulthood.
So, you are right. It is much more about money than scientific taxonomy.
But we made the rules.
If doctors are following them to get best outcomes for their patients, aren't they doing their jobs?
So it comes down to our medical system being a mess.