The Groupon That Required a Purchase
An optometrist advertises a '$25 comprehensive eye exam' on a daily-deal site. The fine print says the voucher covers only a 'screening' and that patients must buy $200 of eyewear to receive the advertised exam; patients who refuse are charged $125. The optometrist also pays a marketing company $20 for each patient who redeems the voucher. The marketing company is not licensed and does not provide any clinical services. A patient who redeemed the voucher complains that she was told she could not receive her prescription unless she bought glasses. The optometrist says the promotion is 'just marketing' and that the $20 payment is for advertising, not for patients. The practice has no written policy on prescription release or advertising substantiation.
1. Does the advertising violate Colorado law? Explain the governing principles.
Read the worked answer
Licensed optometrists are subject to Board rules on advertising and to general consumer-protection law. Advertising must be truthful, not misleading, and must not omit material conditions. Calling the offer a '$25 comprehensive eye exam' while the fine print converts it into a screening and requires a $200 eyewear purchase is a bait-and-switch. A reasonable patient would understand the advertised service to be the examination, not a conditional discount. The practice also cannot withhold a prescription because the patient declines to buy glasses; the prescription belongs to the patient, and federal and state rules support release after an examination. The '$25' price should be honored for the advertised service, or the ad must clearly state the true conditions before purchase. 'Just marketing' is not a defense because the Board regulates how licensees advertise professional services and because deceptive pricing can mislead patients about their care.
2. Is the $20 per-patient payment to the marketing company a prohibited fee split?
Read the worked answer
It may be. Paying an unlicensed entity a per-patient amount for generating patients can constitute fee splitting or prohibited remuneration, depending on how Colorado law and Board rules characterize the arrangement. A fixed advertising fee is generally different from a payment tied to each patient who redeems a voucher. The per-patient structure gives the marketer a financial interest in volume and can create incentives that compromise clinical independence. The fact that the company provides no clinical services makes the arrangement harder to justify as a legitimate professional services contract. The optometrist should not assume that labeling the payment 'advertising' controls. The safer course is to stop per-patient payments, switch to a fixed-fee advertising contract that does not vary with patient volume, and have counsel review the agreement. The Board may treat the arrangement as an aggravating factor in a deceptive-advertising case.
3. What should the optometrist do to correct the promotion and the records?
Read the worked answer
The optometrist should immediately stop the misleading ad, honor the advertised $25 examination for patients who already purchased vouchers, and stop requiring an eyewear purchase for the examination or for prescription release. The practice should provide the complaining patient with her prescription and a clear explanation, refund any improper $125 charge, and review other voucher patients for similar overcharges. It should revise the fine print so that all material conditions are disclosed before purchase and ensure that any 'screening' language accurately describes the service. The practice should also adopt a written prescription-release policy, train staff, and keep records of the corrective actions. If the per-patient marketing payments continue, they need legal review. Finally, the optometrist should consider self-reporting to the Board if a complaint is likely, because proactive correction may affect the disciplinary outcome.