D.A. Questions FDA Approval of Lens Labels : Consumer: Bausch & Lomb is accused of marketing the same product under three different brand names and prices.
The Ventura County district attorney has accused a national contact lens manufacturer of marketing the same contact lens at three different prices under different brand names.
In a letter to the federal Food and Drug Administration, Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury asked the agency to reconsider its approval of the labeling on Bausch & Lomb’s Optima F.W., Medalist and SeeQuence 2 contact lens brands.
The labeling does not reflect the fact that though the company recommends different replacement periods for each brand and charges different prices for each, the lens is the same in all three cases. Bausch & Lomb officials acknowledged that the lenses marketed under the three brand names are the same. But they said the labels are not misleading, and said the pricing structure is fair because it rewards customers who buy in bulk.
“The patients are receiving a volume discount,” said Bausch & Lomb spokeswoman Barbara Kelly. “If a patient purchases two lenses for one year, they will pay more than if they purchased lenses more frequently.”
Optima F.W. is a frequent-wear lens that wholesales for $23 per lens and is marketed as lasting a year or more.
According to its label, the Medalist lens is intended for replacement every one to three months. It wholesales at $16 for four or $24 for six.
The SeeQuence 2 lens’ label recommends replacement every one or two weeks. It wholesales at $15 for six.
The district attorney’s investigation began early this year after Robert Pazen, a Ventura optometrist, gave Bradbury’s office sample lens boxes and asked prosecutors to look into the matter.
Pazen said Bausch & Lomb’s marketing strategy began irritating him as soon as the company unveiled its new lens lines in late 1991.
“Well, my salesman comes in and says they’ve come out with this new program, and he explains the whole thing to me, and then at the end adds that actually, the three lenses are exactly the same,” Pazen said. “So I asked him, ‘Why can’t I dispense the (cheaper) SeeQuence packages to Medalist users?’ and he says, ‘You can’t do that. We won’t support you.’ ”
A frustrated Pazen went right to the top, calling Bausch & Lomb’s corporate headquarters in Rochester, N.Y., and asking for the head of the company. Less than an hour later, company President Harold Johnson called him back, he said. The two proceeded to have a conversation nearly identical to the one Pazen had with his sales representative earlier in the day, the optometrist said.
“Johnson said they would not support me” if he sold the SeeQuence 2 lens to Medalist users, Pazen said.
According to VisionMonday, a trade magazine for the optical industry, practitioners who did not follow Bausch & Lomb’s pricing system would not be able to buy products from the company.
Pazen decided to ignore such concerns. When patients want to buy contact lenses for one to three months of wear, he tells them they have a choice.
“I say, ‘You can buy this box of six contact lenses (the SeeQuence brand) for $50, or this box of four lenses (the Medalist brand) for $70,”’ he said. “They look at me like, ‘What do you think I am, stupid?’ ”
Pazen, who said he has felt no retaliation from the company, said he did not set out to fight the giant optical company for personal glory. “I did this because what they are doing is not ethical,” he said. “I don’t think it’s right.”
Another local optometrist, Allen J. Dennison of Port Hueneme, said he chose to go along with Bausch & Lomb’s marketing strategy.
“Our pricing goes on how often patients replace their lenses,” he said.
He said he sells the Medalist at a higher price to clients who replace their contacts every one to three months. For patients using disposable contacts, he said he prescribes the SeeQuence 2 lenses, which sell for less but are used more frequently than the Medalist lenses. He says his pricing is fair because it reflects the prices he pays Bausch & Lomb.
“I don’t see a problem with it,” he said.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Schwartz does, however. Schwartz said he filed an initial letter with the FDA in April, asking the agency whether it planned to order relabeling of the lens products and asking whether the county was free to take its own action if the FDA did nothing.
An FDA consumer safety officer wrote back in early August, saying the agency was satisfied with the current product labeling and that the county would be going out of its jurisdiction if it took independent action against Bausch & Lomb.
The district attorney’s office has since written a second letter to the FDA, again asking it to reconsider its labeling approval for the three products.
On Friday, an FDA spokeswoman in Washington said the issue has prompted other complaints in recent months.
