Optometry and vision

Optometry is structurally unusual in two ways: it has its own corporate practice doctrine with explicit retail carve-outs in many states, which is why national optical chains can sit adjacent to optometry practices, and it operates in a two-payer world where the same patient’s care may be billed to a vision plan or to medical insurance depending on why they came in.

​

Entity and doctrine specifics

The corporate practice of optometry is a distinct doctrine. Its enforcement varies widely, and Mississippi is a frequently cited example of a state that is permissive for medicine and strict for optometry, a good reminder that profession-specific analysis is not optional. The retail carve-outs are the distinguishing feature. Many states expressly permit arrangements in which a commercial optical retailer leases space to, or is adjacent to, an independently owned optometry practice. The requirements typically address:

• Separation of the optometric practice from the retail operation
• Independence of the optometrist’s professional judgment
• No revenue sharing based on prescriptions written or materials sold
• Signage and disclosure so patients understand the practice is independent
• Lease terms at fair market value, not tied to practice volume

These carve-outs are what make the LensCrafters-adjacent model lawful where it is. They are also narrow and specific — a structure that resembles the retail model but doesn’t satisfy the state’s actual conditions is not protected by them. The retail carve-out is not a general permission for lay ownership. It is a specific accommodation with specific conditions. Read your state’s optometry practice act rather than reasoning by analogy from what a national chain appears to do.

​

The two-payer world

The defining operational complexity, and the source of most billing errors in optometry. Which one to bill is a per-encounter determination driven by the reason for the visit and what was found. A patient presenting for a routine exam who is found to have diabetic retinopathy has generated both a routine encounter and a medical one. A patient presenting with a red eye is a medical visit even if they also get a refraction. This is where optometry billing goes wrong in both directions. Billing medical for a routine refraction is improper. Billing vision for a medically necessary encounter leaves substantial revenue uncollected and applies the wrong benefit. Neither error is trivial, and the second is the more common one. Practical guidance:

• The chief complaint drives the determination. Why did the patient come in?
• A medical diagnosis alone doesn’t make a routine exam medical — the visit’s purpose matters
• Refraction is frequently non-covered by medical plans and is often a patient responsibility or a vision-plan item
• Some encounters legitimately generate both a vision claim and a medical claim, for distinct services
• Document the reason for the visit clearly, because it is the basis for the determination

​

Materials: retail, not claims

The other structural distinction. A significant share of optometry revenue comes from selling glasses and contact lenses, which is retail commerce rather than claims-based healthcare revenue. Implications for an MSO-PC structure:

​

Billing characteristics

• 837P for medical claims with CPT and ICD-10; vision plans often use their own portals
• Dual credentialing, with medical payers and, separately, with each vision plan
• Common CPT ranges, general ophthalmological services (the 920xx series) and evaluation and management codes; the choice between them has its own rules
• Refraction (92015) is frequently non-covered by medical plans
• Specialty EHRs, RevolutionEHR, Crystal PM, handle the dual-payer and optical-inventory model that generic systems don’t

​

Launch pitfalls

1. Assuming the medical CPOM answer applies to optometry
2. Copying a retail-adjacent model without satisfying the state’s specific carve-out conditions
3. Under-billing medical, treating every encounter as a vision-plan visit
4. Over-billing medical for routine refractive care
5. Missing vision plan credentialing entirely, and being out of network for a large share of local patients
6. Tying optometrist compensation to materials sales
7. Not separating product and service revenue in the P&L
8. Overlooking sales tax on optical goods
9. Using a generic EHR that can’t handle dual-payer billing and optical inventory