Optometry has evolved to include multiple career pathways: private practice, corporate optometry, industry, telemedicine, academic settings, and hybrid models. All play an important role in serving diverse patient populations. Yet, despite this diversity, a persistent double standard still exists in how corporate optometry is perceived within our industry.

Different Labels, Same Profession

Private practice has long been framed—starting as early as optometry school—as the gold standard for autonomy, prestige, and ethical care. Corporate optometry, by contrast, is often viewed through a more critical lens, frequently by ODs who have never worked in that setting and by industry professionals who are out of touch with how the landscape has evolved.

Over the years, corporate ODs have been labeled as non–decision-makers. How is this different from an employed OD in a private practice?

Both settings are staffed by licensed optometrists bound by the same regulatory requirements and commitment to patient care. The primary difference lies in the business model. Yet judgment often follows the practice setting rather than the quality of care delivered. Corporate optometry is frequently described as “refraction mills” or as providing “no medical care.” However, many private practices also offer limited medical services and rely heavily on refraction and optical sales. Many see patients every 15 minutes because they need to because of high expenses, modality doesn’t dictate this but rising costs, lower patient volume, decreasing reimbursements and increase in online sales.

Data show that only 4% of optometrists treat glaucoma in the U.S., and only 15% prescribe any therapeutic drops. Industry efforts to expand medical optometry have largely focused on private practitioners, yet adoption remains limited.

Pharmaceutical representatives often avoid corporate locations due to the assumption that corporate ODs do not practice medical optometry. In some cases, corporate opticals do restrict on-site access for reps, but this creates an opportunity for off-site collaboration and education rather than exclusion.

Similarly, it would be valuable to examine how many ODs prescribe contact lenses. Based on patient volume alone, corporate optometrists likely fit a high number of standard contact lenses, yet they are often excluded from conversations with contact lens companies unless corporate leadership initiates those relationships.

Scrutiny Without Parity

Corporate optometrists are regularly required to defend their career choices in ways private practitioners are not. They are questioned about patient volume, clinical decision-making, and loyalty to the profession. Meanwhile, private practices operating under production incentives, optical sales pressure, or external financing are rarely held to the same level of scrutiny.

Voice and Representation

Another double standard emerges in representation. Corporate optometry now accounts for nearly 50% of optometry jobs. Many ODs prefer employment over ownership, and some corporate organizations offer long-term career stability and growth.

Despite this, corporate optometry is often discussed on industry panels, in articles, and across social media, while corporate ODs themselves are underrepresented in leading those discussions. In one instance, an OD invited to speak at a statewide dinner was instructed by a sales representative not to disclose where they worked.

If nearly half of the profession works within corporate or private equity–backed settings, why do we see so few corporate ODs serving on advisory boards, committees, or shaping conversations about the future of the profession?

Selection for these roles should be based on experience, expertise, and clinical involvement—not influenced by outside or corporate interests.

Professional Identity and Credibility

Corporate optometry is often perceived as a temporary stop for ODs, despite many choosing it as a long-term or preferred career path. Leadership roles, committee appointments, and industry awards continue to favor private practice owners, reinforcing the idea that professional credibility is tied to ownership rather than contribution.

The Cost of the Double Standard

These perceptions have created division within the profession. Optometry cannot afford to undermine its own members.

There are numerous external forces already impacting the profession. While some corporate organizations support optometry better than others, it is unfair to group all corporate entities together—just as not all private practices deliver the same quality of care or uphold the same ethical standards.

Private practice has also contributed to industry challenges, including overvalued practices, excessive sales multiples, and the early adoption of vision plans that ultimately harmed reimbursement across the profession.

Disruptive technologies have emerged in response to patient demand and, in some cases, the profession’s inability to adapt to a changing landscape.

Moving Toward Equity

Addressing these double standards requires intentional change:

• Equal representation of corporate and private ODs in leadership and industry conversations
• Selection of ODs at decision-making tables based on merit and experience, not corporate influence

The future of optometry depends on unity, not hierarchy. Private practice and corporate optometry are parallel paths within the same profession. Patients will continue to choose the care model that best fits their needs. As optometrists, our shared mission remains the same: to care for patients.

To move forward, we need more authentic conversations, stronger advocacy, and a more inclusive professional community.