How Tariffs May Affect Eye Care

How Tariffs May Affect Eye Care
By Gretchyn M. Bailey, NCLC, FAAO


With the recent change in US leadership, tariffs have become part of day-to-day conversation. A tariff is a tax placed on goods entering or leaving a country by that country’s government.

For many, tariffs belong in macro economic discussions. However, tariffs have the potential to do more than affect multinational companies—effects from tariffs are likely to affect small independent businesses and ordinary people, such as optometrists and their patients.

At Vision Expo East in Orlando last week, in coordination with The Vision Council, attorney F.D. “Rick” Van Arnam, Jr., a partner at Barnes, Richardson & Colburn in New York, discussed how tariffs may affect eye care and outlined how today’s looming tariffs first became part of the landscape.

Tariff origins
In 2018, the Office of the United States Trade Representative opened a Section 301 investigation on intellectual property misappropriation by China that officials believe were adverse to US interests. Specifically, American companies were required to release proprietary technology to Chinese business partners as a prerequisite to the US company manufacturing or distributing in China.

Under Section 301 of the law, the federal government is able to take remedial steps to correct such bad actions. Therefore, a 25% tariff was assessed on merchandise made in China. At the time, the tariff was limited to products negatively affected by the Chinese bad actions, such as machinery. However, many more products were added to the tariff list.

China retaliated by enacting its own 25% tariff on US agriculture, of which China was a big consumer. China also identified other products that were subject to additional tariffs.

In return, the US created an additional tariff of 7.5% on a broader list of products—on top of the already established 2.5% duty on many imported items. That additional tariff increased duty on Chinese goods to 10%.

Note that a Court of Appeals case is challenging Section 301 tariffs. The case will likely be decided in the next few months, and the decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Eye care involvement
Eye care was affected by the additional tariffs by the involvement of things like spectacle lenses, plano sunglasses, over-the-counter (OTC) readers, low vision equipment, and lens finishing equipment.

However, companies were able to petition for relief—or exclusion—from Section 301 tariffs. If one company was granted exclusion, all other companies with similar products were also granted exclusion. For about a year, exclusions were issued for spectacle frames and reading glasses. Those exclusions ended in 2020, and attempts to renew them were not successful.

In February 2025, an additional 10% duty was announced for any Chinese origin product.

Says Van Arnam: “That 10% the eyewear company is paying to import those plastic spectacle frames from China just jumped to 20%. The same frame, if you bought it today from say Vietnam, would be a 2.5% duty; it is now 20% if it's coming from China. China is the biggest by far producer of of optical products, particularly frames.”

Mexico and Canada tariffs
Also in February 2025, a 25% tariff was announced for products coming from Mexico and Canada. This tariff was framed as action taken against the countries for allowing fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the US.

Says Van Arnam: “This was a huge deal because Mexico and Canada are two of our largest trading partners. “They are are border allies and historically have had good relations with the United States. “We have free trade agreements with both of them, which allow the vast majority of products that are made in Canada and Mexico to come into the United States free of duty and for products that are made in the United States to go into Canada and Mexico free of duty.”

Due to both Canada and Mexico making overtures to remedy the problems identified by the US, tariff enforcement was paused for 30 days. That 30-day period expires on March 4.

“Some companies in the eyecare industry who weren’t affected by the China trade were panicking because they would now be impacted by Canadian or Mexican trade,” says Van Arnam. “There is a lot of cross-border trade. You might have a lens processing facility on the Mexican side of the border with lenses sent over for processing and brought back into the United States for distribution.”

He wonders how the US will measure success for the remedies proposed by both countries.

“What metric do you use to measure fewer immigrants coming in or less fentanyl coming across the border?” he says.

Aluminum and steel
Within the past two weeks, a 25% tariff on raw aluminum and steel (and their derivative products) was announced. Most manufacturers in the eyecare space use both metals in their production, from frames to equipment.

Says Van Arnam: “These costs will ripple through the supply chain because I don’t believe any company will be big enough to absorb the cost and say it’s all on us.”

The additional duty will eventually end up in the cost of goods everywhere, including eye care. Van Arnam foresees challenges in the future because costs may not necessarily be passed onto patients or consumers due to negotiated contracts.

“Patients may have insurance which is paying only X amount,” he says. “Or maybe you’re selling frames to Veterans Affairs which won’t allow you to increase your price. There won't be a direct line from the 25% paid on the raw material to the finished value of the of the eyewear. Some of it will be absorbed, but at some point, you're going to see price hikes and hear people talking about how these tariffs will be inflationary.”

Tariffs on aluminum and steel were enacted prior to 2020; however, exclusions and agreements with other countries largely mitigated the effects. Those terms expire on March 12.

Reciprocal tariffs
The federal government is looking into imposing a tariff on all imported products, regardless of origin, to match the originating countries’ tariffs.

“There is a perceived injustice that the United States has tariffs that are historically lower than those of other countries while other countries have tariffs that are historically higher,” Van Arnam says. “The federal government is looking at what we charge for an item vs what country X charges for that item. If we are charging 2.5% for a pair of spectacle frames, and hypothetically, India is charging 10%, there is a 7.5% gap. Under the reciprocal theory, you would pay an extra 7.5% duty to import spectacle frames of Indian origin into the United States so the tariff amounts would match.”

Addressing reciprocal tariffs would likely create logistical challenges for smaller companies without the resources to quickly pivot.

Federal agencies involved with international trade are required to report by April 1 where reciprocal duties might apply. For example, will the duty apply to specific countries or specific products?

Upcoming tariff deadlines
• March 4: The 30-day pause on Mexican and Canadian tariffs expires. A 25% tariff may go into effect.
• March 12: Previous exclusions and agreements about raw aluminum and steel expire. A 25% tariff may go into effect.
• April 1: Reports due to identify where reciprocal tariffs might be applied.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Cameo Harvey
Why was Russia left off the list of across the board tariff impositions? Our historical adversary is now deemed a non threat. I don't get it or the message it sends to our allies or perhaps former allies.
 
And what does any of that have to do with optometry? I mean one minute you are admonishing posters for not discussing the impact on our practices and the next minute you are posting links like the one above.

Is it any wonder posters are confused as hell about what is and isn't okay to post here?
This has everything to do with optometry -- if you are a retailer (and most people here are), it matters. I know you mentioned that discretionary income is irrelevant to your particular market (all mediaid/medicare), but that's not the case for most people across the country.
 
Why was Russia left off the list of across the board tariff impositions? Our historical adversary is now deemed a non threat. I don't get it or the message it sends to our allies or perhaps former allies.
It's because of the war negotiations. It's a carrot/stick.
 
This has everything to do with optometry -- if you are a retailer (and most people here are), it matters. I know you mentioned thaet discretionary income is irrelevant to your particular market (all mediaid/medicare), but that's not the case for most people across the country.
I am talking about your last post not the purpose of the thread.

You and others keep posting purely political stuff after ranting and raving the last few months about not wanting politics here. Take your own advice because this place is becoming a joke with the double standards.
 
I am talking about your last post not the purpose of the thread.

You and others keep posting purely political stuff after ranting and raving the last few months about not wanting politics here. Take your own advice because this place is becoming a joke with the double standards.
there is a difference - and a big one - between politics and policy.

jeff bringing up elections and 'teams' like this is some sort of football game is politics, I want none of it. take that shit far, far away from here.

but when a particular policy creates issues for people in practice, people should be able to speak factually about what is happening, so they can make good decisions.

The headlines from yahoo finance are showing FACTUALLY what financial markets think of everything that has happened, and how this is going to impact all of us.

Concretely, EssiLux is down 6% so far today, somewhat worse than the broader market, which is a tip-off of what financial analysts think is going to happen to retail in this space since they are the bellweather in the eye care space. Keep a close eye on what they do...
 
The other major impact could be labour. If the tariffs persist and manufactures scramble to increase their manufacturing base in the USA there will likely be a lot more competition for workers - the labour market is already tight at 4% unemployment.
Give it time, my Canadien friend - many layoffs are taking place here in the US at the federal level, in the tech space, auto industry, etc...... all it's going to take is a flood of mortgage delinquencies and we will once again see trickle-down economics at play.

Carmax, AutoZone, O'Reilly are all up in the past week. Ford, GM, Stellantis, and, of course, Tesla are down. Dollar General, TJ Maxx, Dollar Tree, and other bargain stores are up. Fix your car, buy used, not new, seek a bargain.....
 
Have you guys heard about how the "reciprocal" tariffs were calculated? You probably assumed there was a study country by country of what tariffs they charge the USA and other non-tariff barriers. Nope. They divided the trade deficit by imports to the US from that country and then divided by two. Even if the number was negative (ie the USA has a trade surplus) such as with the UK, they imposed a base 10% tariff.

Does this make sense to anyone?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c93gq72n7y1o
They don't care and know their base will it eat up without a second thought.

See: earlier in this thread
 
Last edited:
there is a difference - and a big one - between politics and policy.

jeff bringing up elections and 'teams' like this is some sort of football game is politics, I want none of it. take that shit far, far away from here.

but when a particular policy creates issues for people in practice, people should be able to speak factually about what is happening, so they can make good decisions.

The headlines from yahoo finance are showing FACTUALLY what financial markets think of everything that has happened, and how this is going to impact all of us.

Concretely, EssiLux is down 6% so far today, somewhat worse than the broader market, which is a tip-off of what financial analysts think is going to happen to retail in this space since they are the bellweather in the eye care space. Keep a close eye on what they do...
I give up. Either I am doing a poor job pointing out the obvious or you are just refusing to get it.

Your board your rules but spare me the soapbox speech about "not having it" with politics when you and Paul are the one putting the politics on here most of the time.
 
Do you remember this thing that occurred called COVID when the Big Three had cars filling up every available empty space because they were waiting for chips.
That was a wake up call. We need the capacity to make those chips here. We certainly shouldn’t be dependent on a nation that is technically part of China, our most likely adversary in a future war.
 
The only thing about "tight" employment is that if we cut the dole, the workforce will expand quickly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The only thing about "tight" employment is that if we cut the dole, the workforce will expand quickly.
I removed a link from this post, as it was from a propaganda outfit who - literally - want to bring back child labor. Please, don't do this again.
 
Sorry you got fooled by his chart.
I'm just a lowly MBA. But the chart itself ... If I used that sort of math in an international finance class at my university, I would have gotten an F. At least an F. I may have been subjected to the Billy Madison speech in front of my peers:




Here's how the Economist -- a publication that's about as middle-of-the road, pro-business as you can get [along with the WSJ it is something most business people read]. They wrote:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...ps-mindless-tariffs-will-cause-economic-havoc

"On economics Mr Trump’s assertions are flat-out nonsense. The president says tariffs are needed to close America’s trade deficit, which he sees as a transfer of wealth to foreigners. Yet as any of the president’s economists could have told him, this overall deficit arises because Americans choose to save less than their country invests — and, crucially, this long-running reality has not stopped its economy from outpacing the rest of the g7 for over three decades. There is no reason why his extra tariffs should eliminate the deficit. Insisting on balanced trade with every trading partner individually is bonkers — like suggesting that Texas would be richer if it insisted on balanced trade with each of the other 49 states, or asking a company to ensure that each of its suppliers is also a customer.

And Mr Trump’s grasp of the technicalities was pathetic. He suggested that the new tariffs were based on an assessment of a country’s tariffs against America, plus currency manipulation and other supposed distortions, such as value-added tax. But it looks as if officials set the tariffs using a formula that takes America’s bilateral trade deficit as a share of goods imported from each country and halves it — which is almost as random as taxing you on the number of vowels in your name."


That's literally the strongest piece of writing I've ever seen from that particular journal. That should tell you something. Along with the several trillion dollars sucked out of the stock market today, which was the worst day since the global economy ground to a halt due to COVID.
 
I removed a link from this post, as it was from a propaganda outfit who - literally - want to bring back child labor. Please, don't do this again.
Yes. Propaganda. I see now. Got it.

Not going to substantiate that, or let others see it, I guess.

Just <label> + <vanish> what you don't agree with.

You don't lose any arguments that way!
 
Last edited:
Would you hire them? In my experience the welfare class is basically unemploy-ABLE.
Nice. Very nice.

Let's just feed them and give them some stalls to live in.

Maybe tent cities?
 
I'm just a lowly MBA. But the chart itself ... If I used that sort of math in an international finance class at my university, I would have gotten an F. At least an F. I may have been subjected to the Billy Madison speech in front of my peers:


LOL as I was writing that, an actual quote came up in the news, from an actual econ professor at my school today:

"“Monstrously destructive, incoherent, ill-informed tariffs based on fabrications, imagined wrongs, discredited theories and ignorance of decades of evidence. And the real tragedy is that they will hurt working Americans more than anyone else,” Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan"

So that's the insult I would actually have received in front of the class, not the Billy Madison speech. And I would have still received an F-
 
Here's how it affects optometry:

If you have a coffee machine in your office, you will need to raise your fees to compensate for the 40-80% increase in the cost of coffee beans. That trickle down effect (or drip) will become immediately apparent in a few days time.
There are so many follow-on effects and unintended consequences that people haven't even thought about, let alone thought through -- check out the one about coffee prices, that's going to universally piss off everyone. o_O
Now seriously. The EU is holding an emergency meeting to discuss plans for an April 12 response to the Trusk Tariffs. They are talking about cancelling existing contracts with US companies, freezing pending contracts and not just retaliatory tariffs but an across the board cessation of non-essential trade with the US.

The Magnificent Seven shed about $2 trillion in market capitations. They wont be hiring anyone or building new manufacturing anytime soon.

As Adam wrote above. This is so much worse than any of us can know. I'd bet that Trusk will be reversing course by Monday. But the damge will have been done. Middle class Americans are royally screwed so yes, our profession will be affected. To what degree, who knows?

This is not so much political but an example of bad, really bad policy decisions by people who do not hnow what the hell they are doing. The fact that is true is what is political. As the song goes, "when will they ever learn?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jenifer Ambler
In over 30 years of practice I cannot think of a single thing the federal govt has done to make running an optometric practice easier. We keep doing what we have always had to do. Work smarter, work harder, cut cost, limit staff and keep for looking for ways ro reinvent yourself. When necessary buy refurbished equipment.

Maybe these tariffs will just lead to a transitory period of inflation?
 
Question for all:

If a country has imposed a tariff (even if its a tariff by another name)on the U.S., should the U.S. be allowed to impose a tariff on them?
 
Nope. They get to do whatever they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen McDaniel
They can do whatever they want. So can we and tank our economy.
The difference is that one person took it upon themselves to crash the entire world's economy for the theoretical longer term potential that the US economy will return stronger and more be protective from their actions going forward.

Read those words: theoretical and potential. There is absolutely no proof that it will work like that and some pretty strong historical evidence that he's dead wrong.

But what do I know? I didn't do so well in Econ 101 or 202. But my portfolio (and three family members that I manage) is down 2.69% today and the overall market is down nearly 6%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jenifer Ambler
Context. Note the other peak is the notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Beuller?

Screenshot 2025-04-03 at 7.15.47 PM.png



 
from wikipedia:

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff remains a cautionary example of protectionist economic policy, frequently cited in debates over the risks and consequences of trade restrictions in modern economic discourse.[3] Excluding duty-free imports, the tariffs under the act were the third highest in U.S. history, after the tariffs imposed on the world by Trump in 2025 and Tariff of 1828.[4]"

Hawley is apparently buried not far from here. I only recently learned that fact -- which should tell you everything you need to know about how successful he was as a senator ....
 
http://www.realitybase.org/journal/...futes-three-myths-about-us-foreign-trade.html


Myth #2: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression, or at least made it much longer and deeper.

This act, signed into law June 17, 1930, was intended to protect American jobs and farmers from import competition by increasing tariffs from historic lows of about 5% to an average of about 25%, levels more characteristic of the 19th Century. Other nations retaliated by raising their tariff rates. Imports and exports both declined, but how much of those declines were caused by the tariff war, and were they a major factor contributing to the Great Depression?

In recessions, imports and exports decline even without changes in tariff rates, an effect that is obvious in the chart for the 1982 and 1991 recessions and the current Great Recession. The chart and database show that exports declined 39% from 5.7% of GDP in 1929 to 3.5% in 1933, the worst year of the Great Depression, while imports declined 37% from 5.4% to 3.4%. However, foreign trade was the smallest part of the US economy in those days, and the largest domestic sectors and the economy as a whole declined even more. Total GDP declined 46% from 1929 to 1933, and the two largest components of GDP, personal consumption and domestic private investment, declined by 41% and 90%, respectively. (The fourth component of GDP, government spending, fortunately declined only 10%.)

If raising tariffs caused immediate foreign trade decreases, then reversing the tariff changes should quickly increase foreign trade by about the same amount, right? Roosevelt promptly began making bi-lateral tariff reduction deals under authority of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and average rates were reduced to pre-Smoot-Hawley levels by 1947 when GATT was adopted. See graph here. Can we see the effects on foreign trade? Nope. In contrast to these dramatic tariff changes, the chart shows that imports grew very modestly from 3.4% of GDP in 1933 to just 4.3% in 1951. After that the value of imports as a portion of GDP was stable through 1965 before rising to 6.0% in 1972 (just before the Arab Oil Embargo).

One could reasonably say, as many did at the time, that raising tariffs in 1930 was wrong-headed because it was unlikely to ameliorate the Great Depression (and apparently did not ameliorate it). But there’s nothing in the data to suggest the tariff increases made things a great deal worse either, is there? I submit that the only significant ill effect of Smoot-Hawley was to dissipate the political energy that might otherwise have been directed at doing something useful for the economy in 1930, instead of waiting three more years for Roosevelt and Keynes.
 
Last edited:
I did not have time to go back and listen to yesterday's 1+ hour speech. So these are all "reciprocal tariffs" What if China responds and cuts their tariff to zero. Will they still be subject to a 10% minimum tariff? What do we really sell to China that they can not source elsewhere? If they go to zero does that instantly open our market to that at low or no tariff?
Think their economy needs us more we need them.
 
I predict that this will effect my practice less than the ill conceived (wrongful in my opinion) shut down of my “ routine” healthcare during the COVID pandemic.
That almost put me out of business.
I could be wrong. But that’s my opinion on how tariffs may impact my office staying to the title of the thread.

The billboards on I205 that posted STAY HOME OR KILL CHILDREN did plenty of damage to the economy.


What about retirement funds some of us fund for ourselves and our staff? Took a beating today. How could it not? Since when did putting money into wall street funds ever become guaranteed fortunes? I read the horror stories and see the brljnes stoking the worst fears. Stop feeding your world with fear.

The tariffs may be right or wrong, but they sure as shooting don’t stand a chance with the headlines posted by Adam. My goodness.

Where have all the anti teriff folks been for decades? Seriously.

There has been a terrif war for decades, we just took it. Now we are stepping in the ring and it may hurt but we need to fight.

If I am wrong, I’m okay with that, you can’t say I told you so, how about we revisit this in say a year or two. See how it all shakes out?
 
Moderators can take this down if too political; but Ben Shapiro, a known staunch conservative and Trump supporter who even did a live-stream at Trump's inauguration released an hour show on these Tariffs. I guess if you think Ben Shapiro is a liberal or non-Trump supporter I don't know what to say because 99% of the videos on his YouTube channel are pro-Trump and anti-Dem and attack Biden. But he does an hour showing graphs and sifting through facts and data to show that most of the talking points on on how we are getting Tariffs from these other countries is completely wrong (most countries have minimum Tariffs on us), how Trump's chart about other countries tariffs are completely wrong, how the trade deficits are being portrayed incorrectly by Trump and can actually mean a good thing, and many other stats how we have flourished as an economy because of free trade. When a known Conservative hardliner goes into this depth showing the possible damage of this decision it makes someone worry even more.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Jenifer Ambler
The tariffs may be right or wrong, but they sure as shooting don’t stand a chance with the headlines posted by Adam. My goodness.

Where have all the anti teriff folks been for decades? Seriously.

There has been a terrif war for decades, we just took it. Now we are stepping in the ring and it may hurt but we need to fight.

If I am wrong, I’m okay with that, you can’t say I told you so, how about we revisit this in say a year or two. See how it all shakes out?
We need leadership with a backbone to help our profession stand up against the VCPs. We can't do this independently. It would like a single person saying: I am going to protest by stopping buying products from: (FILL IN THE BLANK...China, Costco, etc.). We need to take a united front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David Gregory Luce
Question for all:

If a country has imposed a tariff (even if its a tariff by another name)on the U.S., should the U.S. be allowed to impose a tariff on them?
Sure, except many of the countries listed and we put tariffs on we already have free trade with them. South Korea pretty much allows free trade, but there is a trade deficit because we are a large country and buy a lot of products. And now we just put a 25% tariff on a country that was allowing free trade, is our ally, and now Americans will be paying much more on products coming from that country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jenifer Ambler
Sure, except many of the countries listed and we put tariffs on we already have free trade with them. South Korea pretty much allows free trade, but there is a trade deficit because we are a large country and buy a lot of products. And now we just put a 25% tariff on a country that was allowing free trade, is our ally, and now Americans will be paying much more on products coming from that country.
Pretty much allows free trade according to who? Serious question.
 
Pretty much allows free trade according to who? Serious question.
The United States and South Korea are currently parties to the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which was signed on June 30, 2007, and entered into force on March 15, 2012. This agreement significantly reduced tariffs and trade barriers between the two nations, fostering increased economic cooperation.

And if you watch the video by conservative Ben Shapiro he goes into more detail about all this. We already have free trade agreements with many of the countries that are on the list getting tariffs. It is just a talking point people are parroting about how we have been getting screwed by other countries.
 
 
Pretty much allows free trade according to who? Serious question.
The United States–Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA), implemented on September 1, 1985, was the first FTA entered into by the United States. This landmark agreement aimed to bolster economic ties by progressively eliminating duties on manufactured goods, achieving complete duty-free status for these products by January 1, 1995.

The United States–Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA), signed on October 24, 2000, and entering into force on December 17, 2001, was the first such agreement between the U.S. and an Arab country. It aimed to eliminate duties and commercial barriers to bilateral trade in goods and services. We just put a 20% tariff on Jordan who was one of the first Arab nations who agreed to do free trade with the US.

I mean people can go and look them up, but many of these countries we already had agreements to free trade but we hammered Israel, another ally as well.
 
Last edited:
The United States and South Korea are currently parties to the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which was signed on June 30, 2007, and entered into force on March 15, 2012. This agreement significantly reduced tariffs and trade barriers between the two nations, fostering increased economic cooperation.

And if you watch the video by conservative Ben Shapiro he goes into more detail about all this. We already have free trade agreements with many of the countries that are on the list getting tariffs. It is just a talking point people are parroting about how we have been getting screwed by other countries.