Is purchasing lenses from the prescriber associated with better habits among soft contact lens wearers?

PURPOSE: To compare the habits of United States (US) soft contact lens (SCL) wearers who bought SCLs from their eye care practitioner (ECP), on the internet/telephone, or at retail (not where they were examined) to test the effect of proximity to the prescriber on SCL wear and care practices. METHODS: Adult SCL wearers completed an adapted Contact Lens Risk Survey (CLRS) online that queried items related to risk factors for SCL-related complications. Responses from subjects who purchased at the ECP, via the internet/telephone, or at a retail store were compared (Chi-Square). RESULTS: Purchase sources were: ECP 646 (67%, 44±12 yrs, 17% male), Retail 104 (11%, 45±13 yrs, 28% male), and Internet/telephone 218 (23%, 45±12 yrs, 18% male); age (p=0.51), gender (p=0.021). Internet purchasers had fewer annual eye exams (79% ECP, 83% retail, 66% internet/telephone, p=0.007), purchased more hydrogel SCLs (34% ECP, 29% retail, 45% internet/telephone, p=0.0034), and paid for SCLs with insurance less often (39% ECP, 29% retail, 19% internet/telephone, p<0.0001). Other behaviors were similar across groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the purchase location of SCL wearers had limited impact on known risk factors for SCL-related complications. Internet purchasers reported less frequent eye exams and were more likely to be wearing hydrogel SCLs. Closer access to the ECP through in-office SCL purchase did not improve SCL habits or reduce the prevalence of risk behaviors.

A 'cost-per-wear' model based on contact lens replacement frequency.

PURPOSE: The aim was to construct and advise on the use of a cost-per-wear model based on contact lens replacement frequency, to form an equitable basis for cost comparison. METHODS: The annual cost of professional fees, contact lenses and solutions when wearing daily, two-weekly and monthly replacement contact lenses is determined in the context of the Australian market for spherical, toric and multifocal prescription types. This annual cost is divided by the number of times lenses are worn per year, resulting in a 'cost-per-wear'. The model is presented graphically as the cost-per-wear versus the number of times lenses are worn each week for daily replacement and reusable (two-weekly and monthly replacement) lenses. RESULTS: The cost-per-wear for two-weekly and monthly replacement spherical lenses is almost identical but decreases with increasing frequency of wear. The cost-per-wear of daily replacement spherical lenses is lower than for reusable spherical lenses, when worn from one to four days per week but higher when worn six or seven days per week. The point at which the cost-per-wear is virtually the same for all three spherical lens replacement frequencies (approximately AUD$3.00) is five days of lens wear per week. A similar but upwardly displaced (higher cost) pattern is observed for toric lenses, with the cross-over point occurring between three and four days of wear per week (AUD$4.80). Multifocal lenses have the highest price, with cross-over points for daily versus two-weekly replacement lenses at between four and five days of wear per week (AUD$5.00) and for daily versus monthly replacement lenses at three days per week (AUD$5.50). CONCLUSIONS: This cost-per-wear model can be used to assist practitioners and patients in making an informed decision in relation to the cost of contact lens wear as one of many considerations that must be taken into account when deciding on the most suitable lens replacement modality.