Traditional Eye Practices: Economics and Visual Status of Users in North Central Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Traditional medicine is a constellation of practices, approaches, knowledge, and beliefs, which encompass material-based medicines, spiritual therapies, and manual techniques applied individually or combined. AIM: This study seeks to determine the cost and visual status of traditional eye treatments users among new patients at a health facility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is part of the study titled "Traditional eye practices: A facility-based study in North Central Nigeria." It is a cross-sectional, facility-based study conducted between July 2013 and June 2014 on new patients seen in the eye unit of Church of Christ in the Nations Rehabilitation Center, Mangu. Interviewer-administered structured questionnaire was used to gather information on patient demographics; cost of traditional eye medication and manipulations and visual status of new patients were recorded. RESULTS: The use of traditional eye treatment was reported by 134 (4.3%) of the 3113 new patients. Traditional operative couching of lens was more expensive than using traditional eye medications (P < 0.001). Payment modality varied, and poor visual status was significantly higher among traditional eye treatment users (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Since most respondents who had their eyes couched or used traditional eye medicine were able to pay such high price with dissatisfaction and poorer visual status, they should be able to pay for modern cataract surgery with good outcome. There is a need for health education of the general public about the deleterious effects of traditional eye treatment.

A systematic review of economic evaluation of artificial intelligence-based screening for eye diseases: From possibility to reality.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a focus of research in the rapidly evolving field of ophthalmology. Nevertheless, there is a lack of systematic studies on the health economics of AI in this field. We examine studies from the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases that employed quantitative analysis, retrieved up to July 2023. Most of the studies indicate that AI leads to cost savings and improved efficiency in ophthalmology. On the other hand, some studies suggest that using AI in healthcare may raise costs for patients, especially when taking into account factors such as labor costs, infrastructure, and patient adherence. Future research should cover a wider range of ophthalmic diseases beyond common eye conditions. Moreover, conducting extensive health economic research, designed to collect data relevant to its own context, is imperative.

Reducing the Costs of an Eye Care Adherence Program for Underserved Children Referred Through Inner-City Vision Screenings.

PURPOSE: We previously reported costs and outcomes of the Children's Eye Care Adherence Program (CECAP1), a social worker intervention designed to improve adherence to eye care for underserved children in urban Philadelphia. Using cost findings from CECAP1, we revised the intervention to reduce costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate costs and effectiveness of the revised intervention (CECAP2). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Records of children needing ophthalmic follow-up after 2 community-based vision screening programs were reviewed. We modified CECAP1 to prioritize children more likely to visit, decreased phone calls and scheduling attempts, better documented children already followed by other doctors, and constricted our geographic catchment area for better accessibility. Cost was calculated using time spent executing CECAP2 by our salaried social worker. Effectiveness was defined as the percentage of patients completing at least 1 follow-up visit within the recommended time frame. RESULTS: Of 462 children referred to CECAP2 from our in-school and on-campus screening programs, 242 (52.4%) completed subsequent recommended eye examinations, a proportion identical to our prior report (52.3%). Social worker time per patient was 0.8 hours; a significant reduction from the previous 2.6 hours (P < .01). Cost per patient was $32.73; a significant reduction compared to the previous $77.20 (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Programmatic changes to reduce social worker intervention time and target potential patients by likelihood to attend along with constriction of the catchment area led to reduced costs by more than 50%, without impairing CECAP effectiveness.

Differences in characteristics of Medicare patients treated by ophthalmologists and optometrists.

PURPOSE: To quantify differences in the age, gender, race, and clinical complexity of Medicare beneficiaries treated by ophthalmologists and optometrists in each of the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study based on publicly accessible Medicare payment and utilization data from 2012 through 2017. METHODS: For each ophthalmic and optometric provider, demographic information of treated Medicare beneficiaries was obtained from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for the years 2012 through 2017. Clinical complexity was defined using CMS Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) coding. RESULTS: From 2012 through 2017, ophthalmologists in every state treated statistically significantly older beneficiaries, with the greatest difference (4.99 years in 2014) between provider groups seen in Rhode Island. In most states there was no gender difference among patients treated by the providers but in 46 states ophthalmologists saw a more racially diverse group of beneficiaries. HCC risk score analysis demonstrated that ophthalmologists in all 50 states saw more medically complex beneficiaries and the differences were statistically significant in 47 states throughout all six years. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are regional variations in the characteristics of patients treated by ophthalmologists and optometrists, ophthalmologists throughout the United States manage older, more racially diverse, and more medically complex Medicare beneficiaries.

Ophthalmic Medication Expenditures and Out-of-Pocket Spending: An Analysis of United States Prescriptions from 2007 through 2016.

PURPOSE: To estimate temporal trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for ophthalmic prescription medications among adults in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the 2007 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 18 years of age or older. The MEPS is a nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized, civilian United States population. METHODS: We estimated trends in national and per capita annual ophthalmic prescription expenditures by pooling data into 2-year cycles and using weighted linear regressions. We also identified characteristics associated with greater total or OOP expenditures with multivariate weighted linear regression. Costs were adjusted to 2016 United States dollars using the gross domestic product price index. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in total and OOP annual expenditures for ophthalmic medications from 2007 through 2016 as well as factors associated with greater expenditures. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2016, 9989 MEPS participants (4.2%) reported ophthalmic medication prescription use. Annual ophthalmic medication use increased from 10.0 to 12.2 million individuals from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016. In this same period, national expenditures for ophthalmic medications increased from $3.39 billion to $6.08 billion and OOP expenditures decreased from $1.34 to $1.18 billion. Per capita expenditure increased from $338.72 to $499.42 (P < 0.001), and per capita OOP expenditure decreased from $133.48 to $96.67 (P < 0.001) from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016, respectively. From 2015 through 2016, dry eye (29.5%) and glaucoma (42.7%) medications accounted for 72.2% of all ophthalmic medication expenditures. Patients who were older than 65 years (P < 0.001), uninsured (P < 0.001), and visually impaired (P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have greater OOP spending on ophthalmic medications. CONCLUSIONS: Total ophthalmic medication expenditure in the United States increased significantly over the last decade, whereas OOP expenses decreased. Increases in coverage, copayment assistance, and use of expensive brand drugs may be contributing to these trends. Policy makers and physicians should be aware that rising overall drug expenditures ultimately may increase indirect costs to the patient and offset a decline in OOP prescription drug spending.

Receipt of Eye Care Services among Medicare Beneficiaries with and without Dementia.

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between dementia status and receipt of eye care among US Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective, claims-based analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A 20% representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries who received care between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015. METHODS: Dementia was identified from diagnosis codes documented in a beneficiary's first 3 years of observed Medicare enrollment. Eye care visits were identified from provider specialty codes on each encounter claim. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-varying covariates to compare the likelihood of receiving eye care between beneficiaries with and without dementia. All models were adjusted for potential confounders, including demographics, urban/rural residence, systemic health (Charlson Index), and ocular comorbidities. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for (1) being seen by any eye care provider (ophthalmologist or optometrist); (2) being seen by an ophthalmologist specifically; and (3) receiving cataract surgery (among beneficiaries with ophthalmologist encounters). RESULTS: A total of 4 451 200 beneficiaries met inclusion criteria; 3 805 718 (85.5%) received eye care during the study period, and 391 556 (8.8%) had diagnosed dementia. Some 73.4% of beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia saw an eye care provider during the study period and 55.4% saw an ophthalmologist versus 86.7% and 74.0% of beneficiaries, respectively, without dementia diagnoses. Compared with those without dementia diagnoses, beneficiaries with diagnosed dementia had lower likelihood of seeing any eye care provider (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.69-0.70) and were less likely to see an ophthalmologist (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.55-0.55). Among the subset of beneficiaries who did see ophthalmologists, those with diagnosed dementia were also less likely to receive cataract surgery than beneficiaries without diagnosed dementia (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.62-0.63) and less likely to receive a cataract diagnosis (18% vs. 82%). CONCLUSIONS: US Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with dementia are less likely to receive eye care than those without diagnosed dementia. Depending on visual acuity and functional status, this may have implications for injury prevention, physical and cognitive function, and quality of life. Further work is needed to identify barriers to receiving eye care, determine eye care services and settings that provide greatest value to patients with dementia, and implement measures to improve access to appropriate eye care.

Presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome in a commercially insured population, United States.

PURPOSE: To describe epidemiologic features of patients with presumed ocular histoplasmosis syndrome (POHS) in the United States using insurance claims data and compare POHS patients with and without choroidal neovascularization (CNV). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes for histoplasmosis retinitis on an outpatient claim in the 2014 IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database and the Medicare Supplemental Database who were enrolled for at least 2 years after the POHS code. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data related to testing, treatment, and direct medical costs. RESULTS: Among >50 million total MarketScan enrollees, 6,678 (13 per 100,000) had a POHS diagnosis code. Of those, 2,718 were enrolled for 2 years; 698 (25%) of whom had a CNV code. Eleven of the 13 states with the highest POHS rates bordered the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. CNV patients had significantly more eye care provider visits (mean 8.8 vs. 3.2, p<0.0001), more ophthalmic imaging tests, higher rates of treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (45% vs. 4%, p<0.0001), and incurred higher mean total yearly costs ($1,251.83 vs. $251.36, p<0.0001) than POHS patients without CNV. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship between Histoplasma and POHS remains controversial, geographic patterns of POHS patient residence were consistent with the traditionally reported range of the fungus. CNV in the context of POHS was associated with additional healthcare use and costs. Further research to understand POHS etiology, risk factors, prevalence, and complications is needed, along with early diagnosis and treatment strategies.

Ocular Anesthesia-Related Closed Claims from Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company 2008-2018.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the types of anesthesia-related closed claims and their contributing factors, using data from the Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company (OMIC). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of preexisting data. PARTICIPANTS: Plaintiffs who filed a professional liability claim or suit (written demand for money) against OMIC-insured ophthalmologists, ophthalmic practices, or surgicenters in which the surgical case occurred. METHODS: Plaintiff claims were collected from the OMIC database from 2008 to 2018 using search queries for terms associated with known complications of ophthalmic anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and types of anesthesia-related injuries and claims, who administered the anesthesia, the outcomes of the claim or suit, cost to defend, and payments made to plaintiffs. RESULTS: Sixty-three anesthesia-related claims or suits were filed by 50 plaintiffs. Anesthesia-related injuries included globe perforation (n = 17), death (n = 13), retrobulbar hemorrhage (n = 7), optic nerve damage (n = 4), vascular occlusions (n = 2), pain (n = 2), eye or head movement resulting in injury (n = 2), and 1 case each for numbness, diplopia, and tooth loss during intubation. All but 1 patient who died had preexisting, significant comorbidities. Two deaths were related to brainstem anesthesia. Regarding the type of anesthesia in the closed claims, retrobulbar and peribulbar anesthesia were the most common types (n = 16 each), followed by local infiltration around the lids and facial nerve (n = 6), topical anesthesia (n = 5), and general anesthesia (n = 5). In 2 cases, the exact type of anesthesia was unknown but not general. The 5 topical with sedation anesthesia-related claims were due to inadequate pain control (n = 2), ocular movement resulting in capsular rupture (n = 2), or death (n = 1) allegedly related to excessive or inadequate monitoring of sedation. There were 5 claims related to general anesthesia including 4 deaths and 1 tooth loss during intubation. Sedation was alleged to be a factor in 5 cases resulting in death. Anticoagulants were a factor in 3 retrobulbar hemorrhage cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although claims and suits were infrequent given the large number of insured ophthalmologists and the large number of surgical cases requiring various types of anesthesia performed over the 10.5-year study period, severe injuries can occur.

Teleophthalmology for the elderly population: A review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmology is one of the most requested medical speciality services in the elderly population. Although numerous studies have shown the potentials of telemedicine for the provision of ophthalmology services, the extent of its usability in older adults and the aged population is not clear. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics and usability features of teleophthalmology for the elderly population. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL for relevant studies since 2008. Forty-five papers met the eligibility criteria and included in this review. We used a multifaceted model to extract the data and analyze findings by cross-tabulation. RESULTS: The majority of the reviewed papers included participants of 65 years of age or older. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA (38 %). Diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration and cataract were the most researched eye diseases, and among the imaging technologies, retinal photography had been used the most (72 %). The studies showed teleophthalmology can improve access to specialty care, reduce the number of unnecessary visits, alleviate overloads on treatment centers, and provide more comprehensive exams. It also made services cost-saving for stakeholders and cost-effective in rural areas. However, teleophthalmology was not cost-effective for patients above 80 and low-density population areas. CONCLUSION: Evidence is lacking for the usability and effectiveness of teleophthalmology for the elderly population. The findings suggest that primary care providers in collaboration with ophthalmologists could provide more effective eye care to elderly population. Appropriate training is also necessary for primary care doctors to manage and refer older patients in a timely manner. Diagnostic value and cost-effective imaging modalities which are the core of the teleophthalmology, can be enhanced by image processing techniques and artificial intelligence.

An analysis of the effectiveness outcomes of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To characterize the effectiveness measures of cost-effectiveness studies (CES) of ophthalmic drugs. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in PubMed/Embase until October 2019. Cost-effectiveness studies (CES) evaluating ophthalmic drugs were included. Sources of effectiveness measures were extracted. Data on study design and study outcomes were extracted from sources of effectiveness measures. The adequacy of the sample size of the clinical studies used as sources of effectiveness measures was assessed. If CES have retrieved effectiveness data from multiple sources, the appropriateness of the method to combine the results was analysed. RESULTS: Forty-five CES were included. Thirty-one (68.9%) retrieved their effectiveness measures from experimental studies, five (11.1%) from observational studies and nine (20%) from other type of data sources. Eight (17.8%) CES used data from a primary outcome of a study as an effectiveness measure, eight (17.8%) used data from secondary outcomes, seven (15.6%) used data from the both primary and secondary outcomes and for 22 (48.9%) it was not possible to identify the outcomes used. From the 23 (51.1%) CES based on a single clinical study, three (6.7%) included data from clinical studies which had an adequate sample size to detect significant differences in the clinical outcomes used as effectiveness measures. From the 17 (37.8%) CES based on multiple clinical studies, only one (2.2%) used and/or reported an adequate method of quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). CONCLUSION: A considerable number of CES in ophthalmology were not based on clinical studies with adequate sample sizes and report results from effectiveness measures not assessed as primary outcomes.

Predictors of High-cost Patients With Noninfectious Inflammatory Eye Diseases.

PURPOSE: Noninfectious inflammatory eye diseases (NIIEDs), such as uveitis, is a general term used to describe a complex mix of acute, chronic, allergic, and inflammatory disorders. Prior literature has established that, in addition to severe clinical burden, NIIEDs is associated with significant economic burden for US payers; however, no literature provides a current estimate of the economic burden associated with patients with high-cost NIIEDs. This study aimed to better understand the cost and resource use distribution and predictors of patients with high-cost NIIEDs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study selected adult patients with NIIEDs from a large US administrative claims database between 2006 and 2015. Among the included patients, total all-cause health care costs were calculated for a randomly selected 12-month period. Patients in the top 20% of total all-cause health care costs were identified as high-cost patients; the remaining patients were identified as lower-cost patients. Patient demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, cost, and health care resource utilization (HRU) were compared. Logistic regression models were used to determine characteristics associated with high-cost patients. FINDINGS: Patients with NIIEDs (n = 14,879) were categorized into 2976 high-cost and 11,903 lower-cost patients. High-cost patients with NIIEDs were significantly more likely to experience blindness, cataract, cystoid macular degeneration, retinal detachment, and visual disturbances during the follow-up period than the lower-cost patients (all P < 0.05). The high-cost patients accounted for ~77% of the total all-cause health care spend. High-cost patients incurred an average annual total health care cost of $59,873, and the top 1 percentile incurred $349,967 during the follow-up period. Hospitalization was a key cost driver among the high-cost patients, accounting for 50% of the total cost among the top 1 percentile of patients. High-cost patients were more likely to have specific autoimmune diseases, inpatient admission, and use of biologic and immunosuppressant agents. IMPLICATIONS: A small segment of patients with NIIEDs consumed most resources. This study identified several predictors based on patient characteristics and HRU that may help inform the profile of patients with NIIEDs with the highest health care needs. As such, patients with a given profile can be selected for targeted interventions by clinicians to potentially help improve quality of care and to reduce costs.

Burden of visual impairment associated with eye diseases: exploratory survey of 298 Chinese patients.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the economic burden, prevalence of catastrophic healthcare expenditure (CHE) and the quality of life (QoL) of Chinese patients with visual impairment (VI) associated with eye diseases. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey from March to May 2016 by structured face-to-face interviews of patients with VI. PARTICIPANTS: 302 patients who were diagnosed with moderate VI or worse in both eyes (visual acuity <6/18) were included, and 298 patients (98.7%) who completed the survey questionnaires were eligible for the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The economic burden was estimated by calculating participants' direct costs covered in 2015 and the definition of CHE was out-of-pocket (OOP) costs exceeding 30% of annual household income. QoL was weighed by health utility value using time-trade-off valuation techniques. RESULTS: Annual average direct costs per patient caused by VI were US$6988.6±US$10 834.3, and 70.3% were direct medical costs of which only 26.9% were reimbursable by medical insurance. 32.2% of households that suffered from CHE, in particular, were less wealthy patients with VI living in rural areas and without medical insurance. The health utility value was rated at 0.65 on average, and patients with VI aged 51-57, living alone and insured by commercial medical insurance had relatively less QoL. CONCLUSION: Our study explored the economic burden and QoL of VI associated with patients with eye diseases in China, indicating a substantial economic burden and poor QoL. Preferential medical insurance policies should be designed in relation to people with VI to further reduce the health inequalities, avoid CHE and promote QoL.

A needs assessment for a minor eye condition service within Leeds, Bradford and Airedale, UK.

BACKGROUND: There are a number of limitations to the present primary eye care system in the UK. Patients with minor eye conditions typically either have to present to their local hospital or GP, or face a charge when visiting eye care professionals (optometrists). Some areas of the UK have commissioned enhanced community services to alleviate this problem; however, many areas have not. The present study is a needs assessment of three areas (Leeds, Airedale and Bradford) without a Minor Eye Conditions Service (MECS), with the aim of determining whether such a service is clinically or economically viable. METHOD: A pro forma was developed for optometrists and practice staff to complete when a patient presented whose reason for attending was due to symptoms indicative of a problem that could not be optically corrected. This form captured the reason for visit, whether the patient was seen, the consultation funding, the outcome and where the patient would have presented to if the optometrists could not have seen them. Optometrists were invited to participate via Local Optical Committees. Results were submitted via a Google form or a Microsoft Excel document and were analysed in Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of patients were managed in optometric practice. Nine and 16% of patients required subsequent referral to their General Practitioner or hospital ophthalmology department, respectively. Should they not have been seen, 34% of patients would have presented to accident and emergency departments and 59% to their general practitioner. 53% of patients paid privately for the optometrist appointment, 28% of patients received a free examination either through use of General Ophthalmic Service sight tests (9%) or optometrist good will (19%) and 19% of patients did not receive a consultation and were redirected to other providers (e.g. pharmacy, accident and emergency or General Practitioner). 88% of patients were satisfied with the level of service. Cost-analyses revealed a theoretical cost saving of £3198 to the NHS across our sample for the study period, indicating cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment demonstrates that a minor eye condition service in the local areas would be economically and clinically viable and well received by patients.

Transformation Support Provided Remotely to a National Cohort of Optometry Practices.

PURPOSE: We describe the results of a practice transformation project conducted within a national cohort of optometry practices participating in the Southern New England Practice Transformation Network. METHODS: Participants were 2,997 optometrists in 1,706 practices in 50 states. The multicomponent intervention entailed curriculum dissemination through a preexisting network of optometrists supported by specialized staff and resources, and data collection through a web portal providing real-time feedback. Outcomes included practices reporting data, urgent optometry visits for target conditions, and projected cost savings achieved by reducing emergency department (ED) use through increased provision of urgent care for conditions amenable to management in optometry practices. RESULTS: Over 13 months, 69.9% of practices reported data for a mean of 6.7 months. Beginning with the fourth month, the number of urgent optometry visits increased steadily. Among reporting practices, the total cost savings were estimated at $152 million (176,703 ED visits avoided at an average cost differential of $860 per visit). Monthly projected cost savings per optometrist were substantially greater in rural vs urban practices ($10,800 vs $7,870; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Technical assistance to promote practice transformation can be provided remotely and at scale at low per-practice cost. Through the provision of timely, easily accessed ambulatory care, optometrists can improve the patient experience and reduce ED use, thereby reducing costs. The cost savings opportunities are immense because of the large volume and high expense of ED visits for ocular conditions that might otherwise be managed in ambulatory optometry practices.

Cost and Visit Duration of Same-Day Access at an Academic Ophthalmology Department vs Emergency Department.

Importance: Convenient outpatient access for ophthalmology patients seeking urgent care could offer savings compared with an emergency department (ED) visit. Objective: To evaluate the costs and visit durations of same-day access (SDA) in an ophthalmology department at an academic medical center vs ED care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center study was a retrospective quality improvement analysis of an institutional electronic medical record system at the Wilmer Eye Institute clinics and the Johns Hopkins Hospital ED. On June 1, 2015, the Wilmer Eye Institute and Johns Hopkins Hospital initiated an official policy of providing SDA to patients calling for appointments (ie, the same-day project). All ophthalmology clinic locations created same-day appointment slots for at least 1 practitioner. In recognition of seasonal variations in patient visit volumes, the 10 months before implementation (August 1, 2014, to May 31, 2015) were compared with complementary periods in 2015 to 2016 and 2016 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study tabulated encounters, charges, and visit length for outpatients seen on the same day or by previously scheduled appointments. For the ED patients, volume, diagnoses, charges, and length of stay data were collected. The numbers of SDA patients who indicated urgency were tabulated. Results: The number of SDA patients increased from 22 781 to 26 579 for the first year after SDA implementation. The mean charge was $258 (95% CI, $250-$266; median, $184; interquartile range [IQR], $175-$320), and the mean clinic transit time was 1.55 hours (95% CI, 1.54-1.57 hours; median, 1.28 hours). For patients seeking eye care in the ED, the mean professional fee was $401 (95% CI, $390-$411; median, $360; IQR, $255-$500), the mean (SD) total hospital charge was $1040 ($999) (95% CI, $729-$1079; median, $1002; IQR, $334-$1429), and the mean length of stay was 7.30 hours (95% CI, 7.01-7.57 hours; median, 7.20 hours). The top 4 ophthalmic diagnoses for ED patients were conjunctivitis, cornea abrasion, iritis, and visual loss, which were unchanged after SDA implementation. In calendar year 2017, a total of 4062 SDA patients reported urgency; their estimated savings in charges compared with an ED visit were $580 866 in professional fees and $3 176 484 in hospital charges. Conclusions and Relevance: Same-day access appears to be less expensive and to require less time in the health care system than a visit to the ED for an ophthalmic diagnosis. Substantial savings in time and money might be achieved if urgent eye care is delivered in the clinic rather than the ED.

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Innovative drugs have been approved in ophthalmology. Thus, the number and importance of economic evaluation studies of ophthalmic drugs have been growing. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of pharmacoeconomic studies of ophthalmic drugs. AREAS COVERED: A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed/Embase until November 2018 to identify full pharmacoeconomic studies evaluating ophthalmic drugs. The quality of studies was evaluated using the British Medical Journal (BMJ) checklist. Quality indicators were evaluated by Fisher's exact test. Ninety-five studies were included, 50 (52.6%) cost-utility analysis, 28 (29.5%) cost-effectiveness and 17 (17.9%) cost-effectiveness/cost-utility. All studies presented, at least, three methodological limitations. Cost-utility studies, studies conducted from a health system perspective, with time horizons longer than one-year and that rely on observational or observational and experimental data simultaneously are associated with higher quality. Only eight (8.4%) studies considered two eyes in the economic analysis and only 13 (13.7%) considered the natural history of the disease when extrapolating results for long-term analysis. EXPERT OPINION: The majority of the pharmacoeconomic studies were assessed as having good methodological quality, however, the methodological quality scores were sensitive to several indicators. Therefore, improving the quality of studies would enhance their usefulness in the decision-making processes.

Comparison of Ophthalmic Medication Prices Between the United States and Australia.

Importance: Health care prices may drive differences in health care costs across high-income nations. Adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept are high-cost medications in the United States and Australia. A comparison of their prices over time may elucidate how ophthalmic medication prices contribute to health care costs. Objective: To compare changes in the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia, the highest and lowest spenders on health care, respectively, among high-income nations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective price comparison study examined prices paid by government entities in the United States (Medicare) and Australia (Pharmaceuticals and Benefits Scheme). The analysis and data collection were conducted from March 28 to May 4, 2018, in accordance with guidelines set by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force on Good Research Practices and prior published studies. No human participants or related data were included in this study. Exposures: The change in mean prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept in the United States and Australia. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initial, final, and change in medication price annually from 2013 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted 2017 US dollars. Results: The mean prices (US dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) in 2013 and 2017 in the United States were $1114 ($1053) and $1818 ($1818), respectively, for adalimumab; $2102 ($1988) and $1904 ($1904), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2074 ($1961) and $1956 ($1956), respectively, for aflibercept. The mean (Australian dollar prices unadjusted for inflation) 2013 and 2017 prices in Australia were $1854 (A $1797) and $1206 (A $1574), respectively, for adalimumab; $2157 (A $2090) and $972 (A $1268), respectively, for ranibizumab; and $2030 (A $1967) and $996 (A $1300), respectively, for aflibercept. The estimated annual change in price for adalimumab was +12.8% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.5%) in the United States compared with -11.1% (95% CI, -15.0% to -7.1%) in Australia, a difference of 23.9% per year (95% CI, 19.7%-28.0%; P < .001). The annual change in price for ranibizumab was -2.6% (95% CI, -3.9% to -1.3%) in the United States compared with -18.5% (95% CI, -29.3% to -7.8%) in Australia, a difference of 15.9% per year (95% CI, 7.6%-24.2%; P = .003). The annual change in price for aflibercept was -1.5% (95% CI, -2.2% to -0.7%) in the United States compared with -16.9% (95% CI, -25.1% to -8.6%) in Australia, a difference of 15.4% (95% CI, 9.1%-21.8%; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that the prices of adalimumab, ranibizumab, and aflibercept significantly decreased during the past 5 years in Australia compared with the United States. These data do not indicate why these differences are noted or what actions might affect future pricing in either country.

Imaging in neuro-ophthalmology in the context of value-based care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuro-ophthalmic imaging is an invaluable tool for clinical decision-making and has evolved rapidly. At the same time, both imaging utilization and healthcare costs have skyrocketed, and concern for imaging overuse has become a salient topic. This article gives an overview of the current state of neuro-ophthalmic imaging from a value-based medicine lens and discusses recent neuro-ophthalmic advancements in OCT with these considerations in mind. RECENT FINDINGS: Neuro-ophthalmology is not immune to the waste prevalent in medical imaging. Recent guidelines recommend against routine imaging for ophthalmic conditions without the presence of symptoms. Although neuro-ophthalmic specialty consults and imaging compare favorably against other specialties, the diagnostic yield depending on imaging indication can vary dramatically. For newer developments such as in OCT, it is particularly difficult to assess cost-effectiveness despite the technology's exciting diagnostic potential. SUMMARY: Familiarity with guidelines to counter misuse, the diagnostic yield of imaging in particular situations, and the limitations of new technology can all help neuro-ophthalmologists make educated tradeoffs and adapt to the new landscape of cost-effective medicine. By helping to decrease costs and efficiently utilize limited resources, the end benefactors will be the increased number of patients who have greater access to affordable care.