Big data study using health insurance claims to predict multidisciplinary low vision service uptake.

SIGNIFICANCE: There is a lack of research from high-income countries with various health care and funding systems regarding barriers and facilitators in low vision services (LVS) access. Furthermore, very few studies on LVS provision have used claims data. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate which patient characteristics predict receiving multidisciplinary LVS (MLVS) in the Netherlands, a high-income country, based on health care claims data. METHODS: Data from a Dutch national health insurance claims database (2015 to 2018) of patients with eye diseases causing potentially severe visual impairment were retrieved. Patients received MLVS (n = 8766) and/or ophthalmic treatment in 2018 (reference, n = 565,496). MLVS is provided by professionals from various clinical backgrounds, including nonprofit low vision optometry. Patient characteristics (sociodemographic, clinical, contextual, general health care utilization) were assessed as potential predictors using a multivariable logistic regression model, which was internally validated with bootstrapping. RESULTS: Predictors for receiving MLVS included prescription of low vision aids (odds ratio [OR], 8.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.99 to 9.61), having multiple ophthalmic diagnoses (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 3.30 to 3.70), receiving occupational therapy (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 2.15 to 2.51), mental comorbidity (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.23), comorbid hearing disorder (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.11), and receiving treatment in both a general hospital and a specialized ophthalmic center (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.37), or by a general practitioner (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.29). Characteristics associated with lower odds included older age (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.32), having a low social economic status (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.97), physical comorbidity (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.92), and greater distance to an MLVS (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98). The area under the curve of the model was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.76; optimism = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: Various sociodemographic, clinical, and contextual patient characteristics, as well as factors related to patients' general health care utilization, were found to influence MLVS receipt as barriers or facilitators. Eye care practitioners should have attention for socioeconomically disadvantaged older patients when considering MLVS referral.

Trends in low vision service utilisation: A retrospective study based on general population healthcare claims.

PURPOSE: To identify parameters associated with the downward trend in the uptake of Low Vision Services (LVS) in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a Dutch national health insurance claims database (Vektis CV) of all adults (≥18 years) who received LVS from 2015 until 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to assess socio-demographic, clinical and contextual characteristics and other healthcare utilisation of the study population. General estimating equations trends in characteristics and healthcare utilisation were determined over time. RESULTS: A total of 49,726 unique patients received LVS, but between 2015 and 2018, the number of patients decreased by 15%. The majority was aged 65 years or older (53%), female (54%), had a middle (38%) or low (24%) socio-economic status and lived in urban areas (68%). Between 2015-2018, significant downward trends were found for treatment with intravitreal injections and lens-related diseases for LVS patients. For physical comorbidity, utilisation of ophthalmic care, low vision aids and occupational therapy, a significant upward trend was found over time. CONCLUSION: The decrease of Dutch LVS patients by 15% between 2015 and 2018 might be explained by a reduced distribution of patients treated with intravitreal injections and patients with lens-related diseases within the LVS. Compared to 2015, patients were more likely to have physical comorbidity, to see an ophthalmologist and to use low vision aids and occupational therapy in 2016, 2017 and 2018. This might indicate enhanced access to LVS when treated by ophthalmologists or within other medical specialties, or the opposite, i.e., less access when not treated within one of these medical specialties. Future research is needed to examine differences in patterns between LVS users and non-users further.