![]() ![]() We aimed to evaluate for association between socioeconomic status visual acuity in neovascular age-related macular degeneration.Ī retrospective single-center study of a consecutive group of neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients was performed. Visual outcome in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration is variable. Because the estimated upper bound of the credible interval of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dilated eye examinations when compared with initial preventive physical examination (IPPE) visual acuity screening was $10 600, we conclude that IPPE screening would still be extendedly dominated by no screening and dilated eye examinations even at the upper end of its estimated distribution. Using the model described in our article, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of Welcome to Medicare visual acuity screening compared with no screening using the parameter values drawn from the 5th and 95th percentiles of the distribution of the sensitivity of screening for the URE parameter (β distribution, mean = 0.7, α = 20.3, β = 8.7).1,2 Using these values, when compared with no screening, Welcome to Medicare visual acuity screening resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34 500 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when assuming a low sensitivity of 0.55 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $24 200 when assuming a high sensitivity of 0.83. In response to their concerns, we report the univariate impact of changes in the sensitivity of the Welcome to Medicare vision test for detecting uncorrected refractive error (URE) and the potential value of information to be gained from additional research on this parameter. In replyWe appreciate the interest in our article expressed by Kymes et al. The gap in access between Canadians and Americans without health insurance narrowed after adjustments for income level and optional vision insurance. Individuals with optional vision insurance and those with higher income levels were more likely to use eye care services.Īmericans with vision problems who had health insurance accessed eye care services at a rate higher than or equal to that of their Canadian counterparts. ![]() ![]() ![]() The difference in use of eye care services between Americans without health insurance and Canadians narrowed when adjusted for income level and was almost eliminated when adjusted for having optional vision insurance. Americans without health insurance had the lowest age-adjusted rate of use of eye care services (42%) compared with Americans with private health insurance (67%) or public health insurance (55%) and Canadians (56%). We performed multivariate logistic regression analyses to estimate the probability that individuals with vision problems and various insurance categories would visit an eye care professional.Īpproximately 8.2% of Americans with self-reported vision problems did not have health insurance. Using the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, we examined the differences in use of eye care services in 2018 Canadian respondents and 2930 American respondents with self-reported vision problems. To compare realized access or use of eye care services in adults with self-reported vision problems in Canada and the United States. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |