United States Population Disparities in Ophthalmic Care: Blindness and Visual Impairment in the IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight).

PURPOSE: To evaluate associations of patient characteristics with United States eye care use and likelihood of blindness. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (19 546 016) with 2018 visual acuity (VA) records in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight). METHODS: Legal blindness (20/200 or worse) and visual impairment (VI; worse than 20/40) were identified from corrected distance acuity in the better-seeing eye and stratified by patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations with blindness and VI. Blindness was mapped by state and compared with population characteristics. Eye care use was analyzed by comparing population demographics with United States Census estimates and proportional demographic representation among blind patients versus a nationally representative US population sample (National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey [NHANES]). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence and odds ratios for VI and blindness; proportional representation in the IRIS® Registry, Census, and NHANES by patient demographics. RESULTS: Visual impairment was present in 6.98% (n = 1 364 935) and blindness in 0.98% (n = 190 817) of IRIS patients. Adjusted odds of blindness were highest among patients ≥ 85 years old (odds ratio [OR], 11.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.33-13.59 vs. those 0-17 years old). Blindness also was associated positively with rural location and Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance vs. commercial insurance. Hispanic (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.46-1.74) and Black (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.63-1.84) patients showed a higher odds of blindness versus White non-Hispanic patients. Proportional representation in IRIS Registry relative to the Census was higher for White than Hispanic (2- to 4-fold) or Black (11%-85%) patients (P < 0.001). Blindness overall was less prevalent in NHANES than IRIS Registry; however, prevalence in adults aged 60+ was lowest among Black participants in the NHANES (0.54%) and second highest among comparable Black adults in IRIS (1.57%). CONCLUSIONS: Legal blindness from low VA was present in 0.98% of IRIS patients and associated with rural location, public or no insurance, and older age. Compared with US Census estimates, minorities may be underrepresented among ophthalmology patients, and compared with NHANES population estimates, Black individuals may be overrepresented among blind IRIS Registry patients. These findings provide a snapshot of US ophthalmic care and highlight the need for initiatives to address disparities in use and blindness. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Estimated number of ophthalmologists worldwide (International Council of Ophthalmology update): will we meet the needs?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To estimate 2015 global ophthalmologist data and analyse their relationship to income groups, prevalence rates of blindness and visual impairment and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. METHODS: Online surveys were emailed to presidents/chairpersons of national societies of ophthalmology and Ministry of Health representatives from all 194 countries to capture the number and density (per million population) of ophthalmologists, the number/density performing cataract surgery and refraction, and annual ophthalmologist population growth trends. Correlations between these data and income group, GDP per capita and prevalence rates of blindness and visual impairment were analysed. RESULTS: In 2015, there were an estimated 232 866 ophthalmologists in 194 countries. Income was positively associated with ophthalmologist density (a mean 3.7 per million population in low-income countries vs a mean 76.2 in high-income countries). Most countries reported positive growth (94/156; 60.3%). There was a weak, inverse correlation between the prevalence of blindness and the ophthalmologist density. There were weak, positive correlations between the density of ophthalmologists performing cataract surgery and GDP per capita and the prevalence of blindness, as well as between GDP per capita and the density of ophthalmologists doing refractions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the estimated global ophthalmologist workforce appears to be growing, the appropriate distribution of the eye care workforce and the development of comprehensive eye care delivery systems are needed to ensure that eye care needs are universally met.

The Prevalence of Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization in the United States: Analysis of the IRIS(®) Data Registry and NHANES.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of high myopia (HM), progressive high (degenerative) myopia (PHM), and myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 18 years and older participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and patients aged 18 years and older seen in clinics participating in the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS(®)) Registry. METHODS: We analyzed NHANES data from 2005 to 2008 to determine the prevalence of HM in the United States. This prevalence was then applied to estimates from the US Population Census (2014) to arrive at a population burden of HM at the diopter level in the United States. Data from the IRIS Registry were used to calculate the real-world prevalence rates of PHM and mCNV among patients with HM at the diopter level. This was subsequently applied to this reference population with HM to calculate the diopter-adjusted prevalence and population burden of PHM and mCNV in the United States in 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: High myopia was defined as myopic refractive error of ≤6.0 diopters in the right eye. Progressive HM was defined as HM with the International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code of "360.21: Progressive High (Degenerative) Myopia." Myopic CNV was defined as HM with the presence of subretinal/choroidal neovascularization indicated by the ICD-9-CM diagnosis of "362.16: Retinal Neovascularization NOS." RESULTS: The estimated diopter-adjusted prevalence of HM, PHM, and mCNV was 3.92% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.82-5.60), 0.33% (95% CI, 0.21-0.55), and 0.017% (95% CI, 0.010-0.030), respectively, among adults in the United States aged 18 years and older in 2014. This translated into a population burden of approximately 9 614 719 adults with HM, 817 829 adults with PHM, and 41 111 adults with mCNV in the United States in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: Although HM and PHM impose a relatively large burden among adults in the United States, mCNV seems to be a rare disease. Relating data from the IRIS Registry and NHANES could be a novel method for assessing ophthalmic disease prevalence in the United States. Future studies should aim to better assess current treatment patterns and optimal management strategies of this condition.

Perspective: Conflict of interest and professional organizations: considerations and recommendations.

There are differences in conflicts of interest (COIs) in professional organizations compared with academic medical centers. The authors discuss nine major questions pertaining to industry relationships of professional organizations: (1) What makes COI management different in professional membership organizations? (2) What COI challenges are specific to professional organizations? (3) What are potential impacts of perceived or real COIs involving professional organizations and the management of COIs? (4) Is regulation necessary, or should professional organizations proactively resolve COI issues independently? (5) Are guidelines portable from academic medical centers to professional organizations? (6) What approaches may be considered for managing COIs of the organization's leaders? (7) What approaches are reasonable for managing COI issues at professional meetings? (8) What approaches are important for integrity of educational programs, publications, and products? and (9) What approaches are reasonable for managing and enforcing COI guidelines on an ongoing basis? Responses to these questions focus on four principles: First, a code of ethics governing general behavior of members and safeguarding the interest of patients must be in place; second, the monitoring and management of COI for leadership, including, in some cases, recusal from certain activities; third, the pooling and consistent, transparent management of unrestricted grants from corporate sponsors; and, fourth, the management of industry marketing efforts at membership meetings to ensure their appropriateness. The perspectives offered are intended to encourage individuals and learned bodies to further study and provide commentary and recommendations on managing COIs of a professional organization.

Impact of a pay-for-performance intervention: financial analysis of a pilot program implementation and implications for ophthalmology (an American Ophthalmological Society thesis).

PURPOSE: To determine whether a specific pay-for-performance program design will result in a decrease in global health care expenditures attributable to implementation of that program. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of costs referable to the health plan during a baseline year in comparison to the year following the program implementation. All claims paid during the year prior to program implementation (Baseline) were compared with all costs during the first year of program deployment (Intervention). The primary outcome measure was global health plan expenditure. Secondary outcomes measures included global health plan expenditures adjusted for catastrophic cases and changes in costs by provider type attributable to the program implementation. RESULTS: Global expenditures, for Implementation relative to Baseline years, decreased to $2,049,780 from $2,316,929 (11.5%). When adjustment was made for catastrophic cases, costs decreased to $1,645,568 from $1,811,840 (9.2%). This cost reduction was achieved despite approximately a 10% increase in provider pricing per unit of service. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot, implementing the program was an effective way to reduce the total health care costs in the first year of implementation. This supports the concept and documents for the first time in a commercial population that an appropriately designed pay-for-performance system can reduce total health care costs by reduction in units of service. This reduction in units of service will more than offset a substantive increase in physician payment per unit of service. Pay-for-performance measures will impact the practice of ophthalmology as government, payers, employers, and consumers focus on value and on demonstrable, auditable outcomes of the care process.