Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May;130(5):607-14.
doi: 10.1001/archopthalmol.2011.1921.

The cost-effectiveness of Welcome to Medicare visual acuity screening and a possible alternative welcome to medicare eye evaluation among persons without diagnosed diabetes mellitus

The cost-effectiveness of Welcome to Medicare visual acuity screening and a possible alternative welcome to medicare eye evaluation among persons without diagnosed diabetes mellitus

David B Rein et al. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012 May.

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of visual acuity screening performed in primary care settings and of dilated eye evaluations performed by an eye care professional among new Medicare enrollees with no diagnosed eye disorders. Medicare currently reimburses visual acuity screening for new enrollees during their initial preventive primary care health check, but dilated eye evaluations may be a more cost-effective policy.

Design: Monte Carlo cost-effectiveness simulation model with a total of 50 000 simulated patients with demographic characteristics matched to persons 65 years of age in the US population.

Results: Compared with no screening policy, dilated eye evaluations increased quality-adjusted life-years(QALYs) by 0.008 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.005-0.011) and increased costs by $94 (95% CrI, −$35 to$222). A visual acuity screening increased QALYs in less than 95% of the simulations (0.001 [95% CrI, −0.002 to 0.004) and increased total costs by $32 (95% CrI, −$97 to $159) per person. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a visual acuity screening and an eye examination compared with no screening were $29 000 and$12 000 per QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay value of $15 000 or more per QALY gained, a dilated eye evaluation was the policy option most likely to be cost-effective.

Conclusions: The currently recommended visual acuity screening showed limited efficacy and cost-effectiveness compared with no screening. In contrast, anew policy of reimbursement for Welcome to Medicare dilated eye evaluations was highly cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Simulation design. Individuals diagnosed with eye disorders or diabetes mellitus prior to age 65 years are excluded from the analysis because current recommendations direct their use of eye care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Probability that each screening option is the most cost-effective at each willingness-to-pay value by payer (indicated by shape) and scenario (indicated by color). MCR acuity indicates visual acuity screening in primary care at age 65 years from a Medicare perspective; MCR exam, dilated eye examination by an eye care professional at age 65 years from a Medicare perspective; MCR none, no intervention from a Medicare perspective; Patient acuity, visual acuity screening in primary care at age 65 years from a patient perspective; Patient exam, dilated eye examination by an eye care professional at age 65 years from a patient perspective; Patient none, no intervention from a patient perspective; Societal acuity, visual acuity screening in primary care at age 65 years from a societal perspective; Societal exam, dilated eye examination by an eye care professional at age 65 years from a societal perspective; Societal none, no intervention from a societal perspective.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2005–2008) [Accessed November 28, 2011];Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Center for Health Statistics Web site. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm.
    1. Patino CM, McKean-Cowdin R, Azen SP, Allison JC, Choudhury F, Varma R Los Angeles Latino Eye Study Group. Central and peripheral visual impairment and the risk of falls and falls with injury. Ophthalmology. 2010;117(2):199.e1–206.e191. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rees G, Tee HW, Marella M, Fenwick E, Dirani M, Lamoureux EL. Vision-specific distress and depressive symptoms in people with vision impairment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51(6):2891–2896. - PubMed
    1. Medicare preventive services. Quick reference information: the ABCs of providing the initial preventive physical examination. Components of the IPPE. [Accessed September 29, 2010];Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Web site. https://www.cms.gov/MLNProducts/downloads/MPS_QRI_IPPE001a.pdf.
    1. Chou R, Dana T, Bougatsos C. Screening older adults for impaired visual acuity: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(1):44–58. W11–W20. - PubMed

Publication types