To examine the prevalence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American, and other racial/ ethnic groups.Design: A US nationally representative, populationbased, cross-sectional study involving a total of 5553 persons aged 40 years and older from the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The main outcome measure was AMD determined by the grading of 45°digital images from both eyes using a standardized protocol.Results: In the civilian, noninstitutionalized, US population aged 40 years and older, the estimated prevalence of any AMD was 6.5% (95% confidence interval, 5.5-7.6) and the estimated prevalence of late AMD was 0.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.5-1.3). Non-Hispanic black persons aged 60 years and older had a statistically significantly lower prevalence of any AMD than non-Hispanic white persons aged 60 years and older (odds ratio=0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.67). Conclusions:Overall, the prevalence of any AMD in the 2005-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was 6.5%, which is lower than the 9.4% prevalence reported in the 1988-1994 Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. While this finding might be explained in part by possible methodological differences, these estimates are consistent with a decreasing incidence of AMD and suggest important public health care implications.

Purpose To assess vision health disparities in the United States by race/ethnicity, education, and economic status. Design Cross-sectional, nationally representative samples Methods We used national survey data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Main outcome measures included, from NHANES, age-related eye diseases (i.e., age-related macular degeneration [AMD], cataract, diabetic retinopathy [DR], glaucoma) and from NHIS, eye care use (i.e., eye doctor visits and cannot afford eyeglasses when needed) among those with self-reported visual impairment. The estimates were age- and sex-standardized to the 2000 US census population. Linear trends in the estimates were assessed by weighted least squares regression. Results Non-Hispanic whites had a higher prevalence of AMD and cataract surgery than non-Hispanic blacks, but a lower prevalence of DR and glaucoma (all P < 0.001 in NHANES 2005–2008). From 1999 to 2008, individuals with less education (i.e., < high school vs. > high school) and lower income (poverty income ratio [PIR] < 1.00 vs. ≥4.00) were consistently less likely to have had an eye care visit in the past 12 months compared with their counterparts (all P < 0.05). During this period, inability to afford needed eyeglasses increased among non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics (trend P = 0.004 and P = 0.007; respectively), those with high school education (trend P = 0.036), and those with PIR 1.00–1.99 (trend P < 0.001). Conclusions Observed vision health disparities suggest a need for educational and innovative interventions among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.

OBJECTIVEWe examine barriers to receiving recommended eye care among people aged ≥40 years with diagnosed diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe analyzed 2006–2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 22 states (n = 27,699). Respondents who had not sought eye care in the preceding 12 months were asked the main reason why. We categorized the reasons as cost/lack of insurance, no need, no eye doctor/travel/appointment, and other (meaning everything else). We used multinomial logistic regression to control for race/ethnicity, education, income, and other selected covariates.RESULTSAmong adults with diagnosed diabetes, nonadherence to the recommended annual eye examinations was 23.5%. The most commonly reported reasons for not receiving eye care in the preceding 12 months were “no need” and “cost or lack of insurance” (39.7 and 32.3%, respectively). Other reasons were “no eye doctor,” “no transportation” or “could not get appointment” (6.4%), and “other” (21.5%). After controlling for covariates, adults aged 40–64 years were more likely than those aged ≥65 years (relative risk ratio [RRR] = 2.79; 95% CI 2.01–3.89) and women were more likely than men (RRR = 2.33; 95% CI 1.75–3.14) to report “cost or lack of insurance” as their main reason. However, people aged 40–64 years were less likely than those aged ≥65 years to report “no need” (RRR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.39–0.67) as their main reason.CONCLUSIONSAddressing concerns about “cost or lack of insurance” for adults under 65 years and “no perceived need” among those 65 years and older could help improve eye care service utilization among people with diabetes.