IMPORTANCE Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) is a breakthrough treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration (wAMD), the most common cause of blindness in western countries. Anti-VEGF treatment prevents vision loss and has been shown to produce vision gains lasting as long as 5 years. Although this treatment is costly, the benefits associated with vision gains are large. OBJECTIVE To estimate the economic value of benefits, costs for patients with wAMD, and societal value in the United States generated from vision improvement associated with anti-VEGF treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This economic evaluation study used data from the published literature to simulate vision outcomes for a cohort of 168 820 patients with wAMD aged 65 years or older and to translate them into economic variables. Data were collected and analyzed from March 2018 to November 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Main outcomes included patient benefits, costs, and societal value. Each outcome was estimated for a newly diagnosed cohort and the full population across 5 years, with a focus on year 3 as the primary outcome because data beyond that point may be less representative of the general population. Drug costs were the weighted mean across anti-VEGF therapies. Two current treatment scenarios were considered: less frequent injections (mean [SD], 8.2 [1.6] injections annually) and more frequent injections (mean [range], 10.5 [6.8-13.1] injections annually). The 2 treatment innovation scenarios, improved adherence and best case, had the same vision outcomes as the current treatment scenarios had but included more patients treated from higher initiation and lower discontinuation. RESULTS The study population included 168 820 patients aged 65 years at the time of diagnosis with wAMD. The underlying clinical trials that were used to parameterize the model did not stratify visual acuity outcomes or treatment frequency by sex; therefore, the model parameters could not be stratified by sex.

Identifying and prioritizing unanswered clinical questions may help to best allocate limited resources for research associated with the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). OBJECTIVE To identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes for research associated with the treatment of AMD through engagement with professional and patient stakeholders. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multiple cross-sectional survey questions were used in a modified Delphi process for panel members of US and international organizations, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Retina/Vitreous Panel (n=7), health care professionals from the American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) (n=90), Atlantic Coast Retina Conference (ACRC) and Macula 2017 meeting (n=34); and patients from MD (Macular Degeneration) Support (n=46). Data were collected from January 20, 2015, to January 9, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The prioritizing of clinical questions and patient-important outcomes for AMD. RESULTS Seventy clinical questions were derived from the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns for AMD and suggestions by the AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel. The AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel assessed all 70 clinical questions and rated 17 of 70 questions (24%) as highly important. Health care professionals assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated 12 of 17 questions (71%) as high priority for research to answer; 9 of 12 high-priority clinical questions were associated with aspects of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Patients assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated all as high priority. Additionally, patients identified 6 of 33 outcomes (18%) as most important to them (choroidal neovascularization, development of advanced AMD, retinal hemorrhage, gain of vision, slowing vision loss, and serious ocular events). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Input from 4 stakeholder groups suggests good agreement on which 12 priority clinical questions can be used to underpin research related to the treatment of AMD. The 6 most important outcomes identified by patients were balanced between intended effects of AMD treatment (eg, slowing vision loss) and adverse events. Consideration of these patient-important outcomes may help to guide clinical care and future areas of research.

No abstract

Purpose: This work compares physician reimbursements for retinal detachment (RD) surgery with office-based patient care. Methods: A theoretical model was constructed from the physician’s perspective for performing a 90-minute uncomplicated RD surgery with its associated perioperative work in the global period (Current Procedural Terminology code 67108) compared with managing 40 patients per 8-hour clinic day in the equivalent time period. The reimbursement rates were based on the 2019 values set by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Sensitivity analyses were performed varying the perioperative times, clinical productivity, and postoperative visits. Results: The CMS physician reimbursement rate for 67108 surgery was 17.13 work relative value units (wRVUs); meanwhile, the physician in the reference case could have generated 40.89 wRVUs in the office. CMS reimbursement therefore represented a 58% opportunity cost relative to lost office productivity for the physician. A significant disparity was still present even when modeling 30 patients per day. In sensitivity analyses, clinical productivity exceeded surgical compensation in 99% of modeled scenarios. In threshold analyses, the surgeon in the reference case would have to complete the surgery and all immediate perioperative care within 18 minutes to equal the total CMS valuation. Conclusions: CMS reimbursement for RD surgery resulted in a significant opportunity cost for the physician relative to office-based patient care, which was more pronounced for more efficient clinicians in the office. The sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the model. Reductions in surgery reimbursements relative to office-based patient care might disincentivize busy clinicians.

Purpose: This work analyzes data from a series of surveys developed by the American Society of Retina Specialists (ASRS) that assesses the impact of COVID-19 on physicians, their practices, and their patients. Methods: Five surveys were sent by the ASRS between March and July 2020 to more than 2600 US and international retina specialists. Data and trends from these surveys were analyzed. Results: Most responding retina specialists (87%-95% in the United States and internationally) reported having no known COVID-related symptoms despite reported limitations in personal protective equipment. Clinic volumes globally were drastically reduced in March 2020 with only partial recovery through July 2020, which was slower internationally than in the United States. Practices were compelled to reduce staff and physician employment levels. Most respondents estimated some degree of delay in patient treatment with corresponding declines in vision and/or anatomy that were attributed most frequently to patients’ fears of the pandemic and least frequently to office unavailability. Conclusions: The reported impact of COVID-19 on retina specialists, their practices, and their patients has been substantial. Although retina specialists were quickly resilient in optimizing delivery of patient care in a manner safe for patients and providers, the reduction in clinic volume has been devastating in the United States and internationally, with negative impacts on patient outcomes, reductions in practices’ volume and employment, and risk to practices’ financial health. Future studies will be required to quantify losses associated with these unprecedented and ongoing circumstances caused by the pandemic.