Effect of delisting routine eye exams on optometric glaucoma diagnosis billings in Ontario.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Kiko Zi Yi Huang, Graham E Trope, Wendy Hatch, Yvonne M Buys, Ya-Ping Jin
{"title":"Effect of delisting routine eye exams on optometric glaucoma diagnosis billings in Ontario.","authors":"Kiko Zi Yi Huang, Graham E Trope, Wendy Hatch, Yvonne M Buys, Ya-Ping Jin","doi":"10.1016/j.jcjo.2026.08.035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Routine eye examinations (REEs) are critical for glaucoma detection. In 2004, Ontario discontinued coverage for REEs for healthy individuals aged 20-64. We assessed whether this \"delisting\" policy affected the rate of new glaucoma diagnoses identified through REE billings.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A population-level intervention study PARTICIPANTS: Ontarians aged 20+ insured under Ontario's universal health coverage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using Ontario health administrative data and segmented regression analysis, we assessed changes in the rate (per 10,000 population) of new glaucoma diagnoses billed by optometrists during REEs before (1998-2004) and after (2005-2019) coverage delisting individuals aged 20-64. A comparison group of seniors unaffected by the policy were also assessed across the same 2 periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The rate of new glaucoma diagnosis billings by optometrists per 10,000 people, during REEs significantly decreased postdelisting versus predelisting in affected age groups: -10.4 (95% CI: -10.9 to -9.9; p < .0001) for those aged 20-39 and -38.8 (95% CI: -40.9 to -36.8; p < .0001) for those aged 40-64. In unaffected seniors, the rate remained stable postdelisting versus predelisting (+0.1 per 10,000, 95% CI: -3.0 to 3.2; p > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Discontinuation of public funding for REEs in 2004 was associated with significant declines in new glaucoma diagnosis billings submitted by optometrists during REEs in delisted-affected individuals aged 20-64, but not in unaffected seniors. This suggests that delisting of publicly funded REEs may hinder detection of new glaucoma cases. Further study is warranted to investigate whether this decline in new glaucoma diagnosis billings is associated with more advanced glaucoma at first diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9606,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2026.08.035","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Routine eye examinations (REEs) are critical for glaucoma detection. In 2004, Ontario discontinued coverage for REEs for healthy individuals aged 20-64. We assessed whether this "delisting" policy affected the rate of new glaucoma diagnoses identified through REE billings.

Design: A population-level intervention study PARTICIPANTS: Ontarians aged 20+ insured under Ontario's universal health coverage.

Methods: Using Ontario health administrative data and segmented regression analysis, we assessed changes in the rate (per 10,000 population) of new glaucoma diagnoses billed by optometrists during REEs before (1998-2004) and after (2005-2019) coverage delisting individuals aged 20-64. A comparison group of seniors unaffected by the policy were also assessed across the same 2 periods.

Results: The rate of new glaucoma diagnosis billings by optometrists per 10,000 people, during REEs significantly decreased postdelisting versus predelisting in affected age groups: -10.4 (95% CI: -10.9 to -9.9; p < .0001) for those aged 20-39 and -38.8 (95% CI: -40.9 to -36.8; p < .0001) for those aged 40-64. In unaffected seniors, the rate remained stable postdelisting versus predelisting (+0.1 per 10,000, 95% CI: -3.0 to 3.2; p > .05).

Conclusions: Discontinuation of public funding for REEs in 2004 was associated with significant declines in new glaucoma diagnosis billings submitted by optometrists during REEs in delisted-affected individuals aged 20-64, but not in unaffected seniors. This suggests that delisting of publicly funded REEs may hinder detection of new glaucoma cases. Further study is warranted to investigate whether this decline in new glaucoma diagnosis billings is associated with more advanced glaucoma at first diagnosis.

安大略省取消常规眼科检查对验光青光眼诊断帐单的影响。
目的:常规眼部检查对青光眼的检测至关重要。2004年,安大略省停止为20-64岁的健康人提供REEs保险。我们评估了这种“除名”政策是否会影响通过REE账单确定的青光眼新诊断率。设计:一项人口水平的干预研究参与者:年龄在20岁以上的安大略省人在安大略省全民健康保险下投保。方法:使用安大略省卫生管理数据和分割回归分析,我们评估了在REEs期间(1998-2004年)和(2005-2019年)覆盖范围内(20-64岁)退市个体的验光师新诊断青光眼的比率(每10,000人)的变化。一组未受该政策影响的老年人也在同样的两个时期进行了评估。结果:与退市前相比,在受影响的年龄组中,退市后验光师每10,000人的青光眼诊出率显著降低:20-39岁的患者为-10.4 (95% CI: -10.9至-9.9;p < 0.0001), 40-64岁的患者为-38.8 (95% CI: -40.9至-36.8;p < 0.0001)。在未受影响的老年人中,退市后与退市前的比率保持稳定(+0.1 / 10,000,95% CI: -3.0至3.2;p < 0.05)。结论:2004年对REEs的公共资助的终止与验光师在REEs期间提交的青光眼新诊断账单的显著下降有关,这些患者年龄在20-64岁之间,但在未受影响的老年人中没有。这表明,将公费稀土元素除名可能会阻碍青光眼新病例的发现。需要进一步的研究来调查青光眼新诊断账单的下降是否与初次诊断时更严重的青光眼有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
223
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Official journal of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society. The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology (CJO) is the official journal of the Canadian Ophthalmological Society and is committed to timely publication of original, peer-reviewed ophthalmology and vision science articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书