Search

OBJECTIVE In 2004, government-funded routine eye exams were discontinued for individuals aged 20-64 years in Ontario. We assessed whether this policy change reduced the rate of new glaucoma diagnoses. DESIGN Cohort-based time-series analysis. PARTICIPANTS Ontarians aged 20+ years in 2000-2014. METHODS Province-wide physician billing data were analyzed using segmented regression analysis. New glaucoma diagnoses were defined as the first glaucoma diagnostic billing code submitted by an ophthalmologist or optometrist among Ontarians who did not visit an ophthalmologist or an optometrist in the year prior to the study year. RESULTS Post- versus pre-2004, the rate of new glaucoma billings was reduced in all age groups: -2.7‰ (p < 0.0001) in the age group 20-39 years, -8.2‰ (p < 0.0001) in the age group 40-64 years (p < 0.0001), and -2.1‰ (p = 0.0003) in the age group 65+ years. This corresponds to a decreased number of individuals with a new glaucoma billing after 2004 versus before 2004: -8,800 (p < 0.001) in the age group 20-39 years, -32,234 (p < 0.0001) in the age group 40-64 years, and -3,255 (p = 0.0012) in the age group 65+ years. Reduced rates of new glaucoma diagnostic billings were seen in males, females and rural and urban residents among policy-affected and policy-unaffected age groups. Ontarians living in the wealthiest neighbourhood areas also had a significantly reduced rate after versus before 2004: -2.7‰ (p < 0.0001) for the age group 20-39 years, -9.0‰ (p < 0.0001) for the age group 40-64 years, and -2.3‰ (p < 0.001) for the age group 65+ years. CONCLUSIONS Discontinuation of government-funding for routine eye exams was associated with a significantly reduced rate of new glaucoma diagnostic billings irrespective of sociodemographics. More research is needed to understand the reduced glaucoma billings in unaffected seniors and those living in the wealthiest neighbourhood areas.

William Jeon,1 Graham E Trope,1,2 Yvonne M Buys,2 Richard Wedge,3 Sherif El-Defrawy,2 Qi-Sheng Chen,4 Ya-Ping Jin1,2,5 1Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Health Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada; 4University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; 5Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Ya-Ping JinDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, 340 College Street, Suite 400, Toronto, M5T 1S8, Ontario, CanadaTel +416-978-7938Email Yaping.Jin@utoronto.caIntroduction: Eye care in many countries is provided by optometrists, ophthalmologists, primary care providers (PCPs, including family physicians and pediatricians) and emergency department (ED) physicians. In the province of Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, optometric services are not government-insured, while services provided by other eye care providers are government-insured. Clinics of optometrists, PCPs and ED physicians are widely distributed across the island. Clinics of ophthalmologists however are concentrated in the capital city Charlottetown.Purpose: To investigate if more patients visited government-insured PCPs and EDs for eye care when local optometric services are government-uninsured and government-insured ophthalmologists are potentially distant.Methods: From PEI physician billing database, we identified all patients with an ocular diagnosis from 2010– 2012 using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes. The utilization of government-insured PCPs and EDs in five geographical regions was assessed utilizing patients’ residential postal code. Of the five regions, Prince was the region farthest from the capital Charlottetown.Results: Compared to utilization of government-insured PCPs for ocular diagnoses in Charlottetown (13.5% in 2010, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.9– 14.0%), the utilization in Prince (22.4% in 2010, 95% CI 21.7– 23.1%) was nearly double (p< 0.05). The utilization of ED physicians for ocular diagnoses was similarly double in Prince (8.8%, 95% CI 8.3– 9.3%) versus Charlottetown (4.1%, 95% CI 3.8– 4.5%). The utilization of ophthalmologists however was significantly lower in Prince (43%, 95% CI 41.4– 42.9%) versus Charlottetown (56.3%, 95% CI 55.6– 57.1%). Similar trends remained throughout 2010– 2012.Conclusion: When optometric services are government-uninsured and government-insured ophthalmologist services are geographically distant, ocular patients utilized PCPs and ED physicians more frequently. Due to different levels of training and available equipment for eye examinations among PCPs, ED physicians and optometrists, the quality of eye care and cost-effectiveness of increased use of PCPs and ED physicians for ocular management warrant further investigation.Trial Registration: Not applicable.Keywords: primary care providers, ocular diagnoses, government insurance, emergency physicians, optometrists

BACKGROUND: In 2004, Ontario delisted routine eye examinations for people aged 20–64 years, potentially encouraging patients seeking eye care to visit government-insured primary care providers (PCPs) rather than optometrists whose services had been deinsured. We investigated if utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions increased after 2004 among Ontarians who were affected by the delisting. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of the utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions in Ontario using administrative data from 2000 to 2014. We included participants without a visit to government-insured optometrists or ophthalmologists in the year before the study year; we excluded participants with existing diabetes. Changes in utilization before and after delisting were statistically assessed using segmented regression analysis in subgroups stratified by age, sex, rurality and neighbourhood income. RESULTS: A significant increase in utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses after 2004 was documented among people affected by the delisting: 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.0% to 18.7%) for people aged 20–39 years and 11.6% (95% CI 10.6% to 12.5%) for people aged 40–64 years. This corresponds to an increase in the number of patients who visited PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses of 10 690 (95% CI 321 to 21 059) for people aged 20–39 years and 20 682 (95% CI −94 to 41 457) for people aged 40–64 years. Among people aged 65 years and older (an age group not affected by the delisting), utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses was stable (p = 0.95) throughout the study period. Changes in utilization of PCP services for nonocular diagnoses were nonsignificant among people aged 0–19, 40–64 and 65 years and older. INTERPRETATION: After delisting, utilization of the services of government-funded PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses significantly increased among Ontarians affected by the delisting. The impact on ocular outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of increased use of PCPs for ocular management warrants further investigation and policy-makers’ consideration.

To evaluate the ability of a multimodal patient education initiative to improve adherence to healthy bone behaviors (HBBs) in men with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). This was a pilot prospective, single-site, before-and-after clinical trial. The control arm (n = 51) received routine care. The intervention arm (n = 52) received multimodal HBB education which included a healthy bones prescription (BoneRx), focused face-to-face education with an oncology nurse or physician, and customized educational materials. The primary endpoints were feasibility of study methods and self-reported adherence to HBBs (vitamin D intake ≥ 1000 IU/day, calcium intake 1000–1500 mg/day, and exercise ≥ 150 min/week) at 3-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included receipt of bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Patients were satisfied with the study intervention, found educational materials easy to understand, and felt that it increased their knowledge about osteoporosis. Although the intervention appeared to be associated with trends toward improved levels of vitamin D intake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74–4.5), calcium intake (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.63–3.4), and exercise (OR 1.7, 0.75–3.9) as compared to the control arm, none of these were statistically significant. Patients who received the study intervention were more likely to receive BMD testing (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.3–8.8). Although a brief, tailored educational intervention was feasible to implement and improve BMD test utilization, it did not increase HBB participation. Larger, well-designed trials are needed to clarify the effect of patient education interventions on HBB adherence. ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01973673 )