ArticleOphthalmology2020
Ophthalmic Medication Expenditures and Out-of-Pocket Spending: An Analysis of United States Prescriptions from 2007 through 2016.
Article in Ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ophthalmic dispensing patterns in New Zealand: a ten-year review.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of acoltremon ophthalmic solution 0.003% and cyclosporine 0.05% ophthalmic emulsion for increased tear production in patients with dry eye disease.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a lifestyle adherence assessment scale for patients with dry eye syndrome.BMC ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Dry Eye Syndrome as a Potential Sequel of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux: Shared Mechanisms and Clinical Implications.Maedica · 2025Review
- Evaluating and Managing the Microbial Contamination of Eye Drops: A Two-Phase Hospital-Based Study.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Effects of climate factors and Demodex infestation on meibomian gland dysfunction-associated dry eye diseases.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Estimation of Topical Glaucoma Medication Over-Prescription and Its Associated Factors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting Glaucoma Medication Adherence and Interventions to Improve Adherence: A Narrative Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Prolonged facemask wearing among hospital workers and dry eye - a mixed-methods study.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Non-fungible tokens in ophthalmology: what is it good for?Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Medicine versus environmental manipulations as approaches to treating dry eye disease: why does medicine usually win?BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Nation-Wide Analysis of Glaucoma Medication Prescription in Fiscal Year of 2019 in Japan.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ open · 2022Article
- The Effect of Market Competition on the Price of Topical Eye Drops.Seminars in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Article
- Outcomes of Sjögren's versus non-Sjögren's related dry eye in a longitudinal, tertiary clinic-based sample.PloS one · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo estimate temporal trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for ophthalmic prescription medications among adults in the United States.
designRetrospective, longitudinal cohort study.
participantsParticipants in the 2007 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 18 years of age or older. The MEPS is a nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized, civilian United States population.
methodsWe estimated trends in national and per capita annual ophthalmic prescription expenditures by pooling data into 2-year cycles and using weighted linear regressions. We also identified characteristics associated with greater total or OOP expenditures with multivariate weighted linear regression. Costs were adjusted to 2016 United States dollars using the gross domestic product price index.
main outcome measuresTrends in total and OOP annual expenditures for ophthalmic medications from 2007 through 2016 as well as factors associated with greater expenditures.
resultsFrom 2007 through 2016, 9989 MEPS participants (4.2%) reported ophthalmic medication prescription use. Annual ophthalmic medication use increased from 10.0 to 12.2 million individuals from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016. In this same period, national expenditures for ophthalmic medications increased from $3.39 billion to $6.08 billion and OOP expenditures decreased from $1.34 to $1.18 billion. Per capita expenditure increased from $338.72 to $499.42 (P < 0.001), and per capita OOP expenditure decreased from $133.48 to $96.67 (P < 0.001) from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016, respectively. From 2015 through 2016, dry eye (29.5%) and glaucoma (42.7%) medications accounted for 72.2% of all ophthalmic medication expenditures. Patients who were older than 65 years (P < 0.001), uninsured (P < 0.001), and visually impaired (P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have greater OOP spending on ophthalmic medications.
conclusionsTotal ophthalmic medication expenditure in the United States increased significantly over the last decade, whereas OOP expenses decreased. Increases in coverage, copayment assistance, and use of expensive brand drugs may be contributing to these trends. Policy makers and physicians should be aware that rising overall drug expenditures ultimately may increase indirect costs to the patient and offset a decline in OOP prescription drug spending.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.