How much did eye surgery cost?

[Dr Mordrid]

Just got the statement for my surgeries;

Total: $4,890.00 per eye, $9,780.00 combined.

A simpler non-focussing lens in each eye would have cost $1,000 less per eye.

We owe $40.00 in surgical co-pays, $1,000 for the focussing lenses (insurance pays half for each "enhanced capability" lens) and have spent another $40.00 on prescription co-pays (two $$ ocular antibiotic scripts - the other drugs were of no cost to us).

[cjolley]

Surgical costs are an interesting subject.
ChooChoo's heart surgery was priced at ~$34,000 as indicated by the statements from the hospital.
However, my employer is self insured and our statements from the management company list the actual payouts.
True cost ~$8,000.
Go figure


Our entire out of pocket expense ~$1,500.

[Dr Mordrid]

Just a foreword/reminder: I was the director of a very large department (~200 people) and tons of billings passed my way over the years.

Most any medical service is cheaper when paid for in cash. The reason is billed procedures cause more paperwork and therefore delays in getting disbursements, especially from the government payers. Gawd....those government payers

As it is now doctors and hospitals have carry the charges for at least 6 months when the payment is from a government program like Medicare or Medicaid. Even worse; often they may have to bill 3-4 times before getting paid by the govt., meaning some charges have to be carried for a year or more, and then they may well not get paid what is in 'the book'.

End result is they typically incur a loss for most of those services. They'd rather take less cash up front (bird in the hand) and avoid the carrying costs & paperwork. I know one doc who has lost over $50,000 in disbursements so far this year to denials, and these are billings the govt. guidelines say are legit - just some pencil-neck at HHS with a bug up her buns, and he's one of the lucky ones - others are far worse off if they have a lot of patients who are seniors. Of course this doesn't even count the carrying costs for payments they do make.

Then there is, of course, the large amount of personnel a medium or large sized clinic needs to process the paperwork and make outraged phone calls to the agencies involved; local, state and federal, and insurance companies who aren't much faster.

Either that or they have to pay a medical billing service who does most of the dirty work for them...at a huge cost, of course.

Anyone who thinks more govt. involvement will improve this has another think coming. The more they get involved the worse it gets.

[cjolley]

That's why I say it is interesting.
If we had not been insured the cost and price would have been the same: $34,000.
Our claims management company negotiated the $8,000 actuall cost for my employer.

On the other hand, I don't think our management co has ever made a payment to anyone without holding the money for at leat 90 days, earning interset on it I assume.
It's very common for us to get dunning letters from providers long after a service.

Oddly, in this case, my employer is a county government, but the management company is private.

Things may have changed, and not for the better, since you were in the business.
Scary thought eh?

[cjolley]

A simpler non-focussing lens in each eye would have cost $1,000 less per eye.

Talk about a simple decision.
Tempting for me , even without cataracts. I've just about gotten to the point where my vision is just as bad with glasses as without.

[Dr Mordrid]

If your vision is that bad I'd seriously consider it then talk it over with an ophthalmologist who has experience with the procedure. No place for amateur night. My doc had done tons of 'em, has a very good rep and works with the Henry Ford Hospital group, so he was a no-brainer.

As mentioned in the other thread people with hyperopia or myopia are opting for them over laser or RK; it's fast (10-15 minutes from microscope on to microscope off), gives a great result (TRUST ME!!) and is virtually painless save for very minor discomfort the first 1-2 days - not unlike it feels after getting a small grit in your eye. There was also a little blood in the white where the diamond knife was used (lens cannula insertion point and the opening for the manipulator), but they were gone in a few days.

Hell...putting in all the required pre-op eye drops (dilation, local anesthesia etc.) and that #$%&*@# automatic blood pressure cuff were worse than the surgery itself. By that evening close up vision and color saturation were there-in-force and the rest came back over the next few days as the atropine wore off (dilator and paralyzed the ciliary muscles so the implant could firmly attach to them).

Technicolor rainbow man....

Most times the only reason you might have to retain glasses is if you have astigmatism that the implant can't correct for (more apparent at long distance) and maybe for very close up reading/tech work - a few inches.

[GT98]

I got LASIK done back in 2006, I had horrible vision (-8.5 in both eyes, so bad I had to get a wavier to get into the Army when I got out of High School) and now I'm 20/20-25 in both eyes. I haven't had any real big issues either...took about 6 months for my eyes to totally heal. I had full Laser surgury done...to cut the flap and do the shaping.

Worse part was right after surgury, just like doc said, its like having sand in your eye, but you can't touch them either!

The only real change I've had vision wise is my close up vision isn't as great as it once was. but my vision overall has increased a 1000%

[Fat Tone]

So why can't the implants correct for astigmatism? I'm at ~+4 to +4.5 in both eyes, I think cyl is ~1.25 at 95 degrees (although I could be misremembering). Cope with that and I'd be tempted.

[Brian Ellis]

I've had something very peculiar happen to my eyes. Historically, they have been very good but I became presbyterian, oops!, presbyopic at ~45-50. I managed very well with increasing 1.5, 2, 2.5 dioptres for reading. Distance was still quite good unaided, no tunnelling or other defects. About 60, I started to have a problem with night driving, slight loss of acuity with iris fully open, possibly a slight irregularity in the lenses, which distorted the tail lights of vehicles when there was no street lighting. My ophthalmologist recommending I wear varifocals for driving and he prescribed 1.0-3.5 dioptres spherical; he didn't want to treat the anomaly because it occurred only in pitch black and was unlikely to create any dangerous situation - possibly the opposite in normal lighting.

At that time, I had +1 for watching TV, +2 fixed for computer use and +2.5 for reading. Other than driving, I never wore glasses outdoors.

About 2 or 3 years ago, I found that I didn't need any glasses for TV, or many other activities, and recently I am better without glasses for the computer with the screen at ~30 cm. The only time I need glasses is reading small print in poor light. I read last week's Cyprus Weekly unaided (on our patio in the shade) without difficulty. Tonight, I dropped off daughter at the airport and came back just after dusk with lights on and dashboard lights dimmed. I was wearing my varifocals out of habit and wanted to check some small figures at the bottom of the dashboard display. I'm buggered if I could read them without taking my glasses off.

I don't know whether presbyopia can clear up spontaneously but I would say that my eyes are as good for acuity and accommodation as they were in my late 40s, 30 years ago. Of course, I'm delighted, but????

[Dr Mordrid]

So why can't the implants correct for astigmatism? I'm at ~+4 to +4.5 in both eyes, I think cyl is ~1.25 at 95 degrees (although I could be misremembering). Cope with that and I'd be tempted.

Astigmatism correcting IOL's and accommodating (focussing) IOL's like Crystalens are two different critters. Some astig IOL's can be implanted in tandem with a non-accommodating (fixed focus) IOL or even over the natural lens, but it's not likely it could be with a Crystalens because of its forward/backward motion.

There is also LASIK correction of the astigmatism then putting in an accommodating IOL if needed later for cataracts - most everyone gets them eventually.

Then there is age. Correct astigmatism too young and your eyes will change shape again as you age, making for another correction later. That's why some Dr's suggest waiting until age 40 for IOL correction.

In my case I had <0.5 of astigmatism which the Dr. thinks may have been related to the cataracts. This because since the surgery it's resolving to the point my left eye is nearly astigmatism free. Might end up with clear lenses on top and correction for extreme close up reading below.