Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006
Crystalens Gets Nod From Medicare
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 10 May 2005 17:25 GMT In an impressive bit of lobbying, Eyeonics, the manufacturer of Crystalens, has convinced Medicare to allow patients to utilize the accommodating intraocular lens (IOL) when cataracts require removal of the natural lens of the eye.
We have an article on Crystalens at http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/crystalens.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 10, 2005 03:30 America/Los_Angeles New Medicare Policy Allows Seniors Access to crystalens(TM)
eyeonics inc.-Led Effort Results in Expanded Reimbursement Policy for Presbyopia-Correcting IOLs
ALISO VIEJO, Calif., May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- eyeonics, inc. today announced that the crystalens(TM) procedure can now be privately purchased by Medicare beneficiaries. crystalens is the first and only FDA-approved naturally focusing (accommodating) vision-correction lens replacement for adults with cataracts and presbyopia.
crystalens is the most advanced intraocular lens (IOL) currently available, yet the previous Medicare reimbursement policy did not allow its beneficiaries to opt for this advanced technology for cataract surgery. Culminating a five-year effort, eyeonics led the way in affecting this policy change, working with U.S. Congressman Christopher Cox (Newport Beach, Calif.), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, physicians and ophthalmic industry leaders.
"More than 2.2 million cataract surgeries are performed each year on patients age 65 and over," said J. Andy Corley, co-founder, chairman and CEO of eyeonics. "Yet as vision technologies advanced, Medicare reimbursement did not keep pace."
"This policy change means that patients will have the right to choose a vision correction technology that best meets their lifestyle and visual demands. It also gives doctors the freedom to offer innovative technologies such as the crystalens for their Medicare patients," said ophthalmologist Steven J. Dell, MD, of the Texan Eye Care in Austin, Texas.
Seniors on Medicare now can choose the presbyopia-correcting crystalens, which focuses and moves in the eye like the natural lens thanks to its proprietary accommodating characteristics. The crystalens is designed to treat two conditions: cataract removal with lens replacement (a procedure covered by Medicare) and presbyopia (a non-covered service). Patients who select crystalens will receive the standard Medicare reimbursement for cataract surgery, and can now pay privately for the presbyopic portion of the treatment.
Presbyopia is an inevitable age-related eye condition that makes it difficult to read or see objects up-close without the use of reading glasses. Presbyopia is the first sign of a cataract and is the most prevalent eye condition in America. It causes the crystalline lens to increasingly stiffen, lose flexibility and cloud, diminishing its focusing ability.
crystalens corrects vision at all distances and in most cases eliminates the need for glasses and contacts for everyday tasks. Its ability to focus at all distances frees most patients from the need for glasses following cataract surgery. In clinical trials, nearly three-times the number of patients (85 percent) who received the crystalens could see at all distances compared to a standard IOL.
"This ruling greatly expands the market opportunity for crystalens now that doctors can offer a presbyopic treatment to their Medicare patients with cataracts," said Corley. "This policy change would not have been possible without the support and efforts of Congressman Cox. Medicare beneficiaries now have the same access to this new technology that was previously available only to non-Medicare patients."
About crystalens
The crystalens is the result of more than 14 years of research and development by J. Stuart Cumming, M.D., F.A.C.S., and was approved by the FDA in November 2003. More than 24,000 lenses have been implanted worldwide to date. During clinical trials, all of the patients who received the crystalens greatly reduced their need for corrective lenses or eyeglasses. The patented crystalens technology is designed to allow the lens to move in the eye in a manner similar to the natural lens. By using the eye's muscle to move the lens back and forwards naturally, patients can focus through a continuous range of vision including near, far and everywhere in between. All other intraocular lenses are designed to remain fixed in the eye. For more information about the crystalens go to www.crystalens.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Ragnar - 10 May 2005 17:32 GMT Wow... I wonder how Medicare is funded relative to Social Security? That's great for patients that medicare is doing this, but who is going to pay for it? That is one expensive treatment, and just about everybody would be a candidate for it.
>In an impressive bit of lobbying, Eyeonics, the manufacturer of >Crystalens, has convinced Medicare to allow patients to utilize the [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > >I am not a doctor. Glenn - USAEyes.org - 10 May 2005 17:39 GMT The patient pays the additional amount for the Crystalens. Medicare pays for all the rest of the surgery. I believe the amount is in the neighborhood of $800 additional to the patient, per eye.
With over 1 million cataract surgeries world wide, that gives Crystalens the potential market of more than $800 million, although obviously only a small portion of patients will elect to purchase the Crystalens.
I suspect the value of the company went up today.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
MS - 04 Mar 2006 17:40 GMT Well, if it really works, and accommodates like real eyes (young non-presbyopic ones), provides good vision near and far without glasses or contact lenses, it is indeed a great invention! People may start to get it who do not need cataract surgery.
Likely it doesn't work that great yet, but hopefully will improve with time, and future versions.
> The patient pays the additional amount for the Crystalens. Medicare > pays for all the rest of the surgery. I believe the amount is in the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I am not a doctor. serebel - 05 Mar 2006 01:07 GMT Every new technology comes with it's own learning curve. Rs itself improved leaps and bounds since inception.
Ragnar - 05 Mar 2006 01:23 GMT People already do get it who do not need cataract surgery. I doubt very much that Medicare will cover the lenses for non-cataract patients. Ironically... there are already better versions of the Crystalens. Hopefully the FDA can deal with that within the next 5 years.
BTW.. I just read the rest of this post... it's not any big news. I will go back and reply to the original message.
>Well, if it really works, and accommodates like real eyes (young >non-presbyopic ones), provides good vision near and far without glasses or [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> I am not a doctor. Robert Kopp - 07 Mar 2006 23:12 GMT > People already do get it who do not need cataract surgery. I doubt > very much that Medicare will cover the lenses for non-cataract > patients. Ironically... there are already better versions of the > Crystalens. Hopefully the FDA can deal with that within the next 5 > years. I think it is very foolish for people to get this procedure who do not have cataracts. The risk of sight loss is not great, but it is present. Just to dispense with reading glasses?
Ragnar - 05 Mar 2006 01:31 GMT Oddly.. I can't find this original message. Anyway... my understanding is that medicare does (and has) been paying for cataract surgery and standard IOLs. This "new" thing is not really new at all. The additional amount for the Crystalens is a fortune. The price of the cataract surgery is peanuts compared to the additional cost paid by the patient. Medicare can't afford to cover this. What gets me is what insurance companies DO wind up covering and should not be. Insurance costs WAY too much for honest, sensible people.. but is a huge bargain to liars and people who otherwise abuse the system.
>> The patient pays the additional amount for the Crystalens. Medicare >> pays for all the rest of the surgery. I believe the amount is in the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> I am not a doctor. Dan Abel - 06 Mar 2006 08:46 GMT > Oddly.. I can't find this original message. > Anyway... my understanding is that medicare does (and has) been paying > for cataract surgery and standard IOLs. This "new" thing is not > really new at all. The additional amount for the Crystalens is a > fortune. The price of the cataract surgery is peanuts compared to the > additional cost paid by the patient.
> >> The patient pays the additional amount for the Crystalens. Medicare > >> pays for all the rest of the surgery. I believe the amount is in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> obviously only a small portion of patients will elect to purchase the > >> Crystalens. Fortune?
Peanuts?
How much do you think eye surgery costs?
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
serebel - 07 Mar 2006 01:29 GMT > Fortune? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dabel@sonic.net > Petaluma, California, USA Not that much when you factor in costs of contacts, cleaners, storage, glasses, etc. over a period of years.
Dan Abel - 07 Mar 2006 05:49 GMT > > Fortune? > > > > Peanuts? > > > > How much do you think eye surgery costs?
> Not that much when you factor in costs of contacts, cleaners, > storage, glasses, etc. over a period of years. I realize that this post is crossposted to alt.lasik-eyes for some reason, but it isn't about LASIK.
The Crystalens may or may not eliminate the need for other correction.
The claim I was replying to was that the cost of cataract surgery was insignificant compared to the cost of the Crystalens. I don't agree.
I have had two cataract surgeries. The first was US$1.00 and the second was free, but that doesn't reflect the real cost.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Ragnar - 07 Mar 2006 20:13 GMT Medicare price fixes that procedure. They don't pay out that much.
>> > Fortune? >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I have had two cataract surgeries. The first was US$1.00 and the second >was free, but that doesn't reflect the real cost. Ragnar - 07 Mar 2006 19:21 GMT The cataract operation is covered by Medicare.. no cost to patient. The crystalens part is not covered by medicare and costs a fortune.
>> Oddly.. I can't find this original message. >> Anyway... my understanding is that medicare does (and has) been paying [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >How much do you think eye surgery costs? Dan Abel - 07 Mar 2006 20:08 GMT > The cataract operation is covered by Medicare.. no cost to patient. > The crystalens part is not covered by medicare and costs a fortune.
> >> >"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
> >> >> The patient pays the additional amount for the Crystalens. Medicare > >> >> pays for all the rest of the surgery. I believe the amount is in the > >> >> neighborhood of $800 additional to the patient, per eye. OK, makes sense to me now. I don't think that US$800 per eye is a fortune, but that's my opinion.
I don't think much about Medicare because I'm only 56 and my income made me ineligible for it, not to mention that my health plan pays anyway.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Ragnar - 07 Mar 2006 23:48 GMT It costs a whole lot more than $800 per eye, unfortunately.
>> The cataract operation is covered by Medicare.. no cost to patient. >> The crystalens part is not covered by medicare and costs a fortune. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I don't think much about Medicare because I'm only 56 and my income made >me ineligible for it, not to mention that my health plan pays anyway. Dan Abel - 07 Mar 2006 23:59 GMT > It costs a whole lot more than $800 per eye, unfortunately.
> >> >> >"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in > >> >> >message [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> neighborhood of $800 additional to the patient, per eye. OK, I'll let you and Glenn fight that one out. I really have no clue, and was just quoting the figure he gave.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
Glenn - USAEyes.org - 08 Mar 2006 01:17 GMT >> It costs a whole lot more than $800 per eye, unfortunately. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >OK, I'll let you and Glenn fight that one out. I really have no clue, >and was just quoting the figure he gave. Ragnar is correct, but so am I, more or less.
The lens costs about $800 per eye, however the surgeon commonly charges an additional amount for the added complexity of the surgery. The final coast to the patient can be significantly more than $800.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Ragnar - 08 Mar 2006 08:34 GMT Yes.. those special IOLs have "hooks" that attach to the muscles within the eye to provide the bending of the artificial lens. The cost of that procedure is a lot more than the $800 price for the lens. There is a double edged sword about these extremely expensive adaptive IOLs. The people that need them are very old, and typically have some money tucked away - so they are essentially spending their children's inheritance - which is probably a good thing. I have seen too many people wishing their parents would die so they can get the inheritance.. and quite often they don't get what they were anticipating - and then wind up hating their parents, etc. Anwyay.. the other problem is that people that age typically have some money laying around - but are afraid to spend it since they don't know how long that money has to last them and they don't have an income from work anymore.
>>> It costs a whole lot more than $800 per eye, unfortunately. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >I am not a doctor. Robert Kopp - 23 Mar 2006 09:06 GMT > Well, if it really works, and accommodates like real eyes (young > non-presbyopic ones), provides good vision near and far without glasses or > contact lenses, it is indeed a great invention! People may start to get it > who do not need cataract surgery. I don't think they should, though. It entails the same risks of infection and retinal detachment as a cataract operation, and though these are comparatively small, I think they outweigh not needing reading glasses if successful.
 Signature Robert T. Kopp http://analytic.tripod.com
|
|
|