Modern system of ophthalmic care in the USA: organizational structure, funding, and access barriers

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Ophthalmic care in the United States is among the most technologically advanced and innovation-driven areas of modern medicine. The country's high level of clinical equipment and infrastructure, rapid adoption of surgical, pharmacological, and digital technologies, development of specialized centers, and implementation of large-scale clinical registries give US ophthalmology substantial scientific and practical potential. At the same time, this system has marked internal contradictions: high healthcare expenditures and rapid technological progress do not necessarily translate into equitable access to medical care across different population groups.

This review aimed to analyze the organizational structure, financing mechanisms, and key barriers affecting access to ophthalmic care in the United States. We analyzed data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the National Eye Institute, the IRIS® Registry, and scientific publications addressing workforce capacity, insurance limitations, geographic disparities, and social indicators for assessing eye health.

The review demonstrates that the main barriers to access are associated with the high cost of medical services, limitations of insurance coverage, uneven distribution of specialists, logistical difficulties, low health literacy, and communication barriers. The most vulnerable groups include low-income patients, individuals without comprehensive insurance coverage, residents of rural and remote areas, older adults, and racial and ethnic minorities. Potential directions for reform include expanding insurance coverage, developing telemedicine and mobile ophthalmic services, improving price transparency, training healthcare professionals for underserved regions, implementing culturally adapted educational programs, and using clinical registries to monitor quality of care and identify disparities.

These findings may be useful for developing strategies aimed at improving access to ophthalmic care and preventing systemic imbalances in healthcare.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Gulzhiyan Sh. Arzhimatova

Moscow City Ophthalmological Center, Botkin Hospital

Author for correspondence.
Email: argimatova@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9080-3170
SPIN-code: 8540-2420

MD, Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Assistant Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Elam AR, Tseng VL, Rodriguez TM, et al; AAO Taskforce on Disparities in Eye Care. Disparities in Vision Health and Eye Care. Ophthalmology. 2022;129(10):e89–e113. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2022.07.010 EDN: DFCCLJ
  2. OECD. Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. 234 p. doi: 10.1787/7a7afb35-en
  3. Cicinelli MV, Marmamula S, Khanna RC. Comprehensive eye care—Issues, challenges, and way forward. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2020;68(2):316–323. doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_17_19
  4. Berkowitz ST, Finn AP, Parikh R, et al. Ophthalmology Workforce Projections in the United States, 2020 to 2035. Ophthalmology. 2024;131(2):133–139. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2023.09.018 EDN: KINAXT
  5. Bello SU, Eze UA, Umar MM, et al. Direct non-medical and indirect costs of glaucoma care in a Nigerian Tertiary Eye Clinic. Discov Public Health. 2024;21(243). doi: 10.1186/s12982-024-00349-w EDN: FUOFAQ
  6. Yiu G, Gulati S, Higgins V, et al. Factors Involved in Anti-VEGF Treatment Decisions for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Insights from Real-World Clinical Practice. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024;18:1679–1690. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S461846 EDN: ZFCMRU
  7. Ravilla T, Courtright P, Yee Melgar JF, Green D. Affordability and Financing for Eye Care. In: Innovative Approaches in the Delivery of Primary and Secondary Eye Care. Khanna RC, Rao GN, Marmamula S, editors. Cham: Springer; 2019. P. 69–86. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-98014-0_6
  8. Atta S, Zaheer HA, Clinger O, et al. Characteristics Associated with Barriers to Eye Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey at a Free Vision Screening Event. Ophthalmic Res. 2023;66(1):170–178. doi: 10.1159/000526875 EDN: YDWEMV
  9. Goyal A, Richards C, Patel V, et al. The Vision Detroit Project: Visual Burden, Barriers, and Access to Eye Care in an Urban Setting. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2022;29(1):13–24. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2021.1884264 EDN: CJGENC
  10. Shneor E, Isaacson M, Gordon-Shaag A. The number of optometrists is inversely correlated with blindness in OECD countries. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021;41(1):198–201. doi: 10.1111/opo.12746 EDN: FLEDOI
  11. Resnikoff S, Lansingh VC, Washburn L, et al. Estimated number of ophthalmologists worldwide (International Council of Ophthalmology update): will we meet the needs? Br J Ophthalmol. 2020;104(4):588–592. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-314336
  12. Franco JJ, Pineda R 2nd. Geographic Access to Eye Care in the United States. Ophthalmology. 2025;132(1):119–121. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2024.07.032
  13. Gilson A, Chen Q, Adelman RA. Ophthalmic care may not align with patient need: An analysis on state-wide patient needs and provider density between 2008 and 2022. Int J Med Inform. 2024;185:105411. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105411 EDN: YMCQUA
  14. Nguyen AH, Fatehi N, Romero P, et al. Observational Outcomes of Initial Trabeculectomy With Mitomycin C in Patients of African Descent vs Patients of European Descent: Five-Year Results. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(10):1106–1113. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.2897
  15. Tseng VL, Kitayama K, Yu F, Coleman AL. Disparities in Glaucoma Surgery: A Review of Current Evidence and Future Directions for Improvement. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2023;12(9):2. doi: 10.1167/tvst.12.9.2 EDN: SJSAOH
  16. Green N, Miller F, Khanna D. Barriers to Eye Care for Adults in the United States and Solutions for It: A Literature Review. Cureus. 2024;16(4):e59071. doi: 10.7759/cureus.59071 EDN: WBQIZU
  17. Friedman DS, Hahn SR, Quigley HA, et al. Doctor-patient communication in glaucoma care: analysis of videotaped encounters in community-based office practice. Ophthalmology. 2009;116(12):2277-85.e1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.04.052
  18. Schehlein EM, Im LT, Robin AL, et al. Nonmedical Out-of-Pocket Patient and Companion Expenditures Associated With Glaucoma Care. J Glaucoma. 2017;26(4):343–348. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000619
  19. Zhao D, Guallar E, Bowie JV, et al. Improving Follow-up and Reducing Barriers for Eye Screenings in Communities: The SToP Glaucoma Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 2018;188:19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2018.01.008
  20. Lee CS, Blazes M, Lorch A, et al. American Academy of Ophthalmology Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry and the IRIS Registry Analytic Center Consortium. Ophthalmol Sci. 2022;2(1):100112. doi: 10.1016/j.xops.2022.100112 EDN: BDKIDC
  21. Kernohan A, Homer T, Shabaninejad H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary surgical versus primary medical management in the treatment of patients presenting with advanced glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022;107(10):1452–1457. doi: 10.1136/bjo-2021-320887 EDN: UZRASX

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Appendix 1. Measures to reduce inequality in ophthalmic care and improve access to ophthalmic care in the United States [1]
Download (18KB)

Copyright (c) 2026 Eco-Vector

License URL: https://eco-vector.com/for_authors.php#07

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС 77 - 86498 от 11.12.2023 г. 
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия
ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80649 от 15.03.2021 г.