LASIK Misconceptions

Having had LASIK myself, I try to bring up this option for vision correction with any and all patients who seem like good candidates.  After many such LASIK conversations, I’ve become aware of several widely held misconceptions or misunderstandings about the procedure.

1) Current-technology LASIK is completely blade free!  Many people are walking around swearing they’ll never have LASIK, simply because they saw a video ten years ago showing a little blade creating the flap for the procedure.  It’s all done with a laser now.

2) Not all LASIK is created equal.  Notice how above I said “current-technology” LASIK.  You know that radio commercial that advertised LASIK for $299 per eye?  I can almost assure you that’s for outdated technology – old lasers, still using the blade for the flap, etc.  These discount centers also often have many hidden costs, charging more for higher prescriptions than lower, charging more to upgrade to current technology, etc.  When comparing similar procedures and benefits between centers, the “discount” LASIK often doesn’t save much if any money.

3) 20/20 guarantees may do more harm than good.  We all want to feel like we “got our money’s worth” and have the best possible vision from our LASIK, but keep in mind that the possibility of developing complications increases every time you have another surgery.  If your surgery center has made a legally binding guarantee for 20/20 vision, they will be more likely to perform additional surgery where it is not truly warranted, thereby putting you at unnecessary risk.  Everyone heals differently, so even though statistics show that quality LASIK centers are able to give 20/20 vision to probably 95% of their patients, guarantees don’t really make sense.  Go with a great surgeon using the latest technology, and you’ll have the best chance of a fantastic outcome.

4) LASIK is designed to give great far vision, not so much close vision.  If you already have fantastic far vision and need help up close, you’re a better candidate for glasses or contacts.

That’s about it for now – feel free to post with any questions you may have about LASIK, or check out my prior post about refractive surgery.

Cash patients, cash practice

As anyone who has visited our practice already knows, our practice is not heavily involved with insurance (in case you missed it, here’s my article on why you probably shouldn’t pay for vision insurance).  With the exception of Costco employees – and possibly one other insurance that’s in the works – we are what is referred to as a “cash practice,” meaning payment is made at the time of the exam – by cash, check, or any major credit or debit card  🙂

One major reason why I’ve chosen to stay largely free of insurance is that I’ve seen how it can negatively affect both the practice and its patients.  Financially, what often happens is insurances will reimburse according to a percentage of a practice’s usual and customary fees (up to a limit).  As a result, many insurance-heavy practices will increase their fees to maximize insurance reimbursement.  Some practice owners also feel like they need to keep their fees high so cash patients can offset lower reimbursements on insurance patients.

Obviously this has no effect on the insurance patients – they pay their same co-pay and everyone is happy.  However, patients without insurance are now paying the inflated fees out of pocket, and these fees can be pretty outlandish.  I remember when we had our first child (luckily, covered under our medical insurance), they showed us our bill, which included the total amount billed to insurance – I believe it was over $40,000!  For a normal birth with no complications and a one night stay.  Ridiculous.

I know – $40,000 is an extreme example.  In the world of optometry, more realistic comparisons might be something like $69 vs. $120.  Still, that represents a significant difference for what would be considered very similar exams.  Something to keep in mind for those of us without vision insurance (which I also don’t really believe in – see the article).