Cataract surgery...

[Bergmen]

IF you have medicare, it's covered afaik

I do have Medicare (and Medigap coverage), did not know that. Thanks!

 

[flowrider]

IF you have medicare, it's covered afaik

Yes, it is. Most medical plans cover costs associated with diseases of the eye. In addition to the surgery, I also have glaucoma and AMD, and those conditions are also covered. What the plans don't cover are the costs associated with optical needs, such as the refraction test, eyeglasses, or contact lenses.

Lou

 

[paddler4]

Medicare covers cataract surgery with standard lenses. If you want something fancy, like toric lenses (which correct for astigmatism), you have to pay the difference out of pocket. I got toric lenses, and my recollection (it was several years ago, so my memory may be off) was that it cost me about $3600 out of pocket.

 

[electronpusher]

IF you have medicare, it's covered afaik

Medicare covers cataract surgery with standard lenses. If you want something fancy, like toric lenses (which correct for astigmatism), you have to pay the difference out of pocket. I got toric lenses, and my recollection (it was several years ago, so my memory may be off) was that it cost me about $3600 out of pocket.

For prescription corrective IOLs (for near or farsightedness) the extra cost is out of pocket as well. This OOP cost increases further with multifocal IOLs. But if you wear and are willing to continue to wear glasses, Medicare should cover non-prescription IOLs.

 

[Greyswan]

IF you have medicare, it's covered afaik

My ophthalmologist retired a couple of years ago and had been monitoring the slow progression of cataracts in both eyes (I'm 75). I do not have any optical insurance so if I have the cataract surgery it will be out of pocket (after I find a new eye doctor. I wonder what this will cost?

Dan

There are different tiers for cataract surgery. I'm Canadian, and we get the basic monofocal lens under our provincial insurance, so no cost out of pocket here. There are also the Torics for astigmatism which do cost more, usually a couple of thousand per eye. But you can correct astigmatism with regular eyeglasses after the operation as well. In my case, because I was extremely nearsighted, I have very long eyes - football shaped as opposed to round - which meant that torics would be at risk of rotating. Which is another reason I chose not to have them. My astigmatism was not extreme anyway. There are two different types of astigmatism. One can be in the cataracted lens itself, and it can also be in the cornea. If the cataracted lens is removed, the corneal astigmatism will still be there. Sometimes the shape of the astigmatism actually benefits in that it allows the patient to see closer than the lens normally allows - giving a greater depth of field.

Then there are the so-called 'premium' lenses which cost thousands. I'm not in the US but my understanding is that the basic monofocal lens is covered under your government insurance (medicaid? Medicare? Not sure of the terms). The premium lense in my area, at least, start at 3000.00 per eye. Too rich for my wallet, lol.

I also chose the basic monofocal because, to my mind, the expensive 'premium' lenses had too many things I did not like about them, glare at night, ringed lights, less contrast, etc. I think the basic monofocal, as well as being 'free' (covered under my provincial insurance) would be the clearest and least disruptive lens for me. I think it's an underrated lens. And it works perfectly for my needs. I do think the premium lenses are a little overhyped. But that's my opinion only.

If you want to do a deep dive, I highly suggest you go to Reddit and type in r/cataract surgery. It is a real fount of info, and any questions you have about your costs, doctor recommendations for your area, questions about the surgery or choice of lens, etc, can be answered by the people who are patients themselves. I saw many people posting from California there. Doctors in this arena really don't seem to give much info to the patients, even my own gave a paucity of information, and he's one of the top docs in the country. That seems to be a common theme regardless of the country of origin. They just don't have the time to spend with so many patients coming in. We pretty much have to do our own digging for info on this subject.

 

[Greyswan]

For prescription corrective IOLs (for near or farsightedness) the extra cost is out of pocket as well. This OOP cost increases further with multifocal IOLs. But if you wear and are willing to continue to wear glasses, Medicare should cover non-prescription IOL

I think there's a misunderstanding here: the basic monofocal insurance covers whichever vision you choose, be it near, intermediate or distance. Near vision will give you very little depth of field, it will be quite thin, just like a camera lens @ f1.4 and you'll need glasses pretty much all the time. Some people do choose near vision - for instance jewellers who work with tiny watches. Intermediate deepens DOF and of course, far (f8-9) will give you the largest DOF, which means seeing more detail overall. You will still need glasses - or cheap readers from the drugstore, to compensate for whichever vision is chosen. My monofocal is distance, and it gives me comfortably clear vision from about 24" to far distance for watching birds. I do have readers for using the laptop and phone. But otherwise I don't wear glasses around the house or outside, no need. Which is one of the reasons I chose the basic monofocal distance IOL. Quite amazing after being blind as a bat all my life!

Multifocal, monovision, EDOF lenses are of course the expensive ones. But they do provide more choices, and some people simply hate the idea of glasses for anything. You can choose whatever works for you.

 

[Greyswan]

Thank you for posting this, Chris. I was literally just writing a post with questions about cataract surgery, thought I should do a search first, and found this thread. I've known I had cataracts developing for almost 10 years but my optometrist always said they weren't bad enough for surgery. He finally said at my last visit that I could get the surgery any time but I was still OK to drive (day and night) with my current glasses. I've been trying to decide what lens and correction will work best for photography. I'm leaning toward a toric (astigmatism) lens with a distance correction. Although I'm so nearsighted that I can currently read and use my phone without glasses and I will lose that. The one thing I know for sure is that I will have the same correction in both eyes. I tried the one for near one for distance with contacts and my brain never did adapt. I spent a year going "right eye or left eye". Having that permanently installed would drive me crazier.

I needed glasses 100% of the time, and so don't miss the nearsightedness unless I was threading a needle or something of that nature - and readers take care of that. I also thought about the monovision but was afraid I wouldn't adapt as well. From my own experience, I don't think there will be any problem with whatever you choose for vision, near or far. I changed the diopter in the viewfinder after the op and it works just fine. If you use the rear LCD I think you'd need glasses to see it. People certainly seem to be pleased with the torics though. Your surgeon should be able to say whether it would cure the astigmatism, assuming it's in the lens and not the cornea. It also depends on whethr the astigmatism is worse than 1.25 (if I recall the numbers right) - if it's under that, the IOL may not be worth getting since it won't make a difference. My astigmatism is exactly that number, so I doubted it would help me. Something to find out before you pay for them. But torics, to my understanding, work very well when they meet the criteria, and will give clear vision in a greater DOF since the astigmatism will cause blurriness when, for instance, reading. If no torics you might need glasses for reading. And rear LCDs.

I'm not by any means an expert, just the things I gleaned from researching. It's a scary decision, and a hard one to know what's best for each individual. But I do know I'm very happy I had it done! And it didn't affect my photography!

 

[RDKirk]

I think there's a misunderstanding here: the basic monofocal insurance covers whichever vision you choose, be it near, intermediate or distance. Near vision will give you very little depth of field, it will be quite thin, just like a camera lens @ f1.4 and you'll need glasses pretty much all the time. Some people do choose near vision - for instance jewellers who work with tiny watches. Intermediate deepens DOF and of course, far (f8-9) will give you the largest DOF, which means seeing more detail overall. You will still need glasses - or cheap readers from the drugstore, to compensate for whichever vision is chosen. My monofocal is distance, and it gives me comfortably clear vision from about 24" to far distance for watching birds. I do have readers for using the laptop and phone. But otherwise I don't wear glasses around the house or outside, no need. Which is one of the reasons I chose the basic monofocal distance IOL. Quite amazing after being blind as a bat all my life!

Multifocal, monovision, EDOF lenses are of course the expensive ones. But they do provide more choices, and some people simply hate the idea of glasses for anything. You can choose whatever works for you.

This sounds a lot like my decision in my 40s when I started to need bifocals. I'd been wearing contacts to that point, but all my experimentation with different types of bifocal contacts proved problematic as a photographer. I decided that "bifocal contacts are for people who want to look good, not for people who want to see well."

It sounds like the same may be true regarding cataract lenses: Plain monofocal cataract lenses will require me to wear glasses all or part of the time, but they will be less of a hindrance to my photography.

 

[Greyswan]

This sounds a lot like my decision in my 40s when I started to need bifocals. I'd been wearing contacts to that point, but all my experimentation with different types of bifocal contacts proved problematic as a photographer. I decided that "bifocal contacts are for people who want to look good, not for people who want to see well."

It sounds like the same may be true regarding cataract lenses: Plain monofocal cataract lenses will require me to wear glasses all or part of the time, but they will be less of a hindrance to my photography.

It's such an important decision. It's your eyes! But there are a lot of pre-surgery aids to help make that decision, for monovision, which is having each eye set to different powers - the brain apparently combines the image so you get a greater depth of field since one eye is set to closer vision, and the other is set to far. You can use contacts to find out if it works for you. But some people cannot adapt to the different strengths in their eyes. So many variables, but I agree, sometimes the simplest is the best. It's like expecting a one-size-fits-all lens that does macro and BIF. Nice idea, but there would be so many compromises with that lens...

 

[RDKirk]

It's such an important decision. It's your eyes! But there are a lot of pre-surgery aids to help make that decision, for monovision, which is having each eye set to different powers - the brain apparently combines the image so you get a greater depth of field since one eye is set to closer vision, and the other is set to far. You can use contacts to find out if it works for you. But some people cannot adapt to the different strengths in their eyes. So many variables, but I agree, sometimes the simplest is the best. It's like expecting a one-size-fits-all lens that does macro and BIF. Nice idea, but there would be so many compromises with that lens...

My professional life during my military career involved spending the day peering through a binocular microscope, so I've already learned that my brain doesn't do well with combining disparate images...except to gain stereo.

Speaking of that, and somewhat tangential to the topic: My eyes also see things at slightly different angles, When the horizon appears straight in my right eye (which is my dominant eye), it's about five degrees rotated counterclockwise in my left eye. It's always been that way.

 

[Win]

I had it 6 years ago, when I turned 75. It was needed long before but I stubbornly waited. Like others, was no big deal, no pain and results have been great. I did have to go in to have one eye "cleaned" up, took a few minutes. I used readers before but do not need any glasses now. The biggest plus to me was how the colors popped after surgery, still do!

 

[Greyswan]

My professional life during my military career involved spending the day peering through a binocular microscope, so I've already learned that my brain doesn't do well with combining disparate images...except to gain stereo.

Speaking of that, and somewhat tangential to the topic: My eyes also see things at slightly different angles, When the horizon appears straight in my right eye (which is my dominant eye), it's about five degrees rotated counterclockwise in my left eye. It's always been that way.

Sounds like astigmatism.

 

[Greyswan]

I had it 6 years ago, when I turned 75. It was needed long before but I stubbornly waited. Like others, was no big deal, no pain and results have been great. I did have to go in to have one eye "cleaned" up, took a few minutes. I used readers before but do not need any glasses now. The biggest plus to me was how the colors popped after surgery, still do!

I do love the new colours! It's also comforting that I won't be overexposing in editing any more.

 

[Pantry42]

I have one forming in my left eye, slowly getting more uncomfortable as the weeks go on. I have been referred for a consultation, but the way our dear old NHS is running lately I dare say it will be months before I face this procedure.
This also makes me wonder if I get a standard lens or a choice like you mostly North American posters to this thread get !
...but I think I already know that answer......

 

[Greyswan]

I have one forming in my left eye, slowly getting more uncomfortable as the weeks go on. I have been referred for a consultation, but the way our dear old NHS is running lately I dare say it will be months before I face this procedure.
This also makes me wonder if I get a standard lens or a choice like you mostly North American posters to this thread get !
...but I think I already know that answer......

I'm in Canada, so we get the choice of the standard monofocal, with provincial insurance, which I chose. I'm very happy with my choice, though, especially for distance shooting, it's the clearest choice. I researched all the other options, and that was my choice.