Welcome to Optometry Simplified.
In this weekly newsletter, I've curated the best resources to help you grow personally and professionally.
My mission is to find what's best for my patients and my practice.
Here's what I've found...
Links I Liked
The eye care workforce math is hard to ignore.
Ophthalmology supply is projected to shrink 12% by 2035 while the population ages and chronic eye disease grows. ODs are already the most widely distributed eye care providers in the country, but that only matters if we own what "primary eye care" actually means: chronic disease management and glasses and contacts. Modern Optometry
Apparently, ODs love podcasts as much as they love complaining about vision plans.
Dr. Vittorio Mena cataloged nearly 50 of them by category, making this a genuinely useful resource if you're looking for something worth listening to. EyeCode Media made the cut, so the bar is clearly high. Review of Optometric Business
Research I'm Reading
What are the most effective technology interventions for DED?
A recent paper reviewed 47 RCTs and 7 different treatments for DED. Which were most effective? Meibomian gland expression with TearCare and IPL. The study corroborates my clinical experience. Yours? Ophthalmology and Therapy
Deep Thoughts
Every year at major optometry conferences, the exhibit hall is a masterclass in temptation.
New imaging platforms. New treatment devices. New software promising to streamline everything. And behind every booth, a compelling story about how this one technology will transform your practice.
I've been burned before, and I've watched plenty of smart, well-meaning optometrists make expensive decisions that didn't pan out. Not because they weren't smart. But because the excitement outpaced their analysis.
To protect myself from poor decisions, I've landed on a simple filter I apply before committing to any significant purchase or investment. I call it the 3 P's. If a technology doesn't clear all three, I walk away. Every time.
P #1: Protocol
Do you already have a functioning clinical protocol that this technology plugs into?
This is where most purchasing decisions go sideways. A rep shows you an axial length measurement device, the predictive software, and it's impressive. The data is real. The myopia epidemic is real. But if you don't already have a myopia management program up and running with enrolled patients, that piece of equipment won't generate a single additional patient. Equipment doesn't create protocols. Protocols create demand for equipment.
If the honest answer is "we've been meaning to build that program," that's your answer. Build the program first. Run it. Enroll patients. Then evaluate the technology that supports it.
P #2: Profitable
Have you actually run the numbers?
This sounds obvious. Most people skip it anyway. When you calculate ROI, go beyond the sticker price. If you're financing, your monthly payment should keep your total debt obligations somewhere in the 3 to 5% of monthly revenue range. Once you push into the 5 to 10% territory, it puts real stress on your practice's financials. I've been in that position, and it's not fun.
On the revenue side, calculate all the reimbursements. If you're buying a new visual field headset, don't just count the 92083. Count the evaluation and management code you'll likely be billing alongside it.
Also, you can't accurately project profitability without P #1 already in place. The math only works if you know how many patients are actually in the pipeline for that service.
P #3: Patients Want or Need It
This is the one that requires the most intellectual honesty.
Two separate questions live inside this P. First: Does the patient population you see every day actually have the problem this technology addresses? Second: Does the evidence actually support what the technology claims to do?
On the evidence question, read the papers yourself. Don't rely on what's in the marketing materials. Don't defer to what a well-known clinician says in a sponsored webinar. Look at the actual research. Is the literature consistently pointing toward efficacy, or is there meaningful variability in the outcomes? Are the study populations comparable to yours?
FOMO is real. I battle it too. The new technology gets the keynote slot, the doctor influencer endorsement, and the packed exhibit hall booth. And none of that tells you whether it works consistently in a primary care optometry setting.
Here's the permission you might need: it is completely okay to wait. Let the first wave of adopters work out the kinks. Let the research mature. Let the industry hype settle. A technology that is genuinely good will still be genuinely good in 18 months.
The Bottom Line
Before you sign anything, run through all three. Protocol in place and producing? Math works across purchase price, financing, and realistic coding? Patients actually need this, and the evidence supports it?
Three for three means move forward with confidence. Anything less means more runway is needed, whether that's building the clinical program, revisiting the financials, or giving the research another year to develop. The practices that make the strongest, most durable investments are the ones that are patient enough to let all three align before they commit.
Practice Performance Partners Pick
The talent drain is real, reimbursements keep shrinking, and yet somehow patients still expect you to slow down and actually look them in the eye.
In this conversation, Dr. David Kading joins Dr. Chris Wolfe to talk about how an "invisible team" of virtual assistants handling phones, billing, and scribing can give you that time back.
Worth a listen if you've ever felt like the administrative load is the thing standing between you and actually practicing the way you want to.
Can you do me a favor? If you found any of these resources helpful, share this newsletter with one of our colleagues!
See you next week!
--Kyle Klute, OD, FAAO