Ophthalmology Video Statistics

Key takeaways

1. Ophthalmologists and eye practices posting as themselves made 55.8% of the on-topic videos among YouTube’s most-viewed ophthalmologist, cataract surgery and LASIK results and drew 59.1% of their views. One New Delhi hospital, Eye7 Hospitals, drew 28.5% of the views; with it removed, eye practices drew 42.9% of the rest (our read, Nov 8, 2026). (Mark Studios) See details
2. Videos of 60 seconds or less drew 63.8% of those views and 83.9% of the views in the LASIK results; eye practices placed in the U.S. drew 9.8%. (Mark Studios) See details
3. Across five peer-reviewed studies of eye-care videos on YouTube and TikTok published 2022 to 2025, the median share made by ophthalmologists or surgeons was 26% (our calculation). In a 2023 sample of 723 ophthalmology TikTok videos, 5.4% carried misinformation. (Mark Studios) See details
4. 17,519 ophthalmologists billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, 1.9% fewer than the 17,856 in 2019; our ZIP code match puts 125 in Palm Beach County, 124 in Broward and 12 in Martin. (CMS) See details
5. Medicare paid ophthalmologists $8.25 billion ($8,245,418,772) in 2024, up 10.2% from 2019 before inflation. Where CMS publishes the split, drugs were 60.9% of those payments, and drug payments rose 41.0% (our calculation). (CMS) See details
6. Medicare fee-for-service patients having routine cataract removal in a facility fell 18.3%, from 1,051,638 in 2019 to 858,903 in 2024, and 15.7% across all cataract codes in use each year. These files leave out Medicare Advantage, so neither fall proves fewer operations. (CMS) See details
7. BLS put the median annual wage of U.S. wage-and-salary ophthalmologists at $300,080 in May 2025, 5.9 times the median for all occupations; the Florida median was $399,440, 33.1% above the national figure. (BLS) See details
8. CDC’s modeled estimates put vision loss at 7,149,295 people in the United States in 2024, including 38,163 in Palm Beach County, 44,502 in Broward and 4,461 in Martin. (CDC) See details
9. The popular “96%” LASIK satisfaction figure sits close to a pooled 95.4% across 2,198 subjects in a 2009 review, and FDA’s PROWL studies later found 43% and 46% of participants reporting new visual symptoms 3 months after surgery. (Ophthalmology) See details

Who makes the most-viewed eye-care videos on YouTube?

Ophthalmologists and eye practices posting as themselves made 55.8% of the on-topic videos among the most-viewed videos YouTube returned for 'ophthalmologist', 'cataract surgery' and 'LASIK' on November 8, 2026, and drew 59.1% of their lifetime views (our count). One New Delhi hospital explains much of that number: Eye7 Hospitals alone drew 28.5% of the views. We read YouTube’s own view-sorted search results for those three terms on November 8, 2026, the first four pages for each, through the YouTube Data API with no country filter, and classified every channel by hand from its own title, description and video text.

The three lists held 568 unique videos from 335 channels, with 913,737,402 lifetime views in all. They barely overlapped: only 9 videos were in two or more lists. We set aside 48 videos from channels classed off-topic (ASMR roleplay, songs titled LASIK, children’s shows, comedy sketches), which left 520 on-topic videos with 814,618,094 views; the median one had 268,440.5 views. View counts are lifetime snapshots and include ad views.

116 eye practice channels appeared in the November 8, 2026 sample. 57 of them said in their own text that they were ophthalmologists or eye surgeons, and 59 gave only an eye-practice or eye-hospital name; we did not check any licence or board certification. Eye hospitals, group practices and clinic chains drew 48.2% of the on-topic views and individual ophthalmologists’ own channels drew 10.9%. Dr. Glaucomflecken, an eye-doctor persona whose comedy shorts sit in this class, drew 2.3% of the views on his own (our count).

How much of eye-care YouTube comes from a few channels?

More than half of it. The ten biggest channels drew 57.7% of the on-topic views in our November 8, 2026 sample, and the three biggest, Eye7 Hospitals, Laser Vision Centre and Envision Lasik Centre, drew 37.6% (our count).

Eye7 Hospitals, a New Delhi eye hospital, is the single biggest channel by a wide margin: its 50 videos had 231,895,656 views, which is 28.5% of all on-topic views, 25.4% of the whole sample before off-topic channels came out, and 48.2% of the views drawn by eye practice channels. With Eye7 Hospitals removed from both sides, eye practices drew 42.9% of the remaining on-topic views, so the 59.1% headline leans heavily on one hospital and should be read that way.

The most-viewed video in the sample was Eye7 Hospitals’ 60-second 'How LASIK Laser eye surgery is done', with 98,560,782 views. The most-viewed video from a U.S.-placed eye practice was LaserCare Eye Center’s 12-second 'How we keep your eye open during Laser eye surgery', with 14,470,288 views.

Where are the eye channels based, and do Florida practices appear?

Most of the eye practice views went to channels in India. Eye practice channels placed in India drew 41.4% of the on-topic views in our November 8, 2026 sample (our count). U.S.-placed eye practices posted 19.4% of the on-topic videos but drew only 9.8% of the views. Counted by each channel’s own country setting, with every channel type included, channels set to India drew 47.0% of the on-topic views and channels set to the United States 29.4%.

Florida appears through a handful of channels. 3 channels in the sample placed themselves in Florida in their own text: Dr. Elhalis in Ocala, Dr. Elise Kramer OD in Miami and Joshua Cohen, MD in Boca Raton. Their videos in the sample had 1,041,516 views in all. Joshua Cohen, MD was the only channel in Palm Beach, Broward or Martin County, and his video had 226,355 views. We found no Broward or Martin County channel in the sample.

Who else posts cataract and LASIK videos?

Doctors in other specialties and animators, above all. Physicians outside eye care, such as plastic surgeon Doctor Youn and family doctor Doctor Mike, drew 8.2% of the on-topic views in our November 8, 2026 sample, mostly with short LASIK explainers (our count). Optometrists and optometry practices made 6.3% of the videos and drew 3.0% of the views; optometry channels are covered on our optometry video statistics page.

Medical animation studios and animation channels drew 11.0% of the views, more than any group other than eye practices and other doctors, with Zack D. Films, Amerra Medical and Nucleus Medical Media the largest. Brands and sellers drew 2.4% in all: the five LASIK chains we classed as sellers (LasikPlus, NVISION, LASIK MD, Shinagawa Philippines and Planet LASIK) drew 0.2%, and lens, laser and instrument makers drew 2.0%, nearly all of it one ZEISS cataract-surgery animation. We do not name the people behind patient-story channels.

What does each eye search return?

Each search returns a different mix. Eye practice channels drew 64.6% of the on-topic views in YouTube’s most-viewed results for 'LASIK' on November 8, 2026, against 42.8% for 'ophthalmologist', where hospitals, associations and medical education channels drew 21.0%, most of it one American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting promotion (our count).

LASIK is the short-form list: videos of 60 seconds or less drew 83.9% of its on-topic views, against 31.4% in the 'ophthalmologist' list, and patient-story titles made 19.7% of its on-topic videos (our count).

What are the most-viewed eye videos about?

Mostly LASIK, by views. Titles naming LASIK or other laser vision correction made 34.4% of the on-topic videos on November 8, 2026 and drew 63.9% of the views, while titles naming cataract surgery or lenses made 38.3% of the videos and drew 22.2% (our count, a regex on titles with every match read by hand).

Before-and-after language is almost absent from titles. Only 1 of the 520 on-topic videos carried a before-and-after promise in its title, a London oculoplastic surgeon’s blepharoplasty clip with 97,591 views. Titles are a narrow read: a surgery short called 'How LASIK Laser eye surgery is done' may show the procedure without saying so, and we counted only what titles say.

Short video carries the views. Videos of 60 seconds or less made 35.0% of the on-topic videos and drew 63.8% of the views, and the median short had 334,353.5 views against 235,769.5 for longer videos.

How often do U.S. eye channels post?

The median U.S.-placed eye channel posted 45 videos in the 365 days to November 8, 2026 (our count, every upload in the window read through the YouTube Data API that day). The 34 U.S.-placed eye channels in our sample, which include two U.S. LASIK chains, posted 2,682 videos in that year. The spread is wide: 7 channels posted 100 or more videos and 6 posted none.

The three busiest posters, Uday Devgan, EyeFacts and Todd Driver M.D., made 42.0% of the uploads. The median upload had 1,551.5 views and 49.9% ran 60 seconds or less. Practice and group channels posted 465 of the uploads with a median of 643 views each; individual ophthalmologists’ channels posted 2,172 with a median of 1,979.5. Dr. Glaucomflecken’s comedy shorts had a median of 310,313 views, far above every other channel in the group.

Among Florida channels, Dr. Elhalis in Ocala posted 80 videos and Joshua Cohen, MD in Boca Raton 11.

Do eye-care videos carry YouTube’s synthetic-content label?

None of the 568 videos in our November 8, 2026 sample carried YouTube’s containsSyntheticMedia field, read through the YouTube Data API that day (our count); a field that is absent says nothing either way about how a video was made. Only 1 channel, Surgery Visualised, said in its own text that it uses AI-generated visuals, and the field was absent on its video too.

Who makes the eye-care videos people find on YouTube and TikTok?

Mostly not ophthalmologists: across five peer-reviewed studies published from 2022 to 2025 that counted videos from ophthalmologists or surgeons, the median share was 26% (our calculation), and single studies ran from 15.3% to 39.6%. The largest sample in the table below, Sampige et al.’s 723 most-liked TikTok videos from 37 ophthalmology hashtags, collected April 16 to May 22, 2023, had 3.806 billion views in total (Ophthalmology and Therapy). Each study sampled the top results for one topic at one time and coded creators its own way, so the table gives every study’s date, platform, sample and finding side by side instead of one pooled figure. One row is a Mandarin-language sample. Quality scores use DISCERN (a 15-item instrument, higher is better), modified DISCERN (1 to 5) or a scale built for that study.

How reliable are eye surgery videos on YouTube and TikTok?

Low to moderate on the scales researchers use: across five peer-reviewed samples published from 2020 to 2025 that reported a 15-item DISCERN total, the median of the reported central scores was 37.73 (our calculation). Kuçuk et al., who gave the scale a range of 16 to 75 in their 2020 study of 175 YouTube refractive surgery videos, labelled a mean of 33.25 poor quality (Cornea). Means and medians are mixed in this summary because each study reported one or the other, and modified DISCERN scores on a 1 to 5 scale are left out.

Some of it is promotion. In Bae et al.’s 2018 study of 72 YouTube cataract surgery videos, 21% had a primary commercial intent to promote a practice or product (International Ophthalmology). Uploader type tracks with score in several studies: Fazio et al. found healthcare professionals’ TikTok videos scored higher, and Jiang et al.’s September 2025 sample of 200 Mandarin-language TikTok videos on diabetic retinopathy ranged from 59.4 for non-profit accounts to 23.0 for for-profit accounts.

Popularity is a weak guide, and the studies disagree on direction. In the 2024 cataract TikTok search by Cao et al., likes, comments, favorites and shares were not correlated with quality (Digital Health). In Haddad et al.’s top 100 LASIK TikToks, published in 2024, higher view counts and engagement went with higher DISCERN scores (Journal of Ophthalmology).

How much of it is wrong or misleading?

A minority of ordinary posts, and most paid ones in the one ad study: Sampige et al. found misinformation in 5.4% of 723 ophthalmology TikToks collected April 16 to May 22, 2023 (Ophthalmology and Therapy), and those videos held 11.7% of all bookmarks. Sarrafpour et al., publishing in 2026, graded 15% of 74 YouTube videos and 18% of 19 Facebook videos on glaucoma treatment as containing misinformation or misleading information (Clinical Ophthalmology). The studies do not count the same thing: Schrenk et al.’s 2021 review of 30 German-language YouTube videos from ophthalmologists and eye centers rated at least 11.8% of individual statements completely wrong or only slightly correct (Der Ophthalmologe).

The paid-ad result is much higher. Tan et al. reviewed 51 refractive surgery advertisements shown on TikTok in the United Kingdom from October 2022 to October 2023 and found 86% contained misleading claims, judged against Royal College of Ophthalmologists and Advertising Standards Authority standards (Cureus). Those are UK standards, not U.S. or Florida rules.

Video does appear to shape what patients think about lenses. In a study of 2,237 patient posts on presbyopia-correcting lenses from September 2020 to October 2022, online videos influenced patient perception in 15% of posts, behind healthcare professionals (31%) and online reading (18%) (Ophthalmology and Therapy). Alcon, which sells these lenses, paid the research firm that ran it, and two authors are Alcon employees.

Do pre-operative videos change anxiety or knowledge before eye surgery?

Often, but not always: a 2025 meta-analysis of 22 studies and 1,998 participants found non-drug interventions, educational video among them, reduced mean anxiety before cataract surgery compared with controls (Nursing Open). It pooled several intervention types, so it is not a video-only result. The individual studies below are small, and most come from single centers.

The time saving shows up alongside flat comprehension. Vo et al.’s randomized trial cut counseling time by 51.4% (our calculation) with similar comprehension and satisfaction, and Zhang et al.’s 2017 trial found the consent process took 5.6 minutes with video against 12.3 without, with no significant difference in comprehension. Anxiety results split: Ahmed and Zhang (2019) reported large reductions, while Tipotsch-Maca et al. found both groups stayed anxious.

The LASIK evidence is thinner: our PubMed searches returned no randomized trial of a pre-LASIK education video. In a retrospective review of 8,184 laser vision correction patients treated in 2017, all of whom saw an educational video, 80.1% chose a telemedicine consent discussion over an in-clinic one, and 98.3% of remote patients against 97.5% of in-clinic patients said they were adequately consented (Clinical Ophthalmology). Patients chose their own route, and the first author is chief medical officer of Carl Zeiss Meditec and chairs the medical advisory board of Optical Express.

Delivery matters too. In Ong et al.’s 2023 survey of 321 cataract patients sent a QR-code link to a patient information video, 69% managed to watch it (Cureus). AI-generated patient video lagged on image accuracy in one small comparison: Han et al. in 2024 graded LASIK patient videos from three text-to-video generators at 0.667, 0 and 0 for image accuracy on a 0 to 3 scale, against 3 for the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s control video (Cureus).

How accurate is tele-ophthalmology screening?

Accurate for diabetic retinopathy in pooled studies: a 2022 meta-analysis of 13 studies and 7,207 people put teleretinal sensitivity at 0.91 and specificity at 0.88 for any diabetic retinopathy, with evidence certainty graded low (BMJ Open Ophthalmology). An American Academy of Ophthalmology report covering literature through July 2023 found teleretinal screening had a positive impact on compliance in two level I, five level II and one level III study, by more than 2-fold in one (Ophthalmology). In a 2025 study at six community health center sites in Boston with 10,247 patients with diabetes, a teleretinal program raised annual screening compliance by an average of 7.2 percentage points from baselines of 25 to 40%, though the gain tended to fade over time (BMC Health Services Research).

How many patients reach an eye doctor after a teleretinal screen?

About half in several U.S. programs: across five reports published from 2020 to 2026, the median share of referred patients who reached an in-person eye visit was 54.9% (our calculation). The follow-up windows differ (3 months, 180 days or a year), and the Patil et al. figure covers only severe disease or worse, so the median is a rough guide. The two community glaucoma and eye screening programs and the AI workflow in the table are not in the median.

Live video visits have their own record. In a retrospective review of 404 adults who used a videoconsultation service for eye problems from April 20 to May 3, 2020, against 451 seen in person, 35.5% of those first seen by video had an unplanned reattendance within a month against 15.7% of those seen in person; the rate of actual harm was 0% in each group (EClinicalMedicine). Patients tend to rate these services well: a 2026 meta-analysis of 41 studies and 24,595 participants reported a pooled satisfaction rate of 93.5% across 36 tele-ophthalmology studies (Eye).

How many ophthalmologists are there in the United States?

The 2023 Medicare Physician Compare database listed 17,503 ophthalmologists after duplicates were removed, in a count by Harrington and colleagues (Harrington et al., American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2025). That is a floor rather than a census, because it leaves out ophthalmologists who do not bill Medicare. Women were 28.37% of that group (Harrington et al., 2025).

The American Board of Ophthalmology says it has certified 34,204 ophthalmologists through its examinations since 1916 (American Board of Ophthalmology), a cumulative figure that includes people no longer in practice. The Board added 501 new diplomates in 2024 (American Board of Ophthalmology). The American Academy of Ophthalmology, an association that sells membership, education and meetings to ophthalmologists, describes itself as a global community of 32,000 medical doctors (American Academy of Ophthalmology). That is a worldwide membership figure, not a U.S. count of working surgeons.

Florida’s 2025 Physician Workforce Annual Report, drawn from physicians renewing their licenses between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2025, counted 1,377 ophthalmologists statewide, including respondents who gave no county or an out-of-state practice location (Florida Department of Health). Palm Beach County had 149 (Florida Department of Health), Broward County 128 (Florida Department of Health) and Martin County 15 (Florida Department of Health). Together the three counties had 292, or 21.2% of the state total (our calculation). 197 Florida ophthalmologists in the same survey said they plan to stop providing direct patient care in Florida or change specialty within five years (Florida Department of Health). Optometrists are a separate profession and are counted on our optometry video statistics page.

How many ophthalmologists are in training?

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education counted 1,790 active ophthalmology residents in academic year 2024-2025, in 128 accredited programs (ACGME Data Resource Book, 2024-2025). A decade earlier, in 2014-2015, it counted 1,420 residents (ACGME Data Resource Book, 2014-2015), which makes the 2024-2025 class 26.1% larger (our calculation).

Women were 42.6% of ACGME’s 2024-2025 ophthalmology residents (ACGME). In an earlier analysis built on ACGME and San Francisco Match data, Aguwa and colleagues put the female share of residents at 41.5% in 2011 and 39% in 2019 (Aguwa et al., JAMA Ophthalmology, 2021).

The match is competitive. A study of three San Francisco Match cycles from 2020-2021 to 2022-2023, covering 2,266 ophthalmology applicants, found 67.03% matched (Khan et al., Journal of Surgical Education, 2025). An earlier analysis of the 2013, 2014 and 2015 matches found a 71% match rate among 1,959 registrants (Siatkowski et al., Journal of Academic Ophthalmology, 2018).

Will the United States have enough ophthalmologists?

Federal workforce projections published in 2024 point to a shortfall: using the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Health Workforce Simulation Model, Berkowitz and colleagues projected U.S. ophthalmologist supply falling by 2,650 full-time equivalents from 2020 to 2035 while demand rises by 5,150 (Berkowitz et al., Ophthalmology, 2024). The same analysis projected workforce adequacy of 70% by 2035, the second-lowest of 38 specialties studied, and 29% in nonmetro areas (Berkowitz et al., 2024). These are model projections, not counts.

The workforce is also thinly spread and aging. Feng and colleagues, using the Area Health Resources File, found 5.68 ophthalmologists per 100,000 people in 2017, a lower density than in 1995, and a ratio of ophthalmologists aged 55 or older to younger ones of 0.82 in 2017 (Feng et al., American Journal of Ophthalmology, 2020). In 2022 Medicare data, density was 4.12 per 100,000 people in mostly urban counties and 0.09 in rural counties (Mothy et al., Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 2026), a gap of 45.8 times (our calculation).

Among ophthalmic surgical subspecialists billing Medicare from 2012 to 2022, 5.6% practiced in rural areas, while 17.4% of their patients lived in rural areas (Ahmed et al., JAMA Ophthalmology, 2025). A 2019 county-level analysis found each 10-percentage-point increase in household broadband access was associated with a 46% higher ophthalmologist rate after adjustment (Akarapimand et al., JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 2026); the authors note that places without ophthalmologists also tend to lack the broadband that teleophthalmology needs.

How many LASIK procedures are done each year in the United States?

Published estimates put U.S. laser vision correction at under 800,000 procedures a year over the decade to 2021, down from an earlier peak of 1.4 million a year, in a review by Joffe (Joffe, Clinical Ophthalmology, 2021). The same review estimated that 65% of U.S. laser vision correction centers were physician owned (Joffe, 2021). These are the author’s estimates; we found no government agency that publishes an annual LASIK count.

Refractive cataract surgery has grown as LASIK shrank. Corcoran’s 2015 review in Current Opinion in Ophthalmology put refractive cataract surgery at 350,000 procedures a year and said about 11% of all U.S. cataract surgery involved presbyopia-correcting lenses, astigmatism-correcting lenses or a femtosecond laser (Corcoran, Current Opinion in Ophthalmology, 2015). Consumer search interest has also shifted. From January 2015 to October 2025, Google Trends data showed U.S. search interest for “LASIK surgery” at 10.3 times that for “PRK surgery” (Fazio et al., Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2026), though that study measured relative search volume, not procedures.

How much of ophthalmology has private equity bought?

Peer-reviewed counts identified 228 private equity acquisitions of U.S. ophthalmology and optometry practices from January 2012 through October 20, 2019 (Chen et al., Ophthalmology, 2020), 186 of them in 2017 through 2019 (Chen et al., 2020). A follow-up counted 245 more from October 21, 2019 through September 1, 2021 (Patil et al., Digital Journal of Ophthalmology, 2023). Together that is 473 practices in just under ten years (our calculation), a figure that combines ophthalmology and optometry, as both studies did. Florida had 48 clinic acquisitions in the Patil analysis, second to Texas (Patil et al., 2023).

Studies of what happens after a sale are newer and mixed. In a study of 200 ophthalmology practices with 1,980 clinicians, covering 2014 to 2021, private equity acquisition was followed by a 46.8% increase in total clinicians relative to matched controls through three years, and the share of physicians leaving each year rose by 13 percentage points after acquisition (Singh et al., Health Affairs, 2025). Across 578 acquired dermatology, gastroenterology and ophthalmology practices, average charges per claim rose 20.2% relative to controls (Singh et al., JAMA Health Forum, 2022). In Medicare claims from 2012 to 2019, ranibizumab injections rose 74.09% after acquisition relative to never-acquired practices, though the authors note not all results were statistically significant (Braun et al., Ophthalmology, 2024). In a small 2023 survey of 41 U.S. ophthalmology trainees, 78% said they would not consider working for a private equity-owned practice (Portney et al., Journal of Academic Ophthalmology, 2023).

How much telemedicine do ophthalmologists use?

In a May 2020 survey of 208 practicing neuro-ophthalmologists, 68.3% reported using video visits, up from 3.9% before COVID-19 (Moss et al., Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, 2020), and use then settled lower: a May 2021 follow-up survey of 135 neuro-ophthalmologists found 50.8% still used video visits (Moss et al., Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, 2023). Respondents said telehealth worked best for conditions that rely on history and earlier test results, so the rate may not carry over to other subspecialties. At one academic U.S. ophthalmology center from March to August 2020, only 8.9% of 5,023 patients had a video encounter (Chen et al., Ophthalmology, 2022).

Remote retinal imaging fell and recovered: claims in the Optum Labs Data Warehouse dropped from 3,627 in February 2020 to 1,414 in April 2020 before returning to prepandemic levels by December (Lee et al., Telemedicine and e-Health, 2023). Autonomous artificial intelligence retinal screening under Medicare billing code CPT 92229 grew from 143 services in 2021 to 1,427 in 2023 (Satheesh et al., Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 2026), still only about 15.3 services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes (Satheesh et al., 2026). Billing providers rose to 39 in 2023 (Satheesh et al., 2026), or 36.6 services per billing provider (our calculation).

Do ophthalmology practices use social media and video to reach patients?

In a January-February 2020 survey of 160 ophthalmologists on one university’s alumni listserv, 39.4% said they used social media professionally (Al-Khersan et al., Health Informatics Journal, 2020); we found no national survey that reports what share of U.S. ophthalmology practices use video in their marketing. That survey had a 19.8% response rate, so it describes those respondents only. Residency programs show the clearest trend: the share of U.S. ophthalmology residency programs on Instagram rose to 57% in March 2021 (Al-Khersan et al., Journal of Academic Ophthalmology, 2022), and a later count found 62.9% of 124 programs had an affiliated Instagram account (Qin et al., Clinical Ophthalmology, 2023).

What little evidence exists on format is about engagement, not patients. In a study of 4,812 Instagram posts from 37 oculoplastic surgeon accounts, photographs drew more engagement than videos (Park et al., Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 2020). Advertising by eye surgeons is an old question: a 1988 mail survey of 5,000 American Academy of Ophthalmology fellows, with over 2,000 replies, found a direct link between cataract volume and willingness to advertise (Leaming, CLAO Journal, 1990). The abstract gives no percentage who advertised.

Websites are better measured. Of the top 100 patient-oriented cataract surgery websites in one incognito search, 55 were private practice sites (Lin et al., Ophthalmology, 2024). Across 50 patient websites on refractive surgery, the mean reading grade was 11.02, well above the American Medical Association’s recommended sixth-grade level (Mothy et al., Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 2025). Lin’s study checked whether cataract sites had complementary educational video, but the abstract does not report that figure.

How many ophthalmologists bill Medicare?

CMS’s Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners file lists 17,519 ophthalmologists who billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024 (CMS). It is built from original Medicare claims only. Medicare Advantage claims are not in it, so an ophthalmologist who saw only Medicare Advantage patients is not counted, and every count in this section understates the work as Medicare Advantage grows. Provider type is the specialty CMS assigns from the claims. Optometrists are a separate type and are covered on our optometry statistics page.

The count fell slightly in five years. CMS’s 2019 file lists 17,856 ophthalmologists (CMS), so the number fell 1.9% by 2024 (our calculation). Florida held steady, with 1,258 ophthalmologists in 2019 (CMS) and 1,263 in 2024 (CMS). Florida has 7.2% of the ophthalmologists billing Medicare in the United States (our calculation), and only California and New York have more.

Most ophthalmologists work in cities: 92.9% of those billing Medicare in 2024 have a practice address that CMS codes as a metropolitan core (RUCA 1) (our calculation from the CMS file).

How much does Medicare pay ophthalmologists?

Medicare paid ophthalmologists $8.25 billion (8,245,418,772) for Part B fee-for-service services in 2024, by our sum of CMS’s by Provider file. That is 10.2% more than the $7.48 billion (7,484,913,076) it paid them in 2019, before inflation (our calculation). Florida’s ophthalmologists received $722.8 million (722,779,618) in 2024 (our calculation). The file cannot tell a change in work apart from patients moving to Medicare Advantage, whose claims it leaves out.

The rise comes from drugs. On the rows of the file that publish the split, Medicare paid ophthalmologists at least $4.63 billion for drugs in 2024 (4,631,547,820), up from at least $3.28 billion (3,284,217,358) in 2019, a rise of 41.0% before inflation. Medical services other than drugs came to at least $2.97 billion (2,970,422,747) in 2024, down 14.6% from at least $3.48 billion (3,478,412,436) in 2019 (our calculation). Drugs were 60.9% of payments on those rows in 2024 and 48.6% in 2019 (our calculation). CMS withholds the split for a provider when fewer than 11 beneficiaries had a drug service, so the dollar figures are floors. A payment for a drug includes the drug’s purchase price, so a payment total is not a physician’s income.

The typical ophthalmologist’s Medicare total fell even as the sum rose. The median ophthalmologist received $167,145 from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, down 12.5% from $191,051 in 2019, before inflation (our calculation). The median Florida ophthalmologist received $195,295 in 2024 (our calculation).

The money is concentrated. 1,971 ophthalmologists received $1 million or more from Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, against 1,674 in 2019 (our calculation). 1,892 of the 2024 group received more than half of it for drugs (our calculation). The top 10% of ophthalmologists by payment received 61.0% of Medicare Part B payments to ophthalmologists in 2024 (our calculation).

A service in CMS’s file is a billed unit, not a visit. Ophthalmologists billed 154.4 million services (154,357,571) in 2024, against 62.0 million (62,008,680) in 2019 (our calculation). Drug units count as services, and faricimab-svoa (HCPCS J2777) is billed per 0.1 mg, so the two totals do not measure a change in patient visits. CMS also hides any provider-and-service line with fewer than 11 beneficiaries. The lines that remain hold 94.3% of the Medicare payments to ophthalmologists in CMS’s by Provider file, so totals by code on this page are floors (our calculation).

How many cataract operations does Medicare pay for?

858,903 Medicare beneficiaries received routine cataract removal with an intraocular lens (HCPCS 66984) in a facility setting such as a hospital or surgery center in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS). The file counts Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims only, with no Medicare Advantage. In 2019 the count was 1.05 million (1,051,638) (CMS), so it fell 18.3% (our calculation). Complex cataract removal (HCPCS 66982) had 104,635 beneficiaries in 2024 (CMS), down 19.0% from 129,127 in 2019 (CMS; our calculation).

The codes changed between the two years, so a fall in one code is not the same as a fall in cataract surgery. Two codes for cataract removal with an artificial lens and a drainage device placed in the front chamber of the eye appear in the 2024 file and have no row in the 2019 file: HCPCS 66991, with 27,621 facility-setting beneficiaries (CMS), and HCPCS 66989, with 3,850 (CMS). Summed across the cataract codes in use each year, facility-setting beneficiaries came to 995,009 in 2024 and 1.18 million (1,180,765) in 2019, a fall of 15.7% (our calculation; a beneficiary billed under two of these codes counts twice). None of these falls proves fewer operations, because Medicare Advantage patients are not in the files.

Services are not operations. For the same facility rows CMS lists 3.22 million services of HCPCS 66984 in 2024 (3,223,464) (CMS) and 3.93 million in 2019 (3,933,956) (CMS), far above the beneficiary counts, because CMS counts every Part B line billed under the code: the surgeon’s, a surgery center’s facility claim and others. For complex cataract removal the counts are 247,059 services in 2024 (CMS) and 308,476 in 2019 (CMS). CMS counts people, not eyes, so a patient who had both eyes done counts once.

12,617 providers of all specialties billed HCPCS 66984 in a facility setting in 2024 (CMS), and 8,247 ophthalmologists did so for 11 or more beneficiaries (CMS). 3,027 ophthalmologists billed complex cataract removal (HCPCS 66982) in a facility setting for 11 or more beneficiaries (CMS). The average Medicare payment per facility service of HCPCS 66984 was $491.44 in 2024 (CMS), up from $439.44 in 2019 (CMS), before inflation. For complex cataract removal it was $596.78 in 2024 (CMS), against $531.85 in 2019 (CMS). These averages mix surgeons’ fees and surgery centers’ facility fees, so they are not a surgeon’s fee.

On their own facility lines in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file, ophthalmologists averaged $347.52 per service of HCPCS 66984, and ambulatory surgery centers’ facility lines averaged $895.58 (our calculation). Medicare paid ophthalmologists $557.0 million (557,027,699) on their own lines for the code. It paid surgery centers $1.04 billion (1,036,120,725), which is 64.5% of the Medicare Part B payments on non-suppressed lines of the code (our calculation).

Office-setting lines under HCPCS 66984 are a different thing. 163,804 beneficiaries had an office-setting line under the code in 2024 (CMS), against 196,539 in 2019 (CMS), at an average Medicare payment of $6.42 per service (CMS). Optometrists’ lines hold 56.7% of the services on non-suppressed lines of the code, and their office lines averaged $3.82 per service in 2024 (our calculation). Payments that small point to billed follow-up care rather than an operation in an office, but the public file carries no billing modifiers, so it cannot say. That is why this page counts facility beneficiaries and not services.

In Florida, 61,622 beneficiaries received routine cataract removal in a facility setting in 2024 (CMS), down from 73,983 in 2019 (CMS).

How many eye injections does Medicare pay for, and which drugs?

Medicare Part B fee-for-service paid for 3.46 million office-setting intravitreal injection services (HCPCS 67028, 3,464,325) in 2024, across all specialties (CMS). 673,607 beneficiaries received them (CMS), which is 5.1 services per beneficiary (our calculation). In 2019 the file lists 3.31 million services (3,314,603) (CMS) and 635,573 beneficiaries (CMS), so services rose 4.5% and beneficiaries rose 6.0% (our calculation). The average Medicare payment per office injection was $93.52 in 2024 (CMS), against $83.66 in 2019 (CMS), before inflation. The file also lists 121,585 facility-setting services of the code in 2024 (CMS).

5,169 providers of all specialties billed the code in an office setting in 2024 (CMS), and 4,027 ophthalmologists did so for 11 or more beneficiaries (CMS).

The injection code covers the procedure, and the drug is billed under its own code. The table counts beneficiaries, because drug services are billing units that differ from one code to the next. Aflibercept (HCPCS J0178) reached 279,120 beneficiaries in 2024, up from 254,307 in 2019, while the dollars on the code fell. Ranibizumab (HCPCS J2778) fell from 128,107 beneficiaries to 32,885.

Bevacizumab (HCPCS J9035) is not in the table because oncologists bill the same code, so an all-specialty count would not be an eye count. On ophthalmologists’ own lines Medicare Part B fee-for-service paid $18.8 million (18,821,714) for it in 2024 and $49.4 million (49,410,656) in 2019 (our calculation from CMS’s provider-and-service files; lines under 11 beneficiaries are suppressed).

Which other eye procedures does Medicare pay for?

Laser removal of clouding of the lens capsule after cataract surgery (HCPCS 66821) had 291,797 office-setting Medicare beneficiaries in 2024 (CMS), level with 291,342 in 2019 (CMS). The same procedure in a facility setting fell from 240,106 beneficiaries (CMS) to 187,623 (CMS). All counts here are across all specialties, Medicare Part B fee-for-service only, so the falls cannot be told apart from patients moving to Medicare Advantage.

How many Medicare patients get remote retinal imaging?

11,360 Medicare beneficiaries received retinal imaging with remote review by a physician (HCPCS 92228) in an office setting in 2024, across all specialties, in CMS’s by Geography and Service file (CMS), up from 1,012 in 2019 (CMS). Retinal imaging with remote review by clinical staff (HCPCS 92227) went from 1,660 beneficiaries in 2019 (CMS) to 1,599 in 2024 (CMS). Retinal imaging with automated review and report (HCPCS 92229) had 5,037 beneficiaries in 2024 (CMS). These counts are Medicare Part B fee-for-service only and are for office settings.

Telephone care is a small part of ophthalmologists’ visible billing. Their non-suppressed lines in CMS’s 2024 provider-and-service file held 5,501 audio-only telephone evaluation and management services (HCPCS 99441-99443) (our calculation; lines under 11 beneficiaries are suppressed).

How many ophthalmologists bill Medicare in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

125 ophthalmologists with a Palm Beach County practice address billed Medicare Part B fee-for-service in 2024, 124 in Broward County and 12 in Martin County, by our match of CMS’s by Provider file to counties. Together the three counties hold 20.7% of Florida’s ophthalmologists billing Medicare in 2024 (our calculation). CMS’s file has no county column. We matched each provider’s practice ZIP code to a county with the Census Bureau’s 2020 ZCTA-to-county relationship file, and a ZIP split across counties goes to the county holding its largest land-area part, so edge cases are approximate. The address is where CMS records the practice, and a surgeon who operates in another county is counted at that address.

The figures behind our calculations in this section are in our aggregate CSV.

How many ophthalmologists work in the U.S.?

Ophthalmologists (except pediatric) held about 9,700 U.S. jobs in 2025, counting the self-employed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook (BLS). BLS’s Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey of employers counted 8,950 wage and salary ophthalmologist jobs (SOC 29-1241, Ophthalmologists, Except Pediatric) in May 2025 (BLS), with a relative standard error of 13.0% (BLS). The OEWS survey leaves out ophthalmologists who own unincorporated practices and pay themselves from profits; BLS’s Employment Projections put the self-employed share of U.S. ophthalmologist jobs at 5.7% in 2025 (BLS). Owners of incorporated practices who draw a salary count as wage and salary workers.

BLS groups ophthalmologists with surgeons. In May 2025 they held 18.1% of the 49,380 U.S. wage and salary surgeon jobs in its OEWS survey (BLS) (our calculation). Orthopedic surgeons held 14,100 of those jobs (BLS).

How much do ophthalmologists earn?

The median annual wage for U.S. wage and salary ophthalmologists was $300,080 in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS). The mean for the same group was $304,650 (BLS). That median was 5.9 times the $50,980 median for all U.S. wage and salary occupations in May 2025 (BLS) (our calculation), and 16.3% below the $358,550 median for U.S. orthopedic surgeons (BLS) (our calculation). These OEWS figures cover wages and salaries only, not practice owners’ profits.

Pay for U.S. ophthalmologists is spread wide. One in ten wage and salary ophthalmologists earned less than $100,180 a year in May 2025 (BLS), and one in ten earned more than $489,710 (BLS).

Where do ophthalmologists work?

Offices of physicians (NAICS 6211) employed 6,750 U.S. wage and salary ophthalmologists in May 2025, per BLS OEWS (BLS): 75.4% of the national total (our calculation). Their median annual wage in physician offices was $303,920 in May 2025 (BLS). General medical and surgical hospitals (NAICS 6221) employed 750 (BLS) at a median of $246,010 (BLS), so the physician-office median was 23.5% higher (our calculation).

Outpatient care centers (NAICS 6214), a group that includes freestanding ambulatory surgical centers, employed 300 U.S. wage and salary ophthalmologists in May 2025 (BLS) at a median annual wage of $458,580 (BLS). That job count is small and its relative standard error was 28.8% (BLS), so treat the figure as rough. BLS has no separate industry for ophthalmology practices: they are counted inside offices of physicians, the shared industry described in the next section.

How many ophthalmologists work in Florida and South Florida, and what do they earn?

Florida’s 2023-25 physician workforce survey counted 1,377 ophthalmologists providing direct patient care in the state (Florida DOH). The Florida Department of Health asks physicians these questions when they renew a license, and this round covers renewals from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2025. Ophthalmologists were 2.3% of the 61,033 direct-care physicians the report places by specialty and county (Florida DOH) (our calculation). The count is self-reported and depends on who renewed in that window. It is not a license count, because Florida licenses physicians, not specialties.

Those three counties held 21.2% of the ophthalmologists in the state’s 2023-25 survey (our calculation).

The previous survey round, covering renewals from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2023, counted 1,297 Florida ophthalmologists providing direct patient care (Florida DOH), so the survey count was 6.2% higher in the newer round (our calculation). Respondents change from round to round, so that is a change in the survey count, not a measured rise in the number of ophthalmologists. In the 2021-23 round, 43.33% of Florida’s direct-care ophthalmologists were 60 or older (Florida DOH) and 9.56% said they planned to retire within five years (Florida DOH). In the 2023-25 round, 197 ophthalmologists said they planned to change their scope of practice in the next five years, which the report defines as retiring, relocating to work in another state or changing primary specialty (Florida DOH).

BLS OEWS gives a much lower Florida figure because it measures something else. It estimated 580 wage and salary ophthalmologist jobs in Florida in May 2025 (BLS), 6.5% of the U.S. count (our calculation), and leaves out practice owners paid from profits. The relative standard error of that Florida estimate was 33.1% (BLS), so treat it as rough. Florida’s location quotient for ophthalmologists was 1.02 in May 2025 (BLS): the occupation’s share of Florida’s wage and salary jobs was about equal to its share of all U.S. jobs.

Florida’s wage and salary ophthalmologists had a median annual wage of $399,440 in May 2025 (BLS), 33.1% above the U.S. median for the occupation (our calculation).

For the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area, which holds Palm Beach and Broward counties, BLS estimated 300 wage and salary ophthalmologist jobs in May 2025 (BLS), with a relative standard error of 43.1% (BLS), so that count is rough too. The metro area’s location quotient was 1.85 (BLS): ophthalmologists made up a larger share of wage and salary jobs there than nationally. BLS printed no dollar wage for the metro area. The mean, median, 10th and 90th percentile annual wages all carry its top-code footnote, meaning each is at or above the highest wage the survey reports (BLS). BLS published no May 2025 ophthalmologist estimate for the Port St. Lucie metro area, which holds Martin County, and OEWS publishes no estimates for metropolitan divisions.

How fast is ophthalmologist employment expected to grow?

BLS projects U.S. ophthalmologist employment to grow 4.5% from 2025 to 2035, per its Employment Projections (BLS), against 3.5% for all occupations over the same decade (BLS). The Occupational Outlook Handbook puts that at 10,200 U.S. ophthalmologist jobs in 2035, up from 9,700 in 2025 (BLS). BLS expects about 0.2 thousand openings for U.S. ophthalmologists each year from 2025 to 2035, from growth and from replacing ophthalmologists who retire or leave the occupation (BLS).

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in the U.S.?

Ophthalmology practices are counted inside offices of physicians (NAICS 621111), an industry shared with every physician specialty except mental health specialists, so every figure in this section covers all physician offices, not ophthalmology practices alone. Other specialty pages, such as our orthopedic surgeon video statistics and dermatology video statistics, carry the same shared figures. Optometrists’ offices are a separate industry, covered in our optometry video statistics.

BLS’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), which counts employers covered by unemployment insurance, averaged 226,698 private physician offices of all specialties in the U.S. in 2025 (BLS), up from 204,988 in 2019 (BLS): a rise of 10.6% (our calculation).

The Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns counted 204,617 U.S. employer physician offices of all specialties in 2023, the newest year available when we checked (Census). Census’s Nonemployer Statistics counted 190,427 U.S. physician-office businesses with no paid staff in 2024 (Census). Those two counts cover different years and different kinds of business, so we do not add them. A nonemployer is any business with no paid employees, which can include part-time or side income, so that count is not a count of full-time practices.

How much physician-office revenue comes from eye conditions?

U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) had receipts of $630,209,309 thousand (about $630 billion) in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census, the Census Bureau’s full count of businesses every five years (Census). Census splits those receipts by the ICD-10 chapter of the patient’s primary diagnosis. Diseases of the eye and adnexa (H00-H59) brought in $58,839,356 thousand (about $58.8 billion) in 2022 (Census), or 9.3% of the industry’s receipts (Census).

Only two ICD-10 chapter lines were larger in 2022: factors influencing health status and contact with health services, at 13.2% (Census), and diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, at 11.4% (Census). The eye line is the closest the Economic Census comes to an eye-care revenue figure, but it is not a count of ophthalmology practices. It takes in every physician office’s receipts for eye diagnoses, and it leaves out hospitals, outpatient surgical centers and optometrists’ offices, which Census counts in other industries.

Who pays physician offices of all specialties?

Census publishes revenue by payer only for all U.S. physician offices (NAICS 6211, which also includes psychiatrists’ offices). These are two of the payer lines in the 2022 Economic Census:

The 2022 Economic Census does not split any payer’s spending by specialty, so these shares describe all U.S. physician offices, not ophthalmology practices.

How many physician offices of all specialties earn money from telemedicine?

86,466 U.S. employer offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111) reported some revenue from telemedicine services in 2022, per the 2022 Economic Census (Census): 42.9% of such offices (our calculation). The 2022 table counts offices with any telemedicine revenue. It does not say how much of their revenue came from it, and it does not break out ophthalmology.

How much do physician offices of all specialties spend on advertising?

U.S. offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 6211) spent $1,815,721 thousand, about $1.8 billion, on advertising and promotion in 2024, per the Census Bureau’s Annual Integrated Economic Survey (Census). That was 0.28% of their total 2024 operating expenses (our calculation). Census does not publish advertising spending for ophthalmology practices or for NAICS 621111 on its own.

How concentrated are physician offices of all specialties?

The four largest firms took 6.2% of the 2022 receipts of U.S. offices of physicians of all specialties (NAICS 621111), per the 2022 Economic Census (Census). The fifty largest took 23.2% (Census). Census publishes no concentration figure for ophthalmology practices, so these shares describe physician offices as a whole.

How many physician offices of all specialties are there in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

Florida averaged 21,918 private physician offices of all specialties (NAICS 621111) in 2025, per BLS’s QCEW (BLS): 9.7% of the 2025 U.S. total (our calculation).

Together Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties averaged 4,556 private physician offices of all specialties in 2025, 20.8% of Florida’s total (our calculation from QCEW annual averages). Neither BLS nor Census publishes a county count of ophthalmology practices. The Florida survey figures in the section above count ophthalmologists themselves by county.

How many Americans have vision loss?

About 7.15 million people in the United States (7,149,295) had vision loss that glasses or contact lenses could not correct in 2024, according to the modeled estimates of CDC's Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) (CDC VEHSS). VEHSS combines surveys, insurance claims and eye exam studies with census data to estimate prevalence, so these are model outputs and not head counts. The same model puts U.S.-defined blindness, best-corrected vision of 20/200 or worse, at 706,191 people in 2024 (CDC VEHSS). Among people aged 85 and older, 12.38% had vision loss that correction could not fix (CDC VEHSS).

The larger number in the same model is people who cannot see clearly with the glasses or lenses they already have. VEHSS counts 32.17 million people (32,171,582) with presenting vision loss in 2024 (CDC VEHSS), which is 4.5 times the best-corrected count (our calculation). Most of the gap is uncorrected refractive error: 25.02 million people (25,022,287) in 2024, who could see better with the right glasses or contact lenses, by CDC's definition (CDC VEHSS).

CDC's own consumer page still prints older round numbers. Its Fast Facts page says approximately 7 million people have vision impairment, including 1 million with blindness, and gives no year (CDC Fast Facts). Those figures are close to CDC's modeled table for 2017, archived in May 2024, which lists 7,053,006 people with vision loss and 1,097,853 with blindness (CDC VEHSS, 2024 capture). The 2024 update puts blindness at 706,191, below both the 2017 table and the fact sheet's 1 million.

How common are macular degeneration, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy?

Age-related macular degeneration is the largest modeled count: 19.83 million Americans aged 40 and older (19,828,247) had some stage of the disease in 2019, or 12.58% of that age group, VEHSS estimates (CDC VEHSS). Most of those cases are not vision-threatening: vision-threatening AMD accounted for 1.49 million people (1,485,545) in the same year (CDC VEHSS).

Glaucoma affected 4.22 million Americans of all ages (4,224,591) in 2022, by the VEHSS model, including 1.49 million (1,487,508) with vision-affecting glaucoma (CDC VEHSS). Diabetic retinopathy affected 9.60 million (9,604,871) people with diabetes in 2021, or 26.43% of Americans with diabetes, and 1.84 million (1,837,921) had vision-threatening disease (CDC VEHSS).

Self-reports measure something different: whether a person remembers being told. In the 2023 National Health Interview Survey, tabulated by VEHSS, 28.51% of U.S. adults aged 45 and older said they had ever been told they had cataracts or had cataract surgery, and 18.62% said they had ever had cataract surgery (CDC VEHSS, NHIS). A doctor or other professional had told 2.83% of adults 18 and older that they had glaucoma, and 3.3% of adults 45 and older that they had macular degeneration (CDC VEHSS, NHIS).

Medicare claims show what gets diagnosed and billed. In 2022, among Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage enrollees, 34.61% had a claim diagnosis in VEHSS's "All Cataracts" group, 13.93% had diagnosed glaucoma and 8.67% had diagnosed age-related macular degeneration (CDC VEHSS, Medicare). These rates cover enrollees only. Prevent Blindness, a patient-education association and not a statistics agency, states that more than two million cataract surgeries are performed in the United States every year; its page cites no data or year (Prevent Blindness). Medicare counts for cataract surgery are in this page's Medicare section.

Why do cataract, glaucoma and AMD counts disagree by source and year?

The published counts for the same disease differ widely because each source counts something different. The largest gap is age-related macular degeneration: the VEHSS 2019 estimate of 19,828,247 people is 11.0 times the 1.8 million printed on CDC's eye-disorders page (our calculation). The VEHSS figure counts any stage of AMD. The NEI baseline counts only late AMD, neovascular AMD and geographic atrophy, and CDC's page counts people with AMD apart from those with large drusen, whom it describes separately as at high risk (CDC). Self-reports count only people told by a clinician, and Medicare counts only enrollees with a billed diagnosis.

Diabetic retinopathy shows the same split: CDC's eye-disorders page prints an estimated 4.1 million Americans with retinopathy with no year given (CDC), against the 2021 VEHSS estimate of 9,604,871 people with diabetes (CDC VEHSS). NEI's and VEHSS's figures use different methods and years, so the table does not show a real rise in cataract, glaucoma or AMD between them. Figures from different rows should not be subtracted or read as a trend.

Who gets eye care, and who misses it?

About half of U.S. adults saw an eye specialist in a recent year: 51.67% of adults 18 and older said in the 2023 National Health Interview Survey that they had an eye exam from an optometrist, ophthalmologist or other eye doctor in the past 12 months (CDC VEHSS, NHIS). A smaller group, 37.59%, reported an exam with dilated pupils within the past year (CDC VEHSS, NHIS). CDC's consumer page says an estimated 93 million U.S. adults are at high risk for serious vision loss but only half saw an eye doctor in the past 12 months, without naming the year of the estimate (CDC Fast Facts).

Medicare claims give a similar picture for older adults. In 2022, 49.67% of Medicare fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage enrollees had a billed eye exam from any provider type, and 31.25% had one from an ophthalmologist or other physician (CDC VEHSS, Medicare). Florida's enrollees were close to the national rate at 50.47% (CDC VEHSS, Medicare). A claims count misses exams a patient paid for outside Medicare, and it says nothing about people who are not enrolled.

Vision rehabilitation stays rare. Only 1.04% of U.S. adults with trouble seeing said they used vision rehabilitation services in the 2023 NHIS (CDC VEHSS, NHIS).

How common is eye disease in Florida and in Palm Beach, Broward and Martin counties?

VEHSS models 542,178 Florida residents with vision loss that correction could not fix in 2024, or 7.6% of the U.S. total (our calculation). It also models 2.09 million (2,086,943) Floridians aged 40 and older with some stage of AMD in 2019 and 343,398 Floridians with glaucoma in 2022. County estimates come from the same national model, so their uncertainty intervals are wide and small-county numbers should be read as approximate.

The three counties total 87,126 people with vision loss after correction in 2024 (our calculation). Palm Beach County's AMD rate stands well above the state and national rates: VEHSS puts any-stage AMD at 23.58% of Palm Beach County residents 40 and older in 2019 (CDC VEHSS), against 18.33% in Florida (CDC VEHSS) and 12.58% nationally. Those are crude rates that follow each area's age mix.

CDC's PLACES program estimates a different thing: adults who report being blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even with glasses, from the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. That self-reported vision disability covered 5.7% of adults in Palm Beach County, 6.2% in Broward County and 5.4% in Martin County in 2023 (CDC PLACES). The PLACES rates are also modeled, and they count what adults say about their own sight rather than measured acuity, so they cannot be compared directly with the VEHSS columns above.

How much vision loss is there worldwide?

The World Health Organization's fact sheet, dated February 2026, says at least 2.2 billion people worldwide have a near or distance vision impairment (WHO). The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, an advocacy organisation for eye health, states a lower total of 1.1 billion people living with sight loss, citing a Lancet Global Health study by Bourne and colleagues (IAPB Vision Atlas). The two groups use different definitions and different scopes, so the figures do not measure the same population. WHO lists cataract as causing distance vision impairment or blindness in 94 million of the people with avoidable or unaddressed impairment (WHO), and puts the annual global productivity loss at about US$ 411 billion purchasing power parity (WHO).

Do lens, laser and eye drug makers tell investors about video?

Only 4 of the 15 newest annual reports we read from listed eye-care makers use the word “video,” all for fiscal 2025, and none describes making video for surgeons or patients (our calculation from the filings on SEC EDGAR). STAAR’s use is a compliance disclosure, Regeneron’s is employee communications, and Ocular Therapeutix’s and Apellis’s are FDA videoconferences. None of the 15 contains YouTube, TikTok or Instagram; IRIDEX names Facebook, as a channel for investors. Annual reports describe channels in broad terms, so a missing word does not mean a company makes no videos.

The closest any of them comes to surgery footage is a compliance note. STAAR Surgical’s fiscal 2025 10-K says that in 2022 a Japanese trade association, the Japan Fair Trade Council of the Medical Devices Industry, ruled that its Japanese subsidiary “improperly implemented a program with surgeons and hospitals” to obtain videos of cataract surgeries where its lenses were used (STAAR 10-K).

Marketing shows up as social media and television, not video. 4 of the 15 reports describe the company’s own direct-to-consumer marketing, and 4 describe social media in the company’s own marketing (our calculation). STAAR’s fiscal 2025 10-K says its marketing positions its implantable lenses as a premium option at the clinic and via digital and social media (STAAR 10-K). RxSight’s fiscal 2025 10-K lists conference promotions, podium presentations, social media and educational webinars aimed at cataract surgeons (RxSight 10-K). IRIDEX’s fiscal 2025 10-K lists site visits, its website, email marketing, clinical education and social media among its programs (IRIDEX 10-K). CooperVision’s fiscal 2025 10-K says it added direct-to-consumer elements, including print, internet and social media, radio and television, to its myopia management campaigns (Cooper 10-K).

Several filings list social media and telehealth as risks. Alcon’s fiscal 2025 annual report lists telehealth platforms among innovations that could disrupt traditional surgical and vision care models (Alcon 20-F). STAAR warns that patients, surgeons, competitors or others may use social channels to comment on product safety and report an alleged adverse event (STAAR 10-K). Tarsus says in its fiscal 2025 10-K that its direct-to-consumer marketing and telehealth pilot program may draw more regulatory scrutiny, citing the FDA’s September 2025 letters on drug promotion (Tarsus 10-K).

How much do eye-care makers spend on advertising?

Bausch + Lomb reported the largest advertising bill among the eye-care makers whose annual reports give one in dollars: $495 million in fiscal 2025, down from $528 million in fiscal 2024, covering samples, print, promotional materials and television (Bausch + Lomb 10-K). That is 9.7% of its revenue (our calculation). Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, which makes XDEMVY for an eyelid mite infection, spent the largest share of sales: $121.2 million in fiscal 2025 (Tarsus 10-K), or 26.9% of product sales (our calculation).

Two smaller filers also give a number: Ocular Therapeutix recognized $505 thousand of advertising expenses in fiscal 2025 (Ocular Therapeutix 10-K), and IRIDEX’s advertising and promotion costs were approximately $17 thousand (IRIDEX 10-K). Alcon, RxSight, Regeneron and Cooper give no advertising dollars in these reports, and Johnson & Johnson reports advertising only for the whole company.

Tarsus’s advertising in fiscal 2025 was 12.9 times its fiscal 2023 level of $9.4 million, the year it launched XDEMVY in August (our calculation). Its fiscal 2025 10-K describes direct-to-consumer campaigns on streaming and traditional television (Tarsus 10-K). It says unaided awareness of the condition reached approximately 25% of patients surveyed, against 2% at the start of the campaign; that is the company’s own survey, and the 10-K gives no sample size or dates (Tarsus 10-K).

STAAR moved the other way. Its advertising costs fell 57.9% in two years, from $46.7 million in fiscal 2023 to $19.6 million in fiscal 2025 (our calculation), and its selling and marketing expense was $102.5 million ($102,528 thousand) in fiscal 2025, 42.8% of its sales (STAAR 10-K). Apellis says in its fiscal 2025 10-K that it reaches patients through direct-to-consumer disease state education and branded messaging encouraging them to see their eye doctor (Apellis 10-K).

Two makers name direct-to-consumer selling as a threat to their business model. Alcon’s fiscal 2025 annual report warns that increased direct-to-consumer marketing could strain its relationships with eye care professionals (Alcon 20-F), and Bausch + Lomb’s fiscal 2025 10-K warns that direct-to-consumer, internet and e-commerce models could hurt the eye care professional channel (Bausch + Lomb 10-K).

How do eye-care makers’ market claims compare?

Alcon, which sells into the market it describes, estimates the eye care market it operates in at approximately $37 billion (Alcon 20-F) and the surgical market within it at approximately $14 billion (Alcon 20-F), in its fiscal 2025 annual report. Its own Surgical net sales of $5,751 million (Alcon 20-F) equal 41.1% of that estimate (our calculation), which is Alcon’s own market definition and not an independent share. Sight Sciences estimates a U.S. addressable market of approximately $6.0 billion for its glaucoma procedures (Sight Sciences 10-K).

Both surgeon counts are company statements, and neither is a count of all U.S. ophthalmologists; see this page’s workforce and association sections for those. No other filing we read gives a head count of eye surgeons. RxSight says it concentrates its sales on 3,500 to 4,000 of those surgeons (RxSight 10-K), or 36.8% to 42.1% of its own count (our calculation). LENSAR, citing an industry market report, says cataract and refractive lens exchange procedures are expected to grow from 33.1 million worldwide in 2025 to 39.6 million in 2030 (LENSAR 10-K), and U.S. cataract surgery from almost 5.1 million to approximately 5.9 million (LENSAR 10-K). By its figures the U.S. is 15.4% of the world’s procedures (our calculation).

Laser-assisted cataract surgery is a small part of that total. LENSAR says only 1 million of the world’s cataract surgeries in 2025 used a laser (LENSAR 10-K), or 3.0% (our calculation), and that it was estimated to hold 18.0% of laser cataract surgery revenue in 2024 (LENSAR 10-K). Alcon’s fiscal 2025 annual report says, citing unnamed market research, that 65 million people have moderate to severe vision impairment due to cataracts (Alcon 20-F). For refractive surgery, STAAR, citing Market Scope, says about 4.9 million procedures, mainly laser, were expected worldwide in 2025 (STAAR 10-K). RxSight says U.S. premium lens procedures carry an out-of-pocket fee typically of $2,000 to $5,000 per eye (RxSight 10-K).

What do the lens, laser and retina drug makers report selling?

STAAR says it has sold more than 4,000,000 implantable collamer lenses to date, in its fiscal 2025 10-K (STAAR 10-K). RxSight had 1,134 Light Delivery Devices installed in ophthalmology practices at the end of 2025 (RxSight 10-K), and says surgeons have implanted approximately 300,000 of its Light Adjustable Lenses since its founding (RxSight 10-K). These are lenses and devices sold, not counts of patients or outcomes.

Bausch + Lomb’s Surgical segment had revenue of $894 million in fiscal 2025 (Bausch + Lomb 10-K). Johnson & Johnson’s Vision franchise sold $1,558 million of surgical products in fiscal 2025 (J&J 10-K).

In retina drugs, EYLEA HD and EYLEA worldwide net product sales were $7,891.0 million in fiscal 2025 (Regeneron 10-K), down 17.3% from fiscal 2024 (our calculation). U.S. net product sales were $4,384.7 million (Regeneron 10-K), down 26.5% (our calculation). Regeneron says ophthalmologists also use off-label repackaged bevacizumab, a competing treatment (Regeneron 10-K).

Surgeon training appears in these filings without head counts. Alcon says it supports approximately 45 interactive training centers worldwide, where ophthalmologists learn its surgical equipment and cataract products through hands-on training (Alcon 20-F). STAAR says it offers surgeons wet labs, peer mentorship and proctorship (STAAR 10-K). Alcon agreed to buy STAAR in August 2025, but STAAR’s stockholders voted the deal down and the agreement ended on January 6, 2026, according to STAAR’s fiscal 2025 10-K (STAAR 10-K).

How often do annual reports mention ophthalmologists?

26 Form 10-K annual reports filed in 2025 contained “ophthalmologist” or “ophthalmologists,” against 28 in 2001 and a peak of 43 in 2022, by our count with SEC EDGAR full-text search (our calculation). From 2001 to 2025, 815 such filings came from 186 registrants (our calculation). The yearly counts, filer names and query URLs are in our EDGAR counts file. The count covers Form 10-Ks only, so Alcon, which files a Form 20-F, is outside it, and filing year 2025 mostly means fiscal 2024 reports.

Much of the count is not about the eye business, so we separated it. 602 of the 815 have a match outside the exhibits from a medical device, drug, lab or health services filer; the other 213 are matches only inside an exhibit (28) or filings from insurers and companies outside those health sectors (our calculation). The 815 counts a mention in any context; it leaves out 10-K/A amendments and the older 10-K405 form. Seven registrants account for 114 filings: IRIDEX, STAAR, Cooper, Regeneron, and three tied at 13, LCA-Vision, InSite Vision and Alimera Sciences (our calculation).

We read the 26 filings from 2025 one by one. 17 come from companies that sell to, market to or size their market by ophthalmologists; 7 mention them only as the doctors who diagnose or treat a disease the company studies; 1 mentions one in an executive biography; and 1 only in an employee health plan exhibit, which is boilerplate (our calculation; see the contexts file). Only that 2025 set was read filing by filing. Word choice matters too: 3 of the 15 newest annual reports never use “ophthalmologist” (Bausch + Lomb, LENSAR and Johnson & Johnson), and LENSAR says “ophthalmic surgeons” instead (our calculation).

Video rarely means marketing in these filings. From 2001 to 2025, 81 10-Ks paired an ophthalmologist word with “video”; in 25 it was a device or clinical imaging feature, in 23 contract, meeting or compliance text, in 16 something unrelated, in 15 marketing, sales or training material and in 2 remote eye exams (our calculation). Among the 15 marketing filings, LCA-Vision’s reports filed in 2002 and 2003 are the only ones from a LASIK or eye-surgery operator: they list videos among its marketing programs (our calculation). 4 of the 81 were filed in 2025; Warby Parker’s video-assisted eye exams are the only one of those four where video is how patients are seen (our calculation).

Filings pairing an ophthalmologist word with “LASIK” fell from 12 in 2001 to 6 in 2025, with 191 such filings from 2001 to 2025; 8 filed in 2025 paired one with “cataract surgery” (our calculation).

What has FDA said about LASIK risks and LASIK advertising?

FDA told eye care professionals in May 2009 that ads for FDA-approved LASIK lasers must be “truthful, properly substantiated and not misleading” (FDA letter, May 22, 2009). FDA says the first laser for LASIK was approved in 1998 and that the long-term safety and effectiveness of the surgery are not known; that patient page was last updated in 2018 (FDA). FDA regulates the devices, not the doctor. Its own page lists, among the things it has no authority to do, regulating a doctor’s practice and “Set the amount a doctor can charge for LASIK eye surgery” (FDA).

A second letter, on September 23, 2011, gave eye care professionals 90 days to correct ads that did not comply; after that, FDA said its actions could include warning letters, product seizures, injunctions and civil money penalty proceedings (FDA letter, September 23, 2011). In March 2012, FDA wrote to the American Academy of Ophthalmology that the approved labeling of every LASIK laser lists “dry eye syndrome, which can be severe”, the possible need for glasses or contacts after surgery, visual symptoms that can be debilitating, and loss of vision. FDA recommended including that risk information in all advertising and promotional materials for those lasers (FDA letter, March 20, 2012). FDA also announced warning letters to 17 LASIK ambulatory surgical centers in 2009, after inspections found inadequate adverse event reporting systems at all of them. The letters concerned reporting; FDA said the inspections did not identify problems with the use of the devices (FDA). This section summarizes published rules, letters and studies. It is not legal or medical advice.

What did FDA’s PROWL studies find after LASIK surgery?

In the PROWL studies, completed in 2014, up to 46 percent of participants with no visual symptoms before LASIK reported at least one visual symptom three months after surgery (FDA). FDA ran the project with the National Eye Institute and the Department of Defense. PROWL-1 enrolled 262 participants at the US Naval Medical Center San Diego (FDA), and PROWL-2 enrolled 312 participants in a civilian population across the United States (FDA). Halos were the most common new symptom: up to 40 percent of participants with no halos before surgery had halos at three months (FDA). Up to 28 percent of participants with no dry eye symptoms before surgery reported dry eye symptoms at three months (FDA).

FDA’s summary of the two PROWL studies, completed in 2014, reported the next three results. Less than 1 percent of participants had “a lot of difficulty” with usual activities, or could not do them, without corrective lenses because of any one visual symptom (FDA). More than 95% of participants were satisfied with their vision afterward (FDA). Participants were “more than twice as likely” to report visual symptoms on a questionnaire as to tell their health care provider (FDA). These are group results from two studies, one at a military clinic and one among civilians. FDA says a very large clinical study would be needed to estimate severe problems more accurately (FDA). The results do not predict any one patient’s outcome.

Is FDA’s 2022 LASIK patient-labeling guidance final?

No. FDA’s draft guidance on patient labeling for LASIK lasers, announced in the Federal Register on July 28, 2022 (87 FR 45334), says it is “not final nor is it for implementation at this time” (Federal Register). FDA said it acted on concerns that some patients are “not receiving and/or understanding information” about the benefits and risks of LASIK devices (Federal Register). The comment period was extended to November 25, 2022 (Federal Register). We found no final version or withdrawal notice in the Federal Register, and FDA’s public guidance search did not list the draft when we checked for this edition.

How does FDA classify eye lasers and intraocular lenses?

FDA classifies the intraocular lens as a Class III device, and its regulation says approval has been required since May 28, 1976 before a lens may be commercially distributed (eCFR, 21 CFR 886.3600). An ophthalmic laser, a device intended to coagulate or cut tissue of the eye by a laser beam, is Class II (eCFR, 21 CFR 886.4390). The Nd:YAG laser for posterior capsulotomy and peripheral iridotomy is Class II (special controls) (eCFR, 21 CFR 886.4392). The lasers used for LASIK appear separately on FDA’s list of approved lasers, each with an approval number and date. The newest entry on that list, current as of September 2025, is dated March 5, 2025 (FDA).

What has the FTC done about LASIK advertising?

A proposed FTC consent order published in February 2023 would have LCA-Vision, which sold LASIK as LasikPlus and Joffe MediCenter, pay $1,250,000 for consumer redress over its LASIK price ads (Federal Register, 88 FR 7723). The proposed complaint alleged that ads offered LASIK “as low as” or “starting at” $250 or $295 (Federal Register), that few people qualified, and that most paid between $1,800 and $2,295 per eye (Federal Register). These are allegations in a proposed complaint, not court findings. The vote was not unanimous: the notice records “Commissioner Wilson dissenting”, and she wrote that the free exams had significant value and that requiring specific medical parameters in ads could confuse (Federal Register).

The FTC acted on LASIK claims two decades earlier. In a 2003 proposed consent order, it alleged that LCA-Vision had no substantiation for claims that LASIK would “Eliminate the need for glasses and contacts for life”, was less risky to eye health than wearing them, or removed the risk of glare and haloing (Federal Register, 68 FR 16055). A second 2003 case alleged that The Laser Vision Institute took a $300 deposit before telling consumers about risks and before a health care professional decided whether they were candidates (Federal Register, 68 FR 16054). Both proposed orders required future refractive surgery claims to rest on “competent and reliable scientific evidence” (Federal Register).

What do FTC rules say about patient testimonials and reviews in eye surgery ads?

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides, in the text published on July 26, 2023 (eCFR, 16 CFR Part 255), read a patient testimonial as a claim that the result is typical. If the advertiser cannot back that up, the ad should disclose the generally expected performance (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.2). When an endorsement uses both pictures and sound, as a video does, the disclosure belongs in both the visual and audible portions (eCFR, 16 CFR 255.0). The FTC’s rule on consumer reviews and testimonials (16 CFR Part 465) took effect on October 21, 2024 (Federal Register). The maximum civil penalty for knowingly violating an FTC rule is now $53,088 per violation (eCFR, 16 CFR 1.98).

When does a patient eye surgery video need HIPAA authorization?

HIPAA defines marketing as a communication about a product or service that encourages people to “purchase or use the product or service” (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.501). To use protected health information for marketing, a covered entity such as an ophthalmology practice “must obtain an authorization” from the patient, with exceptions only for face-to-face communications and promotional gifts of nominal value (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.508). HIPAA’s de-identification rule lists “Full face photographic images” and comparable images among patient identifiers (eCFR, 45 CFR 164.514). HHS’s Office for Civil Rights has enforced this against a practice’s marketing. Complete P.T., Pool & Land Physical Therapy, a Los Angeles-area practice and not an eye practice, agreed in 2016 to pay $25,000 after posting patient testimonials with full names and full-face photos on its website without valid authorizations (HHS OCR).

What do Medicare’s telehealth rules say about eye care and teleretinal imaging?

CMS’s Telehealth FAQ says Medicare patients can receive telehealth anywhere in the United States, at home included, through December 31, 2027 (CMS). Remote retinal imaging is coded separately from telehealth visits. CMS’s CY 2021 physician payment rule describes CPT code 92229 as point-of-care automated analysis that uses artificial intelligence to interpret the eye exam without an ophthalmologist, and says the service is practice-expense only because no physician is involved (Federal Register). One contractor’s billing article addresses the staff-review code directly: CGS Administrators, the Medicare contractor for Kentucky and Ohio, says code 92227 is considered screening and will be “denied as non-covered” (CMS Medicare Coverage Database, A57071). Other contractors’ articles may differ.

What must a Florida ophthalmologist’s ad include, and who may perform eye surgery in Florida?

Florida’s physician statute lists “False, deceptive, or misleading advertising” as grounds for discipline (Florida Statutes 458.331), and the Board of Medicine may fine up to $10,000 for each count (Florida Statutes 456.072). Any ad naming a practitioner must identify the type of license that person holds (Florida Statutes 456.072). The Board’s advertising rule treats an ad as false, deceptive or misleading if it creates false or “unjustified expectations of beneficial assistance” (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001). A physician who advertises on electronic media must keep an exact copy of each audio or video ad for at least six months after it airs (Florida Administrative Code 64B8-11.001). Florida’s telehealth statute covers “synchronous or asynchronous” technology, so both live video visits and store-and-forward review count (Florida Statutes 456.47).

Florida does not allow optometrists to perform surgery. The optometry statute says “Surgery of any kind” is expressly prohibited, apart from removing superficial foreign bodies and listed minor procedures (Florida Statutes 463.014). It defines surgery as a procedure using an instrument, “including a laser, scalpel, or needle”, in which human tissue is cut, burned, scraped or vaporized (Florida Statutes 463.002).

What does the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s Code of Ethics say about advertising?

The AAO Code of Ethics is an association rule for its fellows and members; it is not law. Rule 13 bars public communications that convey false or misleading information through statements, “testimonials, photographs, graphics” or other means (AAO Code of Ethics). When a communication refers to benefits of ophthalmic procedures with significant risks, “realistic assessments of their safety and efficacy” must also be included, along with the availability of alternatives (AAO Code of Ethics). If a communication results from payment by an ophthalmologist, that “must be disclosed” unless its nature, format or medium makes it apparent (AAO Code of Ethics).

Which states let optometrists perform laser eye surgery?

A Utah state licensing review office verified, in a report dated January 2023 and updated in January 2024, that nine states then allowed some form of optometrist laser privileges: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Virginia and Wyoming (Utah OPLR). That count is dated. West Virginia, which is not among the nine, now has laser language in its optometry code, as the table shows. The table lists the statutes we could read directly and what the Utah review reported; Florida is included for comparison. State laws change often. Counts of optometrists and their practices are on the optometry video statistics page.

What do the popular eye-care numbers really say?

Eye surgery practices, device trade groups and video vendors repeat a few numbers more than most: a 96 percent LASIK satisfaction rate, cataract surgery as the most common operation in the country, a video that lifts conversions by 80%, cataracts in more than half of older Americans, and vision loss that is 80% avoidable. We traced each to the study, agency or vendor that produced it and read what it measured. Pages that repeat a number are linked only as dated evidence of how it spread, never as a source for the number itself.

“LASIK has a 96% patient satisfaction rate”

The best-documented figure is 95.4%, and the 96 percent came later, from a trade group. In March 2008 the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS), a society of surgeons who perform LASIK, announced that an average 95.4 percent of LASIK patients worldwide were satisfied (ASCRS release, via News-Medical). The peer-reviewed version appeared in Ophthalmology in April 2009, from Solomon and colleagues for a Joint LASIK Study Task Force. It reported 95.4% of subjects satisfied (Ophthalmology), counting 2,198 subjects from nineteen articles of primary LASIK performed between 1995 and 2003 (Ophthalmology). Satisfaction was pooled from each study’s own question, and the lowest study reported 87.2% (Ophthalmology). The only figure near it in that abstract is a subgroup: 96.3% of patients who had hyperopic LASIK (Ophthalmology).

A 2016 review in the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery by Sandoval, with Solomon as last author, covered articles from 2008 to 2015 and reported that 1.2% of patients in studies of satisfaction were dissatisfied (Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery). The American Refractive Surgery Council, a trade group whose members include Alcon, Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision, RxSight, STAAR Surgical and Zeiss, summarised that review in September 2016 as satisfaction of more than 98 percent (the council, archived). A June 2017 council post then said “more than 96 percent” (the council, archived), the earliest council wording of the figure we found. An October 2017 post called it an “unprecedented 96 percent” rate, the highest of any elective procedure, and cited the same 2016 review, whose abstract reports dissatisfaction and states no such figure (the council, archived). The council’s current page says more than 96 percent “according to the clinical data” and names no study (the council). LASIK sellers repeat it: Mann Eye Institute, a Texas practice, prints an “unprecedented 96%” rate credited to the council (Mann Eye).

Other figures near 96 percent exist without being the source. The earliest such satisfaction figure in the PubMed LASIK abstracts we scanned is a 1998 German series in which 96% of one small subgroup were highly satisfied (Ophthalmologe), and we found no page citing it. Optometry Times reported in October 2014 that a 2013 look at LASIK patients found 96.6 percent satisfied, citing a meeting presentation (Optometry Times). Trade press also reported 96% of the Navy cohort described below satisfied with their vision at month 3 (CRS Today). Our EDGAR search of LASIK sellers’ annual filings found no 96 percent satisfaction statement. The council’s 2017 wording is the earliest we found, not proof that no earlier use exists.

The federal studies measured something the headline leaves out. In October 2009 the FDA, the National Eye Institute and the Department of Defense launched the LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (FDA). Its PROWL studies, reported in JAMA Ophthalmology in 2017, followed 262 active-duty Navy personnel at one military center (JAMA Ophthalmology) and 312 civilians at five private practice and academic centers (JAMA Ophthalmology). The abstract reports dissatisfaction with vision of up to 4% rather than a satisfaction percentage (JAMA Ophthalmology). It also reports new visual symptoms 3 months after surgery in 43% of PROWL-1 participants (JAMA Ophthalmology) and 46% of PROWL-2 participants (JAMA Ophthalmology); a news summary of the paper says those participants had no symptoms preoperatively (News-Medical). About 28% of participants whose dry-eye scores were normal before surgery had mild, moderate or severe dry eye symptoms at 3 months (JAMA Ophthalmology). Use instead: “In a 2009 literature review of 2,198 subjects, 95.4% were satisfied after LASIK performed between 1995 and 2003; the FDA-led PROWL studies later found 43% to 46% of participants reporting new visual symptoms at 3 months.” Do not write “highest of any elective procedure” except as the council’s own phrase.

“Cataract surgery is the most common surgery in the U.S.”

Federal counts support a narrower claim: it ranks first in hospital-owned outpatient settings, peer-reviewed papers rank it first among Medicare beneficiaries, and a broader 2010 count put another procedure ahead of it. In 2014 data from HCUP, the federal hospital data project run by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, lens and cataract procedures were the most common invasive, therapeutic surgery in hospital-owned ambulatory settings, at 12.4 percent of outpatient surgeries (AHRQ HCUP). In 2019 HCUP counted 1,235,400 lens and cataract procedures in hospital-owned facilities (AHRQ HCUP), 8 percent of major ambulatory surgeries there and the most common, including for people 65 and older (AHRQ HCUP). Those briefs do not count freestanding ambulatory surgery centers.

The wider 2010 count came from CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, across hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers: endoscopy of the large intestine at 4.0 million procedures (CDC NCHS, archived) and extraction of lens at 2.9 million (CDC NCHS, archived). That report counts procedures, including endoscopy, while HCUP ranks invasive, therapeutic surgeries, so the ranking depends on what counts as surgery. Medicare is where the ranking is safest: a 1995 paper in Medical Care called cataract surgery the most frequently performed surgical procedure on Medicare beneficiaries (Medical Care), the earliest ranking of this kind we found in a PubMed search, and a 2015 paper in PLoS One called it the most common surgery on Medicare beneficiaries (PLoS One).

The Medicare limit falls away in repeats. A 2005 paper in Ophthalmology wrote the most commonly performed operation in the United States, with no national count in its abstract (Ophthalmology). The National Eye Institute says only that it is one of the most common operations in the country (National Eye Institute), which is what the data support. Use instead: “Lens and cataract procedures are the most common ambulatory surgery in hospital-owned facilities (8 percent, HCUP, 2019) and the most common surgery on Medicare beneficiaries (Medical Care, PLoS One).” The Medicare section of this page has claims counts.

“Video on a landing page lifts conversions by 80%”

The figure is a best case from one video vendor, EyeView, in 2009 and 2010, about financial and tutoring websites, not eye care. EyeView’s blog first reported that eToro visitors who watched its video were 20% more likely to download the product (December 2008) (EyeView, archived). In February 2009 it said UMOO viewers were 80% more likely to become depositing users, comparing viewers with non-viewers for one client (EyeView, archived). Its 2010 white paper said only that “in some cases” the boost was over 80% (EyeView white paper, archived), and the one test it described, the eToro split test, was now almost 32 percent (EyeView white paper, archived).

The scope fell away in repeats. By August 2010 Unbounce, a landing-page software seller, wrote that video on landing pages can increase conversion by 80% (Unbounce, archived), and WordStream, a pay-per-click software seller, repeated 80% in March 2016, crediting “EyeWideDigital” (WordStream). Healthcare marketing carried it on: Nucleus Medical Media, which makes medical animation, listed 80% in 2018, credited to Eyeview Digital (Nucleus Medical Media). In eye care we found one repeater: Beverly Boy Productions, a video producer selling to eyeglass and contact lens stores, promises landing page conversions up by as much as 80% with no study named (Beverly Boy). We searched ophthalmology and LASIK practice marketing for the figure and found no test by an eye surgery practice behind it.

The larger later evidence points the other way. Unbounce’s own 2021 analysis of about 35,000 customer landing pages in each of three periods (Unbounce) concluded that video appears to have a minimal or negative impact on landing-page performance regardless of the conversion goal (Unbounce). Use instead: do not cite a conversion lift for eye-care video; say Unbounce’s 2021 study of 35,000 pages found video had a minimal or negative effect, and judge a practice’s video by its own appointment requests.

“Half of Americans have cataracts by age 75 or 80”

The National Eye Institute’s statement has moved between ages, and its own table runs higher than the wording. A 1998 NEI page said more than half of all Americans age 65 and older had a cataract (NEI, archived), the earliest NEI wording of this kind we found. By 2004 NEI had moved the age and widened the condition: by age 80, more than half of all Americans either have a cataract or have had cataract surgery (NEI, archived). NEI’s current page says more than half of all Americans age 80 or older either have cataracts or have had surgery to get rid of cataracts (National Eye Institute).

The underlying numbers come from the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, published in the Archives of Ophthalmology in 2004 and estimating 20.5 million Americans older than 40 with cataract in either eye (Archives of Ophthalmology). NEI’s data table for those estimates, which use year-2000 population counts, gives cataract prevalence of 42.8% at ages 70-79 (NEI, archived) and 68.3% at 80 and older (NEI, archived). The table has no line for age 75, so the “by 75” form does not come from it. A Johnson & Johnson Vision chief medical officer, whose company sells lens implants, said in a 2021 interview that by age 75 about half of all Americans have cataracts, naming no study (AJMC). Use instead: “In estimates published by the National Eye Institute, 42.8% of U.S. adults aged 70-79 and 68.3% of those 80 and older had cataract.”

“80% of vision impairment is avoidable”

The figure began as a World Health Organization estimate about blindness, and WHO no longer prints it. WHO’s fact sheet of February 1997 said more than two-thirds of blindness could be avoided by applying existing knowledge and technology (WHO, archived). In March 1998 Bjorn Thylefors, director of WHO’s Programme for the Prevention of Blindness and Deafness, wrote that about 80% of blindness is avoidable, the earliest such wording we found (Community Eye Health). WHO’s fact sheet on its VISION 2020 initiative, revised February 2000, said about 80% of global blindness is avoidable (WHO, archived). By November 2018 the WHO fact sheet had widened the base to all vision impairment, approximately 80% of it considered avoidable (WHO, archived).

The February 2026 WHO fact sheet no longer prints that share. It says that in at least 1 billion cases, almost half, vision impairment could have been prevented or has yet to be addressed (WHO). Use instead: “WHO estimated in 2026 that at least 1 billion cases of vision impairment could have been prevented or have yet to be addressed.” Use the WHO figure for the world, and keep it apart from any U.S. count.

Every popular claim our research pages trace, 853 in all, is on one page: popular video statistics, fact-checked.

How we built this page

We started from the questions people search for about ophthalmology video statistics and looked for the organization that actually produced each answer. Every figure on this page sits in an evidence ledger with its source, the exact table or paragraph it came from, the measurement period, the population measured, and the date we checked it. This edition holds 690 figures from 95 publishers.

On November 8, 2026, each sourced figure on this page was re-fetched with the fetch cache cleared and matched against the recorded wording: CMS’s Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners files through the data.cms.gov data API; BLS occupation wage estimates and the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (through the BLS data API and data files) and Employment Projections and Occupational Outlook Handbook pages (through Internet Archive copies, because bls.gov refuses automated requests); Census County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, the 2022 Economic Census and the Annual Integrated Economic Survey (through the Census data API); CDC’s Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System and PLACES (through data.cdc.gov), CDC and National Eye Institute pages (Internet Archive copies where the live page refuses scripts), AHRQ’s HCUP statistical briefs and WHO fact sheets; ACGME, American Board of Ophthalmology and American Academy of Ophthalmology pages and Florida’s physician workforce reports; eCFR, the Federal Register, FDA pages, the Florida Statutes and the Board of Medicine’s advertising rule; SEC filings on EDGAR; journal abstracts (PubMed abstracts re-read through NCBI’s E-utilities, because the pages answer scripts with a bot check); and the pages behind each popular claim. Our Medicare counts come from CMS’s own files, our YouTube figures from the YouTube Data API and our filing counts from EDGAR full-text search. We left out sources whose robots rules bar AI agents, among them The Lancet, the journals of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, Healio, SF Match and data.hrsa.gov (HRSA’s projections appear only through a peer-reviewed paper), AAMC tables (a browser challenge), and ftc.gov pages (they answer scripts with an error page, so FTC rules are cited from eCFR and the Federal Register).

We only cite the producer: government agencies, regulators, company filings and official posts, and the survey owner's own report. We do not cite statistics roundups, Statista-style aggregators, or salary sites without a public method. We did not bypass paywalls or sign-up forms; where a full report was gated, we used only the figures its publisher states publicly.

Figures marked "our calculation" are arithmetic on the cited numbers, and anyone can reproduce them:

This edition contains no Mark Studios customer data.

Limitations

• Ophthalmologist counts differ by source. BLS counts 8,950 wage-and-salary jobs, which leaves out owners of unincorporated practices; CMS counts only those who billed Medicare fee-for-service; Florida’s survey counts physicians who answer it. We print them side by side rather than pick one.
• Our Medicare figures cover fee-for-service Part B only. They leave out Medicare Advantage, so they miss a growing share of Medicare patients, and a fall in a code is not proof of fewer operations. CMS hides lines with fewer than 11 patients, so procedure counts are floors. County totals use each provider’s listed ZIP code, and a ZIP split across counties goes to the county holding its largest part.
• Physician-office figures are not eye-care figures. BLS and Census count ophthalmology practices inside offices of physicians (NAICS 621111), shared with every other specialty.
• Our YouTube read follows YouTube’s ranking and leans on one hospital. The 568 videos are what YouTube’s search returned for three terms (the top 200 results of each, sorted by views, with no country filter) on November 8, 2026. It is not a census of eye-care video, view counts are lifetime snapshots, and we sorted 335 channels by hand from their public text without checking credentials. One New Delhi hospital supplies nearly half of the eye practice views. We do not name patients.
• Study results come from specific settings. Each content study sampled the top results for one topic on one date and defined “physician” its own way, and we found no randomized trial of a pre-LASIK video. Several study authors have maker ties, noted where the study appears.
• Association and company figures are their own. The American Academy of Ophthalmology, ASCRS, Prevent Blindness and the American Refractive Surgery Council represent or campaign for the field, and makers’ 10-K estimates come from their own market research. Each is labelled.

How to cite this page

For a single figure, cite the original publisher named next to it, and link here if the verification trail is useful to your readers. Each figure has its own anchor, so you can link straight to it, for example https://www.markstudios.com/research/ophthalmology-video-statistics#DRV-210. To cite the page as a whole:

Mark Studios. "Ophthalmology Video Statistics." Last verified Nov 8, 2026. https://www.markstudios.com/research/ophthalmology-video-statistics

@misc{markstudios_ophthalmology_video_statistics_2026,
  author = {{Mark Studios}},
  title = {{Ophthalmology Video Statistics}},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  url = {https://www.markstudios.com/research/ophthalmology-video-statistics},
  note = {Last verified 2026-11-08}
}

Our calculations and the evidence table are free to reuse with attribution and a link to this page. Each underlying figure remains the claim of its original publisher, and some publishers ask for a link when their figures are reused.

Sources

Download the evidence table (CSV)

1. Ophthalmology and Therapy (Sampige et al.), Education and Misinformation: Exploring Ophthalmology Content on TikTok. (2023-10-24). Accessed 2026-11-08.
2. Journal of Ophthalmology (Patel et al.), Evaluation of Social Media Short-Form Video Content for Patient Education on Vision-Threatening Diseases. (2026-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
3. International Ophthalmology (Bae et al.), YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery. (2017-08-28). Accessed 2026-11-08.
4. Digital Health (Cao et al.), Quality of cataract-related videos on TikTok and its influencing factors: A cross-sectional study. (2025-07-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
5. Seminars in Ophthalmology (Altunel et al.), Evaluation of YouTube videos as sources of information about multifocal intraocular lens. (2021-03-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
6. Journal of Ophthalmology (Haddad et al.), LASIK Videos on TikTok: A Content Analysis of the Top 100 Videos. (2024-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
7. European Journal of Ophthalmology (Fazio et al.), Laser refractive surgery on TikTok: A DISCERN-based quality assessment. (2025-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
8. Cornea (Kuçuk et al.), An Analysis of YouTube Videos as Educational Resources for Patients About Refractive Surgery. (2020-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
9. International Ophthalmology (Reyhan et al.), A comprehensive quality and reliability assessment of SMILE (small incision lenticule extraction) laser surgery videos on youtube. (2025-05-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
10. Lasers in Medical Science (Ahmet et al.), Assessing the accuracy and usefulness of YouTube videos on small incision lenticule extraction (SMILE) surgery for patients and healthcare professionals. (2025-01-25). Accessed 2026-11-08.
11. Ophthalmology Glaucoma (Oydanich et al.), An Analysis of the Quality, Reliability, and Popularity of YouTube Videos on Glaucoma. (2021-10-09). Accessed 2026-11-08.
12. Middle East African Journal of Ophthalmology (Irgat et al.), How Reliable and Popular are Trabeculectomy Videos on Youtube? (2023-05-25). Accessed 2026-11-08.
13. Frontiers in Medicine (Jiang et al.), Educational performance of TikTok short videos for age related macular degeneration and its link to user engagement. (2026-01-12). Accessed 2026-11-08.
14. International Ophthalmology (Mahajan et al.), Educational quality and content of YouTube videos on diabetic macular edema. (2022-09-03). Accessed 2026-11-08.
15. Journal Francais d'Ophtalmologie (AlBloushi et al.), YouTube videos related to diabetic retinopathy: Are they good enough? (2022-12-20). Accessed 2026-11-08.
16. Frontiers in Public Health (Jiang et al.), Evaluating the quality of educational TikTok videos on diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study. (2025-12-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
17. Journal Francais d'Ophtalmologie (Seyyar et al.), Evaluation of YouTube videos as a patient information source on intravitreal injection procedures. (2022-06-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
18. Clinical Ophthalmology (Sarrafpour et al.), Quality Analysis of YouTube and Facebook Videos for Glaucoma Treatment Options. (2026-03-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
19. Der Ophthalmologe (Schrenk et al.), [Advertising or information in ophthalmology? : Scientific evaluation of a YouTube sample]. (2021-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
20. Cureus (Tan et al.), Keeping Patients Safe Online: A Study of Refractive Surgery Advertisements on Social Media. (2024-09-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
21. Ophthalmology and Therapy (Zhu et al.), Patient Perception and Self-Reported Outcomes with Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses (PCIOLs): A Social Media Listening Study. (2023-11-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
22. Nursing Open (Nabighadim et al.), Non-Pharmacological Interventions Before Cataract Surgery for Preoperative Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2025-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
23. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (Ahmed et al.), Effect of a patient-information video on the preoperative anxiety levels of cataract surgery patients. (2019-01-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
24. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (Zhang et al.), A randomized, controlled trial of video supplementation on the cataract surgery informed consent process. (2019-05-30). Accessed 2026-11-08.
25. Journal of Ophthalmology (Zhang et al.), Video-Assisted Informed Consent for Cataract Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. (2017-01-16). Accessed 2026-11-08.
26. Clinical Ophthalmology (Vo et al.), A randomized trial of multimedia-facilitated informed consent for cataract surgery. (2018-08-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
27. Clinical Ophthalmology (Wisely et al.), Impact of Preoperative Video Education for Cataract Surgery on Patient Learning Outcomes. (2020-05-20). Accessed 2026-11-08.
28. Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (Tipotsch-Maca et al.), Effect of a multimedia-assisted informed consent procedure on the information gain, satisfaction, and anxiety of cataract surgery patients. (2016-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
29. Advances in Ophthalmology Practice and Research (Benzy et al.), Effect of Video Counselling Versus Verbal Counselling on Patient's experience during phacoemulsification under topical anaesthesia. (2022-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
30. Clinical Ophthalmology (Schallhorn et al.), Informed consent in refractive surgery: in-person vs telemedicine approach. (2018-11-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
31. Cureus (Ong et al.), Optometrist to Operation: Patients' Perspective on the Innovative Use of Quick Response (QR) Code-Linked Patient Information Video on Cataract Surgery. (2023-11-24). Accessed 2026-11-08.
32. Cureus (Han et al.), Assessing the Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Creation of Patient Educational Videos for Corneal Refractive Surgery. (2024-10-14). Accessed 2026-11-08.
33. BMJ Open Ophthalmology (Mehraban Far et al.), Diagnostic accuracy of teleretinal screening for detection of diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
34. Ophthalmology (Weng et al.), Effectiveness of Conventional Digital Fundus Photography-Based Teleretinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema: A Report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2024-04-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
35. BMC Health Services Research (Ha et al.), Impact of teleretinal screening program on diabetic retinopathy screening compliance rates in community health centers: a quasi-experimental study. (2025-02-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
36. International Ophthalmology Clinics (Chamberlain et al.), Follow-up Adherence After Teleretinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy. (2024-12-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
37. Journal of VitreoRetinal Diseases (Patil et al.), Follow-up Rates After Teleretinal Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: Assessing Patient Barriers to Care. (2023-02-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
38. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (Stebbins et al.), Follow-Up Compliance for Patients Diagnosed with Diabetic Retinopathy After Teleretinal Imaging in Primary Care. (2020-06-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
39. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care (Bresnick et al.), Adherence to ophthalmology referral, treatment and follow-up after diabetic retinopathy screening in the primary care setting. (2020-06). Accessed 2026-11-08.
40. PLOS ONE (Bonilla-Escobar et al.), Factors associated with loss to follow-up after point-of-care diabetic retinopathy examination in a teleophthalmology program: A retrospective cohort study. (2026-10-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
41. American Journal of Ophthalmology (Owsley et al.), Alabama Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine (AL-SIGHT): Baseline Results. (2023-09-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
42. Ophthalmology (Newman-Casey et al.), Michigan Screening and Intervention for Glaucoma and Eye Health through Telemedicine Program: Impact on Vision, Follow-up, and Costs. (2025-04-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
43. Clinical Ophthalmology (Dow et al.), Artificial Intelligence Improves Patient Follow-Up in a Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program. (2023-11-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
44. EClinicalMedicine (Li et al.), Safety of video-based telemedicine compared to in-person triage in emergency ophthalmology during COVID-19. (2021-04-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
45. Eye (Al-Nosairy et al.), Patient satisfaction in tele-ophthalmology: systematic review and meta-analysis. (2026-09-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
46. American journal of ophthalmology (Harrington et al.), Geographical Distribution of Ophthalmologists in the United States by Gender. (2025-02-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
47. American Board of Ophthalmology (certifying board), Statistics, American Board of Ophthalmology (2026). Accessed 2026-11-08.
48. American Academy of Ophthalmology (association; sells membership, education and meetings to ophthalmologists), The Academy: Who We Are (2026). Accessed 2026-11-08.
49. Florida Department of Health, Florida Physician Workforce Annual Report 2025 (2025). Accessed 2026-11-08.
50. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), Data Resource Book, Academic Year 2024-2025 (2025). Accessed 2026-11-08.
51. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), ACGME Data Resource Book, Academic Year 2014-2015 (2015). Accessed 2026-11-08.
52. JAMA ophthalmology (Aguwa et al.), Analysis of Sex Diversity Trends Among Ophthalmology Match Applicants, Residents, and Clinical Faculty. (2021). Accessed 2026-11-08.
53. Journal of surgical education (Khan et al.), Effect of Interview Cap on Ophthalmology Residency Match: A San Francisco Match Analysis. (2025-09-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
54. Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) (Siatkowski et al.), Probability of Success in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Three-Year Outcomes Analysis of San Francisco Matching Program Data. (2018). Accessed 2026-11-08.
55. Ophthalmology (Berkowitz et al.), Ophthalmology Workforce Projections in the United States, 2020 to 2035. (2023-09-20). Accessed 2026-11-08.
56. American journal of ophthalmology (Feng et al.), National Trends in the United States Eye Care Workforce from 1995 to 2017. (2020-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
57. Ophthalmic epidemiology (Mothy et al.), Why the Divide? A Demographic Comparison of Eye Care Providers in Rural and Urban Counties. (2026-08-25). Accessed 2026-11-08.
58. JAMA ophthalmology (Ahmed et al.), Geographic Distribution of US Ophthalmic Surgical Subspecialists. (2025). Accessed 2026-11-08.
59. JMIR public health and surveillance (Akarapimand et al.), Broadband Access and Ophthalmologist Density in the United States: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study. (2026-05-19). Accessed 2026-11-08.
60. Clinical Ophthalmology (Joffe, 2021), The 25th Anniversary of Laser Vision Correction in the United States (2021-03-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
61. Current opinion in ophthalmology (Corcoran et al.), Macroeconomic landscape of refractive surgery in the United States. (2015). Accessed 2026-11-08.
62. Journal of refractive surgery (Thorofare, N.J. : 1995) (Fazio et al.), Longitudinal and Geographic Patterns of Public Interest in Refractive Surgery in the United States: A 10-Year Google Trends Analysis of LASIK, PRK, SMILE, and ICL Implantation (2015 to 2025). (2026-08-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
63. Ophthalmology (Chen et al.), Private Equity in Ophthalmology and Optometry: Analysis of Acquisitions from 2012 through 2019 in the United States. (2020-01-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
64. Digital journal of ophthalmology : DJO (Patil et al.), Private equity in ophthalmology and optometry: a time series analysis from 2012 to 2021. (2023-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-08.
65. Health affairs (Project Hope) (Singh et al.), Physician Turnover Increased In Private Equity-Acquired Physician Practices. (2025). Accessed 2026-11-08.
66. JAMA health forum (Singh et al.), Association of Private Equity Acquisition of Physician Practices With Changes in Health Care Spending and Utilization. (2022-09-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
67. Ophthalmology (Braun et al.), Association of Private Equity Firm Acquisition of Ophthalmology Practices with Medicare Spending and Use of Ophthalmology Services. (2023-09-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
68. Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) (Portney et al.), Trainee Perspectives of Private Equity's Impact on Ophthalmology. (2023-02-09). Accessed 2026-11-08.
69. Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (Moss et al.), Survey of Telehealth Adoption by Neuro-ophthalmologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Benefits, Barriers, and Utility. (2020). Accessed 2026-11-08.
70. Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (Moss et al.), Tele-Neuro-Ophthalmology Utilization, Availability, and Attitudes: Update 1 Year Into the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. (2022-07-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
71. Ophthalmology (Chen et al.), Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in the Use of Telemedicine for Ophthalmic Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2021-07-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
72. Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association (Lee et al.), Teleophthalmology Using Remote Retinal Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2022-05-24). Accessed 2026-11-08.
73. Ophthalmic epidemiology (Satheesh et al.), Early Adoption of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy After Introduction of Medicare Billing Code 92229. (2026-08-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
74. Health informatics journal (Al-Khersan et al.), Social media in ophthalmology: An analysis of use in the professional sphere. (2020-09-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
75. Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) (Al-Khersan et al.), Adoption and Use of Social Media Platforms by Ophthalmology Programs during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2022-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
76. Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) (Qin et al.), Utilization of Instagram by Ophthalmology Residency Programs in the Era of COVID-19. (2023-06-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
77. Ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgery (Park et al.), Building Your Brand: Analysis of Successful Oculoplastic Surgeons on Social Media. (2020). Accessed 2026-11-08.
78. The CLAO journal : official publication of the Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists, Inc (Leaming et al.), Attitudes toward advertising among Fellows of the American Academy of Ophthalmology: 1988. (1990). Accessed 2026-11-08.
79. Ophthalmology (Lin et al.), Usability of Patient Education-Oriented Cataract Surgery Websites. (2023-10-16). Accessed 2026-11-08.
80. Ophthalmic epidemiology (Mothy et al.), Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Visual Accessibility of Patient Education Websites for Laser Refractive Surgery. (2025-05-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
81. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
82. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
83. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2019 data) (2025-03-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
84. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
85. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
86. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
87. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
88. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
89. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
90. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
91. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
92. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
93. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
94. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
95. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
96. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
97. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
98. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
99. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
100. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
101. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
102. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
103. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
104. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Provider and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
105. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
106. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
107. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
108. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
109. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
110. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
111. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
112. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
113. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
114. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
115. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
116. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
117. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
118. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
119. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
120. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
121. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
122. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
123. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
124. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
125. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
126. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
127. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
128. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2019 data) (2023-05-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
129. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
130. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service (2024 data) (2026-05-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
131. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook: Physicians and Surgeons (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-08.
132. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
133. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
134. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Projections Table 1.2: Occupational projections, 2025-35, and worker characteristics, 2025 (2026-08-27). Accessed 2026-11-08.
135. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
136. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
137. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
138. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
139. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
140. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
141. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
142. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
143. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
144. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
145. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
146. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
147. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
148. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
149. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
150. Florida Department of Health, 2023 Physician Workforce Annual Report (2023-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
151. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
152. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
153. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
154. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
155. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
156. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
157. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS), May 2025 estimates (2026-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
158. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW open data, 2025 annual averages, industry 621111 (2026-09-03). Accessed 2026-11-08.
159. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, QCEW open data, 2019 annual averages, industry 621111 (2020-09-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
160. U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 (Census Data API, cbp) (2025-06-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
161. U.S. Census Bureau, Nonemployer Statistics 2024 (Census Data API, nonemp) (2026-06-25). Accessed 2026-11-08.
162. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Selected Statistics by Industry (ecnbasic) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
163. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Industry by Products (ecnnapcsind) (2024-12-12). Accessed 2026-11-08.
164. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Revenue by Type of Payer (ecntypepayer) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
165. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Telemedicine Services by Industry (ecntelemeds) (2025-01-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
166. U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Integrated Economic Survey: Detailed Operating Expenses: 2024 (aiesexp02) (2026-05-28). Accessed 2026-11-08.
167. U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 Economic Census: Establishment and Firm Size Statistics (ecnsize) (2024-11-27). Accessed 2026-11-08.
168. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
169. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
170. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
171. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
172. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
173. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fast Facts: Vision Loss (2024-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
174. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, VEHSS Modeled Estimates: Vision Loss and Blindness (2024-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
175. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
176. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
177. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
178. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
179. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
180. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
181. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
182. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
183. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
184. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
185. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
186. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
187. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
188. Prevent Blindness (patient-education association), Cataract (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
189. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, About Common Eye Disorders and Diseases (2024-05-15). Accessed 2026-11-08.
190. National Eye Institute, Cataract Data and Statistics (2019-07-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
191. National Eye Institute, Glaucoma Data and Statistics (2019-07-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
192. National Eye Institute, Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) Data and Statistics (2019-07-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
193. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
194. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
195. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
196. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
197. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, Medicare claims), VEHSS Medicare Fee for Service + Advantage (100%), data.cdc.gov dataset 8gpz-j2fr (2025-08-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
198. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS, NHIS), National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - Vision and Eye Health Surveillance, data.cdc.gov dataset 2t2r-sf6s (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
199. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
200. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
201. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
202. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
203. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
204. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
205. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
206. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
207. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
208. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
209. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
210. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (VEHSS modeled estimates), VEHSS Modeled Estimates (Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System), data.cdc.gov dataset qeru-k2y2 (2026-08-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
211. CDC PLACES (model-based estimates from BRFSS), PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, County Data, 2025 release, data.cdc.gov dataset swc5-untb (2025-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
212. CDC PLACES (model-based estimates from BRFSS), PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, County Data, 2025 release, data.cdc.gov dataset swc5-untb (2025-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
213. CDC PLACES (model-based estimates from BRFSS), PLACES: Local Data for Better Health, County Data, 2025 release, data.cdc.gov dataset swc5-untb (2025-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
214. World Health Organization, Blindness and vision impairment (2026-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
215. International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (Vision Atlas), Vision Atlas (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
216. STAAR Surgical Company, STAAR Surgical Company Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (year ended January 2, 2026) (2026-03-03). Accessed 2026-11-08.
217. RxSight, Inc., RxSight, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-25). Accessed 2026-11-08.
218. IRIDEX Corporation, IRIDEX Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (year ended January 3, 2026) (2026-04-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
219. The Cooper Companies, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (year ended October 31, 2025) (2025-12-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
220. Alcon Inc., Alcon Inc. Annual Report on Form 20-F for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-24). Accessed 2026-11-08.
221. Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Tarsus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
222. Bausch + Lomb Corporation, Bausch + Lomb Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
223. Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-24). Accessed 2026-11-08.
224. Harrow, Inc., Harrow, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
225. Sight Sciences, Inc., Sight Sciences, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
226. Glaukos Corporation, Glaukos Corporation Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
227. LENSAR, Inc., LENSAR, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-03-31). Accessed 2026-11-08.
228. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
229. Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
230. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Form 10-K for fiscal year 2025 (2026-02-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
231. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Letter to Eye Care Professionals, May 22, 2009 (2009-05-22). Accessed 2026-11-08.
232. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, What are the risks and how can I find the right doctor for me? (2018-08-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
233. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, LASIK: FDA's Role (2018-01-18). Accessed 2026-11-08.
234. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Letter to Eye Care Professionals, September 23, 2011 (2011-09-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
235. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA Letter to American Academy of Ophthalmology, March 20, 2012 (2012-03-20). Accessed 2026-11-08.
236. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, The Latest on FDA's LASIK Program (2021-06-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
237. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (2021-06-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
238. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register notice), Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis Lasers-Patient Labeling Recommendations; Draft Guidance; Availability (2022-07-28). Accessed 2026-11-08.
239. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal Register notice), Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis Lasers-Patient Labeling Recommendations; Draft Guidance; Availability; Extension of Comment Period (2022-10-11). Accessed 2026-11-08.
240. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 886.3600 -- Intraocular lens (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
241. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 886.4390 -- Ophthalmic laser (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
242. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 21 CFR 886.4392 -- Nd:YAG laser for posterior capsulotomy and peripheral iridotomy (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
243. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA-Approved Lasers for LASIK (2025-09-22). Accessed 2026-11-08.
244. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register notice), LCA-Vision; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment (2023-02-06). Accessed 2026-11-08.
245. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register notice), LCA-Vision, Inc. d/b/a LasikPlus; Analysis To Aid Public Comment (2003-04-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
246. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register notice), The Laser Vision Institute, LLC; Analysis To Aid Public Comment (2003-04-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
247. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR Part 255 -- Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (2023-07-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
248. Federal Trade Commission (Federal Register), Trade Regulation Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (Federal Register, 2024-08-22) (2024-08-22). Accessed 2026-11-08.
249. Federal Trade Commission (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 16 CFR 1.98 -- Adjustment of civil monetary penalty amounts (2025-01-17). Accessed 2026-11-08.
250. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.501 -- Definitions (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
251. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.508 -- Uses and disclosures for which an authorization is required (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
252. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (rule text via eCFR, Office of the Federal Register), 45 CFR 164.514 -- Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
253. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Physical therapy provider settles violations that it impermissibly disclosed patient information (2016-02-12). Accessed 2026-11-08.
254. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Telehealth FAQ (updated 10/8/26) (2026-10-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
255. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (Federal Register final rule), Medicare Program; CY 2021 Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule (final rule) (2020-12-28). Accessed 2026-11-08.
256. CGS Administrators, LLC (Medicare Administrative Contractor), CMS Medicare Coverage Database, Billing and Coding: Ophthalmology: Posterior Segment Imaging (Extended Ophthalmoscopy and Fundus Photography) (A57071) (2026-06-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
257. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 458.331 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and department (2026). Accessed 2026-11-08.
258. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement (2026). Accessed 2026-11-08.
259. Florida Department of State (Florida Administrative Code), Board of Medicine rule, 64B8-11.001 Advertising (rule text) (2026-03-19). Accessed 2026-11-08.
260. The Florida Legislature, The 2026 Florida Statutes, 456.47 Use of telehealth to provide services (2026). Accessed 2026-11-08.
261. Florida Legislature (Florida Statutes 2026, Online Sunshine), 463.014 Certain acts prohibited (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
262. Florida Legislature (Florida Statutes 2026, Online Sunshine), 463.002 Definitions (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
263. American Academy of Ophthalmology (association rule), American Academy of Ophthalmology, Code of Ethics (undated). Accessed 2026-11-08.
264. Utah Office of Professional Licensure Review, Department of Commerce, Legislative Inquiry Report: Optometrist Laser Surgery Privileges (January 2023; PDF updated 1-29-2024) (2024-01-29). Accessed 2026-11-08.
265. Kentucky General Assembly, Legislative Research Commission, KRS 320.210 Definitions for chapter (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
266. West Virginia Legislature, West Virginia Code §30-8-9 (2026-11-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
267. ASCRS (surgeon society), press release via News-Medical, LASIK patients overwhelmingly happy with procedure results (2008-03-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
268. Ophthalmology (Solomon et al., Joint LASIK Study Task Force), LASIK world literature review: quality of life and patient satisfaction (2009-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
269. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (Sandoval et al.), Modern laser in situ keratomileusis outcomes (2016-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
270. American Refractive Surgery Council (trade group whose members include lens and laser makers), Latest Global LASIK Scientific Literature Review Published (2016-09-16). Accessed 2026-11-08.
271. American Refractive Surgery Council (trade group whose members include lens and laser makers), How Does LASIK Work? Everything You Need to Know About LASIK Eye Surgery (2017-06-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
272. American Refractive Surgery Council (trade group whose members include lens and laser makers), What Is the LASIK Success Rate? (2017-10-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
273. American Refractive Surgery Council (trade group whose members include lens and laser makers), Is LASIK safe? (Undated (read 2026-11-08)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
274. Mann Eye Institute (Texas eye surgery practice that sells LASIK), Myth Archives | Mann Eye (Undated (read 2026-11-08)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
275. Ophthalmologe (Knorz et al.), [LASIK for myopia correction. 2-year follow-up] (1998-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
276. Optometry Times (trade press), citing a presentation by Sher et al., Measuring LASIK patient satisfaction (2014-10-21). Accessed 2026-11-08.
277. Cataract & Refractive Surgery Today (trade press), Debunked: LASIK Myths and Misconceptions (2016-07). Accessed 2026-11-08.
278. JAMA Ophthalmology (Eydelman et al., FDA CDRH, NEI, Navy), Symptoms and Satisfaction of Patients in the PROWL Studies (2017-01-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
279. News-Medical (summary of the JAMA Ophthalmology paper), Study examines frequency of patient-reported visual symptoms after LASIK surgery (2016-11-23). Accessed 2026-11-08.
280. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HCUP), Statistical Brief #223: Surgeries in Hospital-Based Ambulatory Surgery and Hospital Inpatient Settings, 2014 (2017-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
281. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HCUP), Statistical Brief #287: Overview of Major Ambulatory Surgeries Performed in Hospital-Owned Facilities, 2019 (2021-12). Accessed 2026-11-08.
282. CDC National Center for Health Statistics (National Health Statistics Reports No. 102), Ambulatory Surgery Data From Hospitals and Ambulatory Surgery Centers: United States, 2010 (2017-02-28). Accessed 2026-11-08.
283. Medical Care (Javitt et al.), Geographic variation in utilization of cataract surgery (1995-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
284. PLoS One (Shahbazi et al.), A Cross-Sectional Retrospective Analysis of the Racial and Geographic Variations in Cataract Surgery (2015-11-05). Accessed 2026-11-08.
285. Ophthalmology (West et al., Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute), The incidence of endophthalmitis after cataract surgery among the U.S. Medicare population increased between 1994 and 2001 (2005-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
286. National Eye Institute (NIH), Cataracts (Undated (read 2026-11-08)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
287. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), EyeView - The new "Conversion" game (2008-12-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
288. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), UMOO - a prime beef example of EyeView's success (2009-02-10). Accessed 2026-11-08.
289. EyeView Digital (video production and testing vendor; sold the videos it tested), Making Video Accountable (EyeView white paper) (2010). Accessed 2026-11-08.
290. Unbounce (landing-page software seller), The benefits of using video on landing pages (2010-08). Accessed 2026-11-08.
291. WordStream (PPC advertising software seller), 6 Ways to Use Video to Increase Conversion Rates (2016-03-30). Accessed 2026-11-08.
292. Nucleus Medical Media (healthcare video producer; sells the videos it describes), Current Trends: Healthcare Video Usage on the Web (2018-03-13). Accessed 2026-11-08.
293. Beverly Boy Productions (video producer selling to eye-care retailers), Video production for eyeglasses and contact lens stores in the US (Undated (read 2026-11-08)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
294. Unbounce (landing-page software seller; analysis of its own customers' pages), Video on landing pages means more conversions, right? Wrong. Here's why (2021-08-26). Accessed 2026-11-08.
295. National Eye Institute (NIH), Cataract (NEI publication) (1998-01 (capture date)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
296. National Eye Institute (NIH), Facts About Cataract (2004-08 (capture date)). Accessed 2026-11-08.
297. Archives of Ophthalmology (Congdon et al., Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group), Prevalence of cataract and pseudophakia/aphakia among adults in the United States (2004-04). Accessed 2026-11-08.
298. National Eye Institute (NIH), from the Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group, Prevalence of Blindness Data: Data Tables (Page captured 2012). Accessed 2026-11-08.
299. The American Journal of Managed Care (interview with a Johnson & Johnson Vision executive; J&J sells intraocular lenses), Dr Rajesh Rajpal on US Prevalence of Cataracts, Risk Factors for Younger Populations (2021-07-31). Accessed 2026-11-08.
300. World Health Organization, Fact Sheet N 142: Blindness and visual disability: general information (1997-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
301. Community Eye Health Journal (Thylefors, WHO), Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness (1998-03-01). Accessed 2026-11-08.
302. World Health Organization, Fact Sheet N 213: Vision 2020 - Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness (2000-02). Accessed 2026-11-08.
303. World Health Organization, Blindness and vision impairment (fact sheet) (2018 (capture 2018-11-10)). Accessed 2026-11-08.

Update policy and change log

We re-verify every figure quarterly and when a major source publishes a new edition. The next scheduled review is February 2027. Corrections go to contact@markstudios.com.

• Nov 8, 2026: First published with 690 figures from 95 publishers, each checked against its original source.
• Nov 9, 2026: Removed the YouTube channel and video IDs, links, names and video titles of patients’ personal-story channels from the public data files; those rows now carry neutral labels, so every count and total still adds up.