The Multifocal Practice Opportunity with Drs. Paul & Adam Farkas

[AdminWolf]

In this second webinar in our series on presbyopia, Drs. Paul & Adam Farkas discuss the economics of multifocal contact lenses, and how you can leverage the latest generation of lenses to grow your practice's revenue and provide superior patient care.

We'll discuss:
* The size of the presbyopic market
* How multifocals can drive per-patient revenue growth
* Alcon's multifocal portfolio, and the differences between the brands
* Web-based resources you can use to educate your patients and help drive them to your practice


About the Speakers:

Paul Farkas, MS, OD, FAAO and Adam W. Farkas, MD, MBA are the founders of ODwire.org and CEwire, the largest virtual CE conference in eye care.

In a past life, Paul ran one of the largest specialty contact lens practices in New York City.

 

[AdminWolf]

In case anyone was curious, this second webinar is different from the last one, as we hardly going to discuss the clinical aspects of MF fits, but rather focus on practice management, and techniques to use it as a revenue-driver (with some helpful links to web-based consumer tools that your patients can use.)

So if you attended Dr. Lowe's talk, much of the material here is different (but still on presbyopia and MF lenses.)

ad

 

[AdminWolf]

BTW since this talk is more about economics than the last one, I'd like to explore the underlying reasons why 15% of clinicians are doing 80%+ of the multifocal fits in the US.

With all the talk about how difficult it is to grow revenues in practice, this seems like low-hanging fruit ...

 

[Diane Robbins-Luce]

15% of clinicians are doing 80%+ of the multifocal fits in the US

Is that transparent data to be found somewhere.
First thought comes to mind is the 20/80 rule of course.
Pareto Principle, I just looked it up, also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Seems fitting.

How does an OD know if they are in the 15% of clinicians, is that not something one would want to know so that they care manage their behavior. All we know is what we do. There are offices that see 8-12 full exams per day and those that see 20-30 not as full exams per day. How does that enter the mix?

 

[AdminWolf]

Is that transparent data to be found somewhere.
First thought comes to mind is the 20/80 rule of course.
Pareto Principle, I just looked it up, also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

Seems fitting.

How does an OD know if they are in the 15% of clinicians, is that not something one would want to know so that they care manage their behavior. All we know is what we do. There are offices that see 8-12 full exams per day and those that see 20-30 not as full exams per day. How does that enter the mix?

IIRC the data came from ABB -- I'll ask them if they can provide me with the latest trends in 2019 (might make for a fun webinar, if nothing else!)

ABB is uniquely situated to provide this insight, in that they are the largest sellers of contact lenses in the US. (I was stunned when I caught wind of their revenues, in the billions.) They have deep insight into prescribing patterns.

So yeah you can chalk it up to the 80/20 rule, but really -- this is a product that most ODs should be fitting and yet aren't. Take a look at Dr. Nanasy's practice -- it isn't a specialty geriatric office by any stretch, but she does a healthy volume of MF fits.

I realize too that there are old guys like Paul who are part of the "monovision4life" crowd because MF lenses were really awful back when he was younger....

 

[Diane Robbins-Luce]

I realize too that there are old guys like Paul who are part of the "monovision4life" crowd because MF lenses were really awful back when he was younger....

Kind of like many, not all, of the current MF Intraocular lenses.

I used to be all ABB, but their billing, pricing, accounting was not to my liking over time. I did like the data they provided. Business Review service was nice.

For instance they quoted that their "top 500" practices are doing 9.1% multifocal, I am at 15.2%. That does not mean too much as my 15% is way lower than a big busy practices 15% in terms of number of boxes.

So it may be more important to know this percent rather than the box numbers.

 

[Matt Judd]

Not to be sour grapes, but how contact lenses claim to drive practice growth ... Odd. I expect almost every optometrist to be current with lens options available.

We should be more focused on keeping glaucoma patients in our chairs etc.

These ideas make ODs look a bit not smart to be honest. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone

 

[AdminWolf]

Not to be sour grapes, but how contact lenses claim to drive practice growth ... Odd. I expect almost every optometrist to be current with lens options available.

Unfortunately the data does not bear this out -- which is why we continue to attempt to educate (it is the raison d'etre of the site, after all...)

 

[AdminWolf]

Slight change in plans tonight -- Dr. Nanasy couldn't make it due to a personal issue, so instead you're going to get ... ME and PAUL running the discussion around multifocals (!)

Hope everyone turns out, it should be a hoot. (I'll try to keep him under control!)


-- ad

 

[Gretchyn Bailey]

Slight change in plans tonight -- Dr. Nanasy couldn't make it due to a personal issue, so instead you're going to get ... ME and PAUL running the discussion around multifocals (!)

Hope everyone turns out, it should be a hoot. (I'll try to keep him under control!)

Register here

-- ad

Has Paul fit a multifocal?

 

[AdminWolf]

Has Paul fit a multifocal?

You're going to witness a generational clash -- me, the multifocal evangelist, and Paul, the multifocal skeptic. Should be a fun one, i'm looking forward to comments from the peanut gallery.

 

[Paul Farkas]

Has Paul fit a multifocal?

it reminds me a question asked Mel Brooks playing the "2000 year old man".

"Did you know Joan of Arc?"

His résponse...

"Knew her? I went with her!"

I fit presbyopes from the very beginning.

First mono-vision...then RGP Flat top bifocals... They really did work if the patients could stand the annoyance of a thick RGP lens. then mutlifocals.

Want more stories? then join the webinar tonight!

 

[Gretchyn Bailey]

Ah, but fitting presbyopes is not the same as fitting multifocals.

 

[AdminWolf]

Ah, but fitting presbyopes is not the same as fitting multifocals.

oh boy, I can see Gretchyn is going to be a tough audience tonight ...

we'll be ready for you!

 

[Steve Silberberg]

Great job all and Adam on the webinar tonight!!!!

 

[Jeff Kiener]

I should have watched the Webinar live.

My "take", as one of the 20%-ers: Just as people need to transition to a toric if astigmatism emerges, we have to transition to some kind of near correction as presbyopia emerges.

There is no other option, such as "I don't fit torics" or "I don't fit multifocals" or whatever. It's like saying "I don't fit contacts" or "I practice limited scope". We're ODs, and fully half of our patients are presbyopes. Who else is going to do it?

 

[Gretchyn Bailey]

oh boy, I can see Gretchyn is going to be a tough audience tonight ...

View attachment 24087

we'll be ready for you!

You guys got off easy...I was fried due to a scramble with getting the issue to the printer. I hit the sack early and hard after collapsing on the couch.

 

[AdminWolf]

The archive of me & paul chatting about MFs is now up. enjoy.

thanks
ad