Cross-sectional survey reveals significant disparities in eyeglass insurance coverage across socioeconomic groups, highlighting unequal access to vision care.
OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of access to eyeglass insurance by Canadians. DESIGN: A population-based, cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 134 072 respondents to the Canadian Community Health Survey 2003 who were aged ≥12 years. METHODS: We compared self-reported insurance coverage for eyeglasses or contact lenses provided by private, government, or employer-paid plans. RESULTS: Overall, 55.0% of Canadians aged ≥12 years had insurance that covers all or part of the costs of optical correction. School-age children (63.3%) and individuals aged 20-39 years (55.9%) and 40-64 years (59.5%) had higher coverage rates than seniors (aged ≥65 years) (33.8%, p < 0.05). Canadians residing in the 3 territories had the highest coverage (76.9%), while those in Quebec had the lowest coverage (39.1%, p < 0.05). Lower coverage was reported among immigrants (47.3%) versus nonimmigrants (57.4%, p < 0.05), nonwhites (49.2%) versus whites (56.4%, p < 0.05) and aboriginals (70.7%), and the self-employed (38.5%) versus employees (63.8%). Among Canadians in the 20-64 years age group, individuals in the lower or middle income bracket were 40% (prevalence ratio [PR] 0.60, p < 0.05) less likely to have insurance than those in the upper-middle or higher income bracket after adjusting for ethnicity, immigrant status, and education. Compared to those with university or college education, individuals with less than secondary school education were 13% (adjusted PR 0.87, p < 0.05) less likely to have insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities exist in eyeglass insurance coverage in Canada. Individuals with low levels of income and education, and the self-employed, seniors, immigrants, nonwhites, and residents of Quebec had less coverage. Studies are needed to understand whether these disparities contribute to the visual impairment burden in Canada.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ngo et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: