US Market Report for Ophthalmic Data Management Systems 2017 - MedCore

US Market Report for Ophthalmic Data Management Systems 2017 - MedCore

  • April 2017 •
  • 197 pages •
  • Report ID: 4821704 •
  • Format: PDF
Description
General Report Contents
- Market Analyses include: Unit Sales, ASPs, Market Value & Growth Trends
- Market Drivers & Limiters for each chapter segment
- Competitive Analysis for each chapter segment
- Section on recent mergers & acquisitions

Ophthalmic data management systems are being increasingly prioritized by optometrists looking to streamline their patient flow and diagnostic capabilities. The cost of an ophthalmic data management system varies widely depending on the characteristics of the practice and the number of devices that need to be integrated with the system.

The overall cost is broken up into several components including the software, server software, hardware and professional services including maintenance and implementation fees. Typically a billing scenario will include a base rate for installation, plus an additional charge for each device that is integrated with the system. Across competitors, there is not currently much variance in pricing. The systems from Carl Zeiss Meditec and Topcon are priced similarly. However, with ongoing innovation in this product category there is potential for a spreading in prices as some of these systems become more established.

Abstract
Optometrists and ophthalmologists work in an environment where multiple pieces of equipment are routinely used for the diagnosis and treatment of a single patient. For example, to test for the presence of glaucoma, a patient may be assessed with optical coherence tomography (OCT), fundus imagery, perimetry, and some form of tonometer for measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP). Ophthalmic data management systems are diagnostic information and patient profile solutions that allow the practitioner to store, access, and review information in an efficient and clinically meaningful way.

The systems allow practitioners to display and compare reports from a single diagnostic tool over an extended period of the patient’s history. For example, fundus imagery of a diabetic retinopathy patient can be compared from the beginning of the onset of the pathology throughout the period of treatment. Alternatively, reports from multiple devices can be reviewed at once to facilitate a highly informed diagnosis. All of these functions can be performed from the practitioners office or using a wireless device.

Scope:
2013-2023