Assessing Eye Health and Eye Care Needs Among North American Native Individuals

There are few population-level studies on ophthalmic conditions and services among North American Native individuals.

To evaluate whether disparities in ophthalmic conditions and services exist between North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals in the US.

This cross-sectional study used 100% Medicare fee-for-service (MFFS) enrollment data from the Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System (VEHSS) to examine ophthalmic conditions and service use in North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals in the US. In this study North American Native individuals included those who identified as American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to April 2021.

Claims and sociodemographic characteristics were extracted and means computed for categories of ophthalmic conditions and select ophthalmic services. Ophthalmic conditions and services were defined in the VEHSS using International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Logistic regression was used to model differences between age-adjusted mean ophthalmic condition and service claim rates among North American Native individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals for each age cohort. Matching ophthalmic condition claim rates and ophthalmic service claim rates was performed to examine disparities by racial group.

Mean age-adjusted claim rates for ophthalmic conditions and services among North American Native individuals vs non-Hispanic White individuals per 100 persons.

Claims were identified for 177 100 Native American Native individuals and 24 438 000 non-Hispanic White individuals. In 16 of 17 ophthalmic condition categories and 6 of 9 service categories, North American Native individuals had significantly different claim rates from non-Hispanic White individuals. There were higher ophthalmic condition claim rates but lower service claim rates for North American Native individuals (vs non-Hispanic White individuals) for refractive errors (ophthalmic condition, 17.2 vs 11.1; service, 48.3 vs 49.6, respectively; P < .001); blindness and low vision (ophthalmic condition, 1.48 vs 0.75: service, 19.2 vs 20.1, respectively; P < .001); injury, burns, and surgical complications (ophthalmic condition, 1.8 vs 1.7; service, 19.2 vs 20.1, respectively; P < .001); and orbital and external disease (ophthalmic condition, 15.7 vs 13.3; service, 48.3 vs 49.6, respectively; P < .001). For diabetic eye diseases, North American Native individuals had higher ophthalmic condition claim rates (5.22 vs 2.20) but no difference in service claim rates (14.4 vs 14.8; P = .26) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals.

In this cross-sectional study, North American Native individuals had higher prevalence of ophthalmic conditions but no corresponding increase in services (treatment for most ophthalmic conditions) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. These results suggest worse eye health and higher unmet eyecare needs for North American Native individuals with MFFS coverage compared with non-Hispanic White individuals with MFFS coverage.