New CLI data unveils major profitability potential in contact lenses

In light of the recent Contact Lens Institute (CLI) study released on contact lens profitability, Philip Morgan, BSc, PhD, MCOptom, FAAO, of the University of Manchester; and Lyndon Jones, DSc, PhD, FCOptom, of the University of Waterloo and the Centre of Ocular Research & Education discussed the significance of the findings in an exclusive interview with Optometry Times. Morgan and Jones conducted the analysis with Ash Morgan, PhD, and John Whitehead, PhD, both of Appalachian State University, in partnership with the CLI.

The study, described by Philip Morgan, BSc, PhD, MCOptom, FAAO, involved 20 optometrists across the US who contributed financial and commercial data on approximately 600 patients over a 4-year period. The researchers compared recently presenting contact lens wearers with recently presenting spectacle wearers, examining product purchases, professional fees, and cost of goods. The central finding: contact lens wearers are inherently and significantly more profitable to practices than equivalent spectacle wearers. This is presented as a substantial and novel dataset, especially as similar work has not been completed in North America before; the only comparable study was in Europe roughly 25 years ago, with broadly consistent findings.

A key focus is the profitability by lens type. The study found that, compared to their spectacle-wearing counterparts, spherical contact lens wearers are 79% more profitable, toric wearers are 86% more profitable, and multifocal wearers show a 29% increase in profitability relative to progressive spectacle lens wearers. While all categories show positive uplift, the more modest increase in multifocals is noted as an area for further analysis, potentially related to fee structures or cost-of-goods versus pricing, though definitive explanations are not yet available.

Morgan and Jones framed contact lenses as a strategic business growth tool. Beyond direct revenue, prior evidence suggests that contact lens wearers are more likely to refer friends and family, amplifying practice growth through word-of-mouth.

A significant portion of the discussion addressed dropout and discontinuation. Early dropout is often linked to handling challenges, comfort, and vision issues, with about 50% of dropouts occurring in the first 2 months. Morgan emphasized proactive follow-up—calls, emails, or messages—to identify and resolve issues early, including additional handling training or power adjustments. Long-term, discomfort is the leading cause of discontinuation, and clinicians are urged to explicitly ask about comfort at every follow-up and respond aggressively to suboptimal ratings, as around 80% of eventual dropouts do not return to seek help.

The conversation also highlights re-engaging former contact lens wearers. Modern lens designs and materials can often successfully bring previous dropouts—whether spherical, toric, or multifocal—back into lenses, which is economically advantageous given the demonstrated profitability.

Finally, the study process itself was eye-opening for participating optometrists, many of whom had never closely examined their own profitability data. Morgan and Jones suggest a future research and practice need: developing more streamlined tools or processes to help clinicians routinely analyze and understand the business realities of their prescribing and service patterns.