Loading strategy tools…
Loading strategy tools…
We use Google Analytics, Vercel Web Analytics, and Vercel Speed Insights to improve the site. Select Decline to turn them off in this browser. We honor GPC and Do Not Track.
Read our Privacy Policy.
An editable step-by-step plan for the leaders deciding whether to add vision care. The dates and volumes show what depends on what; they do not promise feasibility, safety, coverage, payment, procurement, staffing, or launch within 90 days.
Three editable phases, with decision points, stop conditions, and a list of risks.
Editable
Dates and volumes
Owner
Each decision point
Confirm
Coverage and payment
None
Launch guarantee
These checkpoints are editable examples. They are not deadlines or promised outcomes. Replace each day and condition with your approved local plan.
Day 30
Example: decision criteria, owners, missing information, and stop conditions written down
Day 60
Example: scope, contracts, staffing, workflow, and referral controls confirmed
Day 90
Example: sign-off to proceed or a clear no-go. Pilot only if every required step is done
Day 365
Example: a formal results review with methods, harms, total cost, limits, and next decision
Open each phase and give every item a named owner. Source links are a starting point. Check the current rules and add the local information your site needs.
Week 1
Clinical, finance, operations, compliance, and patient representatives define the measured need, feasible alternatives, decision criteria, missing information, and accountable owners. No generic revenue model establishes a case.
Week 2
Compare current FDA indication, version-specific independent studies, supported hardware, imageability, workflow, escalation, integration, security, privacy, accessibility, coverage, and total commercial terms. FDA authorization is not a procurement or value recommendation.
Week 3
Build the workforce plan from current comparable postings, duties, credentials, local supply, schedule, total compensation, and approved budget. ACU's 2023 survey had 39 anonymous responses (about 9%) and does not establish a current market rate or rural premium.
Week 4
Verify Medi-Cal MCO vision sub-vendor matrix (VSP, March Vision, Envolve, MES Vision). Each MCO contracts separately. Begin outreach to charity partners (VSP Eyes of Hope, Vision To Learn, Lions Eye Foundation).
These five risks are a starting list. A mitigation alone does not settle a decision. Add your own risks, controls, data, owners, thresholds, and decisions on remaining risk.
OD recruitment, credentialing, and eligibility uncertainty
Use current comparable data and verify licensure, scope, credentialing, FTCA, NHSC, payer, supervision, total compensation, schedule, and accommodations with accountable owners. Treat dated policy proposals as dated.
MCO sub-vendor billing complications
Maintain an owner-assigned, effective-dated payer matrix covering administrator, network, authorization, eligible entity, code, documentation, rate, denial, appeal, collection, and patient-balance rules. Re-verify before use.
AI DR clinical, workflow, or adoption failure
Validate the intended population, indication, version, hardware, imageability, consent, language access, accessibility, staff competency, escalation, referral capacity, payer rules, and stop conditions locally. Do not extrapolate the vendor-authored Cahaba case.
Dispensary access, inventory, or cost assumptions fail
Verify current benefits, eligibility, authorization, lab, replacement, loss, patient preference, language, accessibility, inventory, working capital, bad debt, and total cost. Measure access without pressuring patients or treating capture as a universal benchmark.
Pediatric referral handoff and completion gap
Confirm partner capacity and document consent, privacy, language access, accessibility, urgency, responsibility, handoff, closed-loop completion, and escalation. A referral count is not a completed-care outcome.
The pre-filled values are editable illustrations—not typical values, forecasts, recommendations, or a promised return. Replace every input with current, site-specific documentation before using the arithmetic in a decision.
ACU's dated survey had 39 anonymous responses (about 9% of the workforce); it is descriptive, not a market rate. Replace with the employer's written budgeted range.
Illustrative labor input. Replace it with a current written budget and the role definition for your site.
Illustrative comparison only; certification, duties, geography, and written pay range vary.
Use current written vendor quotes, build-out estimates, financing costs, and equipment scope.
Use local appointment supply, ramp, no-show, staffing, and eligibility assumptions. The ACU survey is descriptive, not a capacity forecast.
Use the applicable, documented site and payer rate. The pre-filled $300 is an illustration—not a floor, typical rate, or payment guarantee.
Illustrative input only. Replace it with measured local history or a deliberately conservative, documented planning assumption.
$879,750
Modeled PPS contribution: $663,750 + modeled dispensary gross profit: $216,000
Modeled gross PPS
$1,080,000
3,600 × $300
Total Cost
$416,250
Labor + supplies + capital
Simple capital recovery
2.7 mo
$200,000 invested
Modeled dispensary sales
$360,000
40% capture × $250
Input comparisons—not benchmarks
Planning arithmetic only—not an audited pro forma. It does not establish coverage, eligibility, collections, demand, profit, or payback. It omits or simplifies payer mix, denials, bad debt, optical-lab costs, occupancy, administration, financing, taxes, compliance, implementation timing, and other site-specific costs. No outcome is guaranteed.
Four prompts choose a record to investigate first. This is not a clinical, procurement, coverage, or financial recommendation.
Step 1/4 · Deployment model
All our vision-care coverage, connected — start with the operating brief.
Vision Care Evidence & Planning GuideDated access estimates, planning worksheet, AI screening records & the owner gates before any decisionMore research and planning tools. None of them replaces reading the original sources yourself or a decision by the person responsible.
Vision strategy
Inventory of 19 CA FQHC vision programs, charity partners, scope timeline
Case studies
A vendor-written Cahaba case, the San Ysidro protocol, and dated public program records, with their limits
Vision OKR template
Editable objective and key-result prompts; replace generic dates, volumes, and financial illustrations with approved local measures
Vision planning questions
Source limits, local assumptions, and planning questions for decision owners
Vision workplace guides
6 guides: launch checklist, AI implementation, Medi-Cal billing, school MOU, farmworker vision, glaucoma protocol
Published examples
Implementation examples, with what their sources do and do not show
Advocacy actions
Dated NHSC and Medi-Cal policy records; verify current status, deadlines, agency, and payer details
AI tracker
Four catalog entries with source links and separate regulatory, research, technical, privacy, payer, and commercial checks