Abstract
The pressure on glaucoma services is ever-growing, and policymakers seek robust cost-effectiveness arguments in their decisions around resource allocation. The benefits of glaucoma are in preventing or delaying a future loss of vision and associated quality of life, and this expectation is quantified using a metric called utility which can be compared against other disease states. In recent clinical trials lasting up to 3 years, it has been difficult to show a difference in utility between glaucoma treatments in this limited period of time. When it comes to cost, the direct medical costs are only part of the broad range of costs that glaucoma brings to patients and communities, and the estimation of these costs can be difficult and imprecise. While the cost-effectiveness of glaucoma care, in general, is not in dispute, especially over longer time frames, the inability to measure changes in utility in shorter time frames impedes the uptake of innovations around the world. A number of approaches to improve the sensitivity and specificity of utility measurements are under investigation.