Lumo can also be used as a desktop camera. Have you familiarized yourself with Lumo’s imaging features?
How much does it differ from a desktop camera? Lumo has sufficient quality for retinopathy screening after all, so what does a desktop camera bring in addition?
Well, if you look at state-of-the-art cameras like Zeiss, Lumo probably doesn’t have even half the features.
It’s honestly getting pretty tiring that people are throwing out all kinds of arguments that aren’t relevant to Opto’s business case—specifically AI screening.
I’m unfollowing this thread for a couple of weeks because I suspect it’s going to get quite tedious.
Enjoy the last of the winter’s skiing.
I’ll challenge this a bit further. Desktop cameras provide better images, and that’s why they are used in larger eye centers where other eye diseases are also treated. We certainly agree on this.
But when the context is primary healthcare retinopathy screening, why are top-of-the-line, high-quality images needed? Why does the camera need to be multi-purpose in this context? Why do you need a Mercedes if a Nissan gets you there?
Mainly that general health center screening doesn’t make sense. Screenings happen every 2-3 years. The patient/customer moves, not the other way around. It is the most cost-effective way. As I said in my first message.
Besides, DM treatments are developing at such a rate that retinopathy will decrease in the future. There seem to be signs of that already based on a “quick study”. Hopefully. So the TAM is shrinking.
I emphasize that this is my own thinking. In Opto’s presentations, the matter may be presented differently. I have a “medical background” but I am a generalist. I know something about this field; I have, for instance, tested cameras. Opto is probably an okay business. But the product doesn’t seem to have a real competitive advantage. The iCare moment would have happened already if it were going to happen.
You seem to be stating your facts based quite a bit on gut feeling. With Medicare, diabetes screening is performed once a year.
The problem is precisely that the eyes aren’t examined because the customer doesn’t want to first visit primary care and then go to eye clinics on top of that. So, in the current model, the eyes remain unexamined.
Please provide some actual reasoning for your claims in the future. The fact that you are a general medicine professional isn’t very convincing when your facts don’t hold water.
One could also assume that even a single unscreened case of retinopathy will end up costing much more than having a nurse screen a person’s eyes on their home sofa.
The market really is developing out there. Here are IRIS and Topcon, but if you need a handheld, there is only one option:
That link doesn’t mention anything about retinopathy screening.
It’s mentioned here:
”If you’re eligible, you can get an eye exam for diabetic retinopathy once each year.”
Try again. That refers to when retinopathy has already been diagnosed. In that case, you are entitled to an annual check-up.
Trump’s tariffs ruled illegal. Positive profit warning on Monday? Just a little bit of levity after today’s back-and-forth 
. Have a great weekend, everyone!
The talk is starting to sound like nonsense, let’s dial it back… @Sheikki has done a great job in this thread and really knows what he’s talking about.
Where does it say that? The page says this:
”
Who’s eligible
Medicare covers eye exams for diabetic retinopathy if you have diabetes.
”
I’m pretty sure that jab was intended for the user clark_kent.
Exactly. Definitely not Sheikki. Been digging up information here for years. Thanks for that.
I think @Tallitonttu meant this multi-talent @Clark_kent with their comment.
Open to interpretation. It might also mean screening. Regardless, the Optomed camera is not valid for this. The exam must be performed by an optometrist/ophthalmologist. You can bet they will definitely oppose some general staffer at a small clinic using an Optomed camera and eating their lunch.
We are starting to better understand why this camera isn’t selling.
Well, that resistance is currently ongoing in every field of medicine when it comes to diagnostics. However, it can’t be resisted indefinitely when AI does the job better and cheaper than trained specialists.