You are unequivocally wrong about this, and more specifically, completely off track and even totally lost. The camera is selling and sales are growing. Although I suppose it’s pointless to reply to you at all since your only purpose is to provoke here.
7 Likes
Nonsense. You’re completely clueless. Optomed’s Aurora Aeye is specifically eligible for this. Medicare reimburses the imaging based on the CPT 92229 code. Reimbursement is $55. That code is intended for FDA-approved camera + AI combinations. With the Aurora Aeye camera, the images can be taken by a regular nurse.
8 Likes
Did revenue decrease in the interim report?
NHS UK screening initially every 1-2 years, if no findings every 2 years or if desired every 3 years.
Same in Finland. Though as an anecdote, a small market of course.
One must understand who pays for the screening. There is no payer for this device because it is most cost-effective to screen in a large center. Rural areas, long distances / difficult geography like Norway maybe separately.
In the US, organizations are so married to the insurance system that it will remain the status quo for now; no device that eats the lunch of optometrists/ophthalmologists will be approved to replace a ”comprehensive” exam.
1 Like
Stop talking nonsense. In the interim report, the revenue for the devices segment grew, as did recurring revenue. I suggest you study that report carefully. And Optomed’s handheld camera can also be used in large centers if desired, even in every nurse’s consultation room. Ophthalmologists aren’t needed for that at all; they are just an unnecessary expense since there is already reimbursement for screenings.
10 Likes
That is still not the same thing as the annual diabetic eye exam reimbursed by Medicare (whether it is for retinopathy treatment or screening). In that, the criterion is that the performer must be an optometrist/ophthalmologist.
And furthermore, someone authorized to bill Medicare with this code must be the one ordering the examination. Does all ”primary care” fall into this category?
In any case, with a $55 reimbursement, Opto isn’t exactly striking gold yet. Is it worth it for a primary center to acquire an expensive device for the sake of this reimbursement?
4 Likes
-
Revenue for the Equipment segment increased by 43.1% to 7.6 (5.3) million euros.
-
Revenue growth for the Equipment segment, adjusted for the impact of currency exchange rates, was 48.0 percent.
“Aurora AEYE-based revenue has grown in every quarter this year, and growth has accelerated particularly in the second half of the year.”
One can write a lot of hot air. Above are the facts from the 2025 financial statements. Equipment will determine the script of this story over the next five years. The trend must continue and, especially for Aurora AEYE, accelerate. Everything else is noise. Just like all the provocateurs on this forum (too). Hats off to all of you who have the patience to argue with agenda journalists. I don’t; I prefer to have discussions based on facts.
- It can be easily inferred from the figures that the Aurora AEYE base was at the +€1M level at the end of 2025.
28 Likes
What do you think about this news? Haven’t quite a few clouds now cleared from Optomed’s guidance, and logically, shouldn’t there be an update to the guidance + in the best case, shouldn’t the money from those already paid customs duties be refunded?
2 Likes
There might actually be a lot of sense in it. Images can be taken easily during the same trip as a DM (diabetes) control visit or other errands. The following is speculation, but a stereotypical redneck from Texas likely compares well to a logger from Puolanka: they only seek care at the health center once they are already nearly blind. And at that point, there’s no trace of cost-effectiveness left.
Does anyone know, by the way, how patients in the US actually get around? Is there a local version of the “Kela taxi” (subsidized medical transport) circuit there, or does the poor/unlicensed patient just stay put? Both are expensive options for society.
1 Like
The US system is so stupid and inefficient. You produce whatever insurance agrees to pay for. $55 is a frustratingly low reimbursement for screening diagnostics.
Optomed’s product would be great if it completely replaced a layer in the diagnostic process. But I think the AI algorithm is tuned to be very sensitive, i.e., it finds a lot of anomalies. Naturally, because they don’t want to miss a disease—the US and lawsuits, etc. But the trade-off here is that many who are screened with AI still end up being sent to an optometrist/ophthalmologist for an unnecessary examination anyway. Using AI as an aid, I reached a positive predictive value of about 83% with the figures below. In other words, just under one in five has to be sent for further examination unnecessarily. It’s actually not that bad. The negative predictive value is very good at 98%.
“A recent study published in Diabetes Technol Ther. (2025) confirmed the clinical performance of Aireen’s diabetic retinopathy algorithm, which demonstrated 94.8% sensitivity, 91.4% specificity, and 92.7% overall accuracy using Optomed’s handheld imaging.”
And then there is that $55 reimbursement. Apparently, the most common type of primary care clinic in the US is a small 2-5 doctor practice. Private practices even account for up to 15-20%. But a small center like that could serve approx. 5,000 residents. 12% of them have diabetes = 600. Maybe half visit annually. The camera would generate $16,500 in Medicare-guaranteed revenue per year. There will probably be other costs; using the device requires labor. But for a private practice, at least, it’s probably not worth buying the camera.
And I wonder, is CPT 92229 still reimbursed if the patient has already had a comprehensive exam with an optometrist/ophthalmologist within the past year? My gut feeling says no.
6 Likes
The debate between AI screening and ophthalmologist screening is, of course, also a central issue for Optomed’s business; it’s a discussion of its own and one that has been debated extensively in this thread.
It is true that screening work requires sufficient volume to be economically viable. That applies to almost all business. With a cheaper handheld camera, this volume is lower than with a more expensive tabletop camera, making screening profitable in even smaller units. Still, that doesn’t mean it would be profitable for the very smallest units.
3 Likes
And then there’s that $55 reimbursement. Apparently, the most common type of primary care clinic in the USA is a small boutique of 2-5 doctors. Even solo practices make up 15-20%. But a small center like that could serve approx. 5,000 residents. Of them, 12% have diabetes = 600. Maybe half visit annually. The camera would generate 16,500 in Medicare-guaranteed revenue per year. There will probably be other costs, as operating the device requires labor. But it is likely not worth it for a solo practice to buy the camera.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01382-4
This link has already been here since January 2025, so for long-time forum members, it’s old news. You can research this case from a cost-effectiveness perspective there. I have to say, I’m not bothered to digest the content of the link for you, because you seem mostly like a troll based on yesterday’s messages.
Quote: “AI strategy begins to dominate across all cost parameters when the annual patient volume per site reaches 600 patients”
Additionally, the study used reasonably high setup and integration costs. Aeye Health’s recently obtained Epic integration is very significant in this regard, and the profitability threshold for adopting the system drops significantly when the device can be put into use at the push of a button.
7 Likes
The customer has certainly spoken, and it shows in the numbers. The monthly billing model isn’t selling—at least not with the kind of volume that would lead to a sudden “ketchup bottle” explosion.
The old story that the monthly billing model would lead to significant cash flows didn’t happen. This is the common thread. Could this happen a year from now? Perhaps, but there’s currently no visibility for that. Optomed’s management has been lost with this business model, and the real world has now shown that customers will buy the device and look at the AI later.
The company does have potential in many directions. A new camera + internal AI + markets other than the US. The US is selling too, but what was hoped for hasn’t materialized.
6 Likes
The bearishness Clark_kent is bringing to the thread is quite welcome. There’s at least some slight “copium” noticeable in this thread, and bears are shot down quite aggressively 
I used to be bullish on Optomed too. Now I’m watching from the sidelines.
If you think about, say, a health center (or a similar facility) anywhere in the world. One high-quality fundus camera is enough for them. Will they take Optomed’s “camera as a service” camera on a monthly billing basis, or will they buy a Zeiss retinal camera or something similar? Patients from the surrounding area then go there to have their eyes imaged. Right now, for instance, in many health centers in Finland, a truck with massive imaging rigs visits for eye imaging.
Surely there’s a use for Optomed’s handheld camera, e.g., in emergency rooms and also for screening in some places. But will it become mainstream? I’ve started to doubt it a bit. For example, here in Oulu, where Optomed originates, I haven’t heard of any plans to start using these. Not even in the emergency room. This would probably take off a bit faster if it really were such a great thing.
I’m also wondering about Optomed’s moat. Is there a moat? AI can be integrated into images from other cameras too. Anyone can manufacture cameras. Optomed’s investment story is based on two hopes: that some company would buy it out at a premium, or that healthcare would start using these on a mass scale. You can hope for mass use, but there are no signs of it yet. I haven’t seen or heard of anyone using this camera in actual work yet. Not even in Oulu, where Optomed is from. Instead, iCare is completely routine and found everywhere.
14 Likes
From a Finnish perspective, it’s difficult to evaluate the US. The fact that some study finds AI screening to be cost-effective based on certain parameters is irrelevant.
As long as Medicare and private insurance cover an annual check-up by a professional (if they indeed cover screening-type examinations too), which insured person would even have an interest in choosing a more uncertain AI screening?
What’s left are out-of-pocket payers and Medicaid. Out-of-pocket payers are the marginalized; they aren’t the target group for this. Medicaid would require more investigation, as practices vary by state… I might do some research if I were investing in this.
Of course, one could buy this in the hope that the US comes to its senses and actually tries to do things cost-effectively.
This.
2 Likes
Surely this company would have been acquired by now if others saw it conquering the US market. The company has a camera that others don’t know how to manufacture and the Lumos are flying off the shelves. Heh, of course it would have been bought.
As long as others see that there is no demand for a handheld, then no FDA approvals in sight?
By the time a buyout offer is made for this, it wouldn’t actually be worth selling because that’s when something in the market changes and the camera starts to take off. Maybe we’ll see that day eventually… until then, money is being burned with this.
3 Likes
Clark Kent raises a very valid point: from a Finnish perspective, the US insurance and reimbursement system is difficult to grasp, and as long as Medicare and private insurance cover an ophthalmologist’s annual check-up, an insured patient has little personal incentive to choose “more uncertain AI imaging.”
But here many might be making a conceptual error: AI screening isn’t primarily trying to replace the ophthalmologist visit – but rather to fill the gap where a large portion of diabetics don’t go there at all.
In the United States, screening adherence is not 100%; instead, a significant portion of patients miss their annual DR (diabetic retinopathy) check-up. This creates a so-called care gap. This is exactly where, for example, AEYE Health / Optomed is trying to step in – at primary care clinics, diabetes clinics, where the patient is already visiting. In this regard, the recently acquired EPIC integration can be a major game changer, as the integration happens at the push of a button without any expensive separate IT integrations etc.
For example, Umass Memorial Health integrates AEYE-DS directly into the EMR workflow. The idea is not that the patient chooses AI instead of an ophthalmologist, but that the screening is done while the patient is already at the clinic. Furthermore, the CPT 92229 code allows for billing of autonomous AI screening, meaning the clinic has a financial incentive – this is not just an “out-of-pocket” product.
Clark Kent’s idea that only Medicaid and out-of-pocket remain holds true if we think of AI as a consumer choice. But if it is embedded as part of the primary care workflow and reimbursed to the provider, the dynamics change.
Then to Uuno’s point about acquisitions. It is true that if the market saw this as a certain US conquest, a major player might have already bought it out. But in healthcare, large acquisitions are usually only made once:
- the reimbursement model is established
- scalable use has been proven in several health systems
- regulation (FDA, reimbursement) is clear and risks are low
Before that, the technology may be “too early” – not because it doesn’t work, but because the system is not yet fully ready.
Demand for handheld cameras is another discussion. If the use case is a primary care environment, mobile care, or integrated health systems, a portable device can be an advantage. On the other hand, if we think of the traditional ophthalmology market, a large tabletop camera may be sufficient. The question is not just about technology, but where in the care pathway the device is located.
Ultimately, for an investor, this boils down to one question:
Is AI retinal screening;
A) a marginal niche that fills a small care gap
or
B) part of a broader shift towards a value-based care model, where screening is brought closer to primary care?
If A, growth remains limited.
If B, the market opens slowly but structurally.
27 Likes
This $55 CPT reimbursement is only one part of the system. In addition, it includes HEDIS and STAR RATINGS. It has been stated that these are more important than the CPT for these US healthcare operators. CPT brings immediate cash flow, but HEDIS and Star Ratings bring good bonuses as the care gap narrows and the quality level rises. Himbeg has also mentioned that industry operators in the US have highlighted this in discussions.
CPT, HEDIS, and STAR RATINGS provide a good incentive for primary healthcare sector operators to adopt Aurora Aeye and, in the future, Lumo Aeye.
Old news for the forum members, but what of it.
8 Likes