Is it worth getting an Extended Service Plan for PRK?

June 19, 2009 8:20 AM

Getting PRK done next month, which comes with a one year warranty for free "touch ups". For an additional $400 I can get a 10-year warranty, but does PRK regress passed the first year?

I'm not a candidate for LASIK.

Other details:

I'm going to Eye Doctors of Washington in DC, after shopping around and going to consults at 4 other places in the area.

The cost without the warranty is ~$3600 (reduced due to insurance matching).

I am severely myopic and have astigmatism, which increases the chances I'll need a touch up, but if I do, it will most likely happen within the included guarantee.

We will probably move from the area within a couple years, maybe even to the other coast, so touchups would actually cost $400 + travel + hotel.

Those who have had PRK, have you noticed any degradation after your vision stabilized in 6 months?

$400 doesn't seem like a lot for piece of mind money, but moving (increasing the actual cost) and the low rate (anecdotally from friends) that have degraded make it seem like a worry tax.

I'm afraid perceived value (it's my frikken eyes) may be clouding my judgment of actual value.

Saw this question, which had answers relating low-to-no degredation, but was specifically LASIK.

I'm aware that this may result in opinion answers, but I respect your opinions.

posted by JeremiahBritt to Health & Fitness (6 answers total)

I've not ever had eye surgery so take this for what it's worth. I have no idea about the potential to need touch-ups, just my opinion on what peace of mind is worth.

To me, a warranty that lasts ten years and is roughly 6% the cost of the surgery, is pretty reasonable. if you needed the surgery again, say after three years, would your insurance cover the same amount or would you be stuck with the whole $7200?

At $40 a year, its probably the cheapest tax you'll ever pay! :)

Good luck with your surgery.
posted by rmtravis at 8:49 AM on June 19, 2009

Response by poster: Just to clarify, the total for both eyes is ~$3600 without warranty and ~$4000 with.

If I didn't have insurance it would be ~$4100 and ~$4500, respectively.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 9:27 AM on June 19, 2009

77 cents a week is a pretty cheap "worry tax." Cut out a can of soda or cup of coffee every week for the next 10 years and you've got the expense covered.
posted by torquemaniac at 10:01 AM on June 19, 2009

I had PRK done last October. I paid for the insurance for basically the same reason you are pointing out, it was only a little bit more. That of course is part of their racket but I figured I would kick myself if I ever needed a touch up. They know that it is enough money to make a handsome profit and not enough to discourage most people from paying it.

Just as an FYI, there might be some room for negotiation in that price. I noticed I dealt with the two distinct entities when I was going through the initial consultation, the sales staff and the medical staff. The medical staff was quite professional and provided top notch care. The sales staff were, well, sales staff. When I initially decided to wait because the price was much higher than I was expecting, it didn't take long for them to drop. YMMV.

If you think of anything else specific, send me a metamail and I will answer if I can.
posted by Silvertree at 10:57 AM on June 19, 2009

I'm guessing the 10-year coverage is mainly to address your myopia decreasingor hyperopia increasing gradually as you age, associated with the normal decrease in your growth hormone levels after about age 25. So if you're age 30 or over, I'd say it's worth buying the coverage so that you don't have start wearing grandma glasses at age 40.
posted by randomstriker at 11:01 AM on June 19, 2009

I have had little or no degradation from my RK procedure in 1994 and have never had to go back for a 'touch-up' correction. I was 45 at the time of the procedure. My eye doc told me that at my age he would not correct my vision to 20-20 because as I grew older my eyes would normally become more far-sighted. So anticipating that natural correction, he brought my vision down to a level above 20-30 in both eyes through the procedure and said I would see my eyesight grow better with age. In those first few years after the procedure I needed some slight corrective lenses for driving at night and for reading fine print in low light but I was glasses and contacts free for all my outdoor activities. He was right about 'growing into my eyes'. Sometime in my early 50s I remember realizing that I could read and see better without any glasses anytime of the day or night and soon threw away all glasses. I am 62 years old now and in low light still need some reading glasses with a +2 correction. However, in good light and at night, my vision has been 20-20 for about 10-12 years.

As to the value? Hey, BECAUSE they are your freakin' eyes I would pay just about anything to get them corrected. I paid $1,000 an eye in 1994 and because of my active outdoor life and career, I consider it the best expense of my life. No more carting around all the stuff for my eyes. I'm sorry I don't know anything about warranties. I was given free visits and check-ups for about 5 years after the procedure but stopped going back when it just didn't seem necessary anymore.
posted by birdwatcher at 1:37 PM on June 19, 2009