Does everyone who passes 40 inevitably get presbyopia? Understanding what causes it, what actually corrects it, and what it costs in 2026

TL;DR

Presbyopia is the lens inside the eye stiffening, not the eye going wrong. The Department of Health says it begins at about forty and settles at about sixty, and that after you are fitted with glasses the eyes should be examined every two to three years. But the person examining your eyes may not be permitted to examine their health: 36.7% of all registered optometrists in Hong Kong are permitted by law only to measure your prescription. There are six classes of correction, and they differ enormously in both price and strength of evidence.

---

#What is presbyopia, and why can you not focus after forty?

Your eye has not gone wrong. Inside it is a lens that changes shape; when you are young it can bulge in an instant and focus on something close. After forty it stiffens, and however hard the ciliary muscle pulls it cannot produce enough curvature. So the phone has to be held further away.

The Department of Health Elderly Health Service puts it very briefly: the crystalline lens loses elasticity with age and cannot focus accurately on near objects; presbyopia begins at about forty, the power increases with age, and it settles at about sixty. [Note 1]

The American Academy of Ophthalmology puts it more bluntly: the word presbyopia comes from the Greek, and it means "old eye".

Four terms recur below, so keep them apart:

• The crystalline lens — the transparent lens behind the iris.
• Accommodation — the lens's ability to change shape and focus at different distances.
• Refraction — the examination that measures your prescription and fits your glasses.
• An eye health examination — examining the eyeball itself for disease, the fundus and the intraocular pressure for instance.

The last two are two separate things in Hong Kong law. That fact decides what you actually get when you walk into an optical shop, and the third section of this article is about nothing else.

And one sentence that is usually skipped. The American Academy of Ophthalmology writes three things in the same passage: there is no way to stop or reverse the ageing process; but presbyopia can be corrected with glasses, contact lenses, medication or surgery; and left uncorrected it may cause headache and eye strain. Medication is one of the four classes — which is why this article has a whole section on eye drops.

---

#Are presbyopia and cataract the same thing?

No, but both happen to the same lens, so the confusion is reasonable.

One is about hardness and the other about clarity:

The trouble is that you cannot tell them apart by your symptoms. One person can have presbyopia, cataract, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy at once. "Mine sounds a lot like presbyopia" is not an exclusion test.

The Department of Health page writes its own management the same way: glasses 「必須由合格視光師或眼科醫生驗配」 — must be fitted by a qualified optometrist or ophthalmologist — which means someone has to look at your eyes, not that you match yourself against a list of symptoms.

#Nine situations not to leave until the next eye examination

The same Department of Health Elderly Health Service page lists warning signs not to be ignored, all nine of them: [Note 3]

• Vision still not improved after wearing glasses
• Persistent eye pain, or sudden severe pain
• Excessive sensitivity to light, seeing haloes or rainbow rings
• Loss of part of the visual field, or of peripheral vision
• A red eye, or stinging in the eye
• A sudden shower of floating images or black spots (commonly called floaters)
• An abnormal growth on the eye or eyelid
• An abnormal cloudiness in a transparent part of the eye
• Persistent watering, discharge or crusting of the eye

⚠️ If you see any item on that list, treat it as "now", not as "when I get round to it". The Chinese version writes 「須盡快尋求醫治」 — seek treatment as soon as possible — while the English version writes immediately; where the two versions stand side by side, this article takes the more cautious one.

That list is not a closed list. The page does not say the nine are exhaustive, and does not say that anything not on it can be ignored. Any change in your eyes that you cannot explain to yourself is a reason to see someone.

The same page separately names three common eye diseases that blur an older person's vision — cataract, glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration — and states that each must be diagnosed by a doctor. The glaucoma item carries one sentence more: excessive pressure inside the eye damages the optic nerve, and without early treatment the damage to vision is permanent and can amount to blindness. [Note 4] A disease that can be symptomless early on, and whose damage is irreversible if left. That is why this article will not give you any sentence of the form "it is probably just presbyopia, wait a while longer".

---

#Is the person examining your eyes permitted by law to examine their health?

This is the most practical section in the article.

Registered optometrists in Hong Kong are divided into four parts, and not every one of them may examine the health of your eyes. The practice restrictions on Parts III and IV say so in black and white: they may do only work related to refraction. The fundus, the intraocular pressure, the health of the eye inside and out — the layer at which cataract, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy might be found — is outside their scope of practice.

The register as at 30 June 2026: [Note 5]

6 + 796 = 802 people, which is 36.7% of 2,183. Meet a registered optometrist at random on the street and there is better than a one in three chance that all they may lawfully do for you is measure your prescription.

If you want contact lenses, the figure narrows again. Part IV is not uniform within itself: 391 of them may do refraction and contact lenses, and the other 405 may do refraction only. [Note 6] So those for whom even contact lenses are outside the scope of practice are the 6 in Part III plus those 405, 411 people in all, or 18.8% — close to one in every five registered optometrists in Hong Kong. And multifocal contact lenses are one of the six classes of correction below.

#Look it up yourself before you book

The register is public and is listed part by part; it takes a minute:

⚠️ The only difference between the last two summary links is the case of the two letters after search=; copy them as they are. [Note 7]

One sentence to take away: the question to ask is not "do you have an optometrist" but "which part of the register is this optometrist in".

And a correction to a claim that circulates widely. "Have a comprehensive examination with an optometrist and you can rule out cataract, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy" — that sentence has two problems. First, for 36.7% of the people on the register it is simply not true. Second, and more important: one normal examination is not an exclusion. What an examination does is find things; glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy can both be entirely symptomless early on.

---

#How far does presbyopia deepen, and what does an eye examination cost?

The Department of Health's answer is two figures: it settles at about sixty, and after you are fitted with glasses the eyes should be examined every two to three years. [Note 30]

Note that it is two to three years, not one. The "once a year" so often heard has no basis in any Hong Kong official source consulted for this article.

⚠️ That sentence is about the prescription, not about eye disease — it does not mean that any eye symptom can wait two or three years.

From forty to sixty, what does that come to? Twenty years, with the re-examinations starting only after the glasses are fitted:

• At once every three years: examinations at 43, 46, 49, 52, 55 and 58, which is 6 (the next falls at 61, outside the range, and is not counted).
• At once every two years: examinations at 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58 and 60, which is 10.
• At the HK$680 PolyU publishes for a basic eye examination with a staff optometrist: 6 times = HK$4,080, 10 times = HK$6,800. At the HK$300 on the same table for a student optometrist: 6 times = HK$1,800, 10 times = HK$3,000.

That sum uses the published prices of one clinic; it is not a Hong Kong price range.

---

#How many people in the world have presbyopia, and why has Hong Kong no figure?

Hong Kong first: there is none. Neither the Department of Health Elderly Health Service, nor the Centre for Health Protection, nor the Optometrists Board publishes any survey figure for the prevalence of presbyopia in Hong Kong. All the Hong Kong official material has on it is one qualitative sentence — that presbyopia begins at about forty. So this article will not write anything of the form "after forty almost everyone has it".

There is one global modelling estimate: [Note 31] in 2015 an estimated 1.8 billion people worldwide had presbyopia, a prevalence of 25% (95% confidence interval 1.7 billion to 2 billion, 23%–27%); of whom 826 million (95% confidence interval 686 million to 960 million) had near vision impairment because it was uncorrected or under-corrected. The unmet need for presbyopic correction worldwide was estimated at 45% (95% confidence interval 41%–49%).

⚠️ That 45% cannot be applied to Hong Kong. The study states for itself that people living in urban areas of more developed countries with higher health spending are more likely to be adequately corrected, and that the heaviest burden falls on rural areas of low-resource countries. Hong Kong is a high-income urban area. This is also a modelling estimate rather than a measured survey, with a reference year of 2015, eleven years ago.

---

#Six classes of correction — which of them actually have evidence?

Taking "it can be done" for "it is evidenced" is the easiest mistake to make on this subject. Of the six classes, only one has data at the level of a systematic review; most of the rest have only descriptive statements from professional bodies.

Three things are worth pulling out of that table.

One: that ready-made reading glasses can be bought does not mean no examination is needed. The American Academy of Ophthalmology's sentence is a whole one: they can be bought without a prescription, but the particular power should be decided by an eye examination. And that sentence carries a bracket defining what "presbyopia is your only vision problem" means — that you have no myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism. Anyone who already wore glasses is not in that row.

Two: one step is reversible, and is worth taking before the irreversible decision. The American Academy of Ophthalmology says an ophthalmologist may suggest trying monovision contact lenses before LASIK. That step is cheap, reversible, and tells you within days whether your brain adapts — and what it tests is exactly monovision's most concrete cost, the ability to judge distance and speed.

Three: with corneal inlays, what follows the adjective is a requirement. What NICE wrote after its assessment in 2013 was not "the evidence is weak, weigh it up yourself" but: this procedure should be used only with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research. [Note 10] The same guidance also requires the clinician to make the patient understand that it is primarily a cosmetic procedure, to explain the possible adverse events, and to provide clear written information — and that last requirement is the easiest of all to check: you know whether you were given any.

And the adjective "adverse effects occur frequently" is broken into figures elsewhere in the same guidance: [Note 11]

• In a case series of 39 people, 5 eyes developed a cataract needing surgery at 3 to 4 years.
• In a case series of 32 people, 14 had reduced vision at 3 years.
• In the same study of 32, at 3 years 1, 8 and 11 people respectively reported severe, moderate and mild haloes; 5 reported severe problems with night vision.
• In a case series of 508 people, contrast sensitivity was significantly reduced in both bright and dim conditions at 1 year.

14 of 32 with reduced vision at three years — that is the only harm figure this article found for corneal inlays with both a numerator and a denominator.

---

#Presbyopia eye drops: three approved in the United States, not one findable in Hong Kong

Take how they work first, because it decides what their side effects look like.

They do not restore the lens's elasticity; they constrict the pupil. A smaller pupil means a greater depth of field and a smaller blur circle, so near objects look sharper — but less light enters the eye at the same time. [Note 12] Which is why most of the warnings below have to do with darkness.

The United States FDA has approved three so far:

⚠️ The one-line summary "it works for six hours and has to be used daily" is not accurate. QLOSI's prescribing information says up to eight hours, and permits use as needed in terms. Only two of the three are necessarily an every-day proposition — and that matters to your arithmetic: reading glasses are a one-off outlay plus a re-examination every two or three years, while eye drops are an outlay by the day.

The trial results, each set against its own control arm:

VIZZ looks far ahead of VUITY — but those six figures cannot be compared with one another. The three drugs' trials differ in their time points, their control arms, the ages recruited and the number of daily doses, and even the definition of "responder" is written three different ways; the prescribing information itself states that adverse reaction rates from different drugs' clinical trials cannot be compared directly. [Note 13] So no sentence of the form "VIZZ is twice as effective as VUITY" appears in this article.

#The warnings the prescribing information writes for itself

The risk information is not on the patient education pages; it is in the regulator's prescribing information.

⚠️ Two things to take away: a retinal examination is recommended in all patients before use, because rare cases of retinal detachment and tear have been associated with drugs of this class; and particular care is needed driving at night, because temporary dimming of vision may occur. [Note 14] Contact lens wearers must wait 10 minutes after instilling the drop before putting the lenses back in, a sentence all three prescribing informations carry.

The adverse reactions, on the prescribing information's own denominators:

The QLOSI and VIZZ prescribing informations state immediately afterwards in the same section that most adverse reactions were mild, transient and self-resolving. Both sides have to be read.

⚠️ "None" in the contraindications section does not mean "no risk", and only one of the three writes "None". Section 4 of VIZZ consists of one word: None. But section 5 of the same document carries six warnings, and section 6 reports instillation site irritation in 20%. Section 4 of both VUITY and QLOSI states a contraindication in anyone hypersensitive to the ingredients — so the sentence "presbyopia eye drops have no contraindications" is wrong. [Note 15]

#The Hong Kong position: not one of them findable

Searching the Department of Health Drug Office's database of registered pharmaceutical products, the result is blunt: [Note 16]

The use of the two controls is to make those 「0」 results mean something: the same search box lists things when there are things to list.

What are those six pilocarpine items? All of them are old formulations. The concentrations in their names are 1%, 2% and 4%, and the two concentrations approved for presbyopia in the United States are 1.25% and 0.4% — neither of which is among them. All six were first registered between 1979 and 1982, which corresponds in time to the old glaucoma-era drugs. [Note 17] All six are prescription drugs.

⚠️ This section is not telling you whether you can have someone buy them abroad. These are prescription drugs, and the prescribing information requires a retinal examination before use — which is itself the reason it cannot be settled online.

---

#Multifocal intraocular lenses: the result held with most certainty is a harm

If you are having cataract surgery and the doctor asks whether you want to "pay more to upgrade" to a multifocal intraocular lens, this section is written for you.

A Cochrane systematic review brought together 20 trials recruiting 2,230 people, of whom 2,061 (3,194 eyes) had usable data. [Note 18] The results have to be taken separately:

Look at the last row. In this review, the single outcome held with the most certainty is not a benefit but roughly a 3.6-fold increase in haloes — while the near vision benefit is held only with low certainty.

"Glare at night is more common" is not enough. A relative risk of 3.58 means that in the data from those 662 eyes the chance of haloes in the multifocal arm was about 3.6 times that in the monofocal arm, with a lower confidence limit of 1.99, already close to double. The words "more common" would do equally well for 1.1 times.

But the review authors' own conclusion runs in a different direction from that paragraph, and both have to be given: [Note 19] multifocal intraocular lenses are effective at improving near vision, though the size of the effect remains uncertain; whether that improvement outweighs the glare and haloes varies from person to person; and the desire to be free of spectacles is likely to be the deciding factor.

The grading is about the certainty of the evidence, and the authors' conclusion is about who should make this decision and on what. Take only the first and you would think the review argues against this lens; it does not.

And one figure is the most concrete of all. In a study comparing multifocal against monovision, 6 people in the multifocal arm had a second operation within the first year to exchange the intraocular lens, against 0 in the monovision arm. [Note 20] The review did not measure why they exchanged them, so that figure cannot answer "how many people regretted it"; it answers only "how many had another operation".

⚠️ Everyone in this review was having cataract surgery anyway. It is not evidence about exchanging the lens purely for presbyopia in someone who has no cataract.

On the risk of the surgery itself, the Department of Health is equally direct: a small proportion still have complications, such as bleeding inside the eye, glaucoma or retinal detachment; and after an intraocular lens is implanted, the chance of inflammation, glaucoma and the like increases slightly further. [Note 21] Those are two different layers of risk, and the page prints no figure for "slightly".

The same page has one more sentence, most useful to anyone just told they have an early cataract: most patients do not need surgery until many years after a cataract is found.

---

#Prices: only the figures the institutions publish themselves

The "market price" that circulates is not a source of prices, and this article uses none of it. Every figure below is one the institution publishes on its own web page.

#Eye examinations

The PolyU Optometry Clinic: [Note 22]

The eight items relevant to presbyopia in the optometry examination plan category of the Optical 88 online shop: [Note 23]

That HK$880 row for a progressive multifocal contact lens fitting has to be read together with the 411 people in the third section. The question worth asking before paying is the same one: which row of the register is this optometrist in.

And one more thing worth knowing: this chain's shop service pages never print a price. Not one of the eight shop pages relating to optometry services publishes a charge; the prices are in an online shop on a different domain. The shop pages do carry a "Booking at eShop" button leading straight there — so the path is open; it simply never prints the price beside the description of the service.

If there is a subsidy: the optometry centre run jointly by Sik Sik Yuen and PolyU publishes no charges, only its subsidy arrangements. The centre's web page (retrieved 27 August 2026) writes only two sentences about the subsidy: CSSA recipients aged 2 or over receive a full subsidy; and low-income people referred by a school or organisation approved by Sik Sik Yuen receive 6 in ten of the fee. [Note 24] A further sentence states that people in financial difficulty may apply to Sik Sik Yuen for a subsidy towards buying a low vision aid.

⚠️ The conditions attaching to the referral tier are not on the centre's web page, and they are what decide whether you qualify. The page says only "referred by a school or organisation approved by Sik Sik Yuen", and names no district. The only place the conditions are written is Sik Sik Yuen's own scheme leaflet in its version of April 2011: section 5 of that leaflet states that Sik Sik Yuen 「現接受黃大仙及深水埗區內的日間學校及獲社署資助的長者服務機構之轉介」 — that it accepts referrals from day schools and from Social Welfare Department subvented elderly service units in the Wong Tai Sin and Sham Shui Po districts — at a subsidy of 50%, for referred students and preschool children whose families are in financial difficulty, or for referred people aged 65 or over in financial difficulty. [Note 24] That is a document of April 2011, cited here by its own date and not offered as today's conditions.

⚠️ For a 45-year-old reader with presbyopia, the two documents point at the same conclusion: not eligible. The web page's two sentences are about CSSA recipients and about referred low-income people; the 2011 leaflet's tier is confined to preschool children and day-school students, or to people aged 65 or over. Someone of 45, not on CSSA, and with no referral from a school or organisation, falls into no box in either document. That leaflet also states that an applicant who cannot produce the required documents on the day of the appointment will not receive the subsidy.

#Buying a pair of progressive reading glasses

Progressive lenses are the main optical correction for presbyopia, so this set of figures is worth more than the "HK$3,000–15,000 for progressives" that circulates — no operator source can be found for the latter, and there is one for the former.

⚠️ First, what these are: every one is an electronic voucher from the online shop, valid for 90 days, redeemable only at designated branches, limited to designated lens and frame models, and not accepting a frame you bring in. [Note 25] These are conditional package prices, not what a shop assistant will quote for any pair of glasses.

That table overturns three quite natural assumptions.

"Pay more and there is no power limit" — untrue. All nine carry a presbyopic ceiling. The deepest presbyopic power the whole category can make up is 400, and only the two blue-light-filtering items reach it; the ceiling of the most expensive item (HK$2,650) is the same as that of the cheapest, 350. Someone with presbyopia of +4.50 D (450) can be fitted by none of the nine.

"Paying more widens the range" — the direction is exactly the opposite. Five of the nine start at 75, and only four start at 50, all four of them [Basic] packages. Someone whose presbyopia is only just beginning, at 50 to 70, is shut out by the four upgrade packages and by the photochromic one.

"The difference buys the frame" — it does not. All nine print the same sentence: designated frames of an original price of $600 or below only, including the four upgrade packages that advertise "over 150 models". What the difference buys is the lens.

The one condition that really is peculiar to the cheapest item is the days: only the HK$899 item is limited to Monday to Friday, and the other eight state in terms that they may be used any day of the week. Step over the entry price and the restriction on days disappears.

Frames themselves are a separate category, whose price range across the whole category is HK$164 to HK$1,788, across 137 models. [Note 26]

#Public hospitals

The Hospital Authority fee schedule has no separate charge for optometry or an eye examination; an eye problem is charged as an ordinary attendance: [Note 27]

⚠️ The "$20 per drug item" does not buy one dose but four weeks' supply (note 7 to the fee schedule). And whether you pay $250 or $850 turns on whether you are an "eligible person" — someone holding a Hong Kong identity card whose permission to enter or remain has expired is not one. [Note 28]

Before the figures, the fee schedule sets out two safety nets: the means-tested medical fee waiver, and, from 1 January 2026, the annual cap of ten thousand dollars with no means test.

⚠️ Presbyopia is a refractive matter, not a disease. Nothing in the fee schedule shows whether correcting presbyopia is within the scope of public services, so this article will not say that a public hospital will or will not fit you with reading glasses.

#Cataract surgery and laser vision correction: the private hospital bills

The government platform publishes the bill statistics private hospitals report themselves. Phacoemulsification of cataract with intraocular lens implantation (day surgery), all 10 hospitals: [Note 29]

The same operation, from a low of HK$14,927 to a high of HK$33,770 — a difference of HK$18,843, or 2.26 times. The spread within a single hospital is not small either: Evangel Hospital's median is HK$23,000 and its 90th percentile HK$45,600, so 10% of patients pay close to twice the median (1.98 times).

⚠️ That table is the whole bill for cataract surgery with an intraocular lens, and the platform's procedure name does not distinguish monofocal from multifocal. It is not the price of a multifocal lens.

Laser in situ keratomileusis (day surgery), all 3 hospitals:

The Sanatorium's hospital charge is HK$15,800 at both percentiles; St. Paul's is HK$11,000 / HK$11,005 and St. Teresa's HK$9,900 / HK$9,900.

What is worth looking at in that table is not the three totals but their structure. The Sanatorium is the only one of the three rows with a discharge count (>200), and its doctor's fee rises from HK$8,200 at the fiftieth percentile to HK$18,000 at the 90th, more than doubling; almost every figure in the other two rows is identical at both percentiles — which is what a small sample looks like. So a reading of the form "St. Teresa's is the cheapest" is not something this table can carry.

⚠️ The platform's procedure name does not separate monovision LASIK from other refractive surgery, so this is not "the price of monovision LASIK for presbyopia".

---

#What to do next

1. Near vision starting to blur, headache, eye strain — arrange a full eye examination. The Department of Health states that glasses 「必須由合格視光師或眼科醫生驗配」, must be fitted by a qualified optometrist or ophthalmologist.
2. Look up the part of the register before you book. If you want an examination that includes the health of the eye and not only a measurement of the prescription, that step is where the difference lies; and if you want contact lenses, look at the lower-case version of the address, which splits out the 391 and 405 rows.
3. Once fitted, re-examine at the government's own rhythm — every two to three years, not every year.
4. When someone recommends an irreversible option (monovision LASIK, a multifocal intraocular lens, a corneal inlay), ask three questions: what certainty does the systematic review give this option? Is the outcome held with most certainty a benefit or a harm? And is there a reversible way to try it first?
5. Do not use your symptoms to rule out eye disease. Presbyopia and cataract happen to the same lens and can coexist; glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy can be symptomless early on.
6. If you see a warning sign, do not wait for the next check. Treat it as "now".

---

#Frequently asked questions

Can presbyopia be left uncorrected?

The American Academy of Ophthalmology states that there is no way to stop or reverse the normal ageing process that causes presbyopia, and that the consequence of leaving it uncorrected is headache and eye strain. In the middle of the same passage is another sentence: presbyopia can be corrected with glasses, contact lenses, medication or surgery — medication being one of the four classes. As to whether not wearing glasses makes presbyopia deepen, the sources cited in this article do not address the question.

When does presbyopia stop deepening, and how often should the eyes be examined?

The Department of Health Elderly Health Service writes 「度數會隨著年齡而增加，直至六十歲左右便會穩定」 — the power increases with age until it settles at about sixty — and 「配戴老花眼鏡後還需每兩、三年定期驗眼一次」 — that after reading glasses are fitted the eyes should still be examined every two to three years. That is the only Hong Kong official statement about age among the sources cited here.

How do I know whether the optometrist examining my eyes may examine their health?

Look up the Optometrists Board register and see which part they are registered in. As at 30 June 2026, the practice restrictions on Part III (6 people) and Part IV (796 people) state that they may not perform functions or activities unrelated to refraction, which is 802 people in all, or 36.7% of 2,183. Change the search=OP in the address to lower case and Part IV splits further into rows of 391 and 405: the 391 may do refraction and contact lenses, and the 405 may do refraction only. So those who may not fit contact lenses either are 6 plus 405, which is 411 people, or 18.8%.

Is a multifocal intraocular lens necessarily better than a monofocal one?

The Cochrane review (20 trials, 2,061 people, 3,194 eyes) gives its results separately: distance vision shows no difference between them (moderate certainty); near vision and reduced spectacle dependence favour multifocal, but both at low certainty; and haloes at RR 3.58 (1.99–6.46) count against multifocal, that one at moderate certainty. The outcome held with the most certainty is that harm. But the review authors' own conclusion is that multifocal lenses are effective at improving near vision, though the size of the effect is uncertain; that whether the benefit outweighs the harm varies from person to person; and that the desire to be free of spectacles is likely to be the deciding factor.

Has anyone wanted a multifocal intraocular lens taken out again?

Yes. The Cochrane review cites one study in which 6 people in the multifocal arm had the intraocular lens exchanged within the first year after surgery, against 0 in the monovision arm. The denominator is small and cannot be turned into a rate; there are no other exchange-rate data among the sources cited here.

With no cataract, can the lens be exchanged purely for presbyopia?

The American Academy of Ophthalmology mentions the practice in the passage after monovision surgery, naming refractive lens exchange; and NICE IPG455 section 2.1.2 states that surgery (monovision or blended vision LASIK, or refractive lens exchange) may be considered in some patients. But neither prints any efficacy or risk figure for it, and everyone in the Cochrane review was having cataract surgery. The accurate statement is: a professional body has mentioned it, and not one of the sources cited here has measured it. No data does not mean safe, and it does not mean dangerous.

Are presbyopia eye drops available in Hong Kong?

The Department of Health Drug Office's database of registered pharmaceutical products: the ingredient aceclidine, 0 items; the product names VUITY, QLOSI and VIZZ, 0 items each; the ingredient pilocarpine, 6 items, at concentrations of 1%, 2% and 4%, all with a sale requirement of prescription only, registered between 14 August 1979 (three of them) and 25 March 1982. The two pilocarpine concentrations approved for presbyopia in the United States (1.25% and 0.4%) are not among them. Three things to note: the database's own heading states that it is available in English only; a registration record has no indications field; and the registration date carries a footnote explaining that a certificate is generally valid for five years and may then be renewed under section 36(7) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Regulations (Cap. 138A) — so 1979 is the year of first registration and not the last time it was reviewed.

What are the risks of the eye drops?

The warnings the prescribing information lists include: temporary dimming of vision may occur, and particular care is needed driving at night and undertaking hazardous activities in poor light; rare cases of retinal detachment and tear have been associated with miotics, and a retinal examination is recommended in all patients before starting; and contact lens wearers must wait 10 minutes after instilling the drop before putting the lenses back in. The three documents write the iritis item differently — VUITY and QLOSI say use is not recommended in the presence of iritis, while VIZZ says miotics may worsen adhesions in anyone with a history of iritis. On adverse reactions, VIZZ's prescribing information gives instillation site irritation 20%, dim vision 16% and headache 13%. The QLOSI and VIZZ documents state immediately afterwards in the same section that most adverse reactions were mild, transient and self-resolving. And of the three, only VIZZ writes None in its contraindications section. The prescribing information also has a postmarketing experience section, and states that those reports cannot reliably estimate frequency — so that list is not a closed one.

Has any institution published a price for a pair of progressive reading glasses?

Yes. The "progressive lens + frame package" subcategory of the Optical 88 online shop lists nine items, from HK$899 to HK$2,650; the single vision packages in the same category run from HK$329 to HK$999, but a single vision lens corrects only one distance, so that set is a control. These are all electronic voucher prices: valid 90 days, redeemable only at designated branches, limited to designated lens and frame models, and not accepting a frame you bring in. All nine set a presbyopic ceiling, and it is not peculiar to the cheapest: 50 to 350, 50 to 400 (the two blue-light-filtering items, the deepest in the whole category), and 75 to 350 (the other five, including the most expensive at HK$2,650). The frame is equally limited to an original price of $600 or below across all nine. What really is peculiar to the cheapest is that it is limited to Monday to Friday.

What does monovision LASIK cost in Hong Kong?

This article cannot answer for monovision LASIK itself, but it can answer for the class of surgery it belongs to: the government platform publishes bill statistics for laser in situ keratomileusis as day surgery over the year 2025, with a total charge at the fiftieth percentile of HK$24,000 at Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital Limited, HK$21,000 at St. Paul's Hospital and HK$20,000 at St. Teresa's Hospital. Three limits on that: the platform's procedure name does not separate monovision LASIK from other refractive surgery; the data is supplied by the private hospitals themselves and the Department of Health states expressly that it neither approves nor endorses it; and two of the three rows are small samples.

Why does one hear so little about corneal inlays?

The conclusion of NICE IPG455 (26 April 2013) is that the evidence is limited in both quantity and quality and comes mainly from case series, and it requires the clinician to make the patient understand that this is primarily a cosmetic procedure. And the last sentence of its section 1.1 is a restriction on use: this procedure should be used only with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research. That guidance is now thirteen years old and this article has obtained nothing superseding it; paragraph 1.3 of the guidance states for itself that NICE may review the procedure if further evidence is published.

---

#What this article does not state

• The prevalence of presbyopia in Hong Kong, and the proportion of it left uncorrected in Hong Kong. The only prevalence estimate cited here (Fricke et al, 2018) is a global modelling estimate with a reference year of 2015; it is not Hong Kong data, and it prints no values by age group.
• "Almost everyone has it after 40" or "everyone will have it before 50". Not one of the sources cited here supports a statement of that generality with a figure.
• A power ladder by age (+1.00 D at 40–45, +1.50 D at 45–50, and so on). Not one of the sources cited here has ever published such a ladder.
• Hong Kong prices for bifocals, and any comparison between progressives and bifocals or the length of the adaptation period. None of the ten subcategories of that Optical 88 online shop category contains a bifocal lens item; and the sources carry only descriptive statements, with no comparative data.
• What someone with presbyopia above 400 can be fitted with in that category. The page says only that the difference in price must be made up, and does not state whether a power outside the range can still be fitted. Equally, the power column of the HK$2,650 item prints no hyperopia row, and this article does not infer that it is either unlimited or inapplicable.
• The price range of the "fashion eyewear" category once children's frames are filtered out. The overall range is stated above (HK$164 to HK$1,788 across 137 models), but the sort order does not filter children's frames out and this article has not classified them model by model.
• The relationship between the spectacle packages and buying glasses in a shop, and Optical 88's over-the-counter shop prices. No page states that the online shop's prices are the same as the prices charged in a shop.
• The current subsidy proportion for Sik Sik Yuen's referral tier. The centre's web page (27 August 2026) says 6 in ten; category 丙 of Sik Sik Yuen's scheme leaflet in its version of April 2011 says 50%. The two are fifteen years apart, and no current document explains how it changed in between, so this article cites each by its own date and infers neither that the 50% still exists nor when the 6 in ten took effect.
• The remaining subsections of section 2 of NICE IPG455, and section 3.2. This article reproduces 2.1.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, 2.4.10 and 2.5.3 from section 2, and 3.1 from section 3; the remaining subsections of section 2 (those under 2.2 and 2.3) and section 3.2 are not reproduced item by item.
• A Hong Kong price for monovision LASIK specifically. What the government platform publishes is bill statistics for the whole class of surgery.
• The fee schedules on the private hospitals' own websites. The hospital prices listed here are confined to the bill statistics on that platform.
• How long the effect of a multifocal intraocular lens lasts, the rate at which they need exchanging, and the absolute incidence of the side effects. The review publishes relative risks and does not publish the baseline incidence in the monofocal arm, so they cannot be converted into "how many people in every 100".
• Differences between makes and models of multifocal intraocular lens. The review states for itself that the makes and models in the included trials varied considerably, and it does not report stratified by model.
• What each of the six registered pilocarpine products in Hong Kong is registered to treat. A registration record has no indications field.
• Routes outside registration, such as named patient import or clinical trial supply. The Drug Office's database covers registered pharmaceutical products only.
• The price, availability and prescribing of presbyopia eye drops in Hong Kong. Not one of the sources cited here has any Hong Kong institution publishing information about it.
• QLOSI's responder proportion at day 15, and which time point in that table is the primary endpoint. That prescribing information gives only a figure and no table of values at day 15, and this article does not read values off a figure; the table is headed as primary and key secondary results without stating which time point is the primary endpoint, so all four time points are listed.
• The exact denominator of VIZZ's adverse reaction percentages, and the adverse reaction rate in its control arm. The prescribing information gives two trial groups of 466 and 217 people, but does not state which the percentages are calculated on.
• Comparisons of efficacy between the three eye drops, and between eye drops and glasses, contact lenses or surgery. The conditions of each trial differ; and no trial has put eye drops and another form of correction into the same study.
• Whether public hospitals provide reading glasses, and how the annual charge cap is calculated and what it covers. The fee schedule has no relevant item, and this article has not obtained the detail page.
• Comparisons of the scope or price of examinations between optical chains. This article cites material published by one chain about itself, compares no two institutions, and recommends none.
• The effective date of the PolyU Optometry Clinic's charges. That page publishes no revision date, and its footer carries only a copyright year of 2020.
• The individual competence of an optometrist registered in a restricted part. The parts of the register reflect statutory practice restrictions and the transitional registration arrangements of 1994, and this article passes no judgment on any individual on that basis.

---

#Notes: the original texts

Where an English source has no Chinese edition, the Chinese rendering in the original article was made by its editors and is not the source's own text.

[Note 1] Department of Health Elderly Health Service, "Common eye problems and tips on eye care", section 4:

"As the crystalline lens slowly loses elasticity with age, it cannot focus accurately when looking at something close, and the image blurs. Presbyopia begins at about forty, the power increases with age, and it settles at about sixty. It can be corrected by wearing suitable reading glasses, but the glasses must be fitted by a qualified optometrist or ophthalmologist." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

由於晶狀體隨著年齡的增長而慢慢失去彈性，當要看近的東西時，便不能準確聚焦，令影像模糊。老花約在四十歲開始發生，度數會隨著年齡而增加，直至六十歲左右便會穩定。患者可配戴合適的老花眼鏡來矯正視力，但眼鏡必須由合格視光師或眼科醫生驗配。

⚠️ The Chinese and English versions of that passage point at two different occupations: the Chinese writes 「合格視光師」 (optometrist, registered and regulated by the Optometrists Board under the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance, Cap. 359), and the English writes certified opticians. In Hong Kong only the former has a statutory registration system, and this article follows the Chinese version.

[Note 2] Department of Health Elderly Health Service, cataract page:

"To this day medical science has not developed an effective drug to stop a cataract progressing." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

到現時為止，醫學界仍未研究出阻止白內障增長的有效藥物。

(That sentence is about stopping it progressing; the page uses neither the word prevent nor the word slow.)

[Note 3] The section on warning signs not to be ignored, in the Chinese original:

"Warning signs not to be ignored: / In any of the following situations, seek treatment as soon as possible to avoid harm to vision. / Vision still not improved after wearing glasses / Persistent eye pain or sudden severe pain / Excessive sensitivity to light, seeing haloes or rainbow rings / Loss of part of the visual field or of peripheral vision / A red eye or stinging in the eye / A sudden shower of floating images or black spots (commonly called floaters) / An abnormal growth on the eye or eyelid / An abnormal cloudiness in a transparent part of the eye / Persistent watering, discharge or crusting of the eye" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

不容忽視的警告訊號： 如遇以下情形，須盡快尋求醫治以免影響視力。 配戴眼鏡後仍不能改善視力 持續眼痛或突然劇痛 對光線過分敏感，見到光環或彩虹圈 失去部分或周邊視力 眼紅或眼睛刺痛 突然出現大量浮動影像或黑點（俗稱「飛蚊」） 眼睛或眼瞼上有不正常的生長 眼睛透明的部位出現不正常的混濁 眼睛持續地流淚、出現分泌物或結痂

⚠️ Two items differ between the Chinese and English versions, and this article records both. On the first item the Chinese writes 「配戴眼鏡後仍不能改善視力」 — vision still not improved after wearing glasses — while the English writes Blurred vision not corrected by appropriate corrective glasses; the English carries the extra qualifier "appropriate", so someone whose prescription is wrong falls inside the Chinese sentence and may not fall inside the English one. On the fourth item the Chinese writes 「失去部分或周邊視力」 — loss of part of the visual field or of peripheral vision — while the English writes only Partial loss of visual field, without the word peripheral; and where the same page describes glaucoma in its section 6 it uses 「視野縮窄」, a narrowing of the visual field. On both points this article takes the wider Chinese version. On the instruction itself, the Chinese writes 「須盡快尋求醫治」 and the English Consult your doctor immediately, and here it is the English that is the more cautious, so this article takes the English reading.

[Note 4] The whole of the glaucoma item in section 6 of the same page:

"Glaucoma: excessive pressure inside the eyeball damages the optic nerve, and the patient's vision declines and the visual field narrows. This is a serious eye disease, and without early treatment the damage to vision is permanent and can amount to blindness." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

青光眼：眼球壓力過高導致視覺神經受破壞，患者的視力下降及視野縮窄。這是一種嚴重的眼疾，若不及早醫治，視力會永久受損甚至失明。

The same sentence in the English version: Irreversible damage or even visual loss could occur if not treated promptly.

[Note 5] The Optometrists Board registration summary page, the practice restrictions on the four parts as printed:

"(Part II) Shall not use, in the course of practising the profession, diagnostic agents other than staining agents." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

（第 II 部分）不得在從事其專業的過程中使用不屬染色劑的診斷劑。

"(Part III) Shall not perform or undertake any function or activity unrelated to the work of refraction." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

（第 III 部分）不得執行或從事任何與屈光檢查的工作無關的職能或活動。

"(Part IV) Shall not perform or undertake any function or activity unrelated to the work of refraction, or of refraction and contact lenses, as the case may be." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

（第 IV 部分）不得執行或從事任何與屈光檢查或屈光檢查及隱形鏡片(視乎適合的情況而定)的工作無關的職能或活動。

That page's "last updated" date is written by its own lastupdate.js, with the value uld=['30 June 2026','2026年 6月 30日']. The 106 people in Part II may examine eye health, but with one restriction on the diagnostic drugs available to them; which drugs "diagnostic agents other than staining agents" actually covers is not set out on the Board's page, and this article does not infer it.

[Note 6] The lower-case address of the same page (search=op) lists Part IV as two rows, which read in the English version:

Not allowed to perform any function or engage in any activity other than work relating to refraction and contact lenses.

(391 people)

Not allowed to perform any function or engage in any activity other than work relating to refraction.

(405 people) The practice restriction cell of the second row is served empty in the Chinese version.The two rows add to 391 + 405 = 796; the four parts add to 1,275 + 106 + 6 + 391 + 405 = 2,183 — one register, two ways of grouping it, and the figures agree.

[Note 7] Three things about looking up the register.

One: that page may not open. On the re-check of 7 August 2026, summary.php returned HTTP 500 in all four combinations of case and language, but the whole table including its closing tag was served complete, and the figures listed here are taken from that complete response; browse.php and search.php on the same site responded normally.

Two: a part of the register is not fixed for life. The Board states that a Part II optometrist holding a certificate of attendance in ocular pharmacology awarded by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who has practised for a year or more since registering in Part II (or has other experience recognised by the Board), may register in Part I. So looking up the register tells you where someone is today, not a permanent label.

Three: why the register has parts. The Optometrists Board was established in 1986 under the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance (Cap. 359); with the coming into operation of subsidiary legislation F, the Optometrists (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulation, registration of the optometry profession began on 1 December 1994 and disciplinary regulation took effect on 1 April 1996. The Board states that a person who was already in practice but without any formal qualification when section 12 of the Ordinance began to apply on 1 December 1994 could register in Part III or Part IV under section 12(1)(c). So Parts III and IV are a one-off transitional arrangement, not a route of entry that is still open today.

[Note 8] The American Academy of Ophthalmology on ready-made reading glasses, its condition followed by a bracket defining it: you do not have nearsightedness, farsightedness or astigmatism. The costs of monovision and multifocal contact lenses, as that page prints them:

You may find you lose your ability to judge something's distance or speed with monovision lenses.

You may find that using a multifocal lens makes your vision less sharp than when using a monofocal lens.

[Note 9] The American Academy of Ophthalmology:

Your ophthalmologist may suggest that you try monovision lenses before having LASIK surgery.

(It is "may suggest", not a fixed order of management.)

[Note 10] The whole of section 1 of NICE IPG455:

1.1 The evidence for corneal inlay implantation for correction of presbyopia is limited in quantity and quality and comes predominantly from case series; there is some evidence of efficacy in the short term. In addition, there are reports that adverse effects occur frequently. Therefore, this procedure should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent and audit or research. 1.2 Clinicians wishing to undertake corneal inlay implantation for correction of presbyopia should take the following actions: Inform the clinical governance leads in their Trusts. Ensure that patients understand that this is principally a cosmetic procedure that may reduce their need to wear spectacles or contact lenses. They should be made aware of other management options for presbyopia. They should be informed about the possible adverse events associated with the procedure and encouraged to balance these carefully against the expected benefits. Patients should be provided with clear written information. In addition, the use of NICE's information for the public is recommended. Audit and review clinical outcomes of all patients having corneal inlay implantation for the correction of presbyopia (see section 3.1). 1.3 Both clinicians and manufacturers are encouraged to collect details of complications and long-term outcomes following corneal inlay implantation for correction of presbyopia, and to publish their findings. NICE may review the procedure on publication of further evidence.

Section 3.1:

This guidance requires that clinicians undertaking the procedure make special arrangements for audit. NICE has identified relevant audit criteria and has developed an audit tool (which is for use at local discretion).

Section 2.1.2:

Standard treatment for presbyopia is corrective spectacles or contact lenses. Surgery (monovision or blended-vision laser in situ keratomileusis [LASIK], or refractive lens exchange or replacement) may be considered in some patients.

Section 2.5.3:

The Committee recognised that a number of inlays are available and they may differ in their efficacy, their safety and the way they work.

[Note 11] Section 2.4 of NICE IPG455:

2.4.3 Cataracts affecting visual function and needing surgical treatment developed in 5 treated eyes after 3–4 years in the case series of 39 patients. 2.4.4 Loss of visual acuity at 3 years was reported in 14 patients in the case series of 32 patients (2 lines of UDVA were lost by 4 patients, 1 line of corrected distance visual acuity [CDVA] was lost by 9 patients, and 3.8 lines of CDVA were lost by 1 patient). 2.4.7 Severe, moderate and mild halo was reported by 1, 8 and 11 patients respectively in the case series of 32 patients at 3 years. Mild or moderate halo had been reported by 3 patients before treatment. Five patients in the same study reported severe problems with night vision. 2.4.8 A significant decrease in photopic (p<0.001) and mesopic (p<0.0001) contrast sensitivity at all spatial frequencies was reported in a case series of 508 patients at 1 year after treatment.

Section 2.4.10 separately lists the theoretical adverse events raised by the specialist advisers: infectious keratitis, corneal scarring or opacification, corneal thinning and melting, difficulty measuring intraocular pressure. That string is a list of theoretical possibilities, not measured incidences — a different kind of thing from the rows above, which have a numerator and a denominator.

[Note 12] Özyol, Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology 2025;55(6):350-351:

The approach is to improve near visual acuity by increasing focal depth, because studies to address the pathophysiology of presbyopia by increasing the elasticity of the crystalline lens have not yet yielded the desired effect.

the first eye drops used in the treatment of presbyopia were myotic agents that increase the depth of focus by inducing myosis, thereby creating the pinhole effect

pilocarpine has often been associated with side effects such as headache, poor low-light vision, and myopic shift

Therefore, it did not offer an acceptable solution for daily use in the treatment of presbyopia.

The aceclidine passage:

It has a more pupil-selective effect, providing a stable pupil constricting to below 2 mm, thus increasing the depth of field without causing myopic shift.

Efficacy lasting up to 10 hours and a good safety profile have been reported in phase 3 studies.

⚠️ This is a two-page letter to the editor, not a systematic review, and not a source of effect sizes. Read here from the PMC full text (PMC12740057): the superscript at the end of the second sentence quoted above is 5, and reference 5 is Vuity - pilocarpine ophthalmic solution for presbyopia. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 2022;64:17-18. — a short 2022 drug bulletin piece about a different drug. and when it was published the phase III data on aceclidine did not yet exist. The superscript on the letter's mention of VIZZ's approval is 1, and reference 1 is the manufacturer's own investor relations press release (Lenz Therapeutics, 31 July 2025). So this article does not treat "efficacy lasting up to 10 hours" as phase III evidence of efficacy. A sentence appearing in a peer-reviewed journal does not mean the source of that sentence was peer reviewed. This article cites the letter for the mechanism only, and for no efficacy or safety figure.

The letter's closing:

As a result, pharmacological treatments for presbyopia are evolving from experimental approaches to clinically validated options. The approval of aceclidine and the accumulated evidence on pilocarpine indicate that these treatments will have an important place in the management of presbyopia. However, it is important that the pharmacological treatment used is effective, reliable, and reversible and that its long-term side effect profile is known.

[Note 13] The approved indications and dosage of the three prescribing informations, as printed:

VUITY® is indicated for the treatment of presbyopia in adults.

Instill one drop of VUITY in each eye once daily.

A second dose (one additional drop in each eye) may be administered 3-6 hours after the first dose.

QLOSI is indicated for the treatment of presbyopia in adults.

This can be repeated a second time after 2 to 3 hours for an effect up to 8 hours.

QLOSI can be administered on a daily basis, or as needed, up to twice each day.

VIZZ is indicated for the treatment of presbyopia in adults.

Instill one drop in each eye, wait 2 minutes and instill a second drop in each eye once daily from the same single-dose vial.

Three differences in the definition of a responder. The core of all three is an improvement of 3 lines or more in near vision without too great a loss of distance vision, but each is written differently:

VUITY：the proportion of participants gaining 3 lines or more in mesopic, high contrast, binocular distance corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA), without losing more than 1 line (5 letters) of corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) with the same refractive correction

QLOSI：Responders demonstrated improvement by achieving a gain from baseline of 3 lines or more in near BDCVA at 40 centimeters without a loss of 1 line or more (≥ 5 letters) in BDCVA at 4 meters.

VIZZ：the proportion of participants gaining 3 lines or more in high contrast, distance corrected, near visual acuity (DCNVA) at 40 cm, without loss of 1 line or more (≥5 letters) of distance corrected, distance visual acuity (DCDVA) at 4 meters

The differences: only VUITY states that it is measured under mesopic (moderately dim) conditions — which matters particularly for a miotic of this kind; only QLOSI and VIZZ state the test distances of 40 cm and 4 m; and on the permitted loss of distance vision, VUITY writes "not more than 1 line" (a full 1-line loss still counts as a responder) while QLOSI and VIZZ write "without losing 1 line or more" (a 1-line loss does not count) — a whole line of difference, sitting in the numerator of the same percentage.

Six reasons they cannot be compared, all of them printed in the prescribing informations' own tables and body text: the time points differ (VUITY day 30, VIZZ day 1, QLOSI day 8); the control arms differ (CLARITY-1's control is brimonidine, the others vehicle); the populations differ (VUITY recruited ages 40–55, QLOSI 45–64, VIZZ 45–75, the last including people who had had refractive surgery and people with an intraocular lens already implanted); the number of doses differs (QLOSI's higher figures come after the second drop); the definition of a responder is written differently (the three differences above); and the prescribing information's own sentence that adverse reaction rates from different drugs' clinical trials cannot be compared directly.

adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a drug cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another drug

The four time points at day 8 in the QLOSI prescribing information (all four at p<0.01): 1 hour after the first drop, 39% against 17% and 42% against 21%; 2 hours after the first drop, 39% against 17% and 40% against 21%; 1 hour after the second drop, 48% against 16% and 52% against 17%; 2 hours after the second drop, 39% against 15% and 46% against 19%. Every GEMINI and CLARITY item is at p<0.01.

[Note 14] The whole of the five items in section 5 of the VUITY prescribing information:

5.1 Blurred Vision — Miotics, including VUITY, may cause accommodative spasm. Patients should be advised not to drive or operate machinery if vision is not clear (e.g., blurred vision). In addition, patients may experience temporary dim or dark vision with miotics, including VUITY. Patients should be advised to exercise caution in night driving and other hazardous activities in poor illumination. 5.2 Risk of Retinal Detachment — Rare cases of retinal detachment and retinal tear have been reported with miotics, including VUITY. Individuals with pre-existing retinal disease are at increased risk. Therefore, examination of the retina is advised in all patients prior to the initiation of therapy. Patients should be advised to seek immediate medical care with sudden onset of flashing lights, floaters, or vision loss. 5.3 Iritis — VUITY is not recommended to be used when iritis is present because adhesions (synechiae) may form between the iris and the lens. 5.4 Use with Contact Lenses — Contact lens wearers should be advised to remove their lenses prior to the instillation of VUITY and to wait 10 minutes after dosing before reinserting their contact lenses. 5.5 Potential for Eye Injury or Contamination — To prevent eye injury or contamination, care should be taken to avoid touching the dispensing bottle to the eye or to any other surface.

(The dashes in each item are added here to separate the prescribing information's own subsection heading from its text; the wording is the original, unabridged.) Section 5 of the VIZZ prescribing information prints six items, running broadly the same way, with one more on hypersensitivity.

⚠️ The three documents do not write the same thing on iritis. VUITY and QLOSI say use is not recommended in the presence of iritis (a current condition); section 5.3 of VIZZ says:

Sequelae of ocular inflammation, i.e., adhesions (synechiae) between the iris and the lens, may be exacerbated with miotic use in patients with a known history of iritis.

That is, anyone with a history of iritis. Someone whose iritis resolved three years ago falls outside the first two sentences and inside the third.

At least 5 minutes must separate it from any other eye drop — a sentence all three prescribing informations carry.

[Note 15] Section 4 of VIZZ: None. Section 4 of VUITY:

VUITY is contraindicated in patients with known hypersensitivity to the active ingredient or to any of the excipients.

(Section 4 of QLOSI is worded identically with the product name changed.) The head of section 6 of VUITY also prints a pointer back:

The following clinically significant adverse reactions are described elsewhere in labeling: Hypersensitivity [see Contraindications (4)]

Section 6.2 of VUITY (postmarketing experience):

Eye disorders: vitreous detachment, vitreomacular traction, retinal tear, retinal detachment.

That section states that these are voluntary reports from a population of uncertain size, so that it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship. The prescribing information itself indicates that this list grows over time.

[Note 16] The search results as printed: an ingredient search for pilocarpine, Chinese 「紀錄: 1 至 6 (總數: 6)」 and English 「Record: 1 to 6 of 6」; aceclidine, Chinese 「紀錄: 1 至 0 (總數: 0)」 and English 「Record: 1 to 0 of 0」; PANADOL 「紀錄: 1 至 17 (總數: 17)」; ISOPTO 「紀錄: 1 至 3 (總數: 3)」. A further search of the product name field for presbyopia also returns 0.

⚠️ There are two kinds of zero here: the aceclidine zero comes from the ingredient field and the three product-name zeros from the name field, and a control result in one field proves nothing about the other working — so each field carries a control of its own that does return results.

⚠️ Where the database's self-declared date is printed has to be made plain: the "revision date" in the footer of the search page is written by the page's own footer_tc.js using document.lastModified, which reflects the modification time of the HTML file itself and is not the database's update date; the database's own date is printed on the search results page and on every product detail page. The database's heading also states that it is available in English only — the Chinese and English interfaces sit on the same set of English records.

[Note 17] All six products registered in Hong Kong whose ingredients include pilocarpine:

⚠️ The registration date carries a # footnote, as printed:

Generally, the Pharmacy and Poisons Board issues a registration certificate with a validity period of 5 years, and may be renewed for the same validity period thereafter subject to meeting conditions as stipulated in Pharmacy and Poisons Regulation (Cap 138A) reg 36(7).

So 1979 is the year of first registration, not the last time it was reviewed.

The * footnote to the sale requirement column explains: Prescription Only Medicines 「該類藥物只可在藥房按照醫生處方才可購買」 — may be bought only at a pharmacy on a doctor's prescription; Pharmacy Only Medicines 「該類藥物只可在有註冊藥劑師在場及在其監督下於藥房購買，但並不需要醫生處方」 — may be bought at a pharmacy in the presence and under the supervision of a registered pharmacist, but without a doctor's prescription.

All six have a sale requirement of Prescription only Medicines and a legal classification of Part 1, Schedule 1 & Schedule 3 Poison.

A registration record has no indications field, so it can answer "is it registered" and cannot answer "registered to do what". ⚠️ But none of the six carries any symbol — and the seven rows of the page's legend cover local recall news in the past six months, conditional approval on very limited or limited safety, efficacy and quality data (each of those two rows confined to meeting local medical needs in a public health emergency, subject to committee vetting and supply to institutions or registered doctors only), supply to institutions or registered doctors only, approval accepted under the "1+" mechanism, the "1+" mechanism together with institution-or-registered-doctor-only supply, and advanced therapy products (ATP). This is an absence with content in it.

[Note 18] Cochrane CD003169.pub4:

We found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted.

People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.

Adverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).

Three things follow that sentence about the denominator. One: 3 of the 20 trials were conducted in China and none in Hong Kong — the abstract writes only China (three), and this article opened the full text at PMC6463930 for it: the three Chinese trials are Ji 2013, Peng 2012 and Zhao 2010, and Hong Kong appears 0 times in the whole text (against China 15 times and Shanghai 7). Two: two of the trials were of eyes rather than of people, so the eye count and the person count are not two ways of writing one number. Three: the review states its own follow-up period.

⚠️ Each of the two "low certainty" rows has a sentence that has to be brought back with it. Heterogeneity is high on near vision (I²=93%), but the same sentence of the review states that every included study favoured the multifocal lens on that outcome — which does not turn low certainty into high certainty, but it tells the reader that the studies agree in direction and disagree only in size. Heterogeneity is equally high on spectacle dependence (I²=67%), and the review writes but all studies favoured multifocal lenses.

The review also puts its limitations first: because it is difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors, all the trials are at risk of performance bias and detection bias. And the sentence immediately after has to be taken with it: It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias. — a third kind of bias, different in nature: the first two are known to be present and their direction can be described, and with this one neither its presence nor its size can be assessed at all.

[Note 19] The same, AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Multifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.

[Note 20] The same, the whole passage on multifocal against monovision:

Two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision).

[Note 21] Department of Health Elderly Health Service, cataract page:

"A small proportion nevertheless have complications, such as bleeding inside the eye, glaucoma or retinal detachment, affecting vision afterwards" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

不過，仍有小部份會有併發症，例如眼內出血、青光眼、視網膜脫落等，影響日後的視力

"Anyone with another eye disease, such as high myopia or iritis, is not suitable for an intraocular lens implant" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

如患有其他眼疾，如深度近視、虹膜炎等，就不適合植入人工晶狀體

"Most patients recover their vision without needing to wear any other lens. But the chance of complications after the operation, such as inflammation or glaucoma, increases slightly." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

大多數患者均能恢復視力而不須配戴其他鏡片。但手術後的併發症，如發炎、青光眼等的機會略為增加。

"When a cataract reduces vision to the point of affecting daily life and work, it has to be removed by surgery. Since every patient's situation differs, examinations should be regular, and when to operate is decided on the ophthalmologist's advice. Most patients do not need surgery until many years after a cataract is found." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

當白內障令視力減退，影響生活及工作時，便要動手術切除。由於每個患者的情況不同，所以要定期檢查，接受眼科醫生的指示，決定何時動手術。大部份病人在發現有白內障後多年才需要做手術。

(Note the 「例如……等」 — these are examples, not a complete list.)

[Note 22] The PolyU Optometry Clinic's fee page publishes no revision date of its own, and its footer carries only a copyright year of 2020. A copyright year is not a date on which prices took effect, so this article cannot tell you when these figures were last updated.

[Note 23] That category page prints 「共15個結果」 for itself, and the eight items in the table above are the selection relevant to this subject. The seven not listed are: a comprehensive optometric examination for children (aged 4 to 8), a comprehensive optometric examination for adolescents (aged 9 to 17), a dry eye examination with optometric examination, a myopia control assessment with axial length measurement, an orthokeratology trial fitting assessment, and two packages — all of them children's or adolescents' items, myopia control items, or packages. The page notes an original price of $200 for the AI eye health screening (ZEHAIVT-T).

The comprehensive eye examination items published on the shop service page: Case history / Refraction check / Intra-ocular pressure measurement / Binocular vision function test / Colour vision test / Ocular health and fundus examination / Consultation and recommendation.

⚠️ The Chinese and English names of the HK$880 item do not match: the Chinese calls it 「漸進多焦點隱形眼鏡驗配及視光檢查（40歲或以上）」 and the English Multifocal Contact Lenses Fitting and Eye Examination (For aged 40 and above) — the English does not contain the word progressive. The American Academy of Ophthalmology treats progressive and multifocal separately, so the two language versions do not point at quite the same lens design, and the page explains no further. It is a charge for the fitting and the examination, not the price of the lenses themselves.

[Note 24] The subsidy arrangements in this section rest on three documents that exist, each with its own date, and this article marks each of them.

One: the centre's web page (Sik Sik Yuen — The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Optometry Centre (Wong Tai Sin Teaching Centre), on the first floor of the Sik Sik Yuen Social Services Building, 38 Fung Tak Road, Wong Tai Sin, telephone 2329 8622; retrieved 27 August 2026):

"CSSA recipients aged 2 or over receive a full subsidy of the fee, and low-income people referred by a school or organisation approved by Sik Sik Yuen receive 6 in ten of the fee. In addition, people in financial difficulty may apply to Sik Sik Yuen for a subsidy towards buying a low vision aid." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

2歲或以上綜援受助人士可享費用全費資助，而經本園認可之學校、機構轉介之低收入人士可獲6成費用資助。此外，有經濟困難人士更可向本園申請資助購買助視器。

That one sentence is everything the web page says about the subsidy. It does not say which districts the referral is limited to, does not give an income or asset threshold, does not say what to bring on the day of the appointment, and links to no scheme document.

Two: Sik Sik Yuen's scheme leaflet 《綜合眼科視光檢查服務費用減免資助計劃》 (its last page self-dated 「版本：2011 年 4 月」; enquiry telephone 2329 8260). Section 3 of that leaflet divides the subsidy into three categories, not two:

"甲: recipients of Social Welfare Department CSSA aged 65 or over; recipients of Social Welfare Department CSSA aged 2 to 5 — subsidy 100%, no application form required / 乙: recipients of Social Welfare Department CSSA aged 6 to 64 — no application form required / 丙: students and preschool children whose families are in financial difficulty, referred by a day secondary school, primary school, kindergarten or child care centre in the Wong Tai Sin or Sham Shui Po districts (form A); and elderly people in financial difficulty, referred by a Social Welfare Department subvented elderly service unit in the Wong Tai Sin or Sham Shui Po districts (form B) — subsidy 50%, a completed application form stamped by the referring organisation required" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

甲：65 歲或以上領取社署綜合援助人士；2 至 5 歲社署綜合援助受助人士——資助 100%，無須提交申請表格 乙：6 至 64 歲社署綜合援助受助人士——無須提交申請表格 丙：經黃大仙及深水埗區日間中、小學、幼稚園和幼兒中心轉介，家庭有經濟困難的學生／學前兒童（填表格 A）；經黃大仙及深水埗區社署資助之長者服務機構轉介，有經濟困難的長者（填表格 B）——資助 50%，須提交填妥及蓋有轉介機構印章之申請表格

⚠️ That leaflet differs from today's web page in two places, and this article reproduces both by their own dates without adjudicating. First, on CSSA: the leaflet splits CSSA recipients into categories 甲 and 乙, while the web page collapses everyone aged 2 or over on CSSA into one sentence about a full subsidy. Second, on referrals: the leaflet says 50% and the web page says 6 in ten. The two documents are fifteen years apart, and neither explains what changed in between.

Section 5 of that leaflet states, on referring organisations:

"Sik Sik Yuen currently accepts referrals from day schools and from Social Welfare Department subvented elderly service units within the Wong Tai Sin and Sham Shui Po districts. To ensure that the scheme helps those genuinely in need, the referring organisation should have a preliminary understanding of the applicant's background, but need not carry out any verification of the income and assets the applicant declares." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

本園現接受黃大仙及深水埗區內的日間學校及獲社署資助的長者服務機構之轉介。為確保計劃能幫助真正有需要的人士，轉介機構應對申請者的背景有初步了解，但無需為申請者申報之入息及資產等資料，作出核實程序。

That is to say: the two districts, Wong Tai Sin and Sham Shui Po, are what this April 2011 document writes. Today's web page names no district at all. This article draws no inference from that about the current scope of referral.

That leaflet also states:

"An applicant who cannot produce the documents above on the day of the appointment will not receive the subsidy." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

如於應診當天不能出示上述文件，申請人將不獲費用資助。

⚠️ Annex one of that leaflet, on the definition of financial difficulty, self-dated 「版本：2012 年 2 月」, defines financial difficulty for a person aged 65 or over as being a recipient of the Social Welfare Department's Normal Old Age Allowance under the Social Security Allowance Scheme, or having assets and income not exceeding: a single person, assets HK$186,000 and monthly income HK$6,660; a couple, assets HK$281,000 and monthly income HK$10,520 — the annex noting for itself that these follow the asset and income limits of the Normal Old Age Allowance. The preschool limb uses a total monthly household income not exceeding 75% of the median monthly household income of Hong Kong, the annex noting that this follows Census and Statistics Department figures for the third quarter of 2011; and the primary and secondary school limb uses recipients of the Student Finance Office's Student Travel Subsidy Scheme or School Textbook Assistance Scheme. These amounts are to be treated as reference figures printed fourteen years ago, not as today's thresholds.

Three: application form A (for preschool children and day-school students; document number SSYF-MSU-F057A(v1.1)(122014), self-dated version December 2014). Part three of that form divides applicants into three boxes: recipients of the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme; recipients of the Student Travel Subsidy or School Textbook Assistance Scheme; and preschool children or students who are neither of those (who must complete the total monthly household income in part four). Part two must be completed and stamped by the referring school. The reminders at the end of the form state:

"An applicant who forgets to bring the Comprehensive Optometric Examination Service Fee Subsidy Application Form to the appointment will not be able to receive the subsidy." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

如應診時忘記帶同「綜合眼科視光檢查服務費用資助申請表」，申請人將不能獲得費用資助。

⚠️ A document this article once cited and can no longer obtain. An earlier version of this article cited the scheme document numbered SSYF-MSU-F057(v1.3)(042019) and wrote, on the strength of it, of three districts, 「黃大仙、深水埗或九龍城」. That document cannot now be obtained, and the centre's web page no longer links to any scheme document. The three above are the documents that exist and can be checked, and not one of the three contains 九龍城, so this article no longer states it.

The centre's web page states that the scope of the examination covers vision and refraction, visual function and eye health, and lists the actual items:

"The optometrist provides different examination items as clinically required, such as: a detailed history, visual acuity and refractive power, binocular coordination, colour vision screening, visual field analysis, intraocular pressure measurement, and the health of the eye inside and out. Where necessary, fundus imaging and a referral service are provided." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

眼科視光師按臨床需要, 為應診者提供不同檢查項目如：詳細問症、視力及屈光度數、雙眼協調、色覺普查、視野分析、眼內壓量度及眼睛內外健康等。如有需要會為應診者拍攝眼底影像及提供轉介服務。

Visual field analysis, intraocular pressure measurement, the health of the eye inside and out, fundus imaging — precisely the layer the practice restrictions on Parts III and IV of the register say may not be undertaken. (Note the two qualifiers, "as clinically required" and "and the like".)

[Note 25] The terms as printed on the nine product pages include:

"The voucher is valid for 90 days from the date of issue" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

兌換券有效期為發出日期起90天內有效

"The offer applies only at the redemption location selected, and once the redemption location is confirmed it cannot be changed or cancelled" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

優惠只適用於已選擇之換領地點，換領地點一經確認，恕不能更改或取消

"The offer applies only on buying a designated lens model together with a frame and paying in full, and a frame brought in by the customer is not accepted" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

優惠只適用於選購指定型號鏡片並同時選購鏡架及全數付款，並不接受來架配鏡服務

"The frame and lens under the offer must be of the designated brand and model in the text; upgrading the frame or the lens requires the difference in price to be made up" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

優惠之鏡架及鏡片必須為內文之指定品牌及指定型號，如若升級鏡架或鏡片必須補回差價

The frame brand field of all nine prints the same:

"(designated frames of an original price of $600 or below only)" (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

（只限於原價$600或以下之指定鏡架使用）

The HK$899 item prints 「兌換券只適用於星期一至五（公眾假期除外）」 — the voucher is valid Monday to Friday, public holidays excepted — and the other eight print 「兌換券於星期一至日均可使用」, valid any day of the week; the seven single vision packages are all limited to Monday to Friday (the restriction is the same in all three wordings, one of which carries a stray phrase, reproduced as found). The seven single vision items are not ordered cheapest to dearest — an [Upgrade] package at HK$458 sits after a [Basic] package at HK$659.

Each of the nine specifies one lens model, in table order: NIPPON 1.5 FreeForm anti-reflective progressive (LHK408); NIPPON 1.56 FreeForm blue-light-filtering progressive (LHK465); NIPPON 1.5 FreeForm anti-reflective anti-fog progressive (LHK408 + VLFL); NIPPON 1.56 FreeForm blue-light-filtering anti-fog progressive (LHK465 + VLFL); Nippon 1.56 Free Form photochromic progressive (LHK469-PG); Japanese HOYA 1.5 Amplitude Plus progressive (LHOH39); Delux 1.5 Transitions®GEN S™ photochromic progressive (LHKB22-PG /PB); biomass-derived blue-light-filtering progressive (LHKB24); and Japanese ASAHI-LITE 1.67 View blue-light-filtering progressive (LHKB27).

The other power ceilings of the nine (reproduced page by page, each applying only to its own item):

The astigmatism ceiling of 400 on the HK$1,450 item is the only one of its kind among the nine; the power column of the HK$2,650 item prints no hyperopia row at all, the page does not say whether that means unlimited or inapplicable, and this article does not infer it for them.

[Note 26] The "fashion eyewear" category page prints 「共137個結果，顯示第1-20個」 for itself — that is, it serves 20 of the 137 at a time, and the other 117 have to be paged through. ⚠️ The high and low of the first page are not the high and low of the category: of the 20 served on 7 August 2026, the cheapest was HK$179 and the dearest HK$1,198, a ceiling HK$590 below that of the whole category. Read through the page's own sort control, the whole category runs HK$164 to HK$1,788 (re-checked 9 August 2026, still printing 「共137個結果」). The sort does not filter out children's frames, so that range includes children's frames.

[Note 27] Note 7 to the Hospital Authority fee schedule:

"Each prescribed drug item is charged in units of four weeks." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

每種處方藥物以四星期為收費單位。

The two passages the fee schedule prints before the figures:

"People in financial difficulty who cannot afford the public charges may apply for a medical fee waiver. For details please visit the medical fee waiver mechanism web page." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

有經濟困難而未能負擔公營費用的人士，可申請醫療費用減免。詳情請瀏覽醫療費用減免機制網頁。

"From 1 January 2026 the Hospital Authority establishes a second safety net beyond the medical fee waiver mechanism, an annual cap of ten thousand dollars on public healthcare service charges with no means test — the annual charge cap. The new measure is intended to relieve the heavy burden of medical costs on anyone who has the misfortune to suffer a sudden serious illness or a chronic disease." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

由2026年1月1日起，醫管局於醫療費用減免機制外建立第二層安全網，增設無需經濟審查的每年一萬元公營醫療服務費用上限–「全年收費上限」。新措施旨在減輕市民一旦不幸患上突發重病或長期病而招致的沉重醫療費用負擔。

[Note 28] Section (B) of the same fee schedule:

"Only patients in the following categories are eligible to pay at the rates applicable to eligible persons: holders of a Hong Kong identity card issued under the Registration of Persons Ordinance (Cap. 177), except where the card was issued to that person by virtue of a permission to enter or remain that has expired or is no longer valid; children under 11 who are Hong Kong residents; or other persons approved by the Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

只有下述類別的病人，才有資格按照適用於『符合資格人士』的收費率繳費：持有根據《人事登記條例》(第177章) 所簽發香港身份證的人士，但若該人士是憑藉其已獲入境或逗留准許而獲簽發香港身份證，而該准許已經逾期或不再有效則除外；身為香港居民的11歲以下兒童；或醫院管理局行政總裁認可的其他人士。

And it states that anyone outside the categories above is defined as a "non-eligible person".

[Note 29] The notes on the platform of the Pilot Programme on Enhancing Price Transparency of Private Hospitals, as printed:

"All the data shown on this common electronic platform is provided by the private hospitals and is for general reference only. Participating private hospitals are required to provide statistics of past actual bills for a patient accommodated in a standard ward undergoing a single treatment or procedure. The statistics of past actual bills exclude data for patients undergoing multiple treatments or procedures. Since the items covered may not be identical between hospitals, users are advised to enquire of the private hospital directly about what each treatment or procedure covers." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

這個共通電子平台中顯示的所有數據均由私家醫院提供，僅供一般參考。參與的私家醫院需根據病人住宿於標準病房及進行單一治療或程序提供過往實際帳單的統計數據。過往實際帳單的統計數據並不包括進行多次治療或程序的病人數據。由於個別醫院所涵蓋的細項未必完全相同，建議使用者直接向私家醫院查詢每個治療或程序所涵蓋項目的詳情。

The "important note" passage:

"This website contains information provided by persons or organisations other than the Department of Health … The Department of Health has not approved or endorsed the information provided by other persons or organisations on this website or on other websites linked to it, and accepts no responsibility or legal liability for it." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

本網站載有衞生署以外人士或機構所提供的資料……衞生署並沒有核准或認可由其他人士或機構在本網站或與本網站連結的其他網站上所提供的資料，對於該等資料亦不承擔任何責任或法律責任。

So "published by the government platform" has to be put more precisely: the government provides a platform that carries it, the data is supplied by the hospitals themselves, and the Department of Health states on the same page that it neither approves nor endorses it.

The explanation of how the percentiles are ordered:

"The percentile data above is ordered by the amount of the total charge, and not by the doctor's fee or the hospital charge within the total charge." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

以上百分位數據是按『總收費』金額順序排列，而非按『總收費』內的『醫生費』及『醫院費』排列。

So "the doctor's fee at the fiftieth percentile" is not the median of the doctor's fees themselves, but the doctor's fee of the case whose total charge ranks at the 50th percentile.

The small-sample caution:

"Readers should interpret with care the bill data of any hospital reporting not more than 30 procedures, since such data is derived from a small number of cases and may not reflect the general level of charges." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

讀者須謹慎闡釋由每間醫院彙報不超過 30 宗程序的帳單數據，因此類數據只基於少數個案而得出，未必能反映一般的收費情況。

The "about the fee table" passage:

"Private hospitals publish on their own websites a fee table of their main charge items. The recommended categories include room charges, operating theatre charges, general nursing procedure charges, general and/or specialist outpatient charges, and examination and treatment procedure charges … Hospitals must also remind the public that they may enquire of the hospital directly about any charge not published on the website." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

私家醫院於其網站公布主要收費項目的收費表。建議項目種類包括房租、手術室費用、普通護理程序費用、普通科及／或專科門診費用、檢查及治療程序費用……醫院亦須提醒公眾可直接向醫院查詢任何沒有於網站公布的收費。

That is to say, the range of hospital prices cited in this article is confined to the bill statistics on that platform, and is not everything these hospitals have published about their charges.

The response to a query for laser vision correction as inpatient surgery:

No record for LASIK as In-patient in the reporting period from 01 Jan 2025 to 31 Dec 2025 in the selected hospital(s).

The cataract platform also has a table for inpatient surgery, but five of its eight rows have a blank annual discharge count and are small samples, so this article cites no figure from it. The doctor's fee includes the fees of the anaesthetist, the surgeon and the ward rounds.

[Note 30] Section 4 of the same Department of Health Elderly Health Service page:

"The power increases with age until it settles at about sixty. … After reading glasses are fitted, the eyes should still be examined every two to three years, to ensure that the power of the glasses suits any change in vision." (our translation from the Chinese original)

Chinese original:

度數會隨著年齡而增加，直至六十歲左右便會穩定。……配戴老花眼鏡後還需每兩、三年定期驗眼一次，確保因應視力的改變而使用合適度數的眼鏡。

[Note 31] Fricke et al 2018:

We estimate there were 1.8 billion people (prevalence, 25%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.0 billion [23%-27%]) globally with presbyopia in 2015, 826 million (95% CI, 686-960 million) of whom had near VI because they had no, or inadequate, vision correction.

Global unmet need for presbyopia correction in 2015 is estimated to be 45% (95% CI, 41%-49%).

People with presbyopia are more likely to have adequate optical correction if they live in an urban area of a more developed country with higher health expenditure and lower inequality.

The conclusions section: with the greatest burden in rural areas of low-resource countries.

This article uses the 45% (41%–49%) the study prints itself, and not the 45.9% obtained by dividing one of its figures by another — dividing them would produce a number with no confidence interval. The study's methods section states that data was collected in 5-year age bands, but the abstract prints no value for each band, so this article cannot give figures by age.

---

#Sources and dates of checking

Drug registration data update date: 7 August 2026 (the last update date the Department of Health Drug Office database declares for itself, as re-checked on 9 August 2026; when the searches in this article were retrieved on 2 and 3 August 2026 that page declared a date of 31 July 2026, and on the re-check of 9 August the six pilocarpine results were unchanged).

• Department of Health Elderly Health Service, "Common eye problems and tips on eye care" (the description of presbyopia, the re-examination interval, the nine warning signs, and the three eye diseases and the glaucoma item in section 6): https://www.elderly.gov.hk/tc_chi/health_information/vision_and_hearing/commoneyeproblemscaretips.html. That page publishes no revision date of its own. Retrieved 2 and 3 August 2026.
• Department of Health Elderly Health Service, "Cataract" (the clouding of the lens, that there is no drug to stop it progressing, the complications of surgery, the intraocular lens, and the timing of surgery): https://www.elderly.gov.hk/tc_chi/health_information/vision_and_hearing/cataract.html. That page publishes no revision date of its own. Retrieved 2 August 2026.
• American Academy of Ophthalmology, "What Is Presbyopia?" (the mechanism, the four classes of correction, the condition and bracket on ready-made reading glasses, the costs of monovision and multifocal, the advice to try lenses first, RLE, and the Medication section): https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/what-is-presbyopia. Page date: 21 May 2026. Retrieved 2 August 2026.
• Fricke TR et al 2018 (global prevalence and unmet need): Global Prevalence of Presbyopia and Vision Impairment from Uncorrected Presbyopia: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Modelling. Ophthalmology. 2018 Oct;125(10):1492–1499 (PMID 29753495). Retrieved 2 August 2026.
• Optometrists Board (the numbers and practice restrictions of the four parts, the two case versions of the summary, the registration qualifications and the transitional arrangements of 1994, and movement between parts): https://www.ahp-council.org.hk/hkifd/summary.php?search=OP&lang=zh (English version &lang=en; lower-case version search=op), search.php?search=OP, and browse.php?search=OP1 to OP4. That page declares a "last updated" date of 30 June 2026. Retrieved 3 August 2026, re-checked 7 August 2026.
• NICE IPG455, Corneal inlay implantation for correction of presbyopia (sections 1.1–1.3, 2.1.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.7, 2.4.8, 2.4.10, 2.5.3 and 3.1): https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg455. Guidance date: 26 April 2013. ⚠️ nice.org.uk returns HTTP 403 to every non-browser request, so section 1 and the subsections of section 2 were read instead from an Internet Archive capture. Retrieved 2 August 2026; the subsections of section 2 on 9 August 2026.
• Cochrane CD003169 (de Silva et al 2016, multifocal against monofocal and against monovision): DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003169.pub4; PMID 27943250; full text PMC6463930. Published 12 December 2016. Retrieved 2 August 2026.
• Özyol P, Turkish Journal of Ophthalmology 2025;55(6):350-351 (letter to the editor): full text PMC12740057 (PMID 41447031). Published 25 December 2025. Retrieved 9 August 2026.
• United States FDA prescribing information: VUITY https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=8d806897-8a2a-4518-8c68-0ec3b778de50 (prescribing information effective 28 March 2023); QLOSI https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=4ee2a840-1203-473a-aa42-316a3ddf2fbe (30 May 2025); VIZZ https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=7aed8024-ad30-44d6-8f3b-63338ad3ce52 (14 January 2026). The approval dates are taken from the FDA Drugs@FDA database https://api.fda.gov/drug/drugsfda.json (NDA 214028, 217836 and 218585). Retrieved 2 August 2026; the dosage sections re-checked 9 August 2026.
• Department of Health Drug Office, Search Drug Database: https://www.drugoffice.gov.hk/eps/do/tc/consumer/search_drug_database.html (English version /en/). The first six items retrieved 2 August 2026; the two controls and all results re-checked 3 August 2026; re-checked again 9 August 2026.
• PolyU Optometry Clinic charges: https://www.polyu.edu.hk/so/optometry-clinic/fee/. That page publishes no revision date of its own. Retrieved 2 August 2026.
• Sik Sik Yuen — The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Optometry Centre (Wong Tai Sin Teaching Centre) (the two sentences on the subsidy, the scope of the examination, the address and the telephone 2329 8622): https://www2.siksikyuen.org.hk/zh-HK/medical-services/overview/sik-sik-yuen-the-hkpolyu-optometry-centre. That page publishes no revision date of its own. First retrieved 2 August 2026; re-retrieved and checked against the bytes served, on the subsidy arrangements, 27 August 2026. That page currently links to no scheme document.
• Sik Sik Yuen scheme leaflet 《綜合眼科視光檢查服務費用減免資助計劃》 (the purpose, the persons assisted, the eligibility and subsidy of the three categories 甲, 乙 and 丙, the application flow, the two districts of Wong Tai Sin and Sham Shui Po to which referring organisations are confined, and the enquiry telephone 2329 8260; annex one on the definition of financial difficulty, and annex two on the application flow). The last page of the leaflet self-dates 「版本：2011 年 4 月」, and annex one self-dates 「版本：2012 年 2 月」. Retrieved 27 August 2026.
• Sik Sik Yuen 《綜合眼科視光檢查服務費用資助申請表》 form A (for preschool children and day-school students; document number SSYF-MSU-F057A(v1.1)(122014), self-dated version December 2014; the three applicant categories, the total monthly household income table, part two to be completed and stamped by the referring school, and the five reminders at the end). Retrieved 27 August 2026.
• ⚠️ A document that cannot be obtained, recorded here as it stands. An earlier version of this article cited the scheme document SSYF-MSU-F057(v1.3)(042019), to which the centre's page then linked. That document cannot now be obtained, and the centre's page no longer links to any scheme document, so this article rests instead on the three documents above that do exist, and has removed the content found only in that one (the claim of three districts, and one set of asset and income amounts).
• Optical 88: shops https://www.optical88.com.hk/ (none of the eight pages relating to optometry services carries a charge); online shop https://eshop.optical88.com.hk/hk_tc/health-check/optometry-plan, https://eshop.optical88.com.hk/hk_tc/specials/frame-lens-package/progressive-lens-frame-package and https://eshop.optical88.com.hk/hk_tc/specials/frame-lens-package/single-vision-package (English versions /hk_en/). None of the pages publishes a revision date of its own. Retrieved 3 August and 7 August 2026; the power tables of the nine product pages 9 August 2026.
• Hospital Authority fee schedule (the charges for eligible and non-eligible persons, note 7, the definitions in section (B), the fee waiver and the annual charge cap): effective 1 January 2026. Retrieved 3 August 2026.
• The platform of the Pilot Programme on Enhancing Price Transparency of Private Hospitals: https://apps.orphf.gov.hk/Public/tc/ (enquiry endpoint https://apps.orphf.gov.hk/Public/Enquiry/Main.aspx; cataract procedure code OP002, laser vision correction procedure code OP001). The platform declares a reporting period of 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. Retrieved 1 August 2026 (cataract) and 7 August 2026 (laser vision correction).

This article was written from the sources listed above. It deals with systems, mechanisms and levels of evidence; which correction you should have, and where, is not something this article answers, and not something an article should answer — it is decided by an ophthalmologist or a qualified optometrist on the state of your eyes.

---

#Further reading

• On this platform: the article on cataract surgery charges
• On this platform: Reading laboratory and imaging reports
• Hong Kong Ophthalmological Society: hkos.org
• American Academy of Ophthalmology — presbyopia patient education: aao.org presbyopia