The Contact Lens Institute (CLI) has officially unveiled the full data readout from an in-depth report of the first U.S. market profitability analysis built on primary data collected from multiple optometry practices.
The focus: contact lens (CL) and glasses patient profitability factors.
Hold up—didn’t CLI already release these findings?
You’re likely thinking of the institute’s data release from this past summer. That was just a preview of the full report (see here for our coverage).
Gotcha. Well then, let’s get a quick rundown on this report.
As we previously reported, Profitability Perspectives: Rethinking the Value of Contact Lenses is the latest installment in CLI’s bi-annual See Tomorrow initiative of custom research.
What to know about it: The report is based on what CLI calls the “first-ever analysis of CL profitability in the U.S,” involving 20 eyecare practices (from 13 states), 600 eyeglass and CL patients (30 per practice), and 4 years of anonymized data.
- To note: The data sets were collected from November 2025 to May 2026 and analyzed by an independent team of optometry and economic researchers.
Can you get more specific on what this data entailed?
For the target patients: Each practice submitted data based on predefined criteria:
- 10 single-vision (SV) spherical or astigmatic / toric eyeglass wearers
- 5 progressive eyeglass wearers
- 5 spherical SV CL wearers
- 5 toric CL wearers
- 5 multifocal (MF) CL wearers
Other data included: fees (for eye exams, CL fittings, ongoing prescription care); chair time; visit frequency; supplies revenue; secondary revenue (sunglasses or dry eye therapy); pricing patterns for dual wearers (glasses and CLs); staff annual salaries.
And how was this data analyzed?
The researchers applied an economic model that used each practices’ submitted data to estimate the total profit across all 20 eyecare practices as well as:
- Average annual profit
- Average annual per-practice profit
- Average annual customer-level profit
The intent: to determine the profit differences between soft CL wearers and (equivalent) glasses-only patients.
… so what did they find?
In general, the report emphasized a profitability advantage.
“The data are clear: soft CL patients create a sizable practice profitability advantage compared to equivalent glasses-only patients," the researchers wrote.
Plus, MF CL wearers were also found to command the highest average annual profits.
Give me the data on this.
A few key numbers were already released in the report’s preview.
But just to reiterate: The average annual customer-level profits determined the following across various CL types:
- Spheres ($436): revenue: $907; cost: $472
- Torics ($453): revenue: $963; cost: $510
- MF ($485): revenue: $1,079; cost: $594
And compare that to glasses-only wearers:
- SV ($244): revenue: $507; cost: $263
- Progressive ($376): revenue: $795; cost: $419
And among glasses-only patients?
- SV ($244): revenue: $507; cost: $263
- Progressive ($376): revenue: $795; cost: $419
So how much more profitable were CLs?
Three key percentages* to know:
- 79% for sphere CLs vs SV glasses-only
- 86% for toric CLs vs SV glasses-only
- 29% for MF CLs vs progressive glasses-only
*rounded to the nearest whole number
Any new numbers based on that other data collected?
Indeed. But for the sake of brevity, here’s a quick breakdown on the revenue and cost ranges for those:
- Lens sales: CL lens sales were $602 (sphere), $617 (toric), and $736 (MF). Glasses sales were $343 (SV) and $600 (progressive).
- Other revenue: CL patients brought in $135 to $182 a year in other revenue, versus $62 for SV and $117 for progressive glasses patients.
- Exam revenue: $161 to $170 a year for CL patients, versus $78 to $102 for glasses patients.
- Labor: around $66 to $68 a year for CL patients versus $40 to $42 for glasses patients.
- Cost of goods sold (COGS): $406 to $525 for CL patients versus $221 to $378 for glasses.
What does this translate to in real-world application?
Dr. Morgan previously noted that, while the average service and product costs for CL customers were far higher than that for glasses-only customers, “it’s clear that CL customers can generate greater average annual profit.”
In fact: From a “customer lifetime value perspective,” practices can benefit more from CL wearers due to:
- Recurring purchases
- Greater examination frequency
- Opportunities for ancillary spending
Hone in on that exam component.
Based on the data, CL patients had roughly twice as many billed exams than glasses-only wearers (around 6.8 to 7.4)—not to mention more routine eye exams (around 3.1 versus 2.6 to 2.8) over the 4-year period.
As the report stated: “This supports the concept that CLs create repeated touchpoints with the practice, generating value through clinical care, lens supply revenue, and ancillary purchases.”
And was there any merit to the age-old “chair time myth”?
While CL patients did cost more in COGS and labor (no surprise there), the higher revenue more than made up for it.
In fact, the authors referred to this extra chair time as an “investment”—not a commercial disadvantage—with “substantially greater financial return.”
Go on …
The report dove deeper into the lifetime value of a single CL patient and the “bottom-line impacts,” noting that even “modest increases” in a practice’s involvement in CLs can create “meaningful upsides.”
For example: The researchers offered a sample patient mix of:
- CL wearers (50% sphere / 30% toric / 20% MF)
- Glasses-only wearers (80% SV / 20% progressive)
Based on the weighted annual revenue and annual profit, the CL advantage per patient (on an annual basis) equated to +$393.60 and +$180.50, respectively.
So over the course of decades, how would this benefit a practice?
“Over 15, 25, or 40 years of wear, those annual differences can compound into meaningful long-term value— particularly when multiplied across a practice population,” the report noted.
Take a look at the multi-year numbers they tallied, based on the addition of one CL wearer:
After 15 years: +$5,904 revenue, +$2,708 profitAfter 25 years: +$9,840 revenue, +$4,513 profitAfter 40 years: +$15,744 revenue, +$7,220 profit
See the full report (page 16) for a look at the projected revenue and profit numbers if a practice increases their CL patients (plus the prescribing lift) by 5% and 10%.
Worth noting: The authors also suggested that more CL patients could increase a practice’s valuation for acquisition or success planning.
Those are quite the projections.
Indeed. However, the report made a point of emphasizing that these are scenario-based projections intended to extend the study's observed annual economics over time.
Importantly, they do not incorporate inflation, price increases, referrals, or other potential sources of additional lifetime value, nor practice-specific operational factors.
Duly noted. So based on these findings, what opportunities exist for practices?
The researchers' suggestion: an appreciation for dual wearers (CLs and glasses).
“Rather than viewing CLs as an alternative to eyeglasses, practices can position them as a complementary vision correction option.”
Hasn’t the institute also conducted prior research in this area?
That would be an understatement. The report actually draws on CLI's prior See Tomorrow consumer surveys to explain why CL patients may be more valuable.
In a 2022 survey: 84% of CL wearers rated their lenses extremely or very important.
- This was the highest of 26 product and service categories; glasses came in at 75%.
- In the same survey, 94% said they’d cut back elsewhere before giving up their lenses.
A 2023 survey also found about 24% of U.S. adults wear both CLs and glasses.
- Another 18% of glasses-only wearers said they were very interested in CLs—and the same percentage (18%) of CL-only wearers were also very interested in glasses.
- However, 75% of glasses wearers said CLs weren't discussed at their most recent exam and only 10% were offered a trial.
And aren’t dropouts an ongoing issue?
Indeed. Keeping patients in lenses is the other half of the equation.
In fact, in a 2024 CLI survey, 87% of people who had worn CLs for at least 2 years had never stopped.
New wearers were:
- Less satisfied than long-term wearers (67% vs. 86%)
- Top complaints: cost (49%), handling (40%), and comfort (39%)
- Said the whole practice team affected whether they kept wearing lenses
- 74% cited their eye doctor
- 64% cited opticians
- 53% technicians or assistants
- 44% administrative staff
So what’s the solution to this?
As CL’s prior research has found: All members of a practice team influence a patient’s decision to continue wearing CLs—with that impact even more pronounced among new wearers:
- The rates: 12 to 27% higher than long-term wearers
The recommendation: Benefiting from CL wearers’ profitability advantage begins with “knowing where the practice stands today,” the report noted.
The goal: “establish a baseline, watch for changes, and identify where modest improvements may produce meaningful gains, while keeping the process easy and efficient.”
- See pages 36-43 for more on this, including score cards and incremental worksheets for practices to build from.
And from a big-picture perspective: what’s the takeaway from this report?
The crux: The data points to "compelling evidence" that CL patients are more profitable for practices. Across sphere, toric, and multifocal designs, CL patients produced higher average annual profits than comparable glasses-only patients.
What does this mean for future research?
Additional evaluations may look at how profitability varies by practice type, geography, patient demographics, lens modality, insurance, and pricing.
- Other possible topics: retention, dual wear, myopia management, refitting former wearers, and multifocal adoption
In the meantime, CLI recommends that practices track their own numbers and make CL conversations routine as well as use trial lenses and early follow-up to keep new wearers in lenses.
The takehome: "CL growth does not require a complete practice overhaul," the report stated.
And this full data readout is also being unveiled during Academy, right?
Yes! CLI is actually hosting an exclusive event in honor of the report’s release during the American Academy of Optometry’s annual meeting (Sept. 30 - Oct 3) in Anaheim, California.
On the agenda: Lead researchers Lyndon Jones, PhD, DSc, FRSC, FCOptom, and Philip Morgan, BSc, PhD, MCOptom, FAAO, will take the stage.
If you couldn’t score an invite—not to worry: the full report can be downloaded here.