Interesting point. Further, there is an assumption that such...

Interesting point. Further, there is an assumption that such technology will generate more work. If however the workforce is already at maximum capacity, then getting a larger share is a bit difficult - as there are only so many hours in hte day. You can not make the doctors work increasingly harder as they burn out.

The other option is to charge more, or do more caes in the same time. This technology (at least at the moment) takes longer to do, and so there will be less cases, unless vision can buy more surgeons. It is unsure that sufficient numbers will pay the additonal fees to offset the equipment costs, the slower treatment time, and without a likely increase in numbers.

Easy to play with numbers and suggest a $80Mill increase in revenue, but it is not based on any logical analysis of workforce output or patient behaviour. Don't forget that any claims of outcomes and the "right" to receive an increased remuneration will be opposed by Government and competitors. If it is so good, why only 4 in the world?