Bénard and colleagues 1 report a detailed cost-utility study of femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) in comparison with standard phacoemulsification cataract surgery (PCS) and did not find FLACS to be cost-effective. FLACS was introduced into cataract surgical practice about 12 years ago with much excitement and anticipation. Here was an elegant procedure with the promise of greater precision and enhanced clinical outcomes compared with conventional ultrasound phacoemulsification for cataract surgery, the most performed operation. For many years, achievement of that promise was claimed based on small studies from enthusiastic early adopters. However, the strength of evidence showing no incremental benefit is now substantial. In fact, I believe that there are now more high-quality clinical research studies assessing the comparative outcomes of these competing procedures than available for any other ophthalmic surgical procedure in recent decades. In addition to large and wellcontrolled observational studies, such as that from a European registry, 2 there have been 2 recent, well-powered, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with similar results. From the UK, Day et al 3,4 reported 3-and 12-month results of an RCT with 785 participants randomly assigned to either FLACS or PCS and found FLACS to be noninferior, with no difference in masked assessments of unaided distance vision, corrected visual acuity, patient-reported outcomes, and achievement of the refractive target within one-half diopter. From France, Schweitzer et al 5 reported their RCT in which 907 participants were also masked using a sham laser procedure for those randomly assigned to PCS. No statistically significant difference in surgical success, defined as a composite of 4 outcomes at 3 months after surgery (absence of severe complication, best-corrected visual acuity, an absolute refractive error of 0.75 diopters or less, induced corneal astigmatism of 0.5 diopters or less, and axis of astigmatism change of 20°or less) was found. Additionally, no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of each of their individual composite measures was noted. Not surprisingly, in the absence of demonstrated clinical benefit, FLACS was not found to be cost-effective in either the UK or the French study.In the domain of pharmaceuticals, we have come to expect and demand the performance of several well-run RCTs