Visual impairment (VI) does have an impact on the quality of life and can interfere with the day-to-day activities of the affected individual. Global prevalence of VI is on the rise, owing to increasing population with increasing longevity.[1] Due to increasing literacy and a shift towards ‘screen based’ activities, VI could become a more serious public eye health concern than ever before. In order to implement simple strategies such as refractive error correction or a safe cataract surgery, one needs to allocate adequate resources as per the population’s need. It is very essential to have evidence in the form of prevalence data in order to be able to do this. The authors of this study have done a commendable job at finding out the barriers for uptake of these seemingly straightforward interventions. It is a well-known fact that age is the most important risk factor for development of VI. The reasons why a person does not access eye care despite VI could be a combination of multiple factors. Nearly a third (30.2%) of the population in this study had VI.[2]The authors have done their best to elicit the barriers for uptake of services in persons with VI. This study has some major strengths. Firstly, this sample is representative of the state population due to its robust sampling methodology. This means the barriers that are presented are likely to be true. Despite major efforts to reduce avoidable blindness and visual impairment by the government and non-government sectors,[3] and availability of low-cost service models,[45] nearly a third of the population over 60 years is visually impaired in Telangana.[2] Secondly, this study unfolds already recognized but persistent barriers such as economic reasons and personal barriers such as lack of ‘felt need’, no escort, other health issues, etc., The Ayushman Bharat Yojana floated by the government of India[6] mitigates economic barriers by financing cataract surgeries in some states. However, refractive error is a major reason for VI, and the cost of spectacles is not financed through the Ayushman Bharat scheme. Financing mechanisms for both cataract surgery and for spectacles would definitely minimize the barriers for uptake of services. The authors suggest some innovative solutions such as home visits, and tele-ophthalmology. For these strategies to work effectively, a large pool of alternate ophthalmic personnel, such as refractionists, need to be trained and utilized in a populous country like India.This study could have been stronger in some aspects. Some of the barriers such as ‘personal barriers’ do not give exact information on whether one or more barriers are faced by the subjects. Secondly, this study could not possibly represent other states in India due to differences in literacy and socioeconomic strata, which could affect perceived barriers for uptake of services in other states.There are certain future potential research possibilities which arise out of this valuable work. Qualitative research to identify complex and intermingled barriers for uptake of eye-care services could add value to present knowledge. Secondly, a pan India study to establish prevalence of VI and the barriers faced by the population in accessing services could give state-wise information. This could inform government policies which will enable allocation of resources to overcome the barriers. Operational research to validate and establish the effectiveness of alternative models of eye care could bring out a revolution in the way eye care is delivered in resource-constrained settings.