California Optometrists advocate for radio frequency treatment of dry eye disease

In a pivotal meeting held on February 14, 2025, the California State Board of Optometry gathered to discuss the potential inclusion of radio frequency (RF) technology in the optometric practice for treating dry eye disease. The atmosphere was charged with anticipation as optometrists and stakeholders voiced their support for this noninvasive treatment, which many believe could significantly enhance patient care across the state.

The meeting featured passionate testimonies from various optometrists, including one from Rio Linda who emphasized the simplicity and safety of RF therapy. He likened the procedure to using a warm compress, arguing that it should not be classified as surgery. This sentiment was echoed by numerous speakers who highlighted the growing prevalence of dry eye disease and the need for effective, accessible treatments, particularly in underserved areas.

Christine Schultz, representing the California Optometric Association, noted the urgency of the matter, stating that RF technology could provide affordable in-office procedures for patients, especially in rural regions where access to ophthalmologists is limited. The consensus among many speakers was clear: allowing optometrists to utilize RF technology would not only improve patient outcomes but also reduce healthcare costs by enabling timely treatment without unnecessary referrals.

Dr. Tommy Lim, a retired optometrist, shared his personal experience with dry eye disease, advocating for the inclusion of RF technology as a critical step in expanding treatment options. He pointed out that while intense pulsed light therapy is currently available, it is not suitable for all patients, particularly those with darker skin tones. RF, on the other hand, is safe for all skin types, ensuring equitable access to care.

The discussion also touched on the regulatory implications of incorporating RF technology into optometric practice. Some opponents raised concerns about the definition of surgery, arguing that RF alters tissue and thus falls outside the scope of optometry. However, proponents countered that the procedure is noninvasive and should not be classified as surgical, drawing parallels to other noninvasive treatments already permitted under current regulations.

As the meeting progressed, the board listened intently to the testimonies, weighing the potential benefits against the regulatory framework. The outcome of this discussion could reshape the landscape of optometric care in California, providing optometrists with the tools necessary to address a common and often debilitating condition.

In conclusion, the board's decision on whether to approve the use of RF technology for treating dry eye disease will have significant implications for patient care in California. With a growing chorus of support from the optometric community, the hope is that this innovative treatment will soon be within reach for many Californians suffering from dry eye disease.