Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Driver Vision Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas DMV proposes objective vision testing, reduces Medical Advisory Board workload
Summary
The Kansas Department of Revenue told JCAR it will remove redundant vision regulation language, make ophthalmologist forms more objective and flexible, and limit automatic Medical Advisory Board (MAB) review to reduce delays and liability concerns for eye-care providers.
The Kansas Department of Revenue proposed changes to driver‑vision regulations intended to reduce processing delays and limit onerous liability language for ophthalmologists, while keeping safety‑focused review options under the Medical Advisory Board (MAB).
Charles Bradley, an attorney with the Kansas Department of Revenue, told the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations that the department wants to revoke KAR 92‑52‑1 because it merely duplicates statutory language and to amend KAR 92‑52‑12 to give KDOR “greater flexibility” and to remove wording on vision forms that asked ophthalmologists to certify whether an applicant was “safe to drive.” Bradley said clinicians told KDOR they “don’t feel comfortable signing off on that because they … don’t know if they’re safe to drive.”
Under the proposed rules, the department would keep three review pathways for applicants who fail initial screening—an ophthalmologist form, a Medical Advisory Board review, or a driving test—but would make the first two less subjective and less mandatory. The vision form would shift to objective measurements (acuity, field of vision and similar metrics) rather than a clinician’s overall safety judgment. Bradley summarized the intent: the new approach is “far more objective” and should speed processing for applicants who fail a screening at a DMV office.
Senators and representatives asked how the MAB review would work in practice. Michelle Chavez, subject‑matter expert for the Medical Vision Unit at KDOR, explained that KDOR sends medical forms electronically to MAB and that a driver may also request a MAB review in writing at any time. She said KDOR will publish new frequently asked questions describing objective thresholds (examples given in testimony: best corrected vision for both eyes worse than 20/100, or better eye 20/60 or worse; horizontal peripheral field triggers also described) that the MAB generally uses to decide when a review is warranted.
Committee members sought clarification about commercial driver’s license (CDL) applicants and renewals. KDOR staff confirmed that CDL applicants and renewals are subject to the same vision screening at the exam office and would receive a vision form if they fail the screening. KDOR also told the committee that driving examiners may refuse to administer a driving test if they have cause to believe administering it would create an “unreasonable risk,” citing intoxication, blindness, or examiner safety concerns as examples.
Bradley said KDOR met extensively with ophthalmologists and legal liaisons and reached agreement on liability‑protecting language. The department argued the changes would reduce backlog at the MAB and speed license determinations for drivers who can document objective vision measures.
The committee did not take a final vote on the proposed amendments. KDOR staff said they will provide updated FAQs and process details for applicants and will continue coordinating with the MAB and practitioner groups.
Ending: KDOR will add public guidance and FAQs about objective thresholds and MAB request processes and provide the committee with follow‑up materials.
