Senate Judiciary committee recommends passage of bill to let optometrists perform certain in‑office laser procedures amid safety debate

House Bill 36, which would expand the scope of practice for optometrists to include specified in‑office laser procedures for capsular clouding after cataract surgery and for glaucoma care, received a do‑pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee after extended testimony and debate.

The bill would also require the New Mexico Board of Optometry to develop credentialing standards for optometrists who seek authority to perform those laser procedures.

Supporters told the committee HB 36 aims to expand access to eye care in New Mexico, particularly by reducing travel and wait times. Dr. Sarah Voorz, past president of the New Mexico Optometric Association, told the committee, “HB 36 would authorize optometrists to perform in office laser procedures in post cataract care and the treatment of glaucoma. These procedures are taught at all schools and colleges of optometry, and our training has been proven safe and effective by both 146,000 laser procedures being performed by optometrists with only 2 adverse events and the fact that medical malpractice rates have not increased in the 12 states that allow optometrists to do these procedures.”

Opponents, including practicing ophthalmologists and affected patients, urged caution. Dr. Rebecca Laneher, identified as president of the New Mexico Academy of Ophthalmology, said the training difference is material and urged the committee to prioritize patient safety: “We oppose HB 36, which allows nonmedical doctors to perform laser surgery. ... These procedures are not simple or easy and laser eye procedures can lead to complications that require emergent surgery.” Vicky Rutledge, who said she lost central vision after a YAG procedure performed by an optometrist in Oklahoma, told senators, “I left that day with an eye patch and a disability. Due to her laser placement, my central vision was permanently destroyed.”

Retina surgeon Nathaniel Roybal also opposed the bill, saying surgical training for complications matters: “Surgery should not be learned in a conference room. Surgery cannot be learned on YouTube. Surgery is learned by having a very experienced doctor over your shoulder and taking care of a lot of pathology.”

Committee members questioned training differences and oversight. Senator Duhigg cited figures from testimony contrasting clinical hours reported for optometrists and ophthalmologists and asked how much hands‑on, supervised patient training optometrists receive versus model training. The bill’s sponsor said the New Mexico Board of Optometry would establish a credentialing process and that a public rule‑making hearing would allow stakeholder input on training requirements.

During roll call, a motion to table the bill failed. A subsequent due‑pass motion carried; the committee gave HB 36 a do‑pass recommendation. The committee record in the transcript lists several roll‑call prompts and affirmative responses on the due‑pass motion, though the transcript does not include a complete numeric tally in the record provided to the committee transcript excerpt.

The committee record and public comment included references to multiple exhibits cited by opponents — including state Department of Health concerns in an FIR and studies from other states — and to differing empirical claims about complication rates and access outcomes. The sponsor emphasized that credentialing and rule‑making would happen through the Board of Optometry if the bill becomes law.

The bill now moves to the next step in the legislative process per the committee’s recommendation.