Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Licensure Optometry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Split testimony on updating optometry licensure; physicians warn term 'optometric physician' is misleading
Summary
The Joint Committee on Public Health took competing testimony on a measure to modernize optometry licensure, unify licensure tiers and update statutory language; supporters called the changes overdue and opponents warned about potential patient confusion and scope creep.
The Joint Committee on Public Health heard testimony for and against House Bill 2,380 (and companion Senate bill) to modernize optometry licensure, unify licensure tiers and update archaic statutory language.
Optometry faculty and students said the bill modernizes an outdated statute, replaces gendered language, consolidates multiple licensure tiers into a single tier for new applicants and allows qualified faculty members to serve on the state board. "This bill is a necessary and responsible public policy that cleans up the optometry law," Dr. Jennifer D'Amico, an optometrist and professor, told the committee.
Opponents voiced two primary concerns: that deleting particular statutory language could be read as a scope expansion permitting procedures beyond optometrists' training, and that allowing the title "optometric physician" would confuse patients because it implies medical-school training that optometrists do not receive. Grayson Armstrong, a board-certified ophthalmologist at Mass Eye and Ear, said the term "physician" implies an MD or DO degree and argued the bill could blur patient understanding about providers' training.
Supporters said the legislation does not add medical scope; it replaces archaic terms and unifies licensing levels so new graduates receive the highest current tier, while existing licensees would be grandfathered. Howard Purcell of the New England College of Optometry asked to allow qualified faculty to serve on the Board of Registration in Optometry, noting that the state no longer administers the in-school licensing exam and faculty participation on the board is appropriate.
What happened next: committee members heard both sides; no recorded committee vote was taken during the hearing. Supporters asked for a favorable report and opponents asked the committee to preserve safeguards in current law.
Ending: Committee staff will review written testimony and technical language; both sides urged precise statutory language to prevent unintended consequences.
