Board members spent an extended portion of their meeting reviewing national regulatory developments, state regulatory language and administrative systems.

At the start of the discussion the president summarized takeaways from the Association of Regulatory Boards (ARBO) meeting, including national concerns about expanding scopes of practice and corporate entities that employ or control non‑OD owners. She said Kansas’ use of the Medicare definition of supervision has helped the state manage scope-of-practice issues. Board members then focused on whether VA-employed clinicians must hold a Kansas license and how VA institutional policies intersect with state oversight. Dawn Bircher read to the board from VA guidance: although VA facilities are federal sites, the VA states a board may be notified and can take disciplinary action when a VA clinician’s practice “substantially fails to meet the generally accepted standards of clinical practice.” Legal counsel and board members noted this is a complex, evolving area: a recent Ohio decision was described in which a judge concluded an optometrist must follow the standards of the state in which the hospital sits, not necessarily the state that issued the clinician’s license.

Board members discussed practical consequences. Some said the VA system typically manages adverse credentialing internally, while others said the board could have a role in parallel state discipline where the licensee is within Kansas jurisdiction. The board asked staff to compile questions for the Midwest VA hospital attorney to clarify federal–state boundaries and notification processes.

The meeting then moved to administrative matters: staff reported a continuing-education (CE) regulation change (from 16 live hours to 12 live hours for a renewal period) triggered some database mismatches during the recent renewal cycle. The executive officer reported that the current licensing database still expects the prior CE configuration and that a vendor fix on the back end would cost approximately $5,000; staff recommended paying the vendor so renewals will process correctly next season. The executive officer also described progress on a new licensing database that would provide better back-end access for board members and allow applicants to upload photos and referees to sign electronically.

Legal counsel reviewed the board’s statutory authority and a draft spreadsheet for the mandatory five-year review of administrative regulations. Counsel highlighted one regulation, 65-5-12, requiring competency testing for any reinstatement after a lapse, and observed the statute (65-15-09) gives the board discretion to require testing. Counsel recommended the board consider revoking or revising 65-5-12 because the regulation reads as always-required while the statute allows discretion. The board also discussed 65-5-14 (biennial renewal timing) as an administrative matter that could be revoked or revised to simplify renewals and even out fiscal-year revenue timing.

After discussion the board voted to submit the five-year rules-and-regs review with counsel’s recommendations (including marking select rules for potential revocation) and to instruct staff to continue work on the licensing database options and the $5,000 interim fix. The motion to submit the review passed with board approval.

Board members also scheduled a full-day October workshop to include information-technology tabletop exercises with the Office of Information Technology Services (OITS) and a regulatory work session to address trade-name policy and institutional knowledge transfer among board members.