Board members reported highlights from the recent Association of Regulatory Boards of Optometry (ARBO) meeting and discussed implications for Kansas regulation, disciplinary reach and supervision of non‑optometrist owners. The board also approved submission of its five‑year regulation review to the state review process.

The board’s president summarized ARBO discussions about supervision and corporate involvement in optometry practice, saying the group praised Kansas’ definition of supervision because it follows the Medicare definition. The president told the board that at ARBO “100%, all federal lands, fall under federal jurisdiction,” and noted a recent Ohio decision in which a judge found a practitioner must follow the standards of the state where care is provided. The president read language from va.gov emphasizing that while VA facilities operate under federal jurisdiction, states may notify boards and pursue disciplinary action where a clinician’s conduct “substantially fails to meet the generally accepted standards of clinical practice.”

Board legal counsel Tim Raister and other members discussed limits of state authority when care is delivered on federal property or under VA auspices. Raister noted practical constraints — for example, disciplinary recourse may depend on whether the clinician holds a state license — and said the board’s primary options for nonlicensees would be limited. The transcript records discussion about pursuing additional written guidance from the Midwest VA hospital attorney; the board asked staff to consider compiling questions to send to that office for clarification.

Separately, the board reviewed the legislatively required five‑year regulation review spreadsheet. Board legal counsel prepared proposed edits and rationale for retaining or revoking particular regulations. The board discussed whether Regulation 65‑5‑12 (reinstatement testing after a lapsed license) duplicates statute and whether Regulation 65‑5‑14 (biannual renewal schedule) could be revoked to even out renewal cycles. Board members agreed to submit the compiled spreadsheet and counsel’s recommendations to the legislative review office; the board voted (voice vote) to submit the paperwork for the regulation review.

The transcript records no immediate statutory changes; it does show the board asked legal counsel to prepare the submission and the board approved sending the review materials to the state review authority.