Board votes to support amended sunset bill SB 776; discusses email requirement and eyeglass prescription issues

The California State Board of Optometry voted to support SB 776 (Sen. Ashby), the board’s sunset bill as currently drafted, and discussed multiple proposed policy changes and stakeholder concerns that remain under negotiation.

Board action: Dr. Wong made a motion to support SB 776 in its current form; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote with seven ayes (Member Sue, Member Clepa, Dr. Pruett, Dr. Wong, Dr. Bragg, Vice President Linden and President Jeffrey Garcia). The board asked the executive officer to continue discussions with legislative staff and stakeholders on outstanding policy items and to report back at the July 11 meeting.

Substantive issues discussed: Executive Officer Gregory Pruden summarized amended provisions under negotiation and several changes already negotiated. Key items in the current bill and in active stakeholder discussions included:

- Email authority: The bill seeks authority to require applicants and licensees to provide an email address. Board members discussed whether to require licensees to update that email within a specified period (for example, mirroring the 30‑day update requirement that applies to mailing addresses). The board directed staff to raise the question with legislative staff and stakeholders and return with findings.

- Mobile optometric office reporting and cap: Earlier language had capped mobile optometric offices at 12; that cap has been removed in the current draft.

- Mandatory reserve level: The bill increases the maximum reserve level for the board from 6 months to 24 months, aligning it with most other DCA programs.

- Probationary registration for opticianry: The draft adds probationary registration authority for opticianry, which the board supported as restoring authority that existed when opticianry was previously housed within another agency.

- Nonresident ophthalmic lens dispenser scope and prescription verification: A stakeholder (1‑800 Contacts) asked that eyeglass prescription verification rules be aligned with contact‑lens rules to make eyeglass prescriptions easier to use for online sellers, and suggested prescribers provide pupillary distance (PD) measurements to patients. The board discussed whether PD or other fit measurements should be required as part of an eye exam.

Public comment: A representative of 1‑800 Contacts argued the 2021 expansion to include spectacles was implemented with leftover contact‑lens language and urged reverting the spectacle verification language to the contact‑lens model. The commenter said online orders in California take longer than other states and asked that prescribers be required to provide prescriptions or related data to designees to facilitate online transactions. Christine Schultz of the California Optometric Association said the association supports the bill overall but opposes the proposed 1‑800 Contacts amendments, arguing PD is typically measured by opticians, that PD alone is insufficient to guarantee a correct fit, that adding PD to the prescription risks misleading consumers and shifting liability to prescribers, and that the Federal Trade Commission considered and rejected a PD requirement.

Follow up and next steps: Counsel recommended a straightforward support position for sunset legislation that maintains the board’s existence. The board supported the bill as currently drafted and tasked the executive officer to continue negotiation with legislative staff and stakeholders, including exploring an email‑update requirement and reporting back to the board at its July 11 meeting.

The motion passed and the board moved to the next agenda item.