Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Professions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears bill to add a fifth member, expand enforcement options for State Board of Optometry
Summary
AB 183 would add a fifth member to the Nevada State Board of Optometry, alter the board's suspension and cease‑and‑desist authority, clarify prescribing limits and telemedicine rules; proponents said the bill is cleanup and not a scope expansion for optometrist prescribing.
Assembly Bill 183 was heard May 13 by the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. Sponsor Assemblyman Greg Koenig and Mariah Smith, president of the Nevada State Board of Optometry, described the measure as “cleanup” intended to avoid ties on the four‑member board and align investigatory and suspension procedures with other health‑care boards.
Koenig said he proposed adding a fifth board member so the board would not deadlock on votes. Mariah Smith said the most substantive changes are: section 3 (suspension/cease‑and‑desist authority), sections 5 and 9.5 (clarifying prescribing parameters), and sections 6 and 7 (board composition and investigator assignments). She explicitly stated, "there is no scope expansion here... the medications that optometrists can prescribe are schedules 3 through 5," and that prescribing must be “related to the eye and Adnexa as it currently is.”
Adam Schneider, executive director for the State Board of Optometry, told senators that the suspension/cease‑and‑desist language mirrors other health‑care provider chapters and does not provide for compensation for lost time or wages for licensees; "that does not exist in this bill nor in the other, statutes," he said. Schneider described the process as tied to existing probable‑cause procedures and due‑process protections.
Committee members asked detailed questions. Vice Chair Daley pressed whether a licensee could recover lost wages following a suspension; staff and board representatives replied that neither the bill nor the related statutes provide for lost‑time compensation. Daley also asked about reciprocity for applicants with an unrestricted license from another state and whether the national optometry exam requirement might be redundant; Adam Shire (executive director) said some other states allow alternate examinations that may not be equivalent to the national exam and that the provision aims to prevent importing practitioners who did not pass the national standard. Senators also asked about telemedicine: Mariah Smith and Koenig said the bill clarifies that telemedicine follow‑ups are within the board’s jurisdiction but that initial comprehensive eye exams must be in‑person.
No public callers or in‑room witnesses testified in support, opposition or neutral on the record. The hearing closed with no vote recorded in the transcript; the committee moved on to the next item.
