Kansas committee advances House Bill 2223 to expand certain optometrist procedures after debate over training and oversight

The House Health and Human Services Committee voted to pass House Bill 2223 out of committee after a lengthy debate over whether optometrists should be allowed to perform three specific laser eye procedures currently more common in states that authorize them.

Supporters said the bill would expand access to eye care, especially in rural Kansas, and that optometrists are trained on the three named procedures. Opponents said the change would be a significant expansion of nonphysicians’ authority, raised questions about patient safety, malpractice coverage and whether the Board of Healing Arts and other regulators should have clearer delegatory authority.

Rep. Bleck, who spoke early in the debate, said he would “fully support this bill,” noting long waits for ophthalmology appointments in rural areas and describing the bill’s value in clarifying what optometrists may and may not do. “I’m gonna fully support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair,” he said.

Rep. Bueller argued the procedures are within the training optometrists receive and pointed to testimony that optometrists in other states meet the same standards for the three procedures under discussion. Bueller also noted an option for a “32 hour certification program” that could be added by amendment if the committee wanted extra assurance. “This is a procedure that optometrists are trained to do,” Bueller said.

Several other committee members expressed reservations about expanding surgical authority to nonphysicians without clearer regulatory safeguards. Rep. Droge said he could not “bring myself to pull back from the expertise” of physicians and emphasized medical-school training and residency as differentiators. Rep. Bryce urged the professions to work out delegation or supervisory arrangements and pointed to testimony from the Board of Healing Arts suggesting optometrists may already be permitted to perform some of these procedures “if they have a physician in the loop.”

Rep. Ruiz and others framed the bill as a means to increase access in underserved areas. Ruiz said graduates from an Oklahoma program “80 percent” stay in that state and suggested allowing the procedures in Kansas could help recruit and retain optometrists here.

Committee discussion repeatedly returned to three themes: access (particularly in western and rural Kansas), competency and training standards, and malpractice coverage — specifically whether optometrists performing these procedures should be required to participate in the state’s Health Care Stabilization Fund or otherwise secure professional liability coverage.

The committee considered a substitute motion to table HB 2223 until the next session, made by Rep. Bridal and seconded by Rep. Reavis; that motion failed on a committee voice/hand vote. Members then voted to pass the bill out of committee. The committee record shows a voice vote; no numerical roll-call tally was given in the transcript. According to the transcript, the committee chair called, “All in favor of passing House Bill 2223 out, say aye,” followed by “Opposed same sign. No. Motion carries. Bills passed.”

The committee did not adopt new statutory language on delegation, mandatory physician oversight or mandatory participation in the Health Care Stabilization Fund during the meeting. Several members urged ongoing negotiation between optometrists, ophthalmologists and state regulators to resolve those regulatory and liability issues before the bill advances further.

The committee chair closed the session by thanking members and staff; the bill will proceed to the next steps in the legislative process after leaving committee.

Ending

The committee action advances HB 2223 out of the House Health and Human Services Committee. Committee members who supported the measure emphasized shorter wait times and increased access; opponents urged more explicit regulatory and malpractice protections before expanding optometrists’ surgical scope. The transcript does not record a subsequent committee amendment or a roll-call tally.