Assembly committee hears optometry bill to add board member, clarify prescribing and teleoptometry rules

Assemblymember Greg Koenig introduced Assembly Bill 183 on behalf of the Nevada State Board of Optometry, asking the Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor to add a fifth member to the board and to clarify existing practice and enforcement provisions.

The bill would change the board’s composition to avoid tie votes, clarify which national examinations qualify for Nevada licensure, adjust language about prescribing certain medications and opioids, eliminate a contested Section 4, and add administrative tools such as citations and fines for nonpublic-safety violations, according to Mariah Smith, president of the Nevada State Board of Optometry.

"We are not really changing anything," Mariah Smith said, "we're just trying to clarify laws that were already in place." She told the committee the proposal would: allow a fifth optometrist member on the board to prevent tied decisions; require licensure exams be the U.S. national board; remove an already-disputed Section 4; clarify that the board’s rules apply to teleoptometry; and add administrative penalties for paperwork or nonpublic-safety violations so they are not reported to national practitioner databases.

Koenig said the impulse for the bill began after last session’s board composition left a 2–2 split on issues, which he said made decision-making difficult. "At one point...two of the members were kind of leaning one way and two of the members were leaning the other way," Koenig said, explaining he asked the board about adding a fifth member.

Committee members asked technical and due-process questions. Assemblymember Miller asked whether graduates trained abroad could gain licensure; Smith said Nevada currently accepts passage of the NBEO (National Board of Examiners in Optometry) and that recognizing foreign training would require a separate review of standards. Assemblymember Cole suggested adding explicit timelines for investigations and interim suspensions—Cole pointed to the contractors board’s defined timeframes as a possible model; Smith and Koenig said they would consider that for an amendment.

The Nevada Optometric Association’s Danny Thompson testified in support, saying the association represents more than 200 optometrists statewide and that an odd number of board members would alleviate decision deadlocks.

No formal action or vote occurred during the hearing. Koenig and Smith said they expect additional, technical amendments to clarify prescribing language and that they have already removed Section 4 in response to committee concerns.

The hearing closed with the committee taking the testimony for consideration and no recorded motion or vote on AB183.

Ending: The bill remains before the committee for possible amendment; sponsors said they will work with staff to tighten language on prescribing and investigation timelines before any work session.