Committee hears hours of testimony on expanding optometrists’ scope; SF 1144 laid over

Senate File 1144, a measure to expand the scope of practice for doctors of optometry in Minnesota, drew extended testimony on Feb. 25 from optometrists, ophthalmologists, academic medical centers and patients. The committee laid the bill over for further consideration rather than voting it out of committee.

Sponsor Sen. McQuaid described the bill as a modernization of scope that would align Minnesota with many other states. The proposal would allow doctors of optometry to prescribe oral antivirals for ocular conditions, permit oral steroids for up to 14 days, remove a seven‑day limit on prescribing oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors for eye pressure, and authorize routine in‑office injections for numbing surface skin and treating minor eyelid conditions. The sponsor and supporters said those changes would increase access to timely eye care, particularly in rural and underserved areas.

Supporters included Randy Kemper, past president of the Minnesota Optometric Association; Dr. Lauren Haverly, a St. Paul optometrist; and Dr. Tina McCarty, chair of the Minnesota State Board of Optometry's public policy and planning committee. They cited training, patient demand and experiences in other states. Kemper said the proposal ‘‘brings the care Minnesotans need from trusted providers with the training to make complex medical decisions.’’ McCarty said the state board supported the bill and framed it as a public‑health issue driven by outdated statute.

Opponents from organized medicine urged caution. Dr. Amanda Moultrie, a general ophthalmologist and president of the Minnesota Academy of Eye Physicians and Surgeons, testified the bill’s language is "dangerously broad" and that certain medications and periocular injections can produce severe systemic or ocular complications that require physician training to manage. The University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic provided written opposition; the Minnesota Medical Association also asked the committee to oppose the measure.

Several ophthalmologists and surgical specialists described the length and depth of physician training, the stepwise progression in surgical supervision, and the complexity of periocular procedures. Resident Dr. Megan Brown and oculoplastic surgeon Dr. Andrew Harrison described staged clinical training and the risk of serious complications, including blindness and systemic effects when injections are misplaced.

Patient testimony underscored differences in care experiences: Professor Akshay Rao described a case in which an optometrist referred him to an ophthalmologist whose diagnosis and MRI led to urgent treatment that restored his vision. Ophthalmology witnesses said such cases illustrate diagnostic complexity that benefits from a medical‑doctor perspective.

Committee members signaled they heard both concerns and support. Some senators argued the bill would improve access for rural residents and reduce wait times; others urged additional guardrails and better negotiation between professional groups. The bill sponsor and committee chair said they planned to lay SF 1144 over to consider whether to include it in a broader package of related professional‑licensing bills.

Next steps: SF 1144 was laid over for further committee work and potential inclusion in a scope‑of‑practice omnibus; no committee vote was taken on final passage at this hearing.