California State Board of Optometry approves legislative proposals for 2025 sunset report and begins in-depth review of draft report

The California State Board of Optometry on Oct. 11 approved several statutory proposals for inclusion in the board's 2025 sunset report and began a chapter-by-chapter review of the draft report that staff expects to return to the board for final approval in December.

The board voted to add a statutory definition of "person" to Business and Professions Code section 3040 to make clear the optometry practice act can reach business entities that advertise or hold themselves out as providing optometric services, a change staff said is designed to close a gap identified in an administrative hearing. Executive Officer Gregory Pruden told members the change "would make clear that business entities are included in that definition, but we are not licensing you as a licensed optometrist. Only a natural person can be licensed in that way." Christine Schultz of the California Optometric Association spoke in support during public comment.

In a separate action the board approved a proposal to create a probationary registration for opticians (proposed BPC 2555.6), mirroring an authority that exists for optometrists. The new authority would give staff and the board a third option beyond approval or denial for applicants who present conviction histories or other circumstances where terms and conditions are appropriate. The board voted to instruct staff to amend the proposed language to clarify that any supervising individual must be in good standing and either be registered in an equivalent opticianry class or be a licensed optometrist or physician/surgeon.

The board also approved statutory language (proposed BPC 2552.1 and 3029) requiring applicants, registrants and licensees who already have an electronic mail address to provide it to the board by an implementation date (staff proposed 07/01/2026). Staff emphasized the proposal would not force anyone to create an email address; Member Pruitt raised data-security concerns, and staff replied that the board already holds other sensitive personal data and would treat email addresses as confidential. That proposal passed with one recorded abstention by Member Pruitt.

Separately, the board approved adding language to the continuing-education statute (BPC 3059) encouraging optometrists to take courses on diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Staff and members said the board has already published a curated list of DEIB courses and plans to update the list periodically.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes (06/14/2024): motion carried by roll-call vote. - 2025 board/committee meeting calendar: approved by roll-call vote. - Proposal 5a (define "person" in BPC 3040): approved for inclusion in the sunset report. - Proposal 5b (probationary registration for opticianry, BPC 2555.6): approved with staff amendment directing clarifying language on supervising individual. - Proposal 5c (require email if licensee has one, BPC 2552.1 & 3029): approved; Member Pruitt recorded an abstention. - Proposal 5d (encourage DEIB CE, BPC 3059): approved. - Proposal 5e (non-substantive technical changes): approved.

Why it matters The proposals are intended to sharpen the board's enforcement tools (by clarifying that business entities may be accountable under the practice act), expand staff discretion to protect consumers while preserving pathways to work for applicants with certain histories (probationary registration), and modernize how the board communicates with its licensees (email requirement). Each approved item will be placed in the board's formal sunset submission to the Legislature, which will use the report and subsequent hearings to consider a bill that typically extends the board's authority for another four years.

Sunset report review: key themes After handling the statutory proposals, the board began a detailed, section-by-section review of the draft 100+-page sunset report. Staff walked members through sections addressing: the board's mission and governance (section 1); fiscal condition and staffing (section 2); licensing and examinations (section 3); enforcement programs and citation practices (section 4); public information and outreach (section 5); online practice and nonresident registrations (section 6); workforce and job-creation data (section 7); IT systems (section 8); responses to prior sunset recommendations (section 9); and new issues for the Legislature (section 10).

Fiscal and staffing (section 2): staff reported the board is operating with a structural deficit that has improved from around $331,000 two years ago to approximately $63,000. The narrative will present the actual fund condition (the board is underspending appropriations because of vacancies) and explain the impact of vacancy cuts and recent fee changes.

Licensing and exams (section 3): staff highlighted dramatic improvements in application processing times (from months to days) and a planned reduction of the waiting period to retake certain exams (from six months to three). The report also flags declining pass rates on some national and state exams and notes the board will likely be asked about causes and next steps during the legislative review.

Enforcement and telepractice (sections 4 and 6): staff described an 85% year-over-year increase in complaints driven largely by internally generated CE audit complaints and unlicensed-activity enforcement. Members and public commenters raised concerns about retail or telehealth models in which unlicensed technicians perform testing while a remote, licensed clinician later signs prescriptions; staff noted ambiguity in the statute's phrase "direct responsibility and supervision" and flagged that as a topic for legislative clarification.

Workforce and access (section 7): the draft includes 10-year trend lines showing flat or slightly negative application and renewal trends. Staff pointed to scope-of-practice limits, reimbursements and student debt as likely contributors to workforce strains and highlighted HCAI demographic data indicating language diversity among optometrists and geographic gaps (Central Valley particularly underserved).

Next steps and timeline Staff will incorporate edits identified during today's review (formatting corrections, updated national exam data, clarifications on supervision and statutory citations) and return the draft to the board for final approval at the December meeting. The board's sunset report is due to the Legislature by Jan. 6, 2025; if accepted as submitted, the Legislature will prepare a background paper and hold sunset hearings in the spring of 2025.

What the board did not decide Board members did not take final votes today on the overall sunset report; rather, they approved discrete statutory proposals for the report and began the review process. The board also did not adopt final legislative language for items that staff will continue to refine with stakeholders and counsel.

Selected quotes - President Jeffrey Garcia, opening the meeting, on the board's role: "The mission of the California State Board of Optometry is to protect the health and safety of California consumers through licensing, registration, education and regulation of optometry and opticianry." (paraphrased) - Executive Officer Gregory Pruden, on the proposed definition of "person": "We would like to have a definition of person ... that makes it clear that business entities are included in that definition, but only a natural person shall be licensed as an optometrist." (paraphrase of staff explanation) - Former board member Sandra Sims, accepting the commemoration: "It has been truly an honor to serve with all of you." (direct quote) - Christine Schultz, California Optometric Association, on 5a: "The laws were clearly intended to include business entities ... we appreciate you making this clarifying change." (direct quote)

The board adjourned after identifying edits and next steps. Staff will return a revised draft at the December meeting for vote on the complete sunset report.