Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Professions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates optometry bill; HB 12 circled for further work after concerns over prescription duration and fill practices
Summary
First substitute HB 12 (Utah Optometry Practice Act amendments) prompted floor debate over private labeling of contact lenses, prescription duration (proposed two‑year standard), and response time for fill requests; after discussion the bill was circled for additional stakeholder work and later placed on the third reading calendar.
First substitute House Bill 12, which amends the Utah Optometry Practice Act, generated extended floor debate on Feb. 12, 2003. Senator Bramble introduced the bill as a committee compromise addressing private labeling of contact lenses, standardizing prescription length to two years unless a medical reason exists for a shorter period, and clarifying related marketing practices.
Questions from senators focused on potential business impacts for suppliers and optometrists, whether a two‑year prescription is sound health policy for all patients (with particular concerns for elderly or youth populations), and operational issues such as whether optometrists would have adequate time to respond to prescription verification requests from national suppliers. Senator Bell asked whether the change would harm national contact lens suppliers; Senator Bramble replied it would not and that, in fact, a major distributor had supported the bill.
Senator Gladwell and others pressed for a clearer public‑health rationale and suggested that some patients (for example, rapidly changing youth prescriptions) might need more frequent medical review. The sponsor acknowledged those concerns and said response‑time rules for prescription verification were not addressed in the bill but could be the subject of a future amendment. After discussion, the chamber circled the bill to allow sponsors and stakeholders to address the outstanding implementation questions; the bill was later moved to the third reading calendar when sponsors reported additional outreach and agreement (floor record shows it later received 27 ayes when moved).
Quotes: "What this does ... it changes the length of time for a prescription, to 2 years unless the medical professional notes ... a reason for the prescription to be for a time less than 2 years," Senator Bramble said. "Why would we sit here on the legislative floor and dictate to optometrists about how long a prescription should be given?" asked Senator Gladwell.
Ending: HB 12 remains on the legislative calendar for further work before final passage; senators asked sponsors to engage optometrists and suppliers on response times and age‑based exceptions.
