Citizen Portal
Sign In

Optometry scope bill stalls after lengthy debate; committee splits on study and phased rulemaking

Joint Standing Committee on Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services · February 17, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Sign Up Free
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The committee debated competing proposals to expand optometrists’ authority to perform certain laser and minor surgical procedures and disagreed on credentialing and timing; a motion to advance sponsor Senator Baldacci’s amended approach (with major‑substantive rulemaking and a study) failed on a 5–6 roll call, leaving further work and possible study language for the next steps.

The committee reviewed LD 18‑03, a contested proposal to update optometry scope of practice. The sponsor’s amendment and an alternative from the Maine Society of Eye Physicians and Surgeons differed on permitted procedures, credentialing standards, malpractice requirements, and whether rulemaking or a formal study should precede any expansion.

Areas of agreement and contention: During the lengthy discussion members noted some narrow overlap on procedures both professions accept (committee members referenced intradermal neuromuscular‑blocking injections to the eyelid and corneal collagen cross‑linking), but disagreed on broader additions and on credentialing details. Several members urged a deliberate study process and stronger board capacity before statutory changes; others argued trained optometrists in underserved areas need access expansions now.

Committee motion and outcome: Senator Baldacci moved to adopt the sponsor’s amendment as amended on the floor (including substituting technical rulemaking to major‑substantive rules and adding study elements). After debate the motion failed on a roll call (5 in favor, 6 opposed). Members discussed alternative paths including narrower statutory changes paired with a task force and major‑substantive rule requirements; staff will prepare drafts for future consideration.

Ending: The committee paused final action and asked staff to draft language reflecting the agreed‑upon guardrails: require major‑substantive rulemaking for credentialing and scope, include a study component, and ensure no new clinical activity is authorized until the board issues rules and the committee has opportunity to review them.