Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Experts Split Over S.64: Ophthalmologists Cite Limited Safety Evidence; Optometrists Urge Expanded Scope With Guardrails
Summary
At a Feb. 18 Senate Health & Welfare hearing on S.64, ophthalmologists told the committee the U.S. evidence is insufficient to prove optometry‑performed invasive eye procedures are as safe as those done by ophthalmologists, while optometrists and educators said current training plus the bill’s safeguards make expansion safe and necessary to improve access. The committee will return for markup and possible votes.
Senate Health & Welfare committee members heard competing expert testimony Feb. 18 on S.64, a bill that would expand procedural authority for optometrists in Vermont.
Ophthalmologists who testified said the committee has not been shown robust U.S. evidence that the invasive procedures listed in the bill can be performed safely by optometrists. "No data proving similarity in outcomes between US optometrists and ophthalmologists has been presented, nor has any data establishing the safety of optometry performed procedures," ophthalmologist Chris Brady told the panel, citing what he called a single, small U.S. study and the limits of that evidence. Brady warned that studies reporting zero complications do not prove a procedure is risk‑free and used the statistical "rule of 3" to note small samples can mask meaningful complication rates.
Ophthalmologist Libby Gould flagged specific gaps in…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
