Experts disagree in Vermont committee over S64 expansion of optometry procedures; testimony focuses on training, safety and access

Dr. Libby HooL, a practicing ophthalmologist in Vermont, told the House Health Care committee she opposes S64 as written because its training and oversight requirements fall short of what is needed to ensure safe invasive eye care. "S64 does not define how proficiency is evaluated," she said, noting the bill requires at least eight hours of didactic and clinical instruction per procedure and a minimum of two supervised cases per procedure. "Two cases...does not begin to capture the complexity, difficulties encountered, or proficiency assessment that are integral to surgical training," she said.

Her testimony focused on what she described as gaps in the bill's structure: no objective skill assessments, no specification of case complexity or outcome documentation, minimal continuing-education requirements, unclear standards for preceptors, and vague adverse-event reporting without independent review or enforcement. She also highlighted the need for emergency readiness and clinician availability for post-operative complications, saying "performing…