Committee recommends amendment to S.64 to expand Board of Optometry and clarify Medicaid coverage

The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee on Wednesday recommended favorable action on an amendment to S.64 that would expand the Board of Optometry and add an ophthalmology perspective to board oversight. The committee acted at its May 27 meeting and recorded a tally of "10 0 1."

Legislative counsel Jen Carving told the committee the amendment adds a new section that would increase board membership from five to seven: optometrist members would rise from three to four, the bill would add one ophthalmologist member and it would retain two public representatives. The amendment also says that beginning Jan. 1, 2031, at least one optometrist member must hold an "advanced therapeutic procedure specialty" issued under the bill's new subchapter. "So to me, that means optometrist," Carving said while walking members through the language.

Carving also updated the committee on Medicaid implications. She said an existing statute in the health-insurance code requires Medicaid to cover the same vision and medical-eye-care services as private plans when those services are provided by a participating provider acting within that provider's scope of practice. After checking with the Agency of Human Services, she said the agency advised that Medicaid would therefore have to cover the services in this bill if they are offered by a participating optometrist, though a state plan amendment would still be required. "We still need a state plan amendment," she said, "but the agency of human services would not need legislation directing them to do that because of this coverage requirement."

Jennifer Cohen, director of the Office of Professional Regulation, testified that OPR supports the amendment as a "reasonable compromise" that will ensure an ophthalmology viewpoint as the office implements the advanced-procedure specialty and that it will preserve an optometrist with the specialty on the board. Cohen described board appointments as gubernatorial, five-year terms with a two-term limit and urged committee support. "OPR supports this amendment," she said. "We think it's a good compromise, and it will ensure that we have the ophthalmology perspective as we implement this advanced procedure specialty within the Board of Optometry."

Committee members asked whether the specialty requirement would require completion of the full training program; counsel reiterated that the draft language requires at least five years' in-state practice and mirrors terminology used in the underlying bill. Members also clarified that the added ophthalmologist would be a full, seated board member with the same voting status as other members, rather than an ad hoc reviewer.

The chair called for a favorable-funds recommendation on the paperwork for the amendment; the clerk reported the tally as "10 0 1." The transcript does not specify who moved or seconded the motion nor the meaning/order of the three numbers reported.

The committee also noted scheduling for later bills, saying an emergency-management bill set for 1 p.m. might be delayed because a cannabis-related bill could be taken first on the floor. The committee closed discussion on S.64 and moved on with its calendar.

Next steps: the amendment, having received a favorable-funds recommendation, will proceed according to the committee’s standard workflow for bills recommended to the floor; a state plan amendment remains necessary for Medicaid coverage to take effect, per testimony at the meeting.