HB 2223 revises Kansas’s optometry law in several ways, primarily by expanding and clarifying what optometrists may do in practice and by updating related definitions and licensing language. The bill expressly defines optometry to include examination, diagnosis, and treatment of ocular conditions using topical drugs and certain oral drugs, and it lists specific procedures optometrists may perform, such as removing non-perforating foreign bodies, certain corneal scraping and tear-duct procedures, chalazion incision and curettage, removal and biopsy of some skin lesions without known malignancy, and selected laser procedures. It also states procedures that remain outside optometry, including surgery, general anesthesia, retinal surgery, corneal transplant, LASIK/PRK, and other major ophthalmic surgeries, while allowing pre- and post-operative care for those excluded procedures.
The bill also updates licensing and credentialing provisions for the Board of Examiners in Optometry. It requires applicants to carry professional liability insurance, authorizes fingerprinting and criminal history checks, and adds a new credentialing fee for applicants seeking board credentialing. For renewal, it keeps the annual continuing education requirement at 24 hours, including five hours in ocular pharmacology, therapeutics, or related topics, and directs the board to establish credentialing requirements for optometrists who want to perform the newly listed procedures. The bill also modernizes terminology and cross-references, including definitions for “health care provider,” “low vision rehabilitation services,” and “oral drugs,” and it repeals outdated sections of the optometry statutes.
In terms of state law impact, HB 2223 amends multiple sections of the Kansas optometry statutes, including K.S.A. 65-1501, 65-1501a, 65-1505, 65-1509a, 65-1512, 65-1523, and 74-1504, and repeals K.S.A. 65-1514 and 74-1505. The practical effect is to broaden and formalize the scope of optometric practice in Kansas while preserving limits on surgery and other invasive procedures. It also strengthens board oversight by tying expanded practice authority to credentialing standards, continuing education, insurance, and background-check requirements.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is favorable, though not unanimous. The bill passed the House on emergency final action by a wide margin, passed the Senate on final action with strong support, and then passed the House again on concurrence with amendments. That pattern suggests broad legislative agreement on updating optometry practice rules, with enough support to move the bill through both chambers despite some opposition.
The main points of contention appear to center on scope of practice and patient-safety safeguards. Supporters, including the Kansas Optometric Association, likely favored allowing optometrists to perform more procedures and use additional medications, while opponents may have been concerned about whether those procedures should remain within physician or ophthalmologist practice. The bill addresses those concerns by explicitly excluding major surgeries and anesthesia-based procedures and by requiring board-set credentialing for the newly authorized procedures, but the recorded nay votes indicate some legislators remained uneasy about the expansion.
HB 2223 amends Kansas’s optometry statutes to expand and clarify the lawful scope of optometric practice, authorize additional diagnostic and treatment procedures, and require board-established credentialing for certain procedures. It also updates licensing, renewal, insurance, background-check, and continuing-education requirements, while repealing outdated statutory provisions and revising board authority and terminology affecting optometrists, the Board of Examiners in Optometry, and related health-care providers.
The bill appears to have been generally well received in the Legislature, passing both chambers by comfortable margins and ultimately advancing with amendments. The vote totals suggest broad bipartisan support for modernizing optometry law, although the presence of meaningful opposition in both chambers indicates the expansion of optometric authority was not universally accepted.
The central controversy is the expansion of optometrists’ scope of practice into procedures and drug therapies that some may view as closer to ophthalmology or medicine. Opponents likely focused on patient safety, training, and whether optometrists should perform procedures such as laser treatments, foreign-body removal, and limited biopsies. Supporters, including the Kansas Optometric Association, appear to have argued that the bill simply aligns practice authority with education and training, while the bill’s credentialing and express exclusions for major surgery and anesthesia were intended to address those concerns.