SCR172 is a concurrent resolution that creates the Optometric Practice Task Force under the Legislative Research Commission. The task force is directed to conduct a comprehensive review of optometry in Kentucky, including the profession’s scope of practice, expanded therapeutic authority, licensure and education requirements, and the composition of the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners. It is intended to gather data and make recommendations to the General Assembly rather than immediately change substantive law.
The resolution also specifies a broad, multi-stakeholder membership for the task force. Appointees include legislators from both chambers and both parties, representatives of the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners, the Kentucky Optometric Association, the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, the Kentucky Academy of Eye Physicians and Surgeons, the University of Kentucky College of Medicine, the University of Louisville School of Medicine, the Kentucky College of Optometry at the University of Pikeville, and the Attorney General or a designee. The task force is to meet monthly during the 2026 Interim and report its findings and recommendations by October 31, 2026, though the Legislative Research Commission may instead assign the issues to an existing interim committee or subcommittee.
The bill’s impact on state law is procedural and advisory rather than regulatory. It does not itself expand or restrict optometrists’ authority, alter licensure standards, or change the makeup of the board; instead, it creates a formal study process that could lead to future legislation or administrative changes affecting optometrists, ophthalmologists, medical licensing bodies, educational institutions, and patients receiving eye care in Kentucky. Because it is a concurrent resolution, it functions as a legislative study directive and does not require gubernatorial approval.
General sentiment in the bill text is supportive of review and modernization. The findings emphasize the evolution of optometry, the need to balance access to care with clinical safety, and the importance of keeping practitioners current in a rapidly changing field. The resolution frames the task force as a way to produce informed, data-driven recommendations for future policy decisions, suggesting a cautious but constructive approach rather than an immediate policy shift.
The main point of contention implied by the resolution is the scope of optometric practice, especially expanded therapeutic procedures such as injections and laser surgeries, and how those powers should be regulated. The inclusion of both optometric and medical stakeholders, along with the Attorney General, indicates that the issue may involve differing views between optometrists seeking broader practice authority and physicians/eye surgeons concerned about patient safety, training standards, and regulatory oversight. The composition of the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners is also flagged as an area for possible reevaluation, suggesting potential debate over board structure and professional representation.
SCR172 does not amend Kentucky statutes directly; it establishes a legislative task force to study optometric regulation and make recommendations. Its practical impact is to create a formal review process that could influence future changes to scope-of-practice laws, licensure and education requirements, and oversight of the Kentucky Board of Optometric Examiners. The resolution may also be reassigned by the Legislative Research Commission to an existing interim committee or subcommittee.
The overall tone of the resolution is favorable toward a careful review of optometric practice and modernization of the regulatory framework. The findings describe optometry as an evolving profession and emphasize the need for balanced oversight, patient access, and clinical safety. No votes or committee debate are provided, so there is no recorded opposition or support beyond the resolution’s own framing.
The likely areas of contention are the expanded scope of optometric practice, including therapeutic procedures such as injections and laser surgeries, and the adequacy of licensure, education, and board oversight for those expanded powers. Optometrists and their association may favor broader authority and updated rules, while medical licensure officials, ophthalmologists, and eye surgeons may be more cautious about safety, training, and the division between optometric and medical practice. The task force’s composition reflects an attempt to balance those competing interests.