HF 2765 modifies Minnesota’s optometry scope-of-practice law. The bill updates the statutory definition of practicing optometry to expressly include the use of autorefractors and other automated testing devices, diagnosis of eye and visual-system conditions, prescribing lenses and prisms, providing ocular exercises and therapeutic vision care, and prescribing or administering certain legend drugs for eye-related conditions, subject to existing statutory and Board of Optometry limits.
The bill also clarifies what optometrists may not do in treatment. It prohibits intravenous, intramuscular, or injected legend drugs except for anaphylaxis treatment; bars invasive surgery, including laser surgery; and restricts certain oral medications, including Schedule II and III oral legend drugs and oral steroids. It further limits oral antivirals to no more than ten days and oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors to no more than seven days. The bill defines “surgery” by reference to the American Medical Association and American College of Surgeons standards.
Impact
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 148.56, subdivision 1, expanding and clarifying the legal boundaries of optometric practice in Minnesota. It affects licensed optometrists, the Board of Optometry, and patients receiving eye care by specifying both the services optometrists may provide and the procedures and medications they may not use. The bill does not appear to create a new licensing category, but it would refine the existing regulatory framework for eye care and medication use in optometry.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the overall sentiment appears supportive and technical rather than controversial. The bill was introduced by multiple House authors and referred to the House Committee on Health Finance and Policy, suggesting it is being handled as a professional scope-of-practice measure. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no evidence of recorded opposition or debate in the provided materials.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope-of-practice expansions for optometrists and the explicit limits on medication and surgical authority. Supporters would likely view the bill as modernizing eye-care practice and clarifying what optometrists can do within their training, while opponents or cautious stakeholders may focus on whether the bill goes too far in allowing diagnosis and drug prescribing or whether it sufficiently protects patients by excluding injections, invasive surgery, and longer-term use of certain oral medications. Because no committee discussion or votes are provided, specific positions by stakeholder groups are not identified in the record supplied.