HB36 amends the New Mexico Optometry Act to expand and clarify the scope of practice for optometrists and to give the Board of Optometry additional regulatory authority. The bill updates statutory definitions of the “practice of optometry” to include the use of diagnostic methods, vision therapy and rehabilitation services, and the prescription or administration of drugs for diagnosing and treating visual conditions. It also expressly lists certain in-office procedures that optometrists may perform, including removal of superficial eyelid lesions, removal of foreign bodies, corneal debridement, eyelash removal, tear duct procedures, and specified laser procedures involving the lens capsule and anterior segment of the eye.
The bill also strengthens the board’s administrative role. It authorizes the Board of Optometry to determine what constitutes optometry within the limits of the act, issue advisory opinions and declaratory rulings, and adopt rules for enforcement. In addition, the board must develop certification standards for optometrists using pharmaceutical agents and credentialing requirements for laser procedures, and it may suspend a license for 60 days if an optometrist uses pharmaceutical agents without the required certification. The bill also narrows and clarifies certain exemptions, including language affecting physicians and persons selling eyeglasses.
HB36 would change state law by revising several sections of the Optometry Act, especially the definitions and enforcement provisions in Sections 61-2-2, 61-2-6, and 61-2-15 NMSA 1978. Its practical effect is to broaden what licensed optometrists may do in-office, while also creating more formal oversight, training, and disciplinary mechanisms for the board. The bill affects optometrists, the Board of Optometry, physicians operating under the act’s exemptions, and eyeglass sellers.
The overall sentiment appears favorable, as reflected in strong bipartisan passage in both chambers. The House passed the bill 56-7 and the Senate passed it 26-12, suggesting broad support but not unanimity. The recorded votes indicate some opposition, likely tied to concerns about expanding optometrists’ authority to perform procedures and use pharmaceuticals, or about how the board’s powers are defined and limited.
The main points of contention are the scope-of-practice expansion and the degree of discretion given to the Board of Optometry. Supporters likely view the bill as modernizing optometry practice and improving access to eye care, while critics may worry about patient safety, professional boundaries between optometrists and physicians/ophthalmologists, and whether the board should have authority to define or enforce procedures that approach surgical or medical treatment. The bill attempts to address those concerns by explicitly excluding surgery and injections except for specific listed procedures and by tying pharmaceutical and laser use to certification and credentialing requirements.
HB36 revises the Optometry Act to expand permissible optometric services, authorize specified minor in-office procedures and certain laser uses, and require board-established certification and credentialing for pharmaceutical agents and laser procedures. It also gives the Board of Optometry broader rulemaking, enforcement, and disciplinary powers, while clarifying exemptions for physicians and eyeglass sellers. The bill directly affects licensure, scope of practice, and professional regulation for optometrists in New Mexico.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, with substantial majorities in both the House and Senate. The final votes—56-7 in the House and 26-12 in the Senate—suggest broad agreement on updating optometry practice standards, though a meaningful minority opposed the measure. The opposition likely reflected caution about expanding clinical authority and the board’s regulatory reach.
The primary controversy is whether optometrists should be allowed to perform the newly listed procedures and use pharmaceutical agents and lasers under board certification. Opponents may have been concerned about overlap with physician and ophthalmologist practice, patient safety, and whether the Board of Optometry should have authority to define and police the scope of practice so broadly. Supporters likely argued the bill improves access to care and modernizes the profession while keeping surgery and injections largely off-limits.