To amend sections 4725.01, 4725.011, 4725.02, 4725.09, 4725.11, 4725.12, 4725.121, 4725.13, 4725.15, 4725.16, 4725.18, 4725.19, 4725.20, 4725.21, 4725.23, 4725.231, 4725.24, 4725.25, 4725.26, 4725.27, 4725.31, 4725.34, 4725.35, 4725.501, 4725.531, and 4725.59, to enact section 4725.012, and to repeal section 4725.131 of the Revised Code to revise the law governing the practice of optometry.
SB 36 revises Ohio’s optometry statutes in a broad way, updating definitions, licensing rules, disciplinary provisions, and the scope of practice for licensed optometrists. The bill expands and clarifies what counts as the practice of optometry, including the use of topical and therapeutic pharmaceutical agents, glucose-monitoring assistance, and certain emergency epinephrine injections. It also authorizes optometrists, subject to board rules and training requirements, to perform additional procedures such as injections other than intravenous or intraocular injections, chalazion incision and curettage, removal and biopsy of certain low-risk skin lesions, excision or drainage of conjunctival cysts or concretions, suturing other than corneal and scleral suturing, and specified laser surgeries.
The bill also modernizes licensing and administrative provisions for the State Vision Professionals Board. It updates application, examination, renewal, reinstatement, continuing education, endorsement, and telehealth provisions; adds criminal records check language for initial applicants; and revises fee authority. It preserves and reinforces board oversight by requiring rules on training and infection control for new procedures, maintaining disciplinary authority, and allowing cease-and-desist and summary suspension actions against unlawful or unsafe practice. It also repeals section 4725.131 and makes conforming changes throughout the optometry chapter, including related provisions for dispensing opticians.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand the clinical authority of optometrists while placing those new powers under detailed board regulation. In practical terms, it would allow optometrists to provide a wider range of eye-care and minor office procedures without referral to a physician, so long as they meet training standards adopted by the board. It also affects patients, optometrists, the State Vision Professionals Board, and related eye-care providers by changing how optometric services are licensed, supervised, disciplined, and reimbursed or delivered, including via telehealth.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text and available context is generally pro-expansion and modernization of optometry practice, with the measure framed as a technical and substantive update to existing law rather than a rollback. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call history in the supplied materials. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to align Ohio law with current optometric training and practice patterns while keeping regulatory safeguards in place.
The main points of contention likely center on scope of practice. The most notable issues are the authorization for optometrists to perform injections, minor surgical procedures, biopsies, and laser surgeries, and the extent to which those procedures should be reserved to physicians or other medical professionals. Additional likely concerns include the adequacy of training requirements, patient safety, infection control, and whether the board’s rulemaking authority is sufficient to prevent overreach. Supporters would likely emphasize access to care and efficiency, while critics may focus on the boundary between optometry and medicine.
SB 36 would substantially amend Ohio’s optometry chapter by expanding the procedures licensed optometrists may perform, updating licensing and renewal requirements, and strengthening board rulemaking and enforcement authority. It would also repeal section 4725.131 and make conforming changes to related optometry and dispensing-optician statutes, affecting the State Vision Professionals Board, optometrists, applicants, and patients receiving eye care services.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a modernization and scope-of-practice expansion bill for optometry, with an emphasis on training, board oversight, and patient safety safeguards. The available context does not show formal opposition or support, but the policy direction is clearly favorable to expanding optometric authority.
The likely contention is whether optometrists should be authorized to perform procedures that are closer to minor medical or surgical care, including injections, biopsies, suturing, and laser surgery. Opponents would likely argue that these procedures should remain within physician or ophthalmologist practice, or that the bill does not sufficiently define training and safety standards. Supporters would likely argue that the bill improves access to care, especially for routine or limited eye-related procedures, while preserving board oversight through rulemaking, training, and disciplinary authority.