AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 63, Chapter 8, relative to optometry.
HB1952 amends Tennessee’s optometry laws to expand and clarify what optometrists may do in the course of practice. The bill revises the statutory definition of the “practice of optometry” to include a broader range of eye-health evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, prescribing, and certain procedures, including limited surgical procedures, use of local anesthetic in specified circumstances, and selected laser-assisted procedures. It also expressly lists procedures that remain outside an optometrist’s authority, such as cataract surgery, corneal transplants, intravitreal injections, retina surgery, LASIK, PRK, and other more invasive ophthalmic surgeries.
The bill creates new certification and practice requirements for optometrists who use local anesthetic or perform certain laser procedures. An optometrist using local anesthetic must maintain current CPR certification and have an AED present in the office where the anesthetic is administered. For laser procedures, the bill limits optometrists to peripheral iridotomy, selective laser trabeculoplasty, and YAG capsulotomy, and requires board certification based on training from an accredited optometry school or college. The bill also directs the Board of Optometry to adopt rules governing laser certification and states that optometrists are held to the same standard of care as other physicians providing similar services.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modernize and broaden the scope of optometric practice in Tennessee while preserving boundaries around major eye surgery and other high-risk procedures. It would amend Title 63, Chapter 8 of the Tennessee Code Annotated and add new sections establishing certification, training, and equipment requirements for expanded optometric services. The act takes effect immediately for rulemaking purposes and on January 1, 2028, for all other purposes, giving the board and practitioners time to prepare for implementation.
The general sentiment reflected in committee votes appears favorable, though not unanimous. The House Health Subcommittee recommended passage with amendment by a 6-3 vote, and the House Health Committee later recommended passage with amendment by a 16-3 vote, suggesting substantial support for expanding optometrists’ authority but with some reservations. No committee transcript was provided, so the record does not identify specific floor arguments, but the split votes indicate that the bill likely generated debate over the appropriate scope of optometric practice and patient safety safeguards.
The main points of contention are likely the extent to which optometrists should be allowed to perform limited surgical and laser procedures, and whether the training, certification, and oversight requirements are sufficient. Supporters likely view the bill as a way to increase access to eye care and allow optometrists to practice at the top of their training, while opponents or skeptics may be concerned about expanding procedural authority beyond traditional optometry and about ensuring adequate standards for complex eye care.
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 63, Chapter 8 by redefining and expanding the statutory scope of optometry, adding new certification and safety requirements, and creating express limits on prohibited procedures. It affects licensed optometrists, the Tennessee Board of Optometry, and patients receiving eye care, particularly by authorizing certain local-anesthetic and laser procedures under board certification and by requiring CPR certification, AED availability, and rulemaking for implementation.
Committee action suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill, with the House Health Subcommittee and House Health Committee both recommending passage with amendment. The votes were not unanimous, indicating meaningful but limited opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a controlled expansion of optometric practice rather than a wholesale change, with support tempered by caution about scope and safeguards.
The likely contention centers on whether optometrists should be permitted to perform limited surgical and laser procedures and administer local anesthetic, and whether those activities should be restricted by certification, training, and equipment requirements. Supporters likely emphasize access to care and modernization of practice authority, while critics likely focus on patient safety, the adequacy of optometric training for procedural care, and the need to preserve clear boundaries between optometry and ophthalmology.