Lawmakers hear split testimony on expanding optometrists' authority to perform laser eye procedures

House Bill 213 would expand the optometry practice act to authorize optometrists to perform specified laser and intraocular procedures after additional training and supervised live procedures. The committee heard organized testimony from both supporters in optometry and representatives of the medical community opposed to the change.

Sponsors described training requirements: graduates before 2026 would complete a 4-day/32-hour surgery-and-laser course with observation and supervised completion of procedures; post-2026 graduates with advanced procedural training in optometry school would need to pass a national board module and meet supervised-procedure counts the sponsor said mirror ophthalmology residency numbers (e.g., five trabeculoplasties, five capsulotomies and four peripheral iridotomies were cited as targets).

Supporters included practicing optometrists and association representatives who said the procedures are established in 14 states and improve access to timely care—especially in rural and underserved communities. Proponents cited experience data from other states (testimony asserted that Oklahoma has performed roughly 50,000 such procedures and that more than 146,000 have been done in the last 20 years nationwide with an adverse-outcome rate under 0.1%). They argued expanded scope would reduce treatment delays that can jeopardize vision.

Organized opposition from the medical community was emphatic. Dr. Rebecca Lanehara, a pediatric ophthalmologist and president of the New Mexico Academy of Ophthalmology, and Richard Romero representing the New Mexico Medical Board warned HB 213 is a major policy shift that could conflict with the New Mexico Medical Practice Act, which broadly defines the practice of medicine to include surgical and laser procedures reserved to licensed physicians. They cited a legal memorandum asserting that authorizing such procedures for optometrists could create statutory inconsistency and argued that some complications from intraocular laser procedures (testimony cited intraocular pressure spikes in roughly 30% of cases, inflammation and bleeding in 2–10% of cases and rare permanent vision loss) may require escalation to physician-level care, injectable anesthesia or emergency interventions optometrists are not authorized to perform under current law.

Opponents also raised oversight and accountability concerns: the medical board and other medical groups stressed differences in disciplinary authority and national reporting between the medical board (subpoena power, national databank reporting) and the optometry board (internal disciplinary processes) and questioned whether malpractice coverage and patient-compensation mechanisms would be equivalent.

The hearing excerpt ends with organized opposition testimony urging pause and further review; the transcript does not include a committee vote on HB 213 in the provided portion.