NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
|
SPONSOR: |
Coll |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
497 |
||
|
SHORT TITLE: |
Contact Lens Prescriptions to Patients |
SB |
|
||||
|
|
ANALYST: |
|
|||||
APPROPRIATION
|
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
|
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
Relates and conflicts with HB248
Responses
Received From
Regulation
& Licensing (RLD)
Board
of Medical Examiners (BME)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 497 allows
patients to have copies of their contact or corneal lens prescription. HB 497
still requires clinical assessment of the patient by the optometrist and
verification of the prescription by the optometrist, but makes it easier for a patient to go to a
“seller”.
Significant
Issues
RLD has provided the following related to HB 497. The bill:
1.
Deletes important provisions related to
requirements for prescriptions for eyeglasses and pharmaceutical agents. The
repeal of the contents of a prescription includes repeal of the contents of a
contact lens prescription or a spectacle prescription.
2.
Removes the sale or dispensing of contact
lenses, which are medical prosthetic devices, from the defined practice of
optometry, thus allowing anybody to sell contacts at retail upon a valid
prescription;
3. Adds definition of a contact lens
seller, but does not include restrictions, requirements, qualifications, etc.,
on who can be a “seller”. Hence, a
seller could be a flea market vendor, a beauty supply owner, a clothing store
owner, etc. as long as the buyer provides a valid prescription;
3.
Does not include any requirements for
positive verification of contact lens prescriptions by the seller;
4.
Establishes the contact lens prescription
expiration period to be a mandatory minimum of 24-months (unless documented
medical conditions warrant a shorter period), but does not provide for a
maximum date of expiration;
5.
Deletes an important provision that requires
the contact lens fitting to be performed in the optometrist or physician’s
office. Since fitting is included in the
definition of the scope of practice of optometry, only those exempt from the
optometry law, physicians, can fit contact lenses; and
6.
Does not include language that would
require retail (third-party) sellers and dispensers of contact lenses to meet
any requirements and to register to sell these medical prosthetic devices
regulated by the FDA and the Pharmacy Board.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
RLD claims there will be an increased workload for the Optometry Board and they will need additional resources, but RLD did not give a specific amount.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
RLD notes increased
complaints will increase administrative costs, and require more staff and board
time to process, review, and take action on these complaints. Since the Optometry Board shares two FTEs
with two other boards, this increased workload will have a detrimental affect
on performance measures and customer service for all three boards.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Optometrists are
health providers bound by patient confidentiality laws. Release of medical re-cords requires a signed
patient release. HB497 requires
optometrists to release patient informa-tion without a signed written release
by the patient.