![\"An](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/stock-eye-exam-doctor-1200x801.jpg\")
Photo via Pexels<\/p>\nPhoto via Pexels<\/p>\n
When it comes to who provides what vision care, you might expect optometrists and ophthalmologists to see eye to eye.<\/p>\n
But the daylight between the two professions has grown wider, and stormier, in recent weeks as the two sides argue over S.64<\/a>, a bill that proposes broadening the kind of work optometrists can do in Vermont. Optometrists are eye doctors (with a doctorate in optometry) who do routine eye exams and primary vision care; ophthalmologists are medical doctors with more extensive training to perform surgery and treat eye diseases.<\/p>\n The bill was poised for a vote Thursday in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, but committee Chair Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden Southeast, pushed the decision to Friday \u2014 the first crossover deadline day \u2014 giving committee members another day to consider the controversial bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf I had my way, based on some of the emails that I\u2019ve seen, the bill would stay right there,\u201d Lyons said, pointing to the committee wall, where bills wait to be taken up.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve heard some pretty negative and uncomfortable and not nice \u2014\u00a0I won\u2019t use other words \u2014 emails,\u201d she said. \u201cI found it really inappropriate. This isn\u2019t a personal issue. This is a professional issue.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The professional issue in question aims to address the perceived shortage of ophthalmologists in Vermont, especially in the state\u2019s rural areas, by giving qualified eye doctors the ability to do specific advanced procedures. The procedures the bill details include specific injections, certain laser procedures to treat glaucomas or cataracts and simple surgeries to remove lesions or little cysts on the eyelid, among others.<\/p>\n It follows a 2023 report from the Vermont Secretary of State\u2019s Office of Professional Regulation that found, with appropriate training and oversight, optometrists could safely perform those procedures.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, some worry about the volume and repetition that is needed to become savvy with these procedures \u2014\u00a0and have voiced concerns that optometrists won\u2019t get that frequency of practice.<\/p>\n Ophthalmologists (who have gone through four years of medical school plus four or more years of residency) worry that an eye doctor lacks the depth of context about bodily systems that may become necessary with more complex procedures or surgical complications.\u00a0<\/p>\n How, for instance, would an optometrist be able to respond to a complication following a procedure, Lyons asked. Would a patient need to go to the emergency room? Would their eye doctor be able to coordinate care with an ophthalmologist?<\/p>\n \u201cIn this moment for this committee, it sure seems like optometry and ophthalmology don\u2019t get along,\u201d responded Dean Barcelow, a doctor of optometry and the president of the Vermont Optometric Association, \u201cbut I have a dozen personal cell phones of ophthalmologists in my phone. I call them and I say, \u2018Hey, I need this\u2019 or \u2018This patient might be a little tricky.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n As \u2014\u00a0or if \u2014 the bill moves forward, a more limited version may find stronger support from senators. Lyons said she would be more comfortable with an expansion of optometrists\u2019 scope of practice that didn\u2019t go \u201cwhole hog\u201d and instead limits the number of procedures the bill allows.<\/p>\n \u2014\u00a0Olivia Gieger<\/p>\n In the know<\/p>\n Rep. Topper McFaun, R-Barre Town, announced in a statement on the House floor Thursday that he will be resigning from the Legislature on April 3, citing family responsibilities.<\/p>\n \u201cI will miss being here with all of the friends I have made over the years, working together to help make the lives of Vermonters better,\u201d said BestyAnn Wrask, clerk of the House, reading a statement from McFaun, who who has served as a representative since 2005.<\/p>\n Representatives in the chamber stood and clapped following the announcement.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2014 Charlotte Oliver<\/p>\n Anticipating that the Prison Rape Elimination Act may be walked back at the federal level, representatives in the House Corrections and Institutions Committee are considering a bill, H.550<\/a>, that would mimic the national law at the state level.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIf the states want to do something, they\u2019re gonna do it locally,\u201d said Defender General Matt Valerio, whose office is tasked with being a legal watchdog on Vermont prisons.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition to provisions for housing incarcerated people based on their gender identity, the bill would write the provisions of the federal prison rape law into Vermont state law.<\/p>\n The federal law, passed in 2003, mandates regular audits for compliance with standards that are designed to stop rape, harrassment and retaliation in prisons and jails. But President Donald Trump has slowly rolled back some of the law\u2019s protections<\/a> and defunded auditing<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The revision of federal standards, according to a memo from the U.S. Department of Justice, is to align with Trump\u2019s 2025 executive order on \u201cgender ideology extremism.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n The Vermont bill seeks to adopt the federal law\u2019s original standards into state law, naming \u201czero tolerance of sexual abuse\u201d and monitoring medical care for survivors of sexual violence.\u00a0<\/p>\n With crossover looming, committee members will almost certainly have to vote on the bill by Friday \u2014 or find a non-traditional path forward for the legislation \u2014 to give it a chance of becoming law this year. The committee didn\u2019t take a vote on the bill before the floor Thursday.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2014 Charlotte Oliver<\/p>\n