Linda Schumacher-Feero,M.D. Testimony in Opposition - LD 1803 - An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Optometric Practice

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Ezra

Opposing LD 1803, an ophthalmologist in private practice argues that expanding optometric practice into in-office and laser surgery lacks justification because training and education have not substantively changed since the prior 2023 legislative update. The testimony describes AOA-driven template legislation as enabling more than 150 eye-related procedures, removing guardrails, and relying on a non-surgeon board to set criteria. It also highlights absent adverse-event reporting, potential patient-safety risks, and concerns about federal VA authority that limits therapeutic laser procedures to ophthalmologists.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages10

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Optometric Practice

Opposition and rationale

AOA initiative and template bill

Risks: training, oversight, and reporting

Federal VA policy concerns

Linda Schumacher-Feero,M.D.Testimony in Opposition LD 1803 # An Act to Amend the Laws Governing Optometric PracticeMay 13,2025 Good afternoon Honorable Donna Bailey and Kristi Mathieson,Chairs and Members of theCommittee on Health Coverage,Insurance and Financial Services, Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.Iam an ophthalmologist in private practice inAugusta with over 25years of experience.I have practiced side by side with threeoptometrists every day for more than a dozen years.As a physician with an ethical duty todo no harm,lam testifying today in opposition to LD 1803.Iappreciate the contributionsmy optometric colleagues bring to eyecare,but they have not been trained to think and actas surgeons.The legislature last approved updates to the laws governing optometry in2023.In the intervening time,there have not been any substantive changes in theeducation and training of optometrists that would justify the purported need to“modernizeoutdated laws.”1,2 Instead,we are being subjected in Maine to the first attempt of anational push by the American Optometric Association (AOA)to expand the profession ofoptometry into the surgical arena,a sphere in which they have wholly inadequate training.Over the last 30 years,there have been roughly 300 attempts by optometrists to expandtheir practice in 47 states,Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.The AOA began the decadelong Our Future Practice Initiative in 2018 to provide guidance,administrative,financial andoperational support to state optometric societies wanting to gain the ability to perform in-office surgery and specifically laser surgery.³The result has been a slew of copycat billsintroduced across the country in 13 states last year and in 12 states this year.Since theonset of the AOA Initiative,9 states(AK,MS,WY,CO,VA,WA,SD,MT,WV)have boughtwhat they are selling.Despite this onslaught,there are no states in either New England orin the northeast who permit optometrists to perform invasive surgery. The AOA template bill,just like LD 1803,has an exclusionary list of a handful of surgeries,allowing optometrists to perform over 150 different surgeries on and around the eye,notone of which they have been adequately trained to perform on patients from infants tomedically complicated senior citizens.The template,like LD 1803,also removes thelegislature and any other guardrails that prevent future surgical expansion by making theboard of optometry,whose members are not surgeons,solely responsible for determiningminimum criteria for optometrists to be allowed to perform surgery and going forward,what surgeries they will be allowed to do.Patient safety is further compromised by the lackof any reporting requirements for complications. Part of the strategy is to submit similar legislation in subsequent legislative cycles until thestate legislators pass a version of the AOA template bill.Among our close neighbors, Vermont defeated this bill in the 2019-2020 legislative cycle.The bill was resurrected butdied in committee in 2024 and is back for a third try,but has yet to be heard in committee (S 64).A bill based off the same template was peddled in New Hampshire in 2024 and wasdefeated there as well.This year's version limits surgery to lasers only.(HB 349).The.House has sent the bill for review jn the fall special session.Now the Maine OptometricAssociation(MOA)is going.to try advance the AOA agenda IN Augusta. The MOA designed this bill based on Colorado's 2022legislation.LD 1803 with itsexclusionary list permits more than 150 different surgeries on and around the eye (seeattached list of CPT codes),has no limitations on operating on minors,and makes theboard of optometry,which has no surgeon members,the sole body able to determinerequirements for optometrists to perform surgery and the sole body able to add or removesurgical procedures from the optometrist's purview.The MOA has already amended thebill prior to the public hearing,adding pharmaceutical and specific surgic

FAQs

What is the core reason the speaker opposes LD 1803?

The speaker argues that optometrists have not received adequate training to perform surgical procedures safely, and that education requirements have not substantively changed to justify “modernizing” the law.

How does the testimony describe the AOA’s influence on state legislation?

It describes the AOA’s initiative as providing support and guidance that leads to copycat bills in multiple states, using template legislation to expand surgical authority for optometrists.

What patient-safety concerns are raised in the testimony?

The testimony cites inadequate surgical training, exclusionary limits that still permit extensive procedures, removal of guardrails, oversight by a board without surgeon members, and lack of adverse-event reporting requirements for complications.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Ezra