03/11/2026
More and more media outlets continue to pick up our story that eye surgery by optometrists in KY requires independent medical oversight and higher training standards. Please check out this article by Dr. Chip Richardson, Past President, KY Academy of Eye Physicians and Surgeons. If you agree, contact your legislators by simply visiting https://www.safesurgerycoalition.org/kentucky/.
***********************************************************************
Eye surgeries are serious medical care
Dr. William 'Chip' Richardson Guest Columnist Mar 9, 2026
In medicine, one principle is constant: as risk increases, oversight must increase with it.
That principle is now at the center of an important conversation in Kentucky about who should supervise invasive eye procedures.
In recent years, optometrists, who are not medical doctors or trained surgeons, have expanded their scope of practice to include laser procedures and certain eyelid and eye surgeries, typically performed by ophthalmologists, medical school graduates who specialize in eye care. These developments have sparked debate not because of professional rivalry, but because of patient safety and regulatory design.
Optometrists provide essential primary eye care: prescriptions, diagnosis of disease, and non-invasive treatment â and play an important part of Kentuckyâs patient health care ecosystem. For this traditional role, a profession-specific regulatory board is entirely appropriate. But when care shifts from prescribing drops to using a scalpel, injecting the eyelid or the skin around the eye, or applying a laser to the delicate tissues inside the eye, patient risk rises.
Laser procedures that permanently alter ocular tissue carry irreversible consequences if complications occur. Even injecting anesthetic into an eyelid carries the risk of accidentally passing the needle into the eye itself.
Recently, news reports have highlighted litigation alleging permanent vision loss following an in-office laser procedure that has heightened public awareness of these risks. The courts will determine the facts of that case. But the broader issue remains; invasive procedures involving the eye demand heightened safeguards and stronger oversight.
In Kentucky, optometrists are regulated by a five-member Board of Optometric Examiners, which holds âexclusive controlâ over the practice of optometry under state law. Ophthalmologists, who hold the title of medical doctors, by contrast, are regulated by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure â a larger, multidisciplinary body that includes public members and physicians from various specialties.
The distinction matters.
The optometry board model works well for routine care. But when procedures involve surgical-level risk, the question becomes whether oversight should remain concentrated within a small, profession-dominated board or shift to a broader regulatory structure designed for high-risk interventions.
This is not about diminishing optometry. It is about aligning oversight with anatomy and risk.
Patient safety systems across healthcare rely on layered oversightâindependent credentialing standards, the tracking of complications, peer review, and clear disciplinary mechanisms. As risk increases, the oversight architecture typically expands.
Sadly, this does not exist today for optometrists who choose to perform these procedures, and patients are paying the price.
Kentucky lawmakers have an opportunity to modernize oversight in a way that protects patients while respecting both professions. Traditional optometric care can and should remain under the current board. But invasive ocular proceduresâthose that permanently alter its structuresâcould reasonably be supervised under the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure.
Such an approach would not restrict innovation or restrict access to care. It would ensure that the intensity of regulation matches the intensity of the intervention.
Vision loss is life-altering. Kentuckians deserve clarity when consenting to procedures that carry irreversible consequences. They also deserve confidence that oversight of those procedures is independent, rigorous, and structured around patient safety above all else.
Matching oversight to patient risk is not a professional turf war. Itâs about ensuring safety and patient trust throughout a Kentuckianâs health care experience. It is necessary to protect your most valuable senseâyour vision.
If you agree, you should write your Kentucky legislator and tell them to increase oversight for optometry surgery.
DR. WILLIAM âCHIPâ RICHARDSON, MD is a general ophthalmologist at Georgetown Eye Care and chief of surgery at the Centerpoint Health Georgetown.
https://www.news-graphic.com/opinion/eye-surgeries-are-serious-medical-care/article_b6199bc1-f5aa-47c8-8612-531a5fe500e3.html
In medicine, one principle is constant: as risk increases, oversight must increase with it.
