Local View: Eye-popping legislation could put Minnesota patients at risk – Duluth News Tribune

Your eyes are remarkable, complex organs that deserve protection when surgery is needed on or around them. That’s why a current push in St. Paul should make every Minnesotan take notice.

Proposed legislation (

SF 1144

and

HF 1011

) deals with who is allowed to use sharp objects to inject medications and implants into or around the eyes. It would let optometrists (who are doctors of optometry but not medical doctors or trained surgeons) perform surgical procedures and injections without the training required of ophthalmologists (who are physicians and surgeons).

The difference in training is considerable. After college, ophthalmologists complete four years of medical school, a one-year internship, and at least three years of surgical residency; that’s more than 17,000 hours of medical education and surgical training. They perform hundreds of supervised surgeries before leaving residency to perform surgeries independently.

In contrast, optometrists after college complete four years of study at an accredited optometry school, but those seeking surgical privileges may have completed only a 32-hour certification course — often without performing a single procedure on an actual patient.

Training matters when it comes to safety, so why allow a lower standard for our eyes?

The vague language in these bills is troubling and would allow optometrists to perform procedures they themselves deem “non-invasive,” creating a dangerous loophole. The Minnesota Board of Optometry, with no physician representatives, could decide that removing potentially cancerous eyelid lesions with a scalpel or injecting medications directly into your eyeball is somehow “non-invasive.”

These aren’t merely theoretical concerns. Complications from injections in or around the eyes can include severe infection, increased eye pressure, optic nerve damage, retinal detachment, and serious bleeding, along with accidental damage to other vital eye structures. Blindness or the loss of an eye could occur. Surgical expertise formed in ophthalmology training can reduce risk and provide for immediate comprehensive medical and surgical care if complications do arise.

Minnesotans understand this distinction. A recent survey shows

75% oppose this legislation

, and 85% would prefer an ophthalmologist perform these procedures even if it means traveling farther. We innately recognize that when it comes to our vision, expertise matters more than convenience. It’s worth noting that nearly 90% of U.S. optometry schools are located in states that prohibit their graduates from performing these very procedures. With two ophthalmology residency programs in Minnesota, in Rochester and Minneapolis, Minnesotans expect and deserve a higher standard.

Optometrists are valuable health care professionals who deliver eye care by doing comprehensive eye exams, prescribing corrective lenses and medications, detecting eye conditions, and collaborating with ophthalmologists and other physicians in eye care. Their role is important, but it’s different from a surgeon’s role.

Your eyes connect you to loved ones, to beauty, to information — to everything. Before Minnesota lawmakers vote on this bill, please ask: When it comes to surgical procedures on or around your eyes, wouldn’t you want someone trained as an ophthalmologist taking care of you?

If you value maintaining Minnesota’s gold standard in health care, please contact your representatives. Tell them to protect patient safety by rejecting

SF 1144

and

HF 1011

or any legislative maneuver to attach these to a broader piece of legislation.

Some things shouldn’t be compromised. Your eye safety is one of them.

Drs. Kevin Treacy, Joseph Morehouse, and Lisa Graham are ophthalmologists in Duluth who wrote this exclusively for the News Tribune.

Lynnette Steen