ATTENTION ALL OPTICIANS

YOUR LICENSE IS IN JEOPARDY

Legislative Update-June 2025

• HB 2637 Board of dispensing opticians; repeal

This bill has been introduced for the past several years. It is part of the Republican majority plan
to eliminate what Republican leadership believes to be “unnecessary” boards.
On behalf of Arizona Opticians, we opposed the elimination of the Arizona Board of Dispensing
Opticians. The bill was scheduled for hearing, and we met with, and submitted written
comments to, committee members and other legislators.
Shortly before the bill was about to be heard in committee, the committee chairman
announced that the bill was pulled from the agenda. The bill has not reappeared on an agenda
since that time. The bill did not advance further this session.

Result: HB 2637 died in committee.

• SB 1008 eyeglasses; prescription

This bill, as introduced, would have established the prescription term for ophthalmic lenses, not
including contact lenses, for two years, unless otherwise specified by an Optometrist, an MD, or
a DO. On behalf of the AZOA, we opposed the bill as introduced and worked on a number of
alternatives to develop a description of the eye exam, as well as a maximum term for eyeglass
prescriptions. It took considerable time working with Senator Kavanagh to find the right
combination for him.

Following his approval of language, SB 1008 was scheduled for hearing in the Senate Regulatory
Affairs Committee but was removed from the agenda apparently because one Republican
member disagreed with the two-year maximum prescription term. Senator Kavanagh’s
approved language was never amended on to the bill.

Result: HB 1108 died in committee.

• HB 2761 health professionals; disclosure; unprofessional conduct

This bill was introduced late and did not receive a hearing. It is the “I’m not a Doctor” bill that is
introduced regularly by MD’s here and in other parts of the country. It would have established
as unprofessional conduct and as an unlawful practice enforceable by the Attorney General the
use by a health professional of any professional reference other than the appropriate title or

titles of the health professional as indicated in the applicable statute related to that person‘s
health profession.

Result: Held in the House

• SB 1235 health professionals regulatory boards; membership

This bill would have modified the composition of a number of health profession regulatory
boards, including the Board of Dispensing Opticians. While today’s board composition is five
members of the dispensing optician profession and two public members, SB 1235 would have
changed the board composition to three members of the dispensing optician profession and
four public members. It is safe to say that the uniform response from all of the affected health
profession boards has been opposition.

The bill was amended in the House Commerce Committee to restore the 5-2 dispensing
optician majority makeup of the Board. However, the bill at that point still contained three
other provisions:
1) a report on licensing by the state boards, including the Board of Dispensing Opticians (and all
other health profession boards.
2) the ability of the health boards themselves under specific circumstances, to fill a vacant
position or a lay person position on the boards.
3) the establishment of a council of three board executive directors and two laymen to act as a
review/approval authority on certain specific actions taken by all health boards.
It was viewed by the health professions that the new council would diminish the independence
of each profession.

These bills have very little potential of advancing in another form on another bill during the
remainder of the legislative session. We will monitor all legislation in the House and Senate and
report any legislative efforts on these subjects or any other subjects that impact the dispensing
optician profession. In the meantime, if you have any questions or would like any additional
information on any subject, please feel free to contact us.

Result: Held in the House

SB 1037-health boards; fund balances; fees

Would limit the amount of funds on hand by a health board or other licensing board. It
apparently has been introduced in response to some health boards (not AADO) maintaining
large fund balances while at the same time maintaining high licensing fees. The bill provides
that a board can’t have more than an amount equal to two years of licensing fee collections. If
it is at the limit, it must reduce or eliminate licensing fees for at least a cycle.

Result: Held in the House

AADO and our legal counsel along with your Arizona State Board monitor and
fight to protect your License. Our strength depends on your membership. Your
future as a professional is up to you!
JOIN AADO

Legislative Update-February 2025