Photo via Pexels When it comes to who provides what vision care, you might expect optometrists and ophthalmologists to see eye to eye. But the daylight between the two professions has grown wider, and stormier, in recent weeks as the two sides argue over S.64, 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. 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 — the first crossover deadline day — giving committee members another day to consider the controversial bill.  “If I had my way, based on some of the emails that I’ve seen, the bill would stay right there,” Lyons said, pointing to the committee wall, where bills wait to be taken up.  “I’ve heard some pretty negative and uncomfortable and not nice — I won’t use other words — emails,” she said. “I found it really inappropriate. This isn’t a personal issue. This is a professional issue.”  The professional issue in question aims to address the perceived shortage of ophthalmologists in Vermont, especially in the state’s 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. It follows a 2023 report from the Vermont Secretary of State’s Office of Professional Regulation that found, with appropriate training and oversight, optometrists could safely perform those procedures.  However, some worry about the volume and repetition that is needed to become savvy with these procedures — and have voiced concerns that optometrists won’t get that frequency of practice. 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.  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? “In this moment for this committee, it sure seems like optometry and ophthalmology don’t get along,” responded Dean Barcelow, a doctor of optometry and the president of the Vermont Optometric Association, “but I have a dozen personal cell phones of ophthalmologists in my phone. I call them and I say, ‘Hey, I need this’ or ‘This patient might be a little tricky.’” As — or if — 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’ scope of practice that didn’t go “whole hog” and instead limits the number of procedures the bill allows. — Olivia Gieger In the know 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. “I 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,” said BestyAnn Wrask, clerk of the House, reading a statement from McFaun, who who has served as a representative since 2005. Representatives in the chamber stood and clapped following the announcement.  — Charlotte Oliver 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, that would mimic the national law at the state level.  “If the states want to do something, they’re gonna do it locally,” said Defender General Matt Valerio, whose office is tasked with being a legal watchdog on Vermont prisons.  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. 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’s protections and defunded auditing.  The revision of federal standards, according to a memo from the U.S. Department of Justice, is to align with Trump’s 2025 executive order on “gender ideology extremism.”  The Vermont bill seeks to adopt the federal law’s original standards into state law, naming “zero tolerance of sexual abuse” and monitoring medical care for survivors of sexual violence.  With crossover looming, committee members will almost certainly have to vote on the bill by Friday — or find a non-traditional path forward for the legislation — to give it a chance of becoming law this year. The committee didn’t take a vote on the bill before the floor Thursday.  — Charlotte Oliver Members of the Senate Finance Committee went back and forth Thursday afternoon on S.282, a bill that seeks to increase taxes for Vermont’s highest earners. Sen. Thomas Chittenden, D-Chittenden Southeast, voiced deep concerns about wealthy residents leaving the state to escape such fees if they were imposed. Several of his colleagues disagreed, urging against anecdotal narratives and arguing that patterns of outmigration from Vermont are potentially attributable to a number of causes. Three different possible amendments to the bill from Chittenden, Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison, and committee chair Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, suggested variations to the income threshold at which such a tax would be levied, and what the resulting revenue would be used for.  Hardy’s amendment would direct revenue toward universal free school meals and teacher benefit funds, which she said would “have the effect of lowering the property tax.” Chittenden suggested a tempered version of the bill, which would remove proposed fees on capital gains and raise the floor of the new tax bracket. The committee has scheduled a “possible vote” on the bill for Friday afternoon as the crossover deadline looms. — Theo Wells-Spackman Department of clarifications Yesterday’s newsletter did not capture the total scope of law around the legality of machine gun ownership. Generally, machine guns in existence prior to a 1986 federal law are legal to own.  Read the story on VTDigger here: Expanding eye doctors’ scope of practice gets heated . ...read more read less