Latest news with #HB449
Miami Herald
18-04-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Florida lawmakers must uphold high standards for eye surgeries
Americans who need eye surgery have long enjoyed some of the best care in the world under the skilled hands of our nation's highly trained ophthalmologists. However, Florida lawmakers are considering legislation that would threaten to compromise this level of care by allowing optometrists — professionals with significantly less training — to perform laser eye surgeries. Our leaders in Tallahassee must put patients first and reject House Bill 449, sponsored by Hialeah State Rep. Alex Rizo, who wrote an opinion article in support of the bill for the Miami Herald. On Thursday, the bill was placed on an April 24 special order calendar. This bill is dangerous given the risks to patients' vision and potentially permanent complications that could arise if a surgery is performed incorrectly. Although optometrists play a vital role in everyday eye care, they are neither medical doctors nor trained nor qualified to perform eye surgeries. Whether you need surgery to address glaucoma or remove cataracts, you want to rest assured that the surgeon using a laser on your eye is adequately trained before you go under. That's why these surgeries should only be performed by a licensed ophthalmologist, a medical doctor that undergoes more than 17,000 hours of instruction and more than a decade of rigorous training. This includes a four-year undergraduate degree, four years of medical school, four years of residency training and, often, additional hands-on fellowship hours treating live patients to ensure they can perform eye surgeries safely and effectively. While optometrists are excellent at their jobs and skilled in providing routine eye care, they lack the necessary education and hands-on training to perform eye surgery. Optometry schools do not provide the requisite knowledge and skills to safely operate on patients. Some proponents claim we need HB 449 to ensure that Floridians have access to surgical eye care. However, the data tell a different story: 96.3 % of Floridians already live within 30 minutes of an ophthalmologist. While continuing to improve Floridians' access to top-notch eye care is an important goal, there is no access issue — but HB 449 would let unqualified clinicians perform eye surgeries with only minimal training. How minimal? Optometrists would be authorized to perform eye surgery by completing a mere 32-hour crash course that can be completed over a long weekend. This is not sufficient — and should not be acceptable. In the handful of states where optometrists can perform certain surgeries, studies have shown that patients are nearly twice as likely to need additional surgery in the same eye when performed by an optometrist instead of a licensed ophthalmologist. This suggests a growing number of eye surgeries are being done unsafely by optometrists. Moreover, a recent Mason-Dixon poll found that 79% of Floridians oppose allowing optometrists to perform eye surgeries and would prefer to leave surgery in the hands of medical doctors. Additionally, 40 states, including Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and the Veterans Health Administration, forbid optometrists from performing laser eye surgery. The data are clear: Allowing optometrists to perform these delicate surgeries puts patients in harm's way. And due to the unique demographics of our state, Floridians may be uniquely impacted. We have the second highest proportion of residents aged 65 and above in the country, and older adults are much more likely to require eye surgery. In fact, about half of adults over the age of 80 have had or need cataract surgery. We could see a serious increase in the number of life-altering injuries and complications at the hands of optometrists. It is shocking that lawmakers would consider any bill that could jeopardize the safety and quality of eye surgeries. Mastering the skills to perform successful surgery on this delicate, vitally important part of the human body takes years of education, clinical training, and hands-on experience. If legislators allow optometrists to perform eye surgery without adequate medical training, Floridians could soon pay the price. Lawmakers should not lower standards for eye safety and I urge them to oppose HB 449. Raquel Goldhardt is a professor of clinical ophthalmology at the University of Miami and president of the Florida Society of Ophthalmology.
Miami Herald
07-04-2025
- Health
- Miami Herald
Florida has an eye care crisis: Let optometrists do more
Floridians have waited long enough. For years — decades, even — we've been tangled in a drawn-out brawl over expanding eye care, watching other states sprint ahead while we stumble. It's time to end the stalling, and let Florida's trusted, trained optometrists practice to the full extent of their expertise. This shouldn't be about politics. Floridians aren't interested in turf wars. We must promote fairness and delivering the best care in the most effective way possible. Yet somehow, it's still a fight. We're raised to own our health — brushing our teeth, booking checkups, staying proactive. It's universal, drilled into us for well-being and longevity. Floridians want that same control over their eye care, but they're hitting walls. In the Sunshine State. Eye care is a pipe dream for too many, especially in rural areas and vulnerable communities. In 2021, the Department of Health told the Florida House that 26 counties had zero practicing ophthalmologists. That's 26 counties where someone with a real eye problem has to hit the road, crossing county lines — maybe multiple — just to find a doctor, only to face endless wait times. Florida's got an ophthalmologist shortage, no question. It's an eye-care crisis here and across America. The American Academy of Ophthalmology predicts a 12% drop in the ophthalmology workforce by 2035, while demand spikes by 24%. That's not a gap — it's a gulf. Other states have tackled it head-on, empowering optometrists to step in and expand access. Florida? We're stuck in 2013, when our eye-care laws last saw daylight. Our population's exploded since — especially post-COVID — but our policies haven't budged. Optometrists here are shackled, unable to offer basic oral immunosuppressives, steroids, antifungals or even in-office blood tests. Expanding their scope isn't radical — it's a no-brainer fix to a shortage that's strangling care. This legislative session, I've sponsored House Bill 449 to level the field, to boost access and slash healthcare costs for Floridians. Optometrists are trained, tested and vetted by tough regulatory boards. The system promotes safety first, as Florida's always demands. HB 449 tightens that further, tasking the Board of Optometry with yearly updates to certification standards — better coursework, sharper exams — holding optometrists to the highest standards of care. The bill would allow optometrists to expand their scope of practice to perform specific ocular procedures, but not invasive surgeries, with clear boundaries. Training and credentials are required, period. It's practical, not political. The bill is currently in the Health & Human Services Committee. But practicality doesn't always win when special interests unleash their brigades of lobbyists to guard their turf and their profits. This shouldn't be about who's got the deepest pockets in Tallahassee — it's about who's got the most to lose when care dries up. Most of the country's already ahead, two or three steps into the future, while Florida teeters on a widening care canyon. Time and growth won't pause. Demand will soar, and our current system will collapse. This legislative session is our moment. HB 449 isn't just a bill — it's a lifeline. I implore my fellow legislators to tune out the noise, focus on the need and let's get this done. Republican Florida State Rep. Alex Rizo is chairman of the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee and represents District 112 in the Florida House, which includes parts of Hialeah.
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A ‘clever' way for universities to pay college athletes for playing sports?
As a bill works its way through the Utah Legislature to allow universities to compensate college athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness, one state senator wondered if it's just a 'clever' way to pay them for playing sports. Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, R-South Jordan, also questioned why those payments wouldn't be publicly available under the state Government Records Access and Management Act, or GRAMA. Lawmakers also expressed frustration about putting sports ahead of academics during a Senate Education Committee meeting last week, with some saying what was once amateur athletics is turning into 'semi-pro' sports. Their comments came during a hearing on HB449, which would allow schools to directly pay athletes for the use of their NIL. 'Does that mean the university cannot compensate them for actually playing football?' Fillmore asked. Sen. Ann Millner, R-Ogden, the Senate sponsor of the legislation, replied, 'If they're playing football and they're a star player, the name, image and likeness is going to be part of what we use. So what you're really doing is compensating them because of the name, image and likeness that they have based on being football players.' 'That seems awfully clever to me,' Fillmore said. 'Why not just pay them for playing football?' Last year, a judge preliminarily approved a settlement in the House v. NCCA antitrust case that would create a revenue sharing model in college sports. If the agreement goes through in April, universities could earmark as much as $20.5 million to directly pay athletes starting in July. Most Power Four schools are expected to spend $15 to $17 million on their football rosters. Millner told the committee the court case is driving the legislation and the proposed law is necessary for the 'large' schools in the state to compete with universities across the country, noting other states are passing similar legislation. Fillmore also raised questions about transparency in the use of public money. Last year, lawmakers passed a law making NIL contracts with third parties, such as businesses, private records under GRAMA. He said that made sense because public funds weren't involved. 'But this is public money. I understand it's not legislatively appropriated money but regardless of that, when it goes to a university, it becomes public money,' Fillmore said. 'Is this information going to be publicly available subject to GRAMA because now it's public money?' The original version of the bill stated that direct payments to athletes would be public records subject to GRAMA. But the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, stripped that from a revised version, saying the universities believe the payments would be private under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. In 2023, Utah universities argued that NIL contracts are 'education records' under FERPA in a case involving the Deseret News' attempt to obtain athletes' NIL agreements submitted to their schools. FERPA broadly defines education records as 'records directly related to a student' and 'maintained by an education agency.' The State Records Committee, which lawmakers are poised to abolish this year, rejected that argument and ordered the universities to release the contracts. The schools appealed the ruling in state court where a judge ultimately decided NIL contracts are private records after the Legislature changed the law to shield them from public view last year. HB449 is now silent on whether direct athlete payments are public records but does not preclude anyone from requesting them under GRAMA. Millner said they could be subject to the public records law. Fillmore said it made sense that contracts between college athletes and outside organizations were private. 'But now that it's public universities paying athletes, I'm not sure that it remains a private matter anymore and that's something we ought to consider as we move forward,' he said. The bill prohibits schools from using state funds for NIL payments. Millner said the money would come from TV and media contracts as well as gifts and donations to the universities. The legislation requires an audit of NIL spending every five years starting in 2028. While Education Committee members said they understand the need for the bill, they were frustrated about having to consider it at all. 'It's unfortunate that our highest paid employees in most states are coaches. And it's unfortunate that we now have the tail wagging the dog when it comes to education,' said Sen. Kathleen Reibe, D-Cottonwood Heights. 'I understand this bill is somewhat necessary if we want to be competing in the academic sports arena but it's really unfortunate that we put so much time and energy into these sports and we're cutting school budgets but we're increasing our access to better athletes.' University of Utah football coach Kyle Whittingham is the highest paid state employee, making $5.7 million in 2025, according to the state website TransparentUtah. Reibe voted for the bill but said 'at some point we all have to recognize that our education institutions are education institutions and not sporting arenas. This really frustrates me.' Senate Education Committee Chair John Johnson, R-North Ogden, echoed Reibe's comments. 'Utah needs a law regarding direct athlete payments but lawmakers need to ask themselves, 'Are we funding universities as academic institutions or are we creating media … entertainment, I guess, for the general public?'' 'At some point we really need to ask ourselves how far are we going to go with this,' he said. 'Because now it really is becoming a semi-pro team and … we have to ask ourselves if we're in that business." The committee unanimously approved HB449. It's now awaiting a vote in the Senate.
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Utah law would hide direct payments to college athletes from public view
Public university finances, including salaries, revenues and expenditures, are generally public records. But a proposed law in Utah would hide direct payments made to college athletes from public view. Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, is sponsoring legislation that would allow Utah universities to directly pay college athletes for the use of their name, image and likeness. HB449 initially made those NIL payments public records subject to the state's Government Records Access and Management Act or GRAMA. But he stripped that provision from a new version of the bill, which passed out of the House Education Committee and awaits a vote on the House floor. Tuescher didn't discuss changes to the bill in the committee hearing that lasted less than 10 minutes. In an earlier interview, Teuscher told the Deseret News that direct payments would be treated the same as other university disbursements that are a matter of public record. He said after the meeting Tuesday that he changed the bill because universities maintain the payments would be protected under the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. In addition to setting the stage for direct compensation, HB449 also expressly states that college athletes are not university employees, whose salaries are typically open records at public schools. Jason Greco, University of Utah senior associate athletics director for compliance, expressed support for the bill at the committee meeting. But the school's athletics department declined to comment for this story. Longtime Salt Lake City media attorney Jeff Hunt said GRAMA should apply to direct compensation. 'Payments made by public universities to student-athletes should be treated like any other disbursements made by the institution, including being subject to open records laws. That requirement was in the original version of this bill, and got it right,' he said. 'Without transparency, the public will have no idea how this money is being spent or whether universities are providing female student-athletes equitable participation opportunities as required under Title IX.' Just days before President Joe Biden left office, a nine-page memo from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights defined NIL payments as financial aid that must be proportionate between men and women. 'When a school provides athletic financial assistance in forms other than scholarships or grants, including compensation for the use of a student-athlete's NIL, such assistance also must be made proportionately available to male and female athletes,' according to the memo. The Trump administration, however, revoked that guidance this month, saying 'the claim that Title IX forces schools and colleges to distribute student-athlete revenues proportionately based on gender equity considerations is sweeping and would require clear legal authority to support it.' Last year, the NCAA and its five major conferences agreed to a landmark $2.8 billion settlement in several antitrust lawsuits that would create a revenue-sharing model for schools to directly pay their athletes. Final approval of the settlement in House v. NCAA could come this spring, paving the way for universities to start paying players in July. Under the new compensation plan, schools would be permitted but not required to set aside up to $20.5 million a year in revenue to share with athletes, though as revenue goes up, so could the cap. Athletes in all sports would be eligible for payments and schools would decide how to distribute the money among the sports on campus. Most Power Four schools are expected to spend $15 to $17 million on their football rosters. 'Certainly, in most states, payments by government agencies to anyone are subject to public records laws, whether faculty, staff or student workers. That wouldn't include private universities, but payments from public universities to student athletes should be available for anyone to see. That is, of course, if the legislatures don't pass an exemption keeping it secret,' Dave Cuillier, director of the Joseph L. Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida, told the Deseret News for a story last year. In Utah, the Legislature did change the law to keep NIL contracts secret during litigation between the Deseret News and five public universities in the state. In 2023, the Deseret News sought athletes' NIL agreements submitted to their schools for review, largely as a check against undue influence and in protection of Title IX and women's sports. Utah universities argued that NIL contracts are 'education records' under FERPA, which broadly defines education records as 'records directly related to a student' and 'maintained by an education agency.' The State Records Committee, which resolves disputes over whether government records are public or private, rejected that argument and ordered the release of the contracts. 'Considering the public interest in college sports, the fandom and the immense revenue our public institutions capture from athletics, it's apparent to us that a university compliance officer reviewing these contracts to ensure players' eligibility under the rules is indeed conducting the public's business,' the seven-member panel determined. The schools appealed the ruling in state court where a judge ultimately decided NIL contracts are private records based on the Legislature's change in the law to shield them from public view. In separate legislation, a Utah lawmaker is proposing to scrap the volunteer State Records Committee in favor of a government-appointed lawyer to rule on disagreements over whether government records are public or private.
