During the investigation of the Valley Eye Center, a Lasik clinic accused of medical malpractice, we asked state and local regulators which agency oversees Lasik facilities. The answers we got involved a lot of finger pointing. Because each agency insists the responsibility belongs to the other, the result is a lack of oversight.
The Nevada State Health Division ordered the Valley Eye Center to stop operating more than two weeks ago. According to the official notice sent to the clinic, state law requires the facility be licensed as a center for refractive surgery.
"The Department of Health saw all the publicity and said, ‘We got to close these guys down. Something's going on,'" said Dr. Vikas "Ken" Jain.
Valley Eye Administrator, Dr. Vikas "Ken" Jain, argues public pressure from an I-Team investigation of his clinic prompted the letter that has no basis in law, "If you look at the law carefully, it doesn't say you have to do 350.9 procedures a year. It just says as long as you do something other than Lasik, you don't meet the criteria for that."
Jain refers to an exemption in state law for ophthalmologists who provide "other ophthalmological services." Meaning, if a doctor performs any type of medical procedure other than Lasik, the clinic does not have to be licensed.
The exemption meant to protect local doctors with established practices has instead made the law virtually unenforceable.
During an interview with the I-Team earlier this year, Health Division Bureau Chief Marla McDade-Williams insisted the office charged with regulating medical clinics did not license Lasik centers.
"It just seems that's a problem waiting to happen," said McCarty.
"Yeah, I can't speak to that. I only know that they're not currently required to be licensed," said McDade-Williams.
Less than a week later, McDade-Williams reconsidered and sent a surveyor to Valley Eye.
"I personally think it was like a scramble," said Jain.
According to the resulting notice, the surveyor found Valley Eye did indeed provide one medical service in addition to Lasik. But that alone was not enough to qualify for the exemption.
The health division wrote "Valley Eye did not provide a comprehensive level of other services with an established ongoing set of patients." That's language found in the letter, not the law according to Jain, "That's not legal. That's not appropriate."
Lawmakers and lobbyists are already working to close the loophole during the next legislative session. So centers that perform surgery on people's eyes have some type of supervision.
It seems clear, even though the law was passed seven-years-ago, Lasik clinics have not been aggressively regulated.
As for Valley Eye, if it chooses to remain unlicensed, it will be up to the Attorney General to pursue a court order to close the clinic.
State law requires the facility be licensed as a center for refractive surgery.
Valley Eye Administrator, Dr. Vikas "Ken" Jain, argues public pressure from an I-Team investigation of his clinic prompted the letter that has no basis in law.
