Arkansas doctors rallying to defeat EyeMed tactics that undermine purpose of state's new VBM accountability law

Since being identified in 2025 by the AOA as a barrier to patient care, EyeMed, a dominant nationwide vision benefit manager (VBM), has doubled down with an aggressive and dismissive campaign that appears aimed at undercutting gains connected to the comprehensive VBM accountability law overwhelmingly approved by the Arkansas legislature and enthusiastically signed by the governor just months ago.  

The Arkansas Optometric Association (ArOA), with backing from member doctors and from the AOA’s advocacy and legal team, is fighting back to ensure that Act 142 is implemented exactly as written and, in the process, deal the VBM industry a second resounding defeat in the policy arena.  

In a joint statement, ArOA President Julie Dolven, O.D., and AOA President Jacquie M. Bowen, O.D., said, “While the VBM industry’s lack of concern for doctors and their ability to care for patients is nothing new, it would seem that their tactics attempting to undermine legislation, meant to safeguard the essential eye health and vision care that members of our profession provide to their patients, only seem to expand. We are and will remain absolutely united in working for prompt and full implementation of the landmark Arkansas VBM accountability law and will continue to publicly expose the other side’s relentless false claims and bad faith.” 

In October, hundreds of doctors of optometry in Arkansas began receiving emails from EyeMed directing them to sign a “new” provider agreement within 30 days “to stay in compliance with Act 142.” By the end of the month, ArOA clarified that EyeMed’s interpretation of the new law was unsupported.

Beginning in November, ArOA issued multiple written requests to EyeMed asking the VBM to identify contract changes, explain why the new agreement was warranted, correct its previous communications and assure that no provider would be removed from the network. Initially, EyeMed repeatedly declined to respond to the ArOA’s requests for information and direct dialogue about the law’s requirements for VBMs.

Nearly two months after issuing new provider agreements to Arkansas doctors—and only after repeated written requests from ArOA—EyeMed offered limited verbal explanations during a phone call with the association, without providing any written contractual revisions or documentation. During that call, EyeMed’s Vice President of Doctor and Provider Relations, Pete Kehoe, O.D., stated that:

• Core provider agreement language had not changed
• Act 142 compliance was allegedly addressed through existing provisions and modified appendices
• Certain appendices were allegedly modified for lab-choice parity and frame allowances
• EyeMed does not believe Medicare-based reimbursement requirements apply to ‘routine eye’ exams
• Doctors who signed the agreements had “accepted” non-Medicare reimbursement rates
• EyeMed’s provider relations representatives were not equipped to answer Act 142 compliance questions

During that same verbal exchange, Dr. Kehoe asserted that EyeMed had been “communicating directly with network providers in Arkansas” regarding the updated agreements.

Based on the feedback received by ArOA, impacted doctors would strongly disagree with this EyeMed assertion.

“Despite repeated requests and ongoing engagement, EyeMed has not corrected its earlier written ultimatums, has not issued any statewide written clarification and continues to assert compliance without documenting how that compliance is reflected in provider agreements,” says Matt Burns, ArOA executive director. “Doctors have repeatedly been told they ‘must’ sign a new agreement to comply with Act 142, yet to our knowledge not one doctor has been shown a contract change, a page reference, a redline, or any written explanation supporting that demand. Doctors are not receiving clarity—they are receiving pressure without transparency.”

Burns added: “EyeMed’s interpretation of Act 142’s reimbursement requirement is not consistent with the statute. Legislators were appalled by the excessively low reimbursement rates imposed by VBMs, which is why Act 142 established Medicare-based reimbursement as a floor—not a mechanism for preserving pre-existing fee schedules. These protections apply to comprehensive eye exams and other covered services, regardless of whether a plan labels those services as ‘routine.’ Interpretations that leave reimbursement unchanged for covered services are inconsistent with the law.”Arkansas doctors were left confused. At a November ArOA town hall meeting, 91% of doctors of optometry who received the EyeMed email reported feeling pressured to sign.

ArOA disputes any claim of voluntary acceptance, noting doctors signed under written threat of network removal to preserve continuity of care.

“Arkansas doctors are committed to following Act 142 and doing it correctly,” says Dr. Dolven. “When EyeMed tells hundreds of providers they ‘must’ sign a new agreement to comply with state law— while refusing to identify a single contractual change required by that law—that is a serious problem.”

“Doctors want straightforward, accurate information so they can make independent decisions,” says Matt Jones, O.D., ArOA state legal and legislative committee co-chair. “EyeMed has not provided that.”

ArOA continues to make it clear that EyeMed had yet to identify any specific contractual revisions in writing. Signing an agreement under threat of removal does not constitute acceptance of noncompliant reimbursement terms. Providers should request clear, written explanations and document all communications.

Other VBMs comply with Act 142

In contrast to EyeMed, other VBMs operating in Arkansas have updated their rates to comply with Act 142. In November, one vision plan began issuing contracts to doctors in the state that appeared to comply with the new law, including its reimbursement requirements linked to Medicare rates. As of January 2026, the VBM is adhering to the reimbursement requirements of Act 142.

Evading regulation

EyeMed’s actions in Arkansas are unfortunately not unusual as vision plans often shape shift in an attempt to avoid compliance with new vision plan accountability laws, either by claiming new laws do not apply to their company or taking other positions.  Concerningly, the 2026 EyeMed Provider Manual makes reference to the company’s preference for S codes which is possibly another way to avoid legislative efforts in Arkansas to address stagnant reimbursement. The company’s recommendation that doctors use a code set that does not appear on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid compliance with AR Act 142.

AOA and affiliates will continue to advocate for adherence with any new state or federal laws and regulations. The AOA is championing VBM reforms through:

1. Federal legislation. The AOA supports both H.R. 1521, the Dental and Optometric Care (DOC) Access Act, as well as S. 1716, the Vision Lab Choice Act. Both bills look to outlaw VBMs’ controlling, care-limiting policies.  
2. Federal investigations. No fewer than three Congressional investigations into VBMs, their policies and market actions have been launched by the U.S. House Oversight Committee, House Energy & Commerce Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee.  
3. Direct plan advocacy. Doctors can email stopplanabuses@aoa.org with a health or vision plan challenge, and the AOA will help fight on their behalf. This direct advocacy has already had an effect, driving over $12.1 million back into optometry practices. Additionally, the AOA offers resources to empower doctors in these issues, including responding to automatic downcoding programs.

Access the 2025 AOA VBM Abuses Fact Sheet to see the latest information on these efforts.

Learn more about ArOA and VBM advocacy

• AOA cites EyeMed as a barrier to care and demands changes
• State Champs
• AOA, affiliates take on VBM lobby’s attacks on optometry
• How Arkansas’ major VBM law delivers on calls to promote fairness, doctor-patient relationships