October 2024 Report

This report shares short summary highlights of tracked legislative bills and rules & regulations that have seen recent activity, as well as available board and state VMA updates.

The legislative activity map reflects all 2024 activity and is updated daily. The regulation activity map reflects activity within the last month and will be updated monthly.

Legislative Activity

Regulation Activity

Board Watch

Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners – September 9, 2024 Special Meeting Minutes


Alaska Board of Veterinary Examiners – June 20, 2024 Minutes

______________________________

Public Comment

The chair of the Board of Massage Therapy, Annetta Atwell, read a letter to the board in response to the letter sent out by the Veterinary Board on March 20, 2024, concerning, in part, the overlap of massage practice and massage on animals. The BOMT is interested in bridging the gap in the professions between massage and veterinary services, and a series of questions were posed to the board in this letter aimed at exploring how a licensed massage therapist may be able to practice on animals. The BOMT also expressed a willingness to open a statute change to provide this service. Dr. Berngartt thanked Annetta for her time and stated that the board is not allowed to engage in a back-and-forth discussion during the public comment period, but that the board will consider the letter and reach out at another date.

______________________________

Discussion with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners – Practicing on Animals

Dr. John Lloyd from the Board of Chiropractic Examiners spoke to the board regarding Animal Chiropractic, a topic that he said comes up as a point of contention every few years without any real resolve. After summarizing his experience completing a course in animal chiropractic, which he stressed was nearly a year long and taught half by chiropractors and half by veterinarians, Dr. Lloyd asked whether the Veterinary Board is interested in allowing chiropractors to practice on animals if the board approved training is completed successfully, and whether such practice would be allowed strictly under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian, allowed via referral, or if board members had other suggestions. Dr. Berngartt, having earlier attended the Board of Chiropractic Examiners meeting on May 3, 2024, to hear the board’s questions regarding practicing on animals, stressed that the remaining board members were hearing discussion on this topic for the first time today and are therefore not prepared to establish a position, but could certainly ask questions and engage in discussion. The board responded that the traditional interpretation of their statutes and regulations has always been that manipulation of any kind is to be done by a licensed veterinarian, or under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. To make any changes they would need LAW to indicate they have changed that interpretation, or to pursue a change in statute or regulation. The board also confirmed that the current statutory definition of scope of practice for chiropractors specifies it is for humans, so a statute change would be needed on their end as well. Outside of what would need to change in statute or regulation or both, Dr. Lloyd’s ask was whether the Veterinary Board is interested in allowing animals to be adjusted by chiropractors as he says he has seen many other states work together to find a similar solution amongst their boards. The board countered that chiropractic adjustments are a recommended and available service to animals, but they are done either by veterinarians with specialty training and knowledge specific to animals, or under a veterinarian’s immediate supervision. Whether that is a satisfactory option for licensed chiropractors and the Chiropractic Board is another discussion. There is concern regarding who is held liable if chiropractic services are rendered to an animal outside of veterinary care and what if any, course of action would be available to a member of the public needing to lobby a complaint in that situation. Dr. Lloyd indicated that there is interest from the Chiropractic Board in making changes that allow more ways to practice on animals than what is currently allowed and that they are open to exploring that with the Veterinary Board if the interest is there or exploring independently through researching what other states have done if not. As the board needed to move on to their next agenda item, Dr. Berngartt thanked Dr. Lloyd for his time and said they could expect some follow-up at a later date.

California Department of Consumer Affairs – Legal Affairs Division
Memorandum: Telehealth and Federal Prescription Requirements
See document for citations

This memorandum is intended to provide an update and discussion regarding the recent statutory authority under the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act (VMPA) for use of telehealth in the practice of veterinary medicine and the impact of recent guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding, among other things, veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) requirements to issue prescriptions for the use of extralabel drugs and veterinary feed directives (VFDs)2 for the use of VFD drugs in animals.

Background
Federal Law In 1994, Congress passed the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA), which established conditions for extralabel use or intended extralabel use in animals by or on the lawful order of licensed veterinarians of FDA-approved new animal drugs and approved new human drugs. (21 CFR 530.2.) AMDUCA applies to prescriptions for extralabel drug use in animals and VFDs for the use of VFD drugs in animals. Among other things, AMDUCA and implementing regulations require a valid VCPR to be established prior to a licensed veterinarian issuing a prescription for an extralabel drug or VFD for a VFD drug.

Under federal law, a VCPR is valid when:

(1) A veterinarian has assumed the responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of (an) animal(s) and the need for medical treatment, and the client (the owner of the animal or animals or other caretaker) has agreed to follow the instructions of the veterinarian;
(2) There is sufficient knowledge of the animal(s) by the veterinarian to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the animal(s); and
(3) The practicing veterinarian is readily available for follow-up in case of adverse reactions or failure of the regimen of therapy. Such a relationship can exist only when the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal(s) by virtue of examination of the animal(s), and/or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal(s) are kept. (21 CFR 530.3(i).)

State Law
As discussed in the meeting materials presented at the July 24-25, 2024 Board meeting, state law also prohibits the administration of medically important antimicrobial drugs, as defined, to livestock unless ordered by a licensed veterinarian through a prescription or VFD, pursuant to a VCPR that meets the requirements under state law, as specified. (See Food and Agricultural Code (FAC), § 14401.) State law also provides for civil penalties for violations of those statutes but excludes veterinarians from those provisions and, instead, states the veterinarian may be subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to the VMPA if the Board determines that a veterinarian is in violation of the VMPA. (FAC, § 14408, subds. (a), (c).)

State regulation, California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section 2032.1, established the requirements of a VCPR to prescribe treatment of any kind to an animal patient. The regulation provided that a VCPR shall be established by the following:
(1)The client has authorized the veterinarian to assume responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of the animal, including the need for medical treatment,
(2)The veterinarian has sufficient knowledge of the animal(s) to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the animal(s). This means that the veterinarian is personally acquainted with the care of the animal(s) by virtue of an examination of the animal or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animals are kept, and
(3) The veterinarian has assumed responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of the animal and has communicated with the client a course of treatment appropriate to the circumstance.

Operative on January 1, 2020, CCR, title 16, section 2032.1, subsection (f), provided for telemedicine practice conducted within an existing VCPR, with the exception for advice given in an “emergency” until that patient(s) can be seen by or transported to a veterinarian. “Telemedicine” was defined to mean the mode of delivering animal health care services via communication technologies to facilitate consultation, treatment, and care management of the patient. In addition, the regulation prohibited establishment of a VCPR solely by telephonic or electronic means. (CCR, tit. 16, § 2032.1, subs. (e).)

COVID-19 Impact on Federal and State Law
Due to the COVID-19 outbreak and state modification of requirements for veterinary telemedicine and the VCPR, in March 2020, the FDA issued CVM GFI #269, which loosened the Federal VCPR requirements as follows:
Given that the Federal VCPR definition requires animal examination and/or medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal(s) are kept, the Federal VCPR definition cannot be met solely through telemedicine. To further facilitate veterinarians’ ability to utilize telemedicine to address animal health needs during the COVID-19 outbreak, FDA intends to temporarily suspend enforcement of a portion of the Federal VCPR requirements. Specifically, FDA generally intends not to enforce the animal examination and premises visit VCPR requirements relevant to FDA regulations governing Extralabel Drug Use in Animals (21 CFR part 530) and Veterinary Feed Directive Drugs (21 CFR 558.6).7 Similarly, the Board’s regulations were somewhat loosened during the State of Emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 30, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-39-20, which established a process under the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for licensing boards to request a waiver of professional licensing requirements, including requirements related to practice and permissible activities. In May 2020, the Board voted to request the DCA Director issue a temporary waiver of CCR, title 16, section 2032.1, subsection (b)(3), to the extent it required a veterinarian to have communicated with the client a course of treatment appropriate to the circumstance (condition-specific requirement) to establish a VCPR. (May 14, 2020 Meeting Minutes; May 14, 2020, Meeting Memo.) The Board requested the waiver be effective for the duration of the State of Emergency, or until January 1, 2021, whichever date was earlier. In addition, the Board voted to request a waiver of CCR, title 16, section 2032.1, subsection (c), to the extent it prohibited a veterinarian from prescribing a drug for a duration longer than one year from the date the veterinarian examined the animal and prescribed the drug. This temporary waiver was requested for issuance of prescriptions for a duration of no longer than 18 months from the date of last examination and prescription of the medication or until the Declaration of Emergency ends, whichever date was earlier. On June 4, 2020, the DCA Director issued an Order Waiving Restrictions on Telemedicine and Extending Time to Refill Prescriptions. A number of additional extensions of the waiver were subsequently issued, with the final order extending the waiver until October 31, 2021, at which time it was allowed to expire.

On December 21, 2022, the FDA issued a notice withdrawing its March 2020 guidance stating that the conditions that created the need for the temporary enforcement policy outlined in CVM GFI #269 had evolved, and after careful review of current industry practices with regard to on-premises animal examination and comments submitted associated with the guidance, the policy was no longer needed.

VCPR and Telehealth Legislation
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the critical issues regarding access to veterinary care. To resolve practitioner confusion regarding the electronic services that could be provided to animal patients, at the Board’s July 2021 meeting, the Board voted to recommend a legislative proposal to the California State Legislature that would have clarified the use of telemedicine in veterinary medicine practice. (July 22-23, 2021 Meeting Minutes; July 2021 Meeting Memo.) At the Board’s January 2023 meeting, the Board approved a legislative proposal to move the VCPR regulatory requirements, including the in-person examination requirement, into statute with the new telemedicine provisions to provide the most direct and timely manner to resolve issues regarding herd and equine practice and client agent designations. (January 25-26, 2023 Meeting Minutes; January 2023 Meeting Memo.) However, the Board was unsuccessful in getting the legislative proposal included in a bill.

In March of 2023, Assembly Bill (AB) 1399 (Friedman, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2023), sponsored by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and San Diego Humane Society, was introduced and preempted CCR, title 16, section 2032.1 to allow for a greatly expanded use of veterinary telemedicine. AB 1399 established VCPR requirements in statute, expanded the definition of veterinary telemedicine, and authorized the ability of a veterinarian to create the VCPR by examining the animal patient in person, examining by use of synchronous audio-video communication, or making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal patient is kept. AB 1399 went into effect on January 1, 2024.

At the Board’s April 2023 meeting, the Board voted to oppose a prior version of AB 1399 and authorized the Executive Committee and Executive Officer to engage with the bill author and stakeholders regarding numerous concerns, including a federal prohibition on prescribing controlled substances via telemedicine for all healthcare providers and a federal prohibition on initiating a VCPR through telemedicine, raised at the April 20, 2023 Board meeting. (April 19-20, 2023 Meeting Minutes.) In May 2023 Board Executive Committee discussions with ASPCA, the Executive Committee raised concern with how the bill would interact with federal VCPR in-person examination requirements to prescribe drugs for use in animal patients. ASPCA responded that federal law requires a VCPR for the use of pharmaceuticals in veterinary medicine only if the prescription applies to extralabel drug use (21 CFR 530.1) and VFDs for the use of drugs used in or on animal feed (21 CFR 558.6).

ASPCA further confirmed that the federal regulations relating to extralabel drug use and VFDs stipulate that a valid VCPR “can exist only when the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal(s) by virtue of examination of the animal(s), and/or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal(s) are kept,” citing to 21 CFR 530.3(i)(3). ASPCA stated that in applying these definitions to its regulations, the FDA has been clear that it defers to state definitions of VCPR.

At the Board’s July 19-20, 2023 meeting, the Board discussed additional concerns with AB 1399, including the lack of exemption from the VCPR requirement for wild animals and animals whose owner is unknown and telehealth prescribing of antimicrobial drugs. The Board voted to oppose the bill unless it was amended to resolve the issues raised during the meeting and also voted to support the bill if the Board’s requested amendments were included in the bill. (July 19-20, 2023 Meeting Minutes.) AB 1399 was amended on September 1, 2023, and included the Board’s requested amendments, and amended on September 6, 2023, to resolve premises registration issues with telemedicine practice; the Board issued a letter of support on September 11, 2023. (October 18-19, 2023 Meeting Materials.)

Following enactment of AB 1399 and contrary to ASPCA’s interpretation that the FDA defers to state definitions of VPCR, as discussed further below, recent FDA guidelines have made clear that the federal VCPR requirements are controlling as they relate to prescribing extralabel drugs and VFDs.

Discussion
Conflict Between State and Federal Law
At issue is the provision enacted by AB 1399, in BPC section 4826.6, subdivision (b)(2), regarding a veterinarian establishing a VCPR by examining the animal patient by use of synchronous audio-video communication to issue an extralabel drug prescription or VFD for a VFD drug. On September 4, 2024, the FDA issued its guidance that federal law requires a licensed veterinarian to establish a VCPR to prescribe the extralabel use of approved animal or human drugs and to issue a VFD for a VFD drug. (21 CFR 530.3(i)(3), 530.10, 530.20.) The FDA guidance also stated that:

The federal VCPR definition (21 CFR 530.3(i)) includes the following requirement: “The practicing veterinarian is readily available for follow-up in case of adverse reactions or failure of the regimen of therapy. Such a relationship can exist only when the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal(s) by virtue of examination of the animal(s) and/or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal(s) are kept.” Therefore, for the purposes of the federal definition, a valid VCPR cannot be established solely through telemedicine (e.g., photos, videos, or other electronic means that do not involve examination of the animal(s) or timely visits to the premises). However, once a VCPR is established, telemedicine can be a useful tool for maintaining the VCPR.9

The guidance also notes that states may have additional (but not fewer) extralabel prescription and VFD requirements, and federal law does not establish specific VCPR requirements related to the on-label use of approved animal drugs; state-specific VCPR requirements would apply to on-label use of approved animal drugs.

Because BPC section 4826.6, subdivision (b)(2), allows a VCPR to be established through telehealth, it is less prescriptive than federal law, which only allows a VCPR to be established after the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the animal by virtue of examination and/or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept. (21 CFR 530.3(i)(3).) As such, it would appear state law conflicts with the requirements under federal law regarding prescribing extralabel drugs and issuing VFDs for VFD drugs. Given the differences in the VCPR requirements under federal and state law, the method of establishing the VCPR will impact the ability of the veterinarian to prescribe drugs and issue VFDs for VFD drugs.

Federal Law Controls
Although California law authorizes the use of telehealth, as specified, to establish a
VCPR and prescribe, dispense, or administer a drug, federal law does not if the drug is prescribed for extralabel use or a VFD drug. Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., art. VI., § 2), federal law supersedes any state or local regulation or statute that conflicts with federal law, and federal law preempts state law.

Federal law requires a valid VCPR to be established through an in-person exam or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept to issue veterinary extralabel prescriptions. The FDA’s guidance states that “a valid VCPR cannot be established solely through telemedicine (e.g., photos, videos, or other electronic means that do not involve examination of the animal(s) or timely visits to the premises). However, once a VCPR is established, telemedicine can be a useful tool for maintaining the VCPR.”

In addition, the FDA previously clarified VCPR requirements to issue a VFD for VFD drugs in its final action on 21 CFR parts 514 and 558 that states:

In those States that do not define a VCPR that includes the key elements in the Federally defined VCPR, or in the States that define a VCPR but do not require it for the issuance of a VFD, the veterinarian is required to issue the VFD within the context of a valid VCPR as that term is defined by FDA at § 530.1(i).

According to the final action, if the state VCPR requirement is not as prescriptive as federal law, federal law would control. However, the FDA has noted that states may have additional or more specific VCPR requirements.

Following enactment of AB 1399, BPC section 4826.6 established a VCPR exists if, among other conditions, the veterinarian possesses sufficient knowledge of the animal patient to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the animal
patient’s medical condition. (BPC, § 4826.6, subd. (a)(2).) A veterinarian possesses sufficient knowledge of the animal patient if the veterinarian has recently seen, or is personally acquainted with, the care of the animal patient by doing any of the following:

Examining the animal patient in person.
Examining the animal patient by use of synchronous audio-video communication.
Making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal patient is kept. (BPC, § 4826.6, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
Since federal law does not allow examination of the animal patient through telehealth by use of synchronous audio-video communication to establish a VCPR to issue an extralabel drug prescription or VFD for a VFD drug, federal law is more prescriptive than state law and preempts state law. As such, pursuant to the federal VCPR requirements and FDA announcement clarifying that telemedicine cannot be used to establish a VCPR to prescribe an extralabel drug or issue a VFD for a VFD drug, in-person examination and/or medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept is required prior to prescribing an extralabel drug or issuing a VFD for a VFD drug for use in an animal patient.

Notably, BPC section 4826.6, subdivision (i)(3), authorizes a veterinarian who practices veterinary medicine via telehealth to order, prescribe, or make available drugs, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11014, in accordance with all relevant state and federal regulations. Thus, if a veterinarian establishes the VCPR by telehealth and prescribes on-label use of approved animal drugs, the veterinarian may follow state law VCPR requirements. However, to issue a prescription for an extralabel drug or VFD for a VFD drug, the veterinarian must follow the state VCPR requirements that are not in conflict with the federal VCPR requirements. In effect, a veterinarian prescribing extralabel use drugs or a VFD for VFD drugs cannot establish a VCPR via telehealth under BPC section 4826.6, subdivision (b)(2). As such, if a veterinarian establishes a VCPR through telehealth and issues a prescription or distributes an extralabel drug or issues a VFD for a VFD drug for use in an animal patient in violation of 21 CFR parts 530.3(i)(3) and 530.10 or 530.20, as applicable, the veterinarian would be subject to enforcement action by the Board and the FDA. The veterinarian also may risk enforcement action against their Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) registration.

Conclusion
The provision in BPC section 4826.6, subdivision (b)(2), authorizing examination by use of synchronous audio-video communication to establish a VCPR conflicts with the federal law requirement for the veterinarian to have recently seen and be personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal(s) by virtue of examination of the animal(s) and/or by making medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept to establish a VCPR to prescribe an extralabel drug or issue a VFD for a VFD drug. However, BPC section 4826.6 subdivision (i)(3), requires a veterinarian practicing via telehealth to comply with all relevant state and federal regulations to order, prescribe, or make available drugs. As such, a veterinarian who distributes or issues a prescription for an extralabel drug or issues a VFD for a VFD drug to treat an animal patient may maintain the VCPR via telehealth and issue an extralabel prescription or VFD drug in accordance with state and federal law but is prohibited under federal law from establishing the underlying VCPR via telehealth.

Potential Legislation
FAC section 14401 may need clarifying amendments to specify a medically important antimicrobial drug shall not be administered to livestock unless ordered by a licensed veterinarian through a prescription or VFD, pursuant to a VCPR that meets the requirements of federal and state law, rather than BPC section 4826.6. Such a legislative proposal should be coordinated with the California Department
of Food and Agriculture.

Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine – August 8, 2024 Minutes

Connecticut Board of Veterinary Medicine
September 13, 2024, Recorded Meeting – Pt. 1
September 13, 2024, Recorded Meeting – Pt. 2

Emergency Order 2024-08 has been issued in response to Hurricane Helene.
September 29, 2024

The Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine has a 30-day Temporary Veterinarian License available to out-of-state veterinarians who wish to come to Florida to provide relief veterinary services but do not hold a current Florida Veterinary License. The application form for the 30-Day Temporary Veterinarian License is available HERE.

Florida licensed veterinarians interested in offering volunteer services should contact the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Florida Veterinary Corps for information at 1-800-HELP-FLA (1-800-435-7352).

Georgia Online Application Licensing System (GOALS) Go-Live
In the coming months, the Georgia Secretary of State Professional Licensing Boards will launch Rollout 2 of GOALS.

RENEWAL PERIODS EXTENDED
In consideration of several boards moving to GOALS, we are extending the renewal periods for different licenses. Please check your specific board page for more information.

IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
The PLB is currently experiencing heavy volumes that are causing delays in processing your license. License applications and renewals are taking longer than expected and we apologize for the inconvenience. Please know that our license analysts are working diligently to expedite the issuance/renewal of your license. Check your account and your board pages regularly for updates.

Iowa Board of Veterinary Medicine – June 27, 2024 Minutes

Iowa Board of Veterinary Medicine – August 29, 2024 Minutes

Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine – August 1, 2024 Minutes

STATUTES, RULES, POLICIES & PROCEDURES

Rulemaking Projects, Proposals, & Discussions Updates to all rulemaking projects can be found at www.lsbvm.org/rulemaking.

1. LAC 46LXXXV.400.403.405.409.411.413.800.811.1200.1227 Chapter 4 – Continuing Education and Rules 811 & 1227 Mr. Granier advised the Board that the Final Rule – having received a favorable oversight review from the Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development – will be published in the Louisiana Register’s August edition, effective August 20, 2024. No motion was made, and no further action was taken or needed on this matter.

2. LAC 46LXXXV.1007.1011.1025.1039.1051.1057.1063 Chapter 10 – Rules of Professional Conduct Mr. Granier informed the Board that the Notice of Intent was published in the Louisiana Register’s July ’24 edition. The Summary Report to the Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development is planned for submission for final review in mid-August ’24. No motion was made, and no further action was taken or needed on this matter.

3. LAC 46LXXXV. 703, 706, 708, 709, 710, 711, 713, & 714 Repromulgation of Chapter 7 sections In accordance with the 2022 Louisiana Administrative Code Review, after a comprehensive review of Chapter 7 the Board re-promulgated all sections of Chapter 7 that were not amended in V.A.4 of the agenda below. The request for re-promulgation will be submitted to the Louisiana Register and published in the Louisiana Register August ’24 edition, effective August 20, 2024. No motion was made, and no further action was taken or needed on this matter.

4. LAC 46LXXXV.700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 707, & 712 Chapter 7 – Veterinary Practice Mr. Granier informed the Board that the Notice of Intent and Fiscal & Economic Impact Statements were submitted on July 18, 2024 to the Louisiana Legislative Fiscal Office for review. The Notice of Intent is scheduled to be published in the Louisiana Register’s August ’24 edition. The First Report to the Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development will be submitted for review concurrently. No motion was made, and no further action was taken or needed on this matter.

General Agenda

1. Is an examination prior to adoption enough to constitute a VCPR to allow for prescription of heartworm prevention that would be purchased by the adopter at the time of adoption?
A licensed veterinarian employed by an animal shelter offering adoptions following mandatory spays/neuters inquired as to whether the examination conducted when the animal is owned by the shelter prior to the spay/neuter is sufficient to establish the VCPR with the adopting client when administering and dispensing heartworm preventatives at the time of adoption. The board decided that with a new client, a new VCPR must be established to practice veterinary medicine ethically, and upon adoption and the administration of heartworm preventatives the prescribing/dispensing veterinarian must have sufficient knowledge of the condition of the patient by having recently seen the patient and being personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal by virtue on an in-person examination or by medically appropriate visits to the premises where the patient is kept (Rule 700). This does not mean that an examination is required solely because the identity of the client changes from the shelter to the adopting client, as long as under the sound professional judgment of the veterinarian he has retained that knowledge of the condition of the patient sufficient for the purposes of the administration and dispensing of the heartworm preventative upon consent of the new client.

2. Does a veterinarian have to be at the client home in order for an RVT to give injection? A licensed veterinarian inquired about the nature of supervision required of an RVT under a business model that provided veterinarian services in the home of the client/patient, where the veterinarian that had established the VCPR was not on site but issued orders to the RVT to give routine injections (e.g. cytopoint, librela) at the home of the client. After discussion, the board ratified the opinion issued by general counsel that this would not be permissible. Rule 702.D provides an exception to the general rule that the delegating veterinarian must be on premises (active supervision) when an RVT performs treatment on the order of the veterinarian. Under this exception, the RVT may administer injections if the delegating veterinarian has charted the precise treatment plan to be followed, no diagnostic decisions or treatment changes are made by the RVT and the delegating veterinarian personally checks on the animal within 24 hrs. However, this exception to the requirement of on-premises, direct supervision presupposes the temporary absence of the delegating veterinarian from a facility that has the equipment to assist in treating animals with adverse reactions to injections, which is not present in the scenario provided, nor does the Rule meet the needs of the business model where it requires a personal examination by the delegating veterinarian within 24 hrs. of the RVT administering the injection.

Consent Agenda Opinions – Answered

1. How Can a Human Chiropractor Work on Animals?
A licensed veterinarian received correspondence from a chiropractor practicing in human medicine offering services for the benefit of the veterinarian’s patients. The veterinarian asked the board for guidance on the issue of the situs/extent of supervision required and how to determine if the chiropractor was sufficiently qualified to perform such services. The board advised through the ratified opinion of general counsel that Rule 712 clearly provides the answers to his query: a chiropractor practicing in human medicine is a “layperson” – i.e. someone not licensed or certified by the board provided the requirements of the rule are met, generally: the treatment must be on the order of the veterinarian who has first established the VCPR; the client has given informed consent to the treatment; the lay person must possess a license issued by another regulatory board (or have an educational level approved by the board). The supervision required is “direct supervision”, where the delegating veterinarian must be on premises, and is responsible for the ongoing evaluation and treatment of the patient. Answering a specific question of whether the supervision would be allowable at the business of the chiropractor, the board decided that would not be permissible since the VCPR contemplates the referring veterinarian be on-premises to provide immediate treatment to the patient and the equipment required for clinics, hospitals, etc. would not be present at the chiropractor’s place of business.

2. Non-Veterinarian Ownership of a Clinic
A veterinarian contemplating the sale of his practice asked if a non-veterinarian could own a practice. This oft-posed question was resolved in 2018 when the board changed Rule 1015 to allow ownership by a non-veterinarian when it no longer required the owner, member, officer, or director of a business entity such as a partnership, corporation, or limited liability company that provides veterinary medicine to possess a license. The Rule looks to the actual practitioner of veterinary medicine involved in patient care for licensing and regulatory compliance.

3. What Steps Should I Take if I Have a Civil Lawsuit Against Me & My Clinic?
The owner of a veterinary facility asked for advice from the board when he received a letter of representation from a civil attorney whose client was alleging the practice adopted out the client’s cat without consent and was liable for civil damages for conversion. The board advised that it does not provide general legal advice to the practice, but answers issues arising from its regulatory provisions where there is a bona fide concern about the interpretation of a specific provision where the inquirer’s license may be in jeopardy. However, the source of the complementary laws concerning “abandonment”, a civil and not a regulatory matter, were cited to the veterinarian since a history of compliance with those provisions was suggested to have occurred, but with the client not actually receiving the notification required. The notice provisions of that statute were given to the veterinarian, who was encouraged to contact the attorney making the demand and provide him facts indicating compliance with those statutes found at La. R.S. 3:2451 et seq.

4. Is it Legal for a Shelter to Own X-Ray Machine if Contracted DVM is the Only Person Ordering X-Rays, Reading X-Rays, and Creating Treatment Plans from X-Rays?
A municipal shelter asked about the legality of owning and operating an X-Ray machine should it accept a proposed donation. The shelter was advised that the board does not regulate facilities and the ownership of equipment within facilities and was referred to the FDA, which regulates the manufacture of such equipment with regard to operator and patient safety.

5. Can Medical Records Be Withheld Until Payment is Received? An employee of a licensed veterinarian quit her employment owing the practice a substantial sum for treatment of the employee’s dog. The employee then requested a copy of the animal’s records. The practice owner asked if the records could be withheld pending payment of the account balance since the employee was fully paid for any wages earned and all services were provided at cost. This question is often posed to the board – NO, records may not be withheld. They must be provided to the client upon request. Following written request, it is unethical to refuse to provide the records or a synopsis of the records (see content required of synopses). The practice owner may charge a reasonable amount (usually the actual cost of duplication) for preparation and copying of the records or providing a synopsis that is not tied to the amount owed to the practice. The debt owed to a practice is a civil matter between the client and the practice ownership and cannot be considered when ethical issues are presented to the board.

6. Is It Possible to Work Under Another DVM License as a Paid Intern?
A veterinary student anticipating graduation but with a delay in taking the NAVLE asked if it were permissible to work under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian as a “paid intern” where “all cases go through the vet after I see them” pending a passing score on the NAVLE. Interpreting the question as to whether the veterinary school graduate could function as a veterinarian (diagnosis, prognosis, prescribing, establishing the VCPR, etc.) to then have the work approved by the employing veterinarian, the board responded in the negative. An unlicensed veterinarian (graduate of a veterinary school) can only function as a lay veterinary assistant under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian and is prohibited from making any diagnosis, prognosis, surgery, or the prescribing of any drugs, medicine, or appliances.

7. Do all vaccines (especially rabies) require an examination prior to administration?
A licensee working for “out of state ownership” inquired of the board whether it was permissible to administer vaccines – especially rabies vaccine – without a prior examination of the patient. The query assumed the VCPR would be established by “telemedicine”. He was advised that the Department of Health has exclusive jurisdiction over the Sanitary Code and the prevention of rabies and given contact information, but that generally the administration of vaccines constitutes the practice of veterinary medicine which cannot be done ethically without first establishing the VCPR, which requires an in-person examination that cannot be affected by electronic means.

8. Why should non-veterinarian equine dentists be outlawed if there is no anesthesia or sedation administered to the horse?
A series of questions concerning the practice of equine dentistry were posed by several members of the public questioning the board’s authority to regulate that practice. They were advised that the Practice Act (state law) defines equine dentistry as the practice of veterinary medicine which must be done by a licensed veterinarian generally, while some tasks can be delegated to an RVT or person with suitable training working for (W2 employee) a licensed veterinarian who has established the VCPR with relaxed supervision. Those tasks which can generally be delegated to qualified employees were outlined as were those tasks that cannot be done in the field of equine dentistry except by a licensed veterinarian. They were referred to their local legislators to advocate for a change in the law the board cannot make.

9. Why isn’t Equine Teeth Health Considered Husbandry Like Hoofcare?
See query 8, above.

10. Why is the Floating of Teeth (Rasping) Not Considered Husbandry, but a Farrier Can Rasp the Feet? Especially When Sedatives Are Not Involved?
See query 8, above.

Relevant Legislation Enacted – Requires Board Action
Act No. 568 Having reviewed and discussed Act No. 568 from the 2024 legislative session, Mr. Granier was instructed to amend the application process to satisfy the requirements of Act No. 568. Additionally, a motion was made by Dr. McHughes, seconded by Dr. Marullo, to change the length of time for which an application can remain valid from two years to one year from the initial date of application submission. With no further discussion and with no public comments, the motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Mr. Granier will begin the rulemaking process to amend rules §301.F, §801.F, and §1201.D.

______________________________

News from the Board – What is Allowable for Graduates Who Have Not Passed NAVLE
October 15, 2024

The Board has received several inquiries regarding what are the allowable duties for a DVM graduate who has not yet passed the NAVLE. The Louisiana Veterinary Practice Act prohibits “the practice of veterinary medicine” in Louisiana as broadly defined in the Practice Act by anyone other than a “…licensed veterinarian or the holder of a valid temporary permit issued by the board” (La. R.S. 1514). There are notable exceptions, of course, within the Practice Act (e.g. a regular student in a veterinary school performing duties or actions assigned by his instructor or working under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian during a school vacation period) but where inapplicable at least a temporary permit is required. The Practice Act allows the Board to issue a temporary permit only “pending examination”, which expires the day after notice of the results of the examination, and this is not allowed to an applicant who “has previously failed the examination…” (La. R.S. 1523).
The issue then becomes what duties otherwise constituting the practice of veterinary medicine can be delegated to a person not licensed by the Board by a licensed veterinarian. Board Rule §700 defines the status of “unlicensed veterinarians” as those persons “who have completed an approved, accredited program of instruction and who have received a degree as a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine…but who have not been licensed by the board to practice veterinary medicine in the state of Louisiana”. Rule §702.E then provides, in pertinent part, “Unlicensed veterinarians…shall not practice veterinary medicine until they are licensed by the state of Louisiana. An unlicensed veterinarian may only function as a veterinary assistant under direct supervision…”.
The duties an employee may perform under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian are set out generally in Rule §702, which reads in part: “…treatment is being performed on the order or prescription of a licensed supervising veterinarian, except that no unlicensed person may perform surgery, diagnosis, prognosis, or the prescribing of drugs, medicines, or appliances.”

In short, without being issued a license by the Board, a DVM graduate who has not yet passed the NAVLE would have the status of a lay veterinary assistant. Those duties that cannot be delegated to lay assistants include diagnoses, prognoses, the prescribing of drugs/appliances, and surgery, among others that are specifically addressed by board rule – e.g. equine dental services. One would not be allowed to act as a “veterinarian in training” whose work is supervised (working under) by a licensee but could only act as a lay assistant, with duties that would not include those that could be delegated to an RVT. Louisiana law does not provide for “internships” outside those regulated within the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine, nor are preceptorships prior to licensure required or allowed anymore. There are no intermediate certifications following graduation and before full licensure that apply to a graduate who has not yet passed the NAVLE.

What are the penalties for practicing without a valid, active Louisiana license or aiding in the practice without a license? Consistent with Rule §301.E, the Board shall reject the application of an applicant who has practiced veterinary medicine in this state without a license, temporary permit, or exception from licensure as provided by La. R.S. 37:1514. The Board may also take civil action against any applicant who is engaged in the unlawful practice of veterinary medicine without a license.
Additionally, the Board may take administrative action against a licensed veterinarian who aids or encourages the practice of veterinary medicine by a DVM graduate who has not yet passed the NAVLE and has not yet been issued a license by the Board. Statute §1526 permits the Board to assess a fine not to exceed the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000), revoke or suspend for a specified time the license of, or otherwise discipline, any licensed veterinarian for having professional association with or employing any person practicing veterinary medicine unlawfully.

Annual Report to Licensees – Volume 32, No. 1 – Fall ’24 (October).

______________________________

Louisiana Board of Veterinary Medicine – Current Rulemaking Activity

2024-07a ~ LAC 46LXXXV.700, 701, 702, 704, 705, 707, and 712 – Veterinary Practice

  • 02-01-2024 Board discussed and voted on amendments to several sections of Chapter 7, specifically §700 and §705. Minor amendments were made to clean the language up in Sections §701, §702, §704, §707, and §712. [Meeting Minutes – 02-01-24]
  • 07-18-2024 Notice of Intent and Fiscal & Economic Impact Statements submitted to Legislative Fiscal Office for review.
  • 08-02-2024 Legislative Fiscal Office approved fiscal and economic impact statement.
  • 08-09-2024 First Report submitted to Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development.
  • 08-09-2024 Notice of Intent submitted for publication in 2024 Louisiana Register, Volume 50, August edition.
  • 08-20-2024 Notice of Intent to be published in 2024 Louisiana Register, Volume 50, August edition.
  • 08-21-2024 Submission of written comments related to this rule proposal will be accepted only from August 21st to September 9th.
  • 09-09-2024 Deadline for submission of written comments to Board.*See instructions for submitting comments in Notice of Intent.
  • XX-XX-XXX NO PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED — * As there were no requests within twenty days (by August 9th, 2024) for a public hearing in accordance with §953.A(2)(b)(i), the Board will NOT hold a public hearing and will move forward with the rulemaking process.

2024-04 ~ LAC 46LXXXV.1007, 1011, 1025, 1039, 1051, 1057, and 1063 – Rules of Professional Conduct

  • 04-04-2024 Board discussed and voted on amendments to several sections, including §1007, §1011, §1025, §1039, §1051, §1057, and §1063. [Meeting Minutes – 04-04-24]
  • 05-08-2024 Notice of Intent and Fiscal & Economic Impact Statements submitted to Legislative Fiscal Office for review.
  • 06-28-2024 Legislative Fiscal Office approved fiscal and economic impact statement.
  • 06-28-2024 First Report submitted to Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development.
  • 06-28-2024 Notice of Intent submitted for publication in 2024 Louisiana Register, Volume 50, July edition.
  • 07-20-2024 Notice of Intent published in 2024 Louisiana Register, Volume 50, July edition.
  • 07-20-2024 Submission of written comments related to this rule proposal will be accepted only from July 21st to August 9th.
  • 08-09-2024 Deadline for submission of written comments to Board.*See instructions for submitting comments in Notice of Intent.
  • XX-XX-XXX NO PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED — * As there were no requests within twenty days (by August 9th, 2024) for a public hearing in accordance with §953.A(2)(b)(i), the Board will NOT hold a public hearing and will move forward with the rulemaking process.
  • 08-12-2024 Summary Report submitted to Senate and House Legislative Oversight Committees on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development for final review.
  • 08-14-2024 Notice of Intent submitted to Department of Justice’s Occupational Licensing Review Program (OLRP) for review.
  • 10-08-2024 Favorable review in the OLRP opinion and approval received to move forward in the rulemaking process.

Maine Board of Veterinary Medicine – May 22, 2024 Minutes

 

Maryland State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners – August 22, 2024 Minutes

Inquiry about Complying with Medical Record Requests from Animal Control:
The Board reviewed an inquiry from Blue River Pet Care regarding a hospital’s requirements to comply with medical record requests from animal control:

  • In general, it is best practice to cooperate and work with animal control on investigations.
  • The Board does not have specific regulations. It would be at the discretion of the hospital to request a subpoena before providing the records.
  • Justin Scally pointed out the immunity information in statute.
    • §2-313.1(c) Immunity. – A Veterinary Practitioner who reports in good faith suspected animal cruelty or animal fighting or participates in an investigation of suspected animal cruelty or animal fighting is immune from:
      • (1) Civil liability that results from the report or participation in the investigation; or
      • (2) Criminal prosecution for the report or participation in the investigation.
    • Staff to provide a draft of a response for the Board to review. 

CH0487 (HB1097):
The Board reviewed draft guidance and charts for certain tasks. Justin Scally joined and provided additional feedback regarding how their hospital(s) are currently using Veterinary Assistants. Chart shows examples of acceptable tasks and levels of supervision, however, the Board will rely on the professional judgment of supervising veterinarians to effectively manage their staff and their skill levels. Statute only provides “shall nots” for anyone other than a veterinarian providing diagnosis, prognosis, or performing surgery.

Documenting discharge against medical advice:
Susie had received a question from a hospital staff member about the Board’s legal requirements for documenting situations when a patient is discharged against medical advice (AMA). A lawyer had told the hospital that having a client sign a discharge paper saying they are leaving against medical advice is not the same as having a specific AMA. Cindy informed the Board that she recommended a response beginning with a reminder that the Board cannot provide legal advice. However, we can confirm that the SBVME does not have a specific statute or regulation addressing a discharge against medical advice (“AMA”) or requiring a separate form. Ultimately, this is an issue of informed consent. COMAR 15.15.01.10-1A requires that for a non-emergency presentation, a veterinarian shall inform the client, in a manner that is understandable by a reasonable person, of the diagnostic and treatment plan. The Board consistently requires veterinarians to document client communications in the record, including treatment and diagnostic recommendations, client discussions about these recommendations, and all treatment and diagnostics recommendations the client declined. In a discharge AMA situation, a veterinarian should make sure that the client has been informed of the reasons why further hospitalization is advised, the benefits of further treatment, the risks associated with discharge without further treatment, and any other alternatives available (such as referrals or follow-up with a primary veterinarian) or other relevant issues. These discussions may include the costs associated with recommended treatment, which will likely play a significant role in a client’s decision to decline recommended hospitalization. The Board generally agreed with this advice. Dr. Shmechel noted that what is required depends on the facts of each case, and in some situations, characterizing a discharge as AMA can strain the relationship with the client. She also noted that written discharge instructions should be given to the client containing specific instructions for at-home or follow-up care.

CBD and Hemp Products for Animals:
The Board received an inquiry from a constituent through the governor’s office regarding a Veterinarian who was hesitant to discuss hemp products.

  • The Board reviewed and approved a draft response that explains differences between hemp and CBD/THC products, the history of legal changes for these products, and the current FDA-approved uses (that do not include any animal uses for CBD and THC products), and the Board’s informal guidance provided in 2019.
  • The Board considered if updated guidance was necessary and determined that at this time the FDA-approved uses had not changed and that if a Veterinarian is asked about these products they may discuss them but should be cautious and should inform of potential risks and the untested nature of CBD and THC products for pets.

Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine – May 15, 2024 Minutes

______________________________

Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine – Fall 2024 Newsletter        

Nebraska Board of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery – July 24, 2024 Minutes

REGULATION UPDATES
The Board reviewed the Draft Regulations for Title 172 Chapter 180 Practice of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery. Schlote moved, seconded by Byers to approve the draft with the suggested changes in language. Voting aye: Byers, Farrington, Hauser and Schlote. Voting nay: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. Motion carried. Vonda Apking noted that the Regulations will be updated further once the Licensure Unit has received the opinion on LB16 from DHHS Legal Department. LB16 – Require occupational boards to issue certain credentials based on credentials or work experience in another jurisdiction, provide and change requirements regarding applicants with a criminal conviction, provide for jurisprudential examinations and appeals, change requirements for membership of the State Electrical Board, and adopt the Interior Design Voluntary Registration Act Approved by the Governor on March 5, 2024.
Slip Law: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/108/PDF/Slip/LB16.pdf

New Hampshire Office of Professional Licensure and Certification
Rule Updates

Plc 100 – Organizational Rules
Public Hearing: Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the 2nd Floor Board Room at the OPLC offices at 7 Eagle Square, Concord NH
**You do not need to attend the hearing to submit written comments.**
Deadline for Submitting Written Comment: 4:00 PM on Friday, October 4, 2024
Please submit comments to OPLC-Rules@oplc.nh.gov.

The OPLC is requesting public comment on the changes made to Plc 100 based on new legislation.
Public Hearing: Wednesday, October 16, 2024, at 2:30 PM in the 2nd Floor Board Room at the OPLC offices at 7 Eagle Square, Concord NH
**You do not need to attend the hearing to submit written comments.**
Deadline for Submitting Written Comment: 4:00 PM on Wednesday, October 23, 2024
Please submit comments to OPLC-Rules@oplc.nh.gov

New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine
Rulemaking Notice for all Sets of Rules 11-20-24

NOTICE OF PUBLIC RULE HEARING AND BOARD MEETING
The New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine (“NMBVM”) will hold a public rule hearing on November 20, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. to consider any public comment on the proposed rules listed below. A regular board meeting will immediately follow the public rule hearing.

1. Enactment of rules related to disbursements from the Animal Care and Facility Fund;
2. Amendment of existing rules to adjust certain licensing fees (Parts 2, 6, 7, and 8 of Title 16, Chapter 25 NMAC, and Part 4 of Title 16, Chapter 24 NMAC)
3. Amendment of 16.25.9.9(B) NMAC (“Minimum Standards”) to change requirements related to emergency services.

Public participation is welcomed, and comments may be submitted in writing during the public comment period, or in person during the public rule hearing. The hearing and subsequent board meeting will take place at the Regulation and Licensing Department, Toney Anaya Building, 2550 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87505.

Copies of the proposed rule may be obtained through the board website at www.bvm.nm.gov or by contacting the Board Office through the information below:
www.bvm.nm.gov Deborah Schenk, Executive Assistant/CPO (575) 748-2042 deborah.schenk@bvm.nm.gov

Written comments will be accepted during the public comment period, up until 5 pm on November 19, 2024, and may be submitted either by email or by postal mail to the following addresses: deborah.schenk@bvm.nm.gov
Attn: New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine
7301 Jefferson Street NE, Suite H
Albuquerque, NM 87109

Written comments received during the public comment period prior to the public rule hearing will be posted to the board website page linked above. Public comment will also be accepted during the rule hearing and may be submitted in writing or presented orally by those attending. The board will not enter into substantive discussion of public comments during the rule hearing but will consider and deliberate any public comment during the board meeting immediately following the conclusion of the public rule hearing.

The agenda for the board meeting, which will begin immediately after the public rule hearing, will be available no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, and be available on the NMBVM website linked above or by contacting the NMBVM staff.

An individual with a disability who is in need of a reader, amplifier, qualified sign language interpreter, or other form of auxiliary aid or service to attend or participate in the hearing, please contact the Board Chair.

Statutory Authority: For the proposed rule related to the Animal Care and Facility Fund, NMSA 1978, Section 61-14-7.1 directs the Animal Sheltering Committee of the NMBVM to develop criteria for individuals, nonprofit organizations, animal shelters and euthanasia agencies to receive monetary assistance for dog and cat spaying and neutering from the Animal Care and Facility Fund; and recommend to the NMBVM the disbursements of money from the Animal Care and Facility Fund to eligible individuals, nonprofit organizations, animal shelters and euthanasia agencies.

For the other proposed rules, NMA 1978, Section 61-14-5(F), the NMBVM has authority to promulgate rules necessary to establish recognized standards for the practice of veterinary medicine and to carry out the provisions of the Veterinary Practice Act.

Purpose of Proposed Rules: The purpose of the proposed rule related to the Animal Care and Facility Fund is to establish criteria and procedures for the disbursement of funds from the Animal Care and Facility Fund to eligible recipients for providing spay and neuter services to dogs and cats.

The purpose of the proposed rule amendments related to fees is to adjust certain licensing fees to ensure the NMBVM can meet its financial requirements and to lower two fees to comply with statutory maximums.

The purpose of the proposed amendment to the emergency services requirement in 16.25.9.9(B) NMAC is to lessen the burden on veterinary facilities while ensuring the public’s awareness of available emergency services.

Summary of Proposed Rules: The proposed rule related to the Animal Care and Facility Fund determines the eligibility of all organizations and individuals seeking disbursements from the Animal Care and Facility Fund, outlines the obligations of successful applicants, describes the qualifications for individuals seeking disbursements from the Fund, details possible loss of eligibility for applicants, and provides the procedure for NMBVM approval of disbursements from the Fund.

The proposed rule amendments related to fees increase most licensing fees for NMBVM-regulated licensees by twenty-five percent. This includes fees for licensing of veterinarians, veterinarian technicians, veterinary facilities, and bovine artificial insemination and pregnancy diagnosis technicians.

The proposed rule amendments also lower two fees for euthanasia technician licensure to the statutory cap. The proposed rule amendment related to emergency services requires veterinary facilities to make information about the nearest emergency services available to the public and eliminates the requirement that veterinary facilities provide emergency services or have a pre-arranged referral to another veterinarian for emergency services.

 

North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board – August 19, 2024 Minutes

______________________________

North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board – Regulatory Bulletin
Fall 2024 | Volume 9 Issue 1

Practice of Veterinary Medicine by Out-of-State Veterinarians in Counties Affected by Tropical Storm Helene
Effective: September 30, 2024

Due to the emergency conditions resulting from Tropical Storm Helene, and the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board’s desire to assist North Carolina residents in the affected counties and to protect the public by ensuring access to qualified veterinary practitioners, the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Board states the following:

  • Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-187.4(a)(2), the Board may issue, without examination, a permit to nonresident veterinarians validly licensed in another state, territory, or district of the United States or a foreign country, provided that such temporary permit shall be issued for a period of no more than 60 days.
  • Accordingly, to facilitate and expedite the permitting of non-resident veterinarians who wish to practice veterinary medicine in the storm-affected counties in North Carolina (set forth in the list below), and to allow for non-resident veterinarians to begin practicing in storm-affected counties as soon as possible, the Board will require the permit application to be submitted within 10 days of the start of any non-resident veterinarian’s practice of veterinary medicine in a storm affected area, provided that the individual has a good faith belief that they meet the requirements set forth in 21 NCAC Chapter 66.0305. Further, the Board will waive fees associated with any temporary permit application submitted.
  • Notably, there is no temporary permit process for registered veterinary technicians or veterinary staff. Any resident or non-resident who wishes to provide registered veterinary technician or veterinary staff services may do so under the direct supervision of a licensed veterinarian or non-resident veterinarian who is practicing with a temporary permit obtained pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-187.4(a)(2).
  • Any temporary permits issued pursuant to the guidance set forth above will be for a period of time not to exceed 60 days and will limit non-resident veterinarians to practice in storm-affected areas including Alexander, Alleghany, Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Clay, Cleveland, Gaston, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Lincoln, Macon, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Polk, Rutherford, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes and Yancey counties and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Veterinary Facility Permits/Boarding Kennel Permits (Update)
The new Facility Permits/Boarding Kennel Permits will be available October 14, 2024. All facilities will need to complete the Facility Permit application. Facilities offering boarding as a service to the public will need to complete the Boarding Kennel Permit section of the application.

Effective January 1, 2025 – Any person who owns a business that operates a facility providing services that constitute the “practice of veterinary medicine” on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis shall have a veterinary facility permit issued by the Board prior to offering or delivering any veterinary medical services to the public. Veterinary or Veterinary Technician teaching programs offering services to the public shall also have a veterinary facility permit. In addition, all Veterinary Facility Permitees that offer boarding services, will also be required to apply for, and obtain, a Boarding Kennel Permit.

All veterinary facilities currently registered with this office, and any new veterinary facilities will need to complete a Veterinary Facility Permit application, which will include the option of applying for a Boarding Kennel Permit. We anticipate having the application available online in September. Applications will be reviewed and approved, if acceptable, but would not be effective until January 1, 2025. Application fees will be waived through December 31, 2024, for all veterinary facilities currently registered.
Veterinary Facility Permit Information Requirements

  • The owner’s name, physical address, mailing address, email address, and telephone number;
  • Proposed or existing name of the facility, as set forth in G.S. 90-181.1, physical address, mailing address, email address, and telephone number; and
  • Designation of a supervising veterinarian of the facility subject to the provisions of Rules .0903 of this section.
  • Each veterinary facility permit shall be renewed yearly. Renewal fee $150.

Ownership of a veterinary facility will no longer be limited to veterinarians. To view the rules in their entirety please visit our website www.ncvmb.org.

Supervising Veterinarians

  • Supervising veterinarians shall be responsible for informing veterinary facility owners regarding instances of non-compliance with 21 NCAC 66 .0207 and 21 NCAC 66 .0208 at the veterinary facility.
  • Supervising veterinarians shall be currently licensed by and in good standing with the Board.
  • A veterinarian may be a supervising veterinarian at more than one veterinary facility. At each veterinary facility that is open for 159 hours or less per month, the supervising veterinarian shall be physically onsite for a minimum of 25 percent of the total time a veterinary facility is open. At each veterinary facility that is open for 160 hours or more per month, the supervising veterinarian shall be physically onsite at each veterinary facility for a minimum of 40 hours per month. Electronic or handwritten documentation stating the dates and times that the supervising veterinarian was present at the veterinary facility shall be maintained by the supervising veterinarian at each individual facility and made available by the owner, supervising veterinarian, or the staff at each facility at the time of inspection or investigation by the Board.
  • Owners may designate more than one supervising veterinarian.
  • The new rules do not authorize the Board to discipline a supervising veterinarian for an owner’s non-compliance with any Board Rules, including 21 NCAC 66.0207 and 21 NCAC 66.0208.

Boarding Kennels
A Boarding Kennel Permit will be required for a facility operating under a Veterinary Facility Permit and which regularly offers to the public the service of boarding dogs, cats, or both for a fee. Such a facility or establishment may, in addition to providing shelter, food, and water, offer grooming or other services for dogs and/or cats. Inspections will be as stringent as boarding kennel inspections conducted by the Animal Welfare Section (AWS) of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS).

Veterinary Facility Permits that include a Boarding Kennel Permit will have an application fee and renewal fee of $225. Application fees will be waived through December 31, 2024, for all veterinary facilities currently registered.

Boarding incidental to the practice of veterinary medicine does not require a Boarding Kennel Permit.

Inspections
Owners of facilities will be responsible for ensuring any violations cited are corrected and plans are in place to prevent the violation from occurring again.
Types of inspections and their schedules

  • Routine inspections occur every two years.
  • New facilities are inspected prior to seeing clients and then a 1-year follow-up inspection is conducted before being placed on a routine inspection schedule.
  • Transfer of ownership inspections are conducted within 90 days after the change of ownership with a 1-year follow-up inspection before being placed on a routine schedule.
  • Renovations must be reported to the Board prior to the renovations being started to determine if an inspection is needed prior to utilization of the renovated area.
  • Moving, the Board must be notified prior to the move and an inspection must be conducted at new location prior to seeing clients. There would be a 1-year follow-up inspection before being placed on a routine inspection schedule.
  • Serious Violation inspections are conducted when serious violations are cited during a scheduled inspection. If serious violations are cited, then a follow-up inspection will be conducted within 4 weeks to ensure the serious violations have been corrected. There would be a 1-year follow-up inspection before being placed on a routine inspection schedule.

Applications
Applications will be available October 14, 2024. All applications must be submitted electronically via https://portal.ncvmb.org. All applications received prior to January 1, 2025, will have the application fee waived. Effective January 1, 2025, the application fees stated below will apply:

  • Veterinary Facility Permit – $150.00
  • Veterinary Facility Permit w/ Boarding Kennel Permit – $225.00

All permits will need to renewed yearly beginning 12/31/2025. The renewal window for permits will open October 1, 2025.
If you have any questions or concerns do not hesitate to contact our office at 919-854-5601 or via email at kwest@ncvmb.org.

Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board – August 14, 2024 Minutes

Pennsylvania State Board of Veterinary Medicine:

March 22, 2024 Minutes
May 17, 2024 Minutes
July 26, 2024 Minutes

Tennessee Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners – April 10, 2024 Minutes

Correspondence – LVMT euthanasia clarification
A question was submitted to the Board asking, “In order for a Licensed Veterinary Medical Technician to perform euthanasia, does the LVMT have to have completed the Board Approved euthanasia technician training course or can they not take the course, still be supervised by a licensed veterinarian, and perform euthanasia.”

Ms. Webb-Stewart provided guidance to the Board, in that there is a place where the rule is silent and would require interpretation by the Board. If someone is being supervised by a licensed veterinarian, can they perform euthanasia without holding a CAET license/certification? This is the performance of euthanasia, not making the decision to perform euthanasia.

Dr. McInturff noted that an LVMT has a higher level of training than an unlicensed veterinary assistant and has taken pharmacology courses in their degree program. He does not want to put lethal substances in the hands of an unlicensed individual. He is not in favor of unlicensed individuals performing euthanasia. He stated euthanasia is not a diagnosis, a prescription, or a surgery. It is the application of a medication that has been prescribed by a licensed veterinarian.

A motion was made by Dr. Zinkus, to approve the Board’s interpretation that a LVMT may perform euthanasia under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian without taking a euthanasia course. A second was made by Dr. Youmans.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Correspondence – EMS K9 Discussion
Ms. Wereszczak recused herself from this discussion as she has assisted Mr. Prater and Mr. Johnson in this project.

Stacy Prater and Jason Johnson were present to give their presentation on Life Force Air Medical, Operational K9 Treatment Guidelines to the Board. Mr. Johnson gave an overview as to why this project has come about Operation K9 Kane:
I would like to request to the Board that LIFE FORCE Air Medical, having six bases, covering roughly 50,000 square miles in its service area, be granted permission to initiate a 2-year pilot program by the State Veterinary Board to allow our Board-Certified Critical Care Paramedics and Nurses to be able to care for a critically ill or injured operational K9 while being able to transport that K9 to a local or regional 24-hour emergency veterinary hospital for care.
Over the last few years, there have been two cases in Tennessee where this would have been beneficial and one of those K9s survived and the other did not. The one that did not, from
what I have been told, may have survived if the handler or EMS was able to provide some treatment in transit to the veterinary hospital.
With the proper training and that being done in conjunction with a local veterinarian(s) that are Emergency and/or Critical Care Board Certified. We do have some locally that are willing
to be an oversight on the guidelines, provide guidance, and assist with training as needed to be able to do this if we are given permission. We know we cannot charge for the care of the
animal yet this would be a rare occurrence that we may even need to transport one but if that situation did come up, these dogs deserve the same opportunities to care as we do.
They are, in many instances, placing themselves in harm’s way well before the officer or military personnel does, in order to keep us as well as the military and law enforcement safe.
If we are granted permission to be able to do this as a pilot program, we would be the ONLY agency in Tennessee doing this and the 4th in the Nation. With the pilot program, we would
expect to be able to present to the board as often as needed to update on the progress, training, any cases, etc while in the pilot program. If approved, the next step would be to get this approved by the State Emergency Medical Services Board for their approval, but we need your approval first to move it forward.

Ms. Lee asked if there are programs like this in other states, Mr. Prater stated, yes in Texas, New Jersey, and one other state. If the Tennessee Veterinary Board approves, it would be the 4th in the nation.

Dr. Zinkus asked about the legality of the program. Ms. Webb-Stewart stated that the Board will have to determine if they will accept the training of the program and then it will go before the EMS board.

Ms. Wereszczak came before the Board as a public member and stated she helped the EMS personnel who was transporting a Police K9 to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s Animal Emergency Room on the phone. Ms. Wereszczak also spoke on the continuing education course’s that UTK offers to EMS personnel on saving an animal officer’s life.

Ms. Prater and Mr. Johnson are also looking for a veterinarian to be the ‘supervising veterinarian’ to be responsible for the practice of this veterinary assistant/EMS personnel.

Dr. Youmans made a motion to move forward with the Pilot program K9 Kane with a second from Dr. Zinkus.

Motion passed unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Prater asked the Board how often they would like a report back on this pilot program. The Board requested an update at the December Board meeting and if the EMS Board approves this program, an annual report is requested.

Utah Veterinary Physicians Licensing Board – September 19, 2024 Audio

Virginia Board of Veterinary Medicine – September 23, 2024 Informal Conferences Minutes

Public Meeting Notice: Animal Healthcare Tasks Subcommittee

The Veterinary Board of Governors is holding a subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, November 13, 2024, at 8 am.

The subcommittee will discuss WACs 246-935-010, 040, and 050.

Current DRAFT language of WAC & Tasks in Table WAC.
Meeting agenda.

If you have more questions regarding this agenda, please contact Poppy Budrow at veterinary@doh.wa.gov.

Legacy Council Meeting Highlights | September 23, 2024

Update on the After-Hours Care Task Force: The Legacy Council received an update from its after-hours care task force, which started its work in March 2023. The task force is preparing recommendations for Council’s consideration in relation to the delivery of after-hours care. The task force is looking at the role of veterinary technicians, shifts in client expectations, work-life balance, as well as the social contract in veterinary medicine. The Legacy Council looks forward to receiving the report and recommendations from the task force. A replay of this presentation is available on the College website.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Next Steps: The Legacy Council discussed future steps in relation to antimicrobial stewardship. Since 2014, antimicrobial resistance and stewardship have been part of the College’s work in One Health. Over the years, the College has conducted research, shared information and supported discussions aimed at reducing antimicrobial use. The Legacy Council approved development of a strategy to demonstrate meaningful change to antimicrobial prescribing. A replay of this discussion is available on the College website.

IDEA and the Code of Ethics: The Legacy Council discussed incorporating the principles of inclusion, diversity, equity and accessibility into the Code of Ethics. The Legacy Council directed the Quality Assurance Committee to revise the Code of Ethics to include ethical principles and guidance on how one is to act as a morally responsible member of the veterinary profession including anti-racism, inclusivity, and cultural safety. A replay of this discussion is available on the College website.

Operating Budget 2025: The Legacy Council approved its operating budget for 2025. The budget includes the first year of transition to the new legislation with the introduction of the Transition Council. The budget has a small surplus and does not increase licensure fees. The Transition Council budget is funded by reserves and includes expenses for meetings, technology, communications, consulting fees and staffing.

By-Law Changes – Appointment of Council Committee Members & Sunsetting the Governance, Audit, and Risk Committee: Council discussed two by-law changes which were approved for consultation. One change relates to providing the ability for non-Council committee members to continue to serve for up to nine years, if they wish to do so. This change would be to support stability on its committee membership during the current period of transition. The second change concerns sunsetting the Governance, Audit and Risk Committee. During the time of transition, the Legacy Council will not be implementing new policies or investing considerable resources in education sessions. GAR resources (committee member time, financial resources, staff time) could be allocated elsewhere to support the transition. This consultation will be open through the fall and, as always, the Legacy Council looks forward to reviewing your feedback to assist with its decision-making.

______________________________

Transition Council Highlights | September 23 & 24, 2024

VMA's

Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association – August-September ArVMA Update

Governor Newsom Signs Two New Bills Protecting Pets
September 26, 2024

Sacramento, CA – Pets can be expensive, especially with spaying, neutering, and pet insurance costs, but Governor Newsom today signed new legislation to help defray those bills. “Every pet deserves a home – and every home is happier with a pet – but the rising costs of pet care and the growing number of animals in need of adoption present real challenges. California is addressing both issues: reforming the pet insurance industry and supporting efforts to meet the high demand for accessible spay and neuter services to address overcrowding in shelters.”

The problem is impacting the Mother Lode as both Calaveras County Animal Services have been over capacity with animals and Tuolumne County Animals Control earlier this month reported a record number of puppy and kitten litters was forcing their euthanasia. As we reported here, officials also relayed a new way the shelter was working on bringing those numbers down by opening its own spay and neuter surgery suite and that it has a new source for bringing those costs down. Newsom noted that he is building on the administration’s prior work to improve animal welfare. The governor’s office provided these details on the bills:

  1. SB 1217, by Senator Steven Glazer (D-Orinda), strengthens consumer protections and requires more transparency from pet insurers regarding coverage or premium changes based on the age or geographic location of the covered pet. It requires greater clarity in policies that exclude pre-existing conditions, clearly establishing wellness programs as distinct from insurance, and requires that coverage be issued the second day after receiving the complete application and payment.
  2. SB 1233, by Senator Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita), authorizes a California veterinary medical school to develop a high-quality, high-volume spay and neuter certification program, which may significantly expand pet owners’ access to low and no-cost spay-neuter services. This effort goes hand-in-hand with AB 1983, by Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego), signed earlier this year. It established the Prevention of Animal Homelessness and Cruelty Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund (Prevention Fund), to which Californians can voluntarily donate a portion of their tax return. The Prevention Fund offers grants for low-cost/no-cost spay and neuter services.

Written by Tracey Petersen.

Florida Veterinary Medical Association – Practice Pulse
Issue 3 2024

Keeping you updated on regulatory and legislative changes affecting veterinary medicine.

QUESTION: We are getting many clients who do not want to give their animals rabies vaccines. How do you recommend dealing with it? We have explained the legality part, health risks, and advised their animal would have to be muzzled for all procedures and quarantined if he/ she bit someone. Owners get mad and frustrated with us. Are we supposed to be enforcing rabies vaccination laws? Should we tell them to go elsewhere?
A: Rabies vaccinations are not optional. They are required by law. The best way for veterinarians to handle clients who fight them over administering a rabies vaccine is to tell them that you (the veterinarian) can be disciplined by the Board of Veterinary Medicine for “failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensee” and that you are not willing to jeopardize your license, and that they need to seek treatment elsewhere if they are unwilling to comply.

QUESTION: Our hospital frequently receives phone calls from local brand-name pharmacies (Walgreens/CVS) that claim it is a legal requirement to have the DEA number written on the prescription for non-controlled substances provided to the client, which is then dropped off at the pharmacy. Our hospital currently uses a “call if needed” stamp in lieu of writing the DEA number on the script handed to the client. Is it a legal requirement to have the DEA number written on a prescription for a noncontrolled substance?
A: There is no legal requirement to show a DEA registration number on a prescription for a non-controlled substance. Unfortunately, many pharmacies use DEA numbers because their computer software has an entry for them, and they use them as identifying information for the prescriber. This is something that the pharmacies are insisting on, but there is little a veterinarian can do other than suggest to their clients that they use another pharmacy.

QUESTION: I wanted clarification on control drugs c3 and c4. Can we write a prescription, and can it have refills? One of my staff members says that you cannot write refills, but I found this in the 2023 Florida Statutes: “A prescription for a controlled substance listed in Schedule III, Schedule IV, or Schedule V may not be filled or refilled more than five times within a period of 6 months after the date on which the prescription was written unless the prescription is renewed by a practitioner.” Please let me know your thoughts.
A: The quoted language from the Florida Statutes is correct. A prescription for a Schedule III, IV, or V can show five refills (not to exceed six months after the original prescription was written). A Schedule II cannot have authorized refills.

QUESTION: Does a mobile, mixed-practice veterinarian need to have an HCCE permit? I only take my vehicle out into the field for large animal patients.
A: If you are a solo practitioner, you do not need an HCCE permit. However, you may have issues buying drugs from some wholesalers that require the HCCE as part of the transaction.

QUESTION: We have a new DVM starting at our clinic. She will be working under our current doctor’s license while she is awaiting her state test results. Are there any limitations to what she is legally able to do?
A: The new DVM can practice veterinary medicine under the immediate (on-premises, not over the shoulder) supervision of a licensed veterinarian.

  • (5) An unlicensed Doctor of Veterinary Medicine who has graduated from an approved college or school of veterinary medicine and has completed all parts of the examination for licensure is permitted, while awaiting the results of such examination for licensure or while awaiting issuance of the license, to practice under the immediate supervision of a licensed veterinarian. A person who fails any part of the examination may not continue to practice, except in the same capacity as other non-licensed veterinary employees, until she or he passes the examination and is eligible for licensure.
    However, the statute indicates that only a veterinarian (which is defined elsewhere as a licensed veterinarian) can administer immunizations that are communicable to humans.
    5)(a) Any person, or the person’s regular employee, administering to the ills or injuries of her or his own animals, including, but not limited to, castration, spaying, and dehorning of herd animals, unless a title is transferred, or employment provided for the purpose of circumventing this law. This exemption does not apply to any person licensed as a veterinarian in another state or foreign jurisdiction and practicing temporarily in this state. However, only a veterinarian may immunize or treat an animal for diseases communicable to humans and of public health significance.

QUESTION: I am setting up new veterinary software, and my implementor asked me what needs to be on the prescription labels for medication dispensing for Florida. Could you assist in this matter, please?
A: All containers must be labeled with: The name of the drug – Strength and quantity of the drug – Expiration date – Instructions as to the use of the drug – The name and species of animal for which the drug is intended to be administered – The last name of the animal’s owner – The name, address, and telephone number of the veterinarian prescribing the drug. If is a controlled substance, the following needs to be included: – Practice name and address – Serial (prescription) number – The name of the patient – The name of the prescribing practitioner – Directions for use – Cautionary statements such as: “CAUTION: Federal Law prohibits the transfer of this drug to any person other than the patient for whom it was prescribed.”

Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association – Kentucky Veterinary News
Summer 2024

Summary of MVMA Activity During the 2024 Legislative Session
2024 was an emergency session in the Maine Legislature, which usually means a fairly quiet year. Not so this year, though! The MVMA was busy advocating on behalf of veterinarians and veterinary medicine. Below is a summary of the issues that we worked on.

LD 2156, An Act to Authorize the Provision of Emergency Medical Treatment for Certain Dogs
Building on legislation passed in 2018, Rep. Jess Faye submitted LD 2156 which proposed to clarify that when a law enforcement dog is injured, whether in the line of duty or on a search and rescue mission, that the dog will receive the same medical response as a similarly situated human officer. The intent of the bill was laudable; making sure that canine officers have the best chance to survive an injury. However, the original draft language amended the Veterinary Practice Act, which was of concern to the MVMA because it might have opened the door to future amendments to the Practice Act. The MVMA collaborated with the sponsor and law enforcement stakeholders to craft language that would address the needs of the law enforcement and first responder community while at the same time protect the Veterinary Practice Act. The compromise proposal easily passed out of committee and was enacted by the full legislature without debate.

LD 2174, An Act to Protect Consumers from Predatory Medical Credit Card Providers
Given rising medical costs and the issue of medical debt, Senate President Troy Jackson submitted legislation that would have prohibited certain practices associated with medical credit cards–impacting CareCredit and other medical credit lines. LD 2174 would have prohibited a healthcare provider from offering or arranging for a medical credit card for a consumer or establishing or otherwise completing any portion of an application for a medical credit card on a consumer’s behalf, in that healthcare provider’s office, treatment area or other health care setting. It would also have prohibited a healthcare provider from offering, arranging for, or establishing a medical credit card for a consumer that contains a deferred interest provision in the medical credit card contract. When the bill was printed, it was not clear to the MVMA whether the language would have captured veterinarians or their practices.

The MVMA reached out to the bill’s sponsor, Senate President Troy Jackson, through our lobbyists to discuss our concerns about limiting credit lines for veterinary care. The Senate President stated that it was not his intention to capture veterinarians. When Synchrony’s lobbyists reached out to the MVMA to ask us to oppose the bill, we explained that veterinarians were not intended to be included in the bill and we would testify Neither For Nor Against. By testifying Neither For Nor Against, the MVMA was able to advocate for keeping veterinarians out of the bill without getting involved in the political wrangling. It gave us the opportunity to explain how important the use of CareCredit is to the veterinary world. As a result of the MVMA’s engagement, language was added to the final bill to make it clear that veterinarians and their practices were not subject to the law. The bill received a divided report when it was voted on by the committee, with some members supporting and others opposing the overall intent of the bill. Ultimately, the bill died when the House and Senate could not agree. Veterinarians were never included in the language of the bill.

LD 1537, An Act to Amend the Laws Relating to the Prevention of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Pollution
In 2019, the Maine Legislature passed first-in-the-nation legislation aimed at addressing PFAS contamination and limiting exposure to future PFAS. Due to the breadth and complexity of the law and the burden placed on businesses and the regulatory agencies tasked with implementing and enforcing the law, the legislature has spent the past 4 years trying to address some of the perceived issues with the law. One of those concerns was the use and reporting of PFAS in veterinary products. Stakeholders, including IDEXX and the Animal Health Institute, were able to negotiate a number of exemptions including one for veterinary products. Throughout the months-long process, multiple drafts were publicly shared and discussed by the Joint Standing Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources and all iterations contained the veterinary exemption.

At the last committee work session and just prior to the initial vote, the majority of the committee amended the veterinary product exemption, carving out any product for use on or in animals slated for food production. This change would have meant that beginning in 2032, manufacturers who produce products intended for use on or in food production animals would have been required to register and report those products to the State and failure to do so would have resulted in a ban of those products. Several medications widely used in veterinary medicine would have been impacted. The MVMA immediately began reachout to legislators and working to overturn the committee’s changes. Collaborating with stakeholders and lobbyist/member outreach to targeted legislators, the MVMA was able to reverse the carve-out and restore the full veterinary product exemption. With the full exemption reinstated, the committee unanimously voted LD 1537 and the full legislature agreed, passing the bill without debate.

Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association – Keystone Veterinarian
Summer 2024

Pharmacy Updates

Dear Veterinarian Letter Regarding Use of Aspirin Products in Lactating Dairy Cattle

Dear Veterinarian:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration understands that veterinarians and dairy farmers may be treating lactating dairy cattle for pyrexia and pain with aspirin and wants to clarify that there are no FDA-approved aspirin products for use in cattle. The extralabel use of unapproved drugs in food-producing species is prohibited.
There are FDA-approved products for controlling pyrexia and pain in lactating dairy cattle that are safe, effective, and have established milk and meat withdrawal periods. All FDA-approved animal products are required to carry one of the following statements on the label:
“Approved by FDA under NADA # XXX-XXX” (for brand name animal drugs), or
“Approved by FDA under ANADA # XXX-XXX” (for generic animal drugs).

Under the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (also known as AMDUCA), veterinarians may use an FDA-approved human or animal drug in food-producing species under specific conditions. There is one FDA-approved human aspirin product (Vazalore) that is currently marketed. Although other human aspirin products are marketed under an over-the-counter monograph, that monograph is not an approval and, therefore, these products cannot be used in an extralabel manner. Given the impracticality of dosing cattle with a sufficient amount of the approved human product, the FDA understands that veterinarians and dairy farmers may instead be using unapproved aspirin products that are not legally marketed. The extralabel use of unapproved drug products in food-producing species is prohibited.

Veterinarians and dairy farmers should stop use of unapproved aspirin in lactating dairy cattle and use FDA-approved products to control pyrexia and pain. In the event that animals have already been treated with aspirin, veterinarians should use their scientific expertise and available resources to set protective and extended milk and meat withdrawal periods for treated animals.

Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority

August/September 2024 Newsletter

HISA 2024-2029 Final Strategic Plan