Major Battle Over Colorado Ballot Measures Could Change Veterinary Care Delivery
Updated July 1, 2024
Major Battle Over Colorado Ballot Measures Could Change Veterinary Care Delivery
A significant debate is unfolding in Colorado over two ballot measures that could drastically alter the way veterinary care is delivered. These initiatives, if approved, aim to address the state's veterinary care shortage and expand access in rural communities. However, critics argue that the measures could compromise animal safety by allowing unlicensed individuals to provide veterinary care.
Ballot Initiative 144: Telehealth in Veterinary Medicine
Overview: Initiative 144 seeks to modify House Bill 24-1048, which currently requires veterinarians to conduct an in-person, physical examination of the animal or medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal is kept before offering veterinary care using telehealth services. If passed, the initiative would allow veterinarians to establish a veterinary client relationship either through an in-person visit or via telehealth.
Supporters' View: Apryl Steele, President and CEO of Dumb Friends League, supports removing the in-person requirement. She argues that during the pandemic, when a similar executive order was in place, there was no increase in complaints attributed to telehealth. Steele believes that telehealth can sometimes provide a better evaluation of a pet's condition, such as observing lameness in the pet's normal environment.
Steele maintains that telehealth saves unnecessary trips to the vet and helps those in rural or underserved areas access care more easily. She emphasizes that if a pet's condition doesn't improve after a virtual consultation, a follow-up in-person visit can be arranged.
Critics' View: Veterinarian McCormick, in a column in The Denver Post, defends HB 1048 and argues against Initiative 144, stating that the in-person requirement ensures telehealth is used as a supplement, not a replacement, for hands-on animal care. She and other critics worry that removing this requirement could lead to improper diagnoses and treatments, posing a danger to pets. They also express concerns about potential "pill mills" for human drugs if veterinarians are allowed to prescribe medication virtually.
Ballot Initiative 145: Creating Veterinary Professional Associates
Overview: Initiative 145 proposes creating a new role called "veterinary professional associate," which would require a Master's degree in "veterinary clinical care" or its equivalent.
Supporters' View: Proponents like Steele compare this new role to a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner, suggesting it would bridge the gap between veterinary technicians and doctors of veterinary medicine. Steele argues that this role could help retain veterinary technicians, who often leave the profession due to limited advancement opportunities and low pay. The initiative aims to provide a career path requiring only five semesters of education beyond a veterinary technician's bachelor's degree.
Critics' View: McCormick and the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) oppose Initiative 145. McCormick warns that it would allow unlicensed individuals to practice veterinary medicine, which she believes is dangerous for pets. The CVMA argues that it would be more efficient to further develop the role of existing veterinary technicians rather than creating a new profession with potential barriers to integration and utilization.
The debate over these ballot measures has veterinarians and stakeholders divided. Supporters argue that these changes will expand access to care and address the veterinary care shortage in rural areas. Critics, however, fear that the measures could compromise the quality of care and pose risks to animals. As the November ballot approaches, the future of veterinary care in Colorado hangs in the balance.
For more information on these initiatives and their potential impacts, stay tuned for updates and insights from both sides of the debate.
