A sponsor of the bill told the Ohio House Agriculture Committee that Substitute Senate Bill 60 would extend telehealth to veterinary medicine, increasing access to veterinary care across the state and making many consultations more efficient and timely.

The sponsor said the bill, which “passed unanimously out of the senate on 06/04/2025,” would be particularly beneficial for people in rural or underserved areas or those who lack transportation. “Imagine being able to take a photo or a short video of an animal as opposed to stressing the animal with a car ride,” the sponsor said, adding that veterinarians could make quick determinations and call in prescriptions when appropriate. The sponsor also said that “if the vet determines that [a diagnosis] cannot be made from a picture or video, the vet may require an office or farm visit to determine the issue and or treatment.”

Sen. Huffman, the bill’s joint sponsor, told the committee that telehealth has expanded in human medicine and that several states have enacted telehealth for veterinarians. “Telehealth specifically expanded and has been quite successful in many areas around the nation,” Huffman said, and described several checks the bill would include, such as informed-consent requirements and limits on drug prescribing through telehealth.

Both sponsors emphasized guardrails aimed at preserving the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR). The sponsor said VCPR “must be established in person first as required under federal law,” that veterinarians must be licensed in Ohio, and that “standards of care ... apply to in person and tele vet visits.” The bill also prohibits prescribing controlled substances via telehealth without an in-person physical exam, and limits prescriptions issued after a telehealth visit to 14 days with no more than one refill before an in-person visit is required, the sponsors said.

The sponsors said the bill would not alter provisions of “chapter 9 56” addressing commercial breeding, and that it specifically prevents producers raising livestock for human food from using telehealth for those animals unless a VCPR has been established in person. The sponsors said that language could change if federal law were to change in the future.

Members of the committee asked about workforce and enforcement implications. Representative Brent noted veterinary-education capacity constraints in Ohio and raised concerns about bad actors who might try to circumvent the in-person requirement to obtain controlled substances. The sponsor responded that federal and state enforcement channels (including the DEA and pharmacy monitoring) would apply and that rulemaking could address how controlled-substance prescribing is handled.

No committee vote was taken on Substitute Senate Bill 60 during the hearing; the sponsors presented testimony and answered members’ questions before the committee proceeded to the next agenda item.

The committee then moved on to consider House Bill 134.