Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterinary Telemedicine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears hours of testimony on bill to allow virtual veterinary client‑patient relationships
Summary
Senate Bill 159 would allow licensed Colorado veterinarians to establish a veterinarian‑client‑patient relationship via a synchronous audio‑visual exam; the committee heard extensive, divided testimony about access to care, federal prescribing rules and risks to rural veterinary practices.
Senate Bill 159 would permit a licensed Colorado veterinarian to establish a VCPR through a live audio‑visual exam (a virtual VCPR) and thereby allow veterinarians to provide telemedicine and prescribe certain medications for patients they see virtually. Sponsors Senators Lisa Cutter and Janet Winter framed the bill as a response to a statewide shortage of veterinarians and a documented gap in access in rural and low‑income communities.
Supporters included veterinary telemedicine advocates, animal welfare organizations and shelters, utilities and county advocates who testified that telemedicine expands access to care for seniors, people without transportation, and families who otherwise surrender pets when care is unavailable. Witnesses cited other states (seven named) that permit virtual VCPRs and testified they found no reported harms. Multiple shelter and welfare organizations, the ASPCA, Humane Colorado and private telemedicine providers described examples where virtual contacts would have prevented suffering and helped prepare anxious pets for in‑person care.
Opposing testimony came from numerous practicing veterinarians, veterinarians representing the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and registered veterinary technicians. Opponents argued the current Colorado law (adopted last year) already allows tele‑triage and tele‑advice once an in‑person VCPR is established and that allowing virtual VCPRs would limit veterinarians to on‑label prescribing under federal guidance (making many common, off‑label but standard veterinary prescriptions unavailable in a virtual VCPR), risk poorer diagnostics without hands‑on exams and could open the door to corporate, out‑of‑state dispensing models that undercut rural mobile practitioners. Several veterinarians used case examples to illustrate circumstances where a first, in‑person exam revealed critical diagnostic information not available remotely.
After lengthy testimony from both sides, sponsors asked that the bill be laid over for action only to continue stakeholder discussions and to seek specific drafting feedback from veterinary organizations. The committee agreed to lay SB159 over for later action; the hearing record contains robust technical and policy material on telemedicine practice, federal prescribing rules and implementation safeguards.
