Missouri committee hears bill to bar local regulation of medical professions; veterinarians object

Representative Jim Murphy, a Republican from South St. Louis County, introduced House Bill 325 to a House committee hearing on March 25, 2025, proposing that the state — not local governments — control licensing and the scope of practice for medical professionals across Missouri.

The bill, Murphy said, would prevent local governments from imposing rules such as bans on particular prescriptions or procedures. "It's not the function of any government other than, the state to when it comes to licensing and then the practice," he said, adding that the bill’s aim is uniformity in how medical professions are regulated. Murphy also told the committee he plans to add a provision to include podiatrists under a proposed chapter 330 when the bill moves to executive action.

Supporters and several medical witnesses said local variation could create confusion for practitioners who work in multiple jurisdictions. Dr. Haruza, a physician who testified informally, said he appreciated the proposal because he has a practice and hospital privileges in multiple St. Louis-area municipalities and would prefer uniform standards for practice across jurisdictions.

Opposition focused sharply on the bill’s inclusion of veterinary medicine. Bob Baker of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation said the Veterinary Practices Act and the state’s current oversight structure leave animal patients and owners vulnerable. He testified that the veterinary board lacks mandatory investigative duties and that four of six board members must be selected from a list provided by the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association. "If this bill passes, they will have absolutely no oversight whatsoever," Baker said, urging the committee to remove the veterinary chapter (referred to in testimony as chapter 340) or to amend statutes so veterinarians are not exempt from cruelty statutes.

Representatives of animal-welfare organizations echoed that concern. Cody Atkinson of the Humane Society of the United States said the bill’s genesis included local restrictions on cat declawing in St. Louis City and County and that local input matters for animal-welfare measures. "Public input is valuable when it comes to getting outside of group think, and being able to advocate for the animal is vitally important," Atkinson said.

The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association sent a representative, Heath Clarkston, who described veterinarians as committed to animal welfare and said the association believes the bill has good intentions. "We believe the bill has a good intention and that is you know you as legislators set policy," Clarkston said, adding the group is willing to meet with lawmakers to clarify regulatory questions.

Pat Kelly, executive director of the Municipal League of Metro St. Louis, gave informational testimony clarifying that municipalities do not regulate medical professions in Missouri; licensing and health‑department functions are county responsibilities. "Municipalities don't have the authority to regulate, any medical business or professionals," Kelly said, noting the distinction between municipal licensing and county health‑department regulatory authority.

Committee members asked whether the bill was intended to address local actions during the COVID pandemic; Murphy and witnesses said similar measures occurred in other states but not, to their knowledge, in Missouri. Representatives also pressed witnesses on the practical consequences of statewide preemption — including that once the state takes the field, localities cannot act on future matters previously handled at the local level.

No vote was taken at the hearing. Murphy indicated he will pursue adding a podiatry chapter (chapter 330) and witnesses agreed to provide additional information requested by committee members. The hearing record closed at the committee chair’s announcement concluding testimony on House Bill 325.