Working group revises veterinary practice bill; debate centers on telemedicine, foreign practitioners and impairment rules

Lawmakers convened a working group on Senate Bill 2129 to reconcile proposals from the Veterinary Medical Examiners Board and the North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association over how the state will regulate veterinary practice, telemedicine, and related exceptions.

The nut graf: The group reviewed a set of proposed amendments and reached agreement on several items, while leaving open questions about whether statute should use the term "accredited" or a more flexible "approved" program definition, how out‑of‑state ("foreign") practitioners may provide telemedicine to animals in North Dakota, and how to treat voluntary self‑referral and impairment in disciplinary proceedings.

Dr. Lyons (representing the Veterinary Medical Examiners Board) reviewed 13 proposed amendments. The board proposed using the term "approved program of veterinary medicine" in statute so the accrediting organization could be named in administrative rule rather than written in code; the North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association (NDVMA) urged retaining the word "accredited" and naming the accrediting body in statute to preserve legislative oversight. NDVMA representatives said the American Veterinary Medical Association accreditation process has been the national standard for decades and urged that be reflected in law.

Telemedicine and the veterinarian‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) drew extended discussion. The board and association agreed teletriage and teleadvice (general guidance, routing patients to care) are not the practice of veterinary medicine and do not require rules, but both parties recommended statutes give the board authority to adopt telemedicine rules. The working group discussed a point raised by the NDVMA and lobbyists: if a foreign practitioner licensed in another state establishes a VCPR under that other state's rules, should that satisfy North Dakota law? The group agreed to clarify that any VCPR that authorizes continued telemedicine for animals in North Dakota must meet North Dakota's statutory standard for establishing a VCPR (typically an initial in‑person examination in the state) unless the committee explicitly decides otherwise.

Panelists also negotiated exceptions to the licensed practice of veterinary medicine — for grooming, training, farrier work (horseshoeing), microchip implantation, massage or acupressure, and "accepted livestock management practices." Witnesses asked the committee to avoid drafting a long, changing list in statute; the board said rulemaking can clarify particulars. Several witnesses sought explicit protection for non‑veterinary practitioners who perform routine tasks for animals, while underscoring that diagnosing, prescribing and treating remain the practice of veterinary medicine.

On disciplinary procedure, the working group discussed language to separate voluntary self‑referral for treatment or monitoring of impairment from formal complaint investigations. Assistant Attorney General Matt Mengi said proposed language was modeled on an existing physician health program statute and would allow the board to contract with a treatment/monitoring program while preserving confidentiality and clarifying when impairment alone constitutes discipline. Witnesses and the board agreed to draft language allowing voluntary participation in a treatment program and moving details of monitoring and treatment to administrative rule.

Other public testimony touched on narrow technical issues: farm groups asked that definitions of "accepted livestock management practice" align with agricultural best practices; groomers and farriers asked for clarity that routine non‑medical services remain permissible. Several practicing veterinarians spoke about fears of vague language; one urged clear time limits and documentation when a veterinarian terminates a client relationship to protect clinic staff and patient continuity of care.

Next steps: the group asked the board and NDVMA to continue negotiating three unresolved topics — accredited vs. approved program language, precise wording for foreign practitioner telemedicine and VCPR establishment, and the scope and wording for impairment and self‑referral provisions — and return with a cleaned draft for committee consideration.