Senate committee hears wide-ranging revisions to veterinary-practice law; industry seeks amendments

The North Dakota Senate Workforce Development Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 2129, a bill to amend the state's veterinary practice law that drew supporters and opponents from across the state but produced no committee vote.

Dr. Sarah Lyons, executive secretary for the North Dakota Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, told the committee the bill updates "cumbersome and outdated language" in the practice act and urged a "due pass" recommendation. Lyons said the bill adds new definitions, clarifies licensing for veterinary technicians, sets out complaint and discipline procedures and creates a framework for telemedicine tied to an existing veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR). "The importance of in person establishment of the VCPR cannot be stressed enough," Lyons said, arguing that remote visits do not replace a hands-on examination.

The bill and testimony matter because they would change how veterinarians and licensed veterinary technicians are defined and regulated in North Dakota, how and when telemedicine can be used, and how complaints and impairment evaluations are handled'all areas with immediate consequences for rural veterinary access and clinic operations.

Key provisions described by the board and supporters include new definitions covering impairment (including physical and mental disabilities), an explicit statutory description of the VCPR that requires an in-person exam to establish the relationship, a telemedicine framework that permits remote care only within an established in-person VCPR, license requirements for veterinary technicians including a jurisprudence exam, and title protection plus penalties for unlicensed practice.

The North Dakota Veterinary Medical Association (NDVMA) offered conditional support but proposed a package of amendments. Dr. Heather Mitchell, NDVMA president, asked the committee to: retain an education-accreditation requirement in statute rather than move it to administrative rule; add a separate definition for an out-of-state "practitioner"; clarify that telemedicine practice counts as occurring where the patient is located and requires the out-of-state practitioner to be licensed to provide care to a patient physically in North Dakota; add protections and a separate statutory process for impaired licensees that encourages voluntary self-reporting and confidentiality; strike or limit provisions that would require licensees to pay the board's legal costs; and provide narrow exceptions for continuing telemedicine care from a referring out-of-state veterinarian for up to one year after an initial in-person visit.

Supporters highlighted workforce and access issues. Shane Gettle, representing the NDVMA in committee, and Pete Annavan, director of public policy for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, both told senators that the bill could help fill a shortage of veterinarians in the state, but that the NDVMA's amendments should be considered to address practical concerns.

Opponents said the proposal, as drafted, grants the board overly broad authority and risks harming rural veterinary businesses. Dr. Shelly Lens, a long-time rural practice owner in the Killdeer/Dickinson area, said the bill "will harm the veterinary workforce, veterinary businesses, animal health and welfare, food animal producers, and overall quality of life in our communities." She described prior experiences with vague disciplinary complaints and said the practice act should be limited to core acts of veterinary medicine (diagnosis, prognosis, surgery and prescribing) and should not empower the board to police ethics or business decisions she said were subjective and could be weaponized.

Catherine Volashenko of the Nonpartisan League also opposed the bill in its current form and urged a study or broader stakeholder process before enactment.

Committee discussion included requests for additional clarifying language and an offer from some testifiers to work with the board in a workshop setting. Senator questions focused on the bill's telemedicine limits and rural access implications; Lyons and Mitchell both emphasized the board's preference for an in-person VCPR while acknowledging tele-advice and triage could be provided in emergencies without establishing a VCPR.

No formal motion or vote was taken at the hearing. The committee recessed and later reconvened for an unrelated Commerce briefing.

Ending note: The hearing closed with the committee accepting written testimony and indicating a likely further review or workshop to consider the NDVMA's proposed amendments before the bill is scheduled for another committee action.