Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Allied Animal Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears presentations on animal chiropractic and allied‑health regulation; Kentucky and Nevada officials describe differing approaches
Summary
Two national and two state-level presenters outlined certification standards for animal chiropractic and how Nevada and Kentucky regulate allied animal-health professions; presenters and board members discussed supervision, red flags, recordkeeping and public‑protection implications.
The Veterinary Medical Board heard a pair of presentations about animal chiropractic certification and about state approaches to licensing allied animal‑health professions (chiropractic, physical therapy, and equine dental providers).
Representatives from the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA) and the Animal Chiropractic Certification Commission described the organization’s certification process: program approval for training providers, a two‑part candidate examination (written and practical), recertification and continuing education requirements, and a professional‑practice analysis used to validate exam content. AVCA speakers emphasized that (1) certified practitioners must complete school‑approved training modules and pass both written and practical exams before advertising animal chiropractic services and (2) certified chiropractors are not veterinarians and should not practice veterinary medicine or prescribe drugs; they said veterinarians and certified chiropractors should work as adjuncts to one another.
The board also heard regulatory perspectives from two state licensure authorities: the Kentucky Board of Veterinary Examiners (which recently added an allied‑animal‑health permit framework in a practice‑act modernization) and the Nevada State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (which licenses animal chiropractors and physical therapists). Kentucky staff described a recent legislative modernization that added an allied‑animal‑health permit (AAHP) category and noted active debates about which modalities and activities should be allowed, how to define ‘‘livestock’’ versus other animals, and whether some legacy practitioners should be grandfathered. Kentucky staff said their draft regulatory approach would limit AAHP scope (no diagnostic imaging, no surgery, no prescription authority), require record exchange with veterinarians and contemplate a pathway to a full AAHP license largely for liability/insurance reasons. Nevada staff described a different model: separate license types with statutory definitions for animal chiropractic, animal physical therapy and equine dental practice. Nevada’s model requires practitioner licensure with the parallel professional board (chiropractic or physical therapy board) as a condition of animal practice and typically requires a veterinarian referral with a valid veterinary‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) and medical‑record exchange within 48 hours; equine dental providers in Nevada must practice under direct supervision.
Board members asked about: (1) red flags and how training programs teach identification of neurologic disease and contraindications to adjustment, (2) where supervisory liability lies and how complaints are handled when practitioners are not veterinarians, (3) whether pasteurization and raw‑milk messaging are needed (matter raised earlier in the CDFA report), and (4) how a state should balance access to care against patient safety when creating carve‑outs or permits. Presenters said school curricula and AVCA exam content include sections on red flags and contraindications, that certification is time‑limited and requires continuing education, and that reporting and discipline are handled by the relevant state board when a licensee’s conduct harms an animal.
Why this matters: Several public commenters and stakeholders have urged the Veterinary Medical Board either to regulate specific allied‑health providers on animals or to defer to the boards that already license those professions. Board members said they want state guidance that protects animals and avoids fragmented oversight where multiple professional boards define different standards for the same animal procedures.
What the board asked and next steps: The board received the presentations for information and invited additional stakeholder input. Kentucky and Nevada officials said they will continue to work with the board and stakeholders; the VMB will consider this material as MDC and staff refine any California policy options.
