Veterinary Medical Board discusses possible legislation for chiropractors and physical therapists treating animals; opinions split

The Veterinary Medical Board discussed potential legislation that would allow human-health professionals—licensed chiropractors and licensed physical therapists—to perform certain services on animals without the veterinarian being physically present.

Nut graf: Staff told the board there were no bills yet but that meetings with legislative staff and stakeholder groups have continued. The Board heard presentations and public comment on whether such activity should be permitted, how complaints would be handled, and which regulatory body should oversee qualifications and enforcement.

What the Board heard: Staff described recent stakeholder briefings and said model language circulated to members resembled legislation enacted in other states. Some board members urged the board to be at the table so California can shape any statute rather than cede the terms to other licensing boards. Concerns centered on consumer protection and who would receive complaints if nonveterinarians treat animals, with unanswered variations across states (for example, in some states complaints go to the chiropractic board; in others they go to the veterinary board).

Public comment and positions: Grant Miller, regulatory director for the California Veterinary Medical Association, told the board the CVMA “will remain in strong opposition to any attempt by a human-healthcare practitioner to increase their scope of practice to include animals.” He said that under referral or referral-without-supervision models, “the ability for the veterinarian to keep eyes on that patient diminishes over time” and that complex, emerging medical problems can be missed if veterinarians are not continually involved.

Representatives of the Physical Therapy/Animal coalition urged the board to consider a framework that balances animal-patient safety with increased access to services, said coalition leader Karen Atlas, and asked the Board not to oppose “common-sense legislation” allowing qualified physical therapists to provide animal physical therapy under a referral model. The coalition asked the Board to use language that recognizes a referral model rather than supervision language that—stakeholders argued—does not map well onto veterinary practice settings.

Board discussion: Some board members favored keeping veterinarian oversight as the prerequisite for these services (for example, a veterinarian-authored treatment plan and periodic rechecks), while others urged exploring certification requirements for chiropractors and physical therapists who would treat animals. Members repeatedly stressed the need for a clear complaint pathway so consumers know where to take concerns. One board member said the board should consider adding certification requirements and possibly retaining regulatory authority rather than allowing responsibility to sit exclusively with the chiropractic or physical-therapy boards.

Next steps: Staff recommended the board’s executive committee (which has delegated authority to brief legislators) pursue further discussions with legislative staff and stakeholders and return recommendations to the full board. The board did not adopt any formal policy change at the Jan. 16 meeting; members asked the Medical Discipline Committee to continue work on regulatory approaches, including: (1) whether certification should be required for chiropractors delivering animal services; (2) how a referral model would be operationalized; and (3) complaint pathways and consumer protections.

Ending: The board’s discussion signals that California regulators will continue to monitor and shape legislation. Stakeholders representing veterinarians and allied professions offered sharply different views; the board asked staff to keep the executive committee informed and to return draft options for regulatory language.