Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterinarian Client Patient Relationship topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California veterinary board sends VCPR condition-specific question back to advisory committee for more study
Summary
The California Veterinary Medical Board agreed to send a question about whether the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) must be condition-specific back to its Medical Discipline Committee for further review after months of discussion and public comment.
The California Veterinary Medical Board asked its Medical Discipline Committee (MDC) on July 8 to continue studying whether the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) should remain condition-specific or be broadened, after members and public commenters said the existing interpretation may limit access to care.
Board members discussed a hypothetical case in which a dog previously seen for wellness care later developed diarrhea; clinicians at an MDC roundtable said they would feel comfortable treating the new complaint without a separate VCPR established specifically for that condition. That split between the written regulation and common clinical practice prompted the board to ask the MDC to reevaluate the agency’s interpretation.
“During public comment, Dr. Miller from the California Veterinary Medical Association said they view the condition-specific VCPR as one of the biggest things affecting access to care,” MDC chair Maria Saray reported to the board. Saray told the board MDC members did not reach consensus and that some subject-matter experts at roundtables said clinicians routinely use their professional judgment to decide when an in‑person reexamination is required.
Board members and commenters said the current interpretation — which has been in place for several years — may force owners to wait days for appointments or drive patients to emergency clinics with higher fees. “I think that the example provided, with the dog with diarrhea…would actually harm the consumer and the patient by not being able to be seen for 8 days,” veterinary board member Dr. Bradbury said during the discussion.
The board’s executive officer, Jessica Seiferman, told the board she and staff had raised the issue with the MDC and that the board could, if it wished, direct the MDC to propose regulatory or statutory changes. The board agreed to return the item to the MDC for additional study and recommended the committee consider the range of scenarios, time limits (for example, an annual re‑establishment), and consumer‑protection guardrails that would accompany any broader VCPR definition.
Public comment included testimony from Nancy Ehrlich of the California Registered Veterinary Technicians Association, who said a prior, less restrictive definition worked well and urged the board to reconsider the narrower interpretation. After public comment the board voted to ask the MDC to continue work on the question rather than adopting immediate changes.
The board did not adopt any regulatory change at the meeting; it directed the MDC to report back with recommendations that would preserve patient safety while addressing access concerns.
The question of whether to retain a condition‑specific VCPR has also been raised in other states; the board noted this would be a policymaking choice that could require statutory or regulatory amendments.
The MDC’s next steps will include further consultation with subject‑matter experts, review of practice patterns and telemedicine precedents, and drafting potential language or outreach materials for stakeholders.
