Committee approves bill to certify animal chiropractors after debate over veterinary oversight

The House Health Full Committee passed House Bill 164, as amended, advancing the measure to the Government Operations Committee by a roll-call tally of 15 ayes, 6 nays and 2 present-not-voting. The bill would establish education, testing and registration requirements for chiropractors and veterinarians who perform animal chiropractic care and would specify activities that are not included in animal chiropractic practice.

Sponsor and purpose: Speaker Marsh, sponsor of House Bill 164, told the committee the bill’s purpose is to "establish educational standards, which must be met by chiropractic physicians and veterinarians who perform animal chiropractic work," and to allow owners to choose certified providers. The measure defines animal chiropractic as “the evaluation and treatment of a nonhuman vertebrae or extremity joint dysfunction through spinal joint or musculoskeletal manipulative therapy and soft tissue therapy” and bars animal chiropractors from performing surgery, dispensing or administering medications, or providing traditional veterinary medical care.

What the bill requires: Under the bill, chiropractors seeking to treat animals would need the standard chiropractic doctorate plus at least 210 hours of post‑graduate animal chiropractic coursework and six hours of annual continuing education. The sponsor and proponents said certification and registration with the appropriate board would be required before chiropractors could treat animals.

Supporters’ case: Richard Cole, vice president of the Tennessee Chiropractic Association, and Tiffany Stevens, the association’s executive director, testified in favor. Cole cited a Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards model code and the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association (AVCA) certification as benchmarks for training and testing. Stevens told the committee the AVCA requires a minimum of 210 core hours of postgraduate training and that the bill clarifies regulatory oversight by ensuring chiropractic boards oversee chiropractors and veterinary boards oversee veterinarians.

Veterinarians’ concerns: Emily Dryden, a veterinarian representing the Tennessee Veterinary Medical Association, and Elizabeth Griffin, a Clarksville veterinarian who holds an IVCA certification, testified about diagnostic limits and safety. Dryden said animals cannot report symptoms and gave examples where seemingly musculoskeletal pain was caused by internal disease, citing a recent case where what appeared to be neck pain was actually a tumor and severe ear infection. She told the committee that accurate diagnosis often requires radiographs, sedation and other diagnostics that the bill’s plain language would not permit chiropractors to perform. Griffin said the current draft, as written, would exclude veterinarians and many chiropractors certified through the International Veterinary Chiropractic Association (IVCA) from providing care because the bill references only certain certifying organizations.

Clarifications and dispute over oversight: Proponents and witnesses disagreed about whether the bill removes veterinary oversight. Proponents said the AVCA certification and federation model code require chiropractors to verify an animal’s “good standing” with a veterinarian and to refer when a condition is outside chiropractic scope. Opponents argued the bill, by clarifying chiropractic board authority, would reduce the existing practice in which veterinarians act as the primary diagnosing clinicians before specialized care.

Committee questions: Members pressed witnesses about safeguards—whether chiropractors would require documentation of recent veterinary care, whether they would be allowed to order or perform radiographs or sedation, and whether collaborative care models could be required. Proponents said the certification standards and professional responsibility would require referral when warranted; veterinarians countered that the bill could create instances in which animals are evaluated by multiple providers or receive duplicate charges if a veterinary exam were needed prior to chiropractic care.

Outcome and next steps: The clerk reported 15 ayes, 6 nays and 2 present not voting. The committee passed the bill as amended and moved it to the Government Operations Committee for further consideration.

Ending: The committee’s vote followed roughly 30 minutes of testimony and questioning. Proponents framed the bill as expanding choice for animal owners and setting a uniform certification standard; opponents urged stronger veterinary oversight and clearer rules about diagnostics and sedation.