Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterinary Medical Board topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterinary Medical Board faces calls to narrow owner-exemption, address drug compounding and expand outreach
Summary
The California Veterinary Medical Board described process improvements and mobile inspection tools at its sunset review, while stakeholders and committee members urged the board to tighten the owner‑exemption, address compounding supply issues and expand outreach to underserved communities.
The California Veterinary Medical Board told lawmakers on Tuesday that it has streamlined licensing and enforcement processes since its last sunset review, but members of the Legislature and stakeholders pressed the board to address ongoing problems around the owner exemption, access to compounded medications, and geographic shortages of veterinary care.
Maria Salasito, president of the Veterinary Medical Board, testified about operational improvements including faster exam score reporting, a merged inspection and enforcement unit and a new mobile inspection application (developed with a grant) launched in November 2024.
Why it matters: board policy affects owners, shelters, livestock operators, veterinarians and veterinary technicians across the state. Lawmakers and advocates asked the board to protect animals and consumers while preserving legitimate owner‑provided care in rural and underserved areas.
Key developments and board actions
- Licensing and exams: the board said it implemented direct electronic score transfers from the American Association of Veterinary State Boards, allowing faster licensing for veterinarians and registered veterinary technician candidates.
- Enforcement and inspections: the board added consultants to screen complaints, initiated quarterly roundtables with subject‑matter experts to improve investigatory reports and merged inspection and enforcement units. The board reported a large increase in inspections and in closed complaints following those changes.
- Technology and outreach: the board received a $600,000 grant to develop a mobile inspection app, which the board said should streamline inspections for licensees and staff.
Points of contention raised at the hearing
- Owner exemption: committee members and shelter operators urged a narrow rewrite of the owner exemption, which the board said was originally intended for livestock and food animals but is now being used in ways the board believes allow non‑veterinarians to perform advanced procedures (for example, surgeries for rescues or non‑licensed practitioners operating at equine events). The board said it will assemble a subcommittee to recommend language to restore the exemption’s original, livestock‑focused scope.
- Compounded medications and supply: veterinarians and stakeholders reported difficulty obtaining specific compounded drugs — including ophthalmic formulations and certain IV preparations. Stakeholders urged coordination with the Board of Pharmacy; the veterinary board said it is in regular contact with pharmacy regulators.
- Access and workforce: lawmakers and witnesses said California has veterinary care deserts, particularly in some urban neighborhoods and rural regions. The board said it will use renewal demographic questions and HCAI data to target outreach; it expects to convene a presentation of those data in April or July to inform recruitment and retention strategies.
- Telehealth: after passage of AB 1399 (telehealth for veterinary patients), the board said it updated its complaint forms to track complaints involving telehealth and will assess whether the standard of care was followed when telehealth was used.
Fiscal matters
Board leaders said reserves are constrained by a statutory 10‑month cap that differs from many other Department of Consumer Affairs programs and that low reserves make budgeting for enforcement and large cases difficult. The board said it plans stakeholder engagement before proposing fee changes and intends to consult on how to balance fees and program needs.
Public comment
Shelter and veterinary groups urged the board to preserve narrow owner‑exemptions when appropriate (for vaccinations and livestock husbandry) while preventing misuse that harms animals; several community groups and practitioners urged expanded access to veterinary rehabilitation, and commenters asked the board to ensure subject‑matter experts are appropriately qualified for disciplinary reviews.
Closing
The board described notable procedural gains but faces persistent policy questions. Lawmakers asked the board to return with more specific proposals on owner‑exemption language, compounding access and targeted outreach for underserved communities.
