Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the VcpR And Expert Reviews topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Experts note rise in disciplinary expert reviews; committee debates condition‑specific VCPR and telemedicine practice
Summary
Experts reviewed more cases than the previous quarter; the MDC discussed whether California’s condition‑specific veterinary‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) rule should be revisited given telemedicine and access‑to‑care concerns raised by practitioners and public commenters.
Consultants and experts reported to the MDC on case review volumes and trends, then opened a broader discussion on whether California’s condition‑specific veterinary‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) requirement should be reconsidered in light of telemedicine and access‑to‑care pressures.
Case review figures: Staff said consultants reviewed 121 cases from February through April 2025: 57 closed as no violation, 12 closed with educational letters, 6 closed for insufficient evidence, and 46 referred for full expert review — representing a 20% increase in consultant reviews compared with the prior roundtable. Experts reviewed 159 cases in the same period: 46 closed as no violation, 30 closed with educational letters, 7 cited/prepped for citation, and 74 transmitted to the Attorney General’s Office for disciplinary action (involving 12 respondents). The experts queue contained 656 cases pending written expert review.
Discussion of standards: The subcommittee and subject‑matter experts raised issues about report clarity, what belongs in a summary versus analysis, avoiding legal code citations inside clinical opinions, and the need for experts to review full medical records and subject responses.
VCPR debate and telemedicine: The committee discussed a hypothetical scenario: a dog previously seen for wellness returned months later with diarrhea; a stool test returned positive for Giardia and the clinic prescribed fenbendazole without an in‑person reexamination. Experts were split: some said the prescribing veterinarian effectively reestablished the VCPR via telecommunication and case follow‑up; others said California’s VCPR is condition‑specific and that a separate in‑person or telemedicine reestablishment is required. A number of public commenters — including Grant Miller of the California Veterinary Medical Association and Nancy Ehrlich of the California RVT Association — urged the MDC to reconsider or reexamine the condition‑specific interpretation, saying it restricts access to care and increases costs for owners.
No consensus: The MDC did not reach a consensus to change the condition‑specific VCPR requirement. Committee members noted many enforcement and expert reviewers attempt to balance statutory language and prevailing standard‑of‑care practices, and they recommended reporting the range of views back to the board for further consideration.
Next steps: MDC staff will summarize the discussion for the board; the committee suggested further discussion on whether to ask the board to reevaluate the statutory interpretation or to request legislative or regulatory changes. The complaint‑audit subcommittee also flagged telehealth as an added complaint type on the online form and said staff are developing data collection improvements to better track complaint types and animal species.
