Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Veterinary Telemedicine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponents say telemedicine will expand access; veterinarians warn hands‑on exams cannot be replaced
Summary
Supporters of H 3355 argued the bill would expand access to veterinary care by allowing veterinarians to establish patient relationships via telemedicine. Several veterinary associations and clinicians countered that in‑person exams are essential for diagnosis and that virtual establishment of the VCPR could harm animals and low‑income owners.
Boston — Witnesses split sharply over House Bill 3,355, which would permit Massachusetts veterinarians to establish a veterinary‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) remotely and expand telemedicine use.
"This bipartisan bill modernizes veterinary law in Massachusetts and increase[s] access to veterinary care by providing more options for state licensed veterinarians to use safe convenient veterinary telemedicine," said Jen Hobgood, senior director of access to care policy for the ASPCA, who testified in support and noted the organization’s investments in Massachusetts animal health programs.
Supporters said telemedicine can ease access barriers — transportation, mobility, or stress‑intolerant animals — and allow veterinarians to prescribe medications for common conditions when appropriate. "With this bill, you would be able to have a telemedicine appointment where if deemed appropriate by that veterinarian, you could be prescribed pain medications," said veterinarian Erin Doyle, giving examples of how telemedicine could reduce delays to care.
Opponents, including the Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association and several practicing veterinarians, urged an unfavorable report. Jamie Falzone, executive director of a veterinary membership organization, said the current standard requires an in‑person VCPR before diagnosis and prescribing. Veterinarians described routine examinations that rely on touch, auscultation and palpation — techniques they said cannot be reliably performed via video. "There is no other way to check for a painful ... gland or aggressive ... tumor without a glove, a gentle finger," Dr. Monica Mansfield said.
The record contains both operational examples in support and clinical cautionary accounts in opposition. No committee vote was taken during the hearing; several speakers said they would submit written testimony and resources.
