Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Chiropractic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates animal chiropractic policy as veterinary association urges caution
Summary
Board members held a policy discussion on animal chiropractic and heard public comment from the California Veterinary Medical Association cautioning against expanding human-practitioner scope to treat animals; staff said California currently defers to the Veterinary Medical Board and no bill has been introduced.
The Board of Chiropractic Examiners held an extended policy discussion about animal chiropractic — the practice of chiropractors providing musculoskeletal manipulation to animals — and invited public comment and outside stakeholders to the virtual meeting.
Executive Officer Kristen Walker framed the item as an initial policy discussion and said the board lacks statutory authority to regulate animal chiropractic; that authority rests with the Veterinary Medical Board. Walker described out-of-state regulatory models and told the board there was no bill introducing a new pathway yet.
Board members asked about certification and safety data. Walker said complaints received by the board have been uncommon and largely relate to advertising; when complaints involve animal care they often stem from disputes over cost or treatment expectations rather than documented injury. Staff estimated about 50 certified practitioners on national lists may be practicing with veterinarians in California, but said the board does not systematically track that number.
Public commenters included Marcus Streps, who raised concerns about incomplete continuing-education listings on the board website, and practitioner BJ who thanked the board for addressing the issue. Grant Miller, regulatory director for the California Veterinary Medical Association, addressed the board on behalf of veterinarians and urged caution. Miller said the CVMA “is strongly opposed to any attempt by human health care practitioners to expand their scope of practice to include animals,” arguing that veterinary education covers species anatomy, physiology and behavior and that short certification courses cannot substitute for formal veterinary training.
Board members discussed several points: whether certification programs (for example ABCA/IVCA) have external accreditation, whether out‑of‑state direct-access models have produced safety issues, and the need to work cooperatively with the Veterinary Medical Board. Doctor Daniels and other members said they want to continue the conversation with stakeholders, clarify terminology around "access" versus "availability," and gather data from states that have implemented different models.
No legislation was proposed at this meeting and the board did not take a formal position; Walker said staff will continue to coordinate with the Veterinary Medical Board and to monitor any bill language should legislation be introduced.
Next steps: staff said they will reach out to boards and stakeholders in states with existing models if a bill is introduced and will continue discussions with the Veterinary Medical Board.
