Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee split over allowing veterinarians to establish relationships via telemedicine

Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee · January 23, 2026
Article hero
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supporters including animal shelters and telemedicine advocates said Senate Bill 6,072 would expand access by permitting remote establishment of veterinarian–client–patient relationships in appropriate cases; veterinary associations warned federal prescribing laws and disease‑surveillance duties require in‑person elements and asked for explicit guardrails.

Senate Bill 6,072, considered by the Health and Long Term Care Committee on Jan. 23, would establish conditions under which a veterinarian‑client‑patient relationship (VCPR) exists and allow telemedicine to be used for ongoing care in specified circumstances.

Jacob Ewing told the committee the bill would clarify when a VCPR can be established—requiring that the veterinarian has assumed medical responsibility, has sufficient knowledge to provide a preliminary or full diagnosis, and is available for follow‑up or emergency coverage. The bill would permit telemedicine for ongoing care after a relationship is established and, in limited situations, permit telehealth services without a prior VCPR.

Supporters including the ASPCA, Animal Policy Group and veterinarians who work in shelters and mobile clinics said tele‑VCPR rules increase access for clients who lack transportation or cannot take time off work. Mark Cushing, an attorney with the Animal Policy Group, said many states have adopted telemedicine for veterinary care with no documented statewide harms and recommended model guardrails.

Opponents, including the Washington State Veterinary Medical Association, urged amendments to ensure compliance with federal rules on extra‑label drug prescribing and to require regular in‑person follow‑ups and farm visits when appropriate for disease surveillance. Greg Hannon said federal law requires an in‑person VCPR before extra‑label prescriptions and urged the committee to clarify that in the bill.

Shelter and outreach veterinarians described cases where remote intervention could avoid unnecessary euthanasia and keep pets with owners; a Kitsap Humane Society veterinarian described using telemedicine to advise an elderly disabled owner while awaiting transport.

The committee did not take action; members indicated they would consider amendments being negotiated in the House that address guardrails for prescribing and VCPR renewal.