Veterinarians and shelters back guarded telehealth rules as a tool to expand access

The committee heard broad testimony supporting House Bill 22-47, which would clarify that a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) can be established under specified conditions and allow ongoing care through telemedicine when guardrails are met. Staff described core requirements in the bill: consent, minimum in-clinic practice (certifying at least 14 days in clinic practice each year), gathering historical knowledge of the patient, and limits on telehealth where a physical exam is necessary.

Sponsors and supporters framed the bill as a pragmatic response to a statewide veterinary access crisis. Rep. Parsley said the bill strikes a balance by expanding telehealth as an access tool while preserving professional accountability. Shelter and animal-services representatives told the committee telehealth helps triage, provide follow-up, and prioritize limited appointment availability—especially in rural and underserved areas—thereby reducing unnecessary shelter intake. Several shelter and practicing veterinarians, including remote-clinic providers and shelter clinicians, described real-world cases where telehealth could have prevented animal suffering or family separation when transport or appointment access was impossible.

Veterinary professional groups said they largely supported access measures but emphasized strong guardrails. Greg Hannon and other representatives described collaborative amendment work and supported clarifying documentation practices and recordkeeping when virtual VCPRs are used. Testimony stressed that telehealth should complement, not replace, in-person care and that veterinarians must retain discretion to require physical exams. Committee members thanked stakeholders for collaboration; no committee vote was recorded on Jan. 14.