Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Physical Therapy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State, providers clash over who should regulate physical therapy for animals
Summary
The PT Board of California spent the morning hearing national federation reports, state examples and rival stakeholder views on whether animal physical therapy should be regulated under the PT board or the Veterinary Medical Board. Presenters described model regulations, training requirements and competing safety concerns; no formal board action was taken.
Board members and stakeholders spent the bulk of a December 12 meeting focused on whether and how physical therapists should be allowed to provide rehabilitation care to animals and which agency should oversee that practice.
Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy task‑force chair Leslie Adrian told the board that seven states now include explicit language or regulatory pathways for animal physical therapy and that the federation’s 2025 revisions to the model practice act expressly recognize animal physical therapy as part of the practice of physical therapy when licensees complete additional education and training. "The preferred term is 'animal physical therapy,'" Adrian said, adding that model rules recommend board‑approved educational competencies, roughly 100 hours of didactic instruction and a supervised clinical component with a final competency assessment.
Speakers described two common regulatory approaches in the United States. Under PT‑led models, found in Colorado and Utah, licensed physical therapists practice on animals after veterinary medical clearance or referral and after meeting education and supervised‑clinical requirements; some states maintain public registries of qualified providers. Under veterinary‑board models, such as Nevada’s, animal‑specific certificates are issued through the state veterinary board and discipline or complaint processes are handled there.
Proponents representing the Animal Physical Therapy Coalition, including Karen Atlas, argued the PT board is the better fit for oversight because PT expertise aligns with the specialty’s competencies and PT regulation can be implemented with existing resources. “This framework preserves veterinary medical authority while allowing trained PTs to practice their specialty,” Atlas said, urging the board to use the 2026 sunset review to request statutory clarity.
Outside veterinary organizations pushed back. Grant Miller of the California Veterinary Medical Association told the board the coalition’s preferred model would expand PT scope without sufficient, standardized certification. Miller urged the board to require direct veterinary supervision, citing emergency‑care and public‑safety concerns and criticizing existing certification programs as "largely self‑study based".
Clinicians who practice under other states’ regimes described how the models work in practice. Dr. Jenny Moe, who obtained Nevada credentials, said Nevada’s model allowed her to open clinics and serve patients safely; Caroline Adrian described Colorado’s clearance model and reported no known cases of harm under that system.
On technical details, presenters and board questions focused on required competencies (comparative anatomy, animal behavior, zoonotic disease precautions, pain recognition), whether the veterinarian provides diagnosis and medical clearance, and how supervision and liability are allocated. Presenters noted significant variation among states in training hours, credential labels (certificate, registration, license), and where animal‑PT language appears (veterinary statutes vs. PT statutes).
Public commenters and multiple presenters recommended statutory change in California rather than only regulatory revisions, saying both the Veterinary Practice Act and the Physical Therapy Practice Act would need amendments to create a clear, enforceable oversight framework and complaint pathway.
The board did not take regulatory action during the meeting; presenters and stakeholders were invited to provide further materials. The board’s next substantive opportunity to weigh in on statutory proposals will come during its 2026 sunset review.
