Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterinary Workforce topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florida panel backs bill to create 'veterinary professional associate' role to expand pet care access
Summary
The subcommittee voted to report House Bill 805 favorably after proponents said VPAs — a master-level clinical support role trained at lower cost than DVMs — would expand access and affordability; a committee member opposed the bill citing training concerns.
Representative Mello told the Industries and Professional Activities Subcommittee that House Bill 805 would create the title "veterinary professional associate" (VPA), modeled on physician assistants, to expand access to veterinary care under doctor oversight.
Dr. Tracy Jensen, a licensed veterinarian and practice consultant, testified in support and said workforce shortages and high student debt for veterinarians constrain access to care. "A DVM's compensation is based on a percentage of their production... student debt, which today can exceed $200,000," Jensen said, and added that VPAs can be trained for roughly one-third the cost of DVMs to manage routine conditions under DVM supervision.
Dr. Mandy Tollson, director of the master's in veterinary clinical care at Lincoln Memorial University College of Veterinary Medicine, described program changes to accommodate VPA training: a proposed 68-hour, seven-semester plan with cross‑listed in‑person courses alongside DVM students. Tollson said the program initially would focus on small-animal medicine and that graduates would have prior registered veterinary‑technician credentials.
During questioning, Representative Henson asked whether VPAs were already used in other states and whether federal rules would let them prescribe controlled substances; the sponsor and staff said VPAs would not be permitted to prescribe controlled substances. Representative Anton said he supported the bill's intent but raised concerns that technicians and assistants had not invested the "required amount of time and expense in getting the necessary education and clinical hours," and said he intended to vote NO in committee.
After debate and public testimony, the committee took a roll call. Ranking member Antone voted NO; one member (Spencer) was excused. The chair announced the committee would report House Bill 805 favorable.
The next procedural step is for the bill to move to the full chamber for further consideration.
