TO: NJ Horse Council
FROM: Richard Alampi, NJVMA Executive Director
RE: NJ Practice Act/A-3194
There has been tremendous interest from the equine community in the proposed amendments to NJ’s veterinary practice act (A635/S1571) and a counter bill that would permit unlicensed individuals to medically treat animals (A3194).
Unfortunately, there has also been a tremendous amount of misinformation about these bills.
The New Jersey Veterinary Medical Association (NJVMA) introduced Assembly (A635) and Senate (S1571). These bills revise the current outdated veterinary practice act by updating various definitions; streamlining the licensing process; and, requiring mandatory Continuing Education. Although the bills address many areas, the debate has focused on the supervision by veterinarians of non-veterinarians who wish to medically treat animals.
It has become apparent that many members of the equine community don’t know that the current law does NOT PERMIT non-veterinarians to work on horses. The proposed amendments to the practice act liberalize the current law by permitting non-veterinarians to work on horses under the responsible supervision of a veterinarian who has first examined the horse and made a diagnosis.
The supervision of non-veterinarians is essential to ensure that neither horses nor the public health are placed at risk because of an incorrect diagnosis.
Additionally, the proposed amendments specifically permit normal animal husbandry treatments, including horseshoeing, worming, application of topical medications, etc, to be performed by non-veterinarians. The proposed amendments would continue to allow owners to treat their own animals.
Following are answers to some common questions:
I’ve heard that under the proposed amendments to the veterinary practice act, someone would have to get a note from their veterinarian before they could get their horse shod.
Not true. Horseshoeing does not fall under the scope of the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine. There is absolutely nothing in the bills that would affect farriers.
If the legislation passes, I wouldn’t be able to purchase OTC medications, unless they had a veterinarian’s prescription.
Again, not true. Sale and distribution of animal medications are regulated by the Food & Drug Administration. Non-prescription items that are labeled for over-the-counter sale by the FDA would continue to be readily available through retailers. Prescription items that are labeled “for sale or use only by a veterinarian” by the FDA would remain restricted for sale or prescription by veterinarians.
I won’t be able to worm my own horse under this bill.
Owners of animals would still retain their right to treat their own animals. That’s the current law, and would be continued under the revision. Additionally, the revisions liberalize the current law to specifically exempt normal animal husbandry acts (such as topical dressings, bandaging, hoof trimming, horse shoeing, etc.) from the definition of veterinarian medicine.
I want my own chiropractor to treat my horse. Under this bill, he wouldn’t be allowed.
The revisions to the Veterinary Practice Act actually liberalize current law by permitting non-veterinarians to work on animals under the responsible supervision of a veterinarian. The current statute doesn’t permit non-veterinarians to work on animals. The revisions would allow a chiropractor to work under the responsible supervision of a licensed veterinarian who has first examined the animal and developed a diagnosis. After the examination and diagnosis, the veterinarian may refer the case to a chiropractor or other therapist. By the way, over 60 NJ veterinarians currently provide various forms of alternative therapy.
What does “responsible supervision” mean?
Responsible supervision is defined as “the oversight and direction by a veterinarian of an individual providing veterinary services delegated to that individual by that veterinarian”. This does not mean that the veterinarian has to be physically present during procedures by the unlicensed individual, nor does it necessarily mean that a veterinarian has to see the animal before or after every procedure. The veterinarian may, if the animal’s condition so warrants, prescribe a course of therapy to be administered by the unlicensed individual on an ongoing basis, much as physicians would refer to a physical therapist. Responsible supervision does mean that the veterinarian maintains responsibility for the case management. Thus, if a consumer is dissatisfied with the treatment, he or she would have recourse against the veterinarian.
This whole concept is intended to ensure that animals are protected, that their owners are protected and that the public health is safeguarded by ensuring that a veterinarian is involved as the primary caregiver. It also recognizes the consumer’s demand for alternative therapy and meets the demand by allowing unlicensed individuals to work on animals.
Why can’t complementary therapists treat horses without veterinary involvement?
It is unprecedented to permit non-veterinarian, complementary therapists to treat horses. No other state permits such practitioners to treat horses without the supervision of a veterinarian.
In fact, some states do not permit it under any circumstances. Additionally, no certification or licensing criteria exist to ensure that non-veterinarians are properly trained or credentialed to work on animals. Amendments in the law are needed to ensure that consumers are protected from non-veterinarian practitioners who are not qualified or trained to work on animals.
Do problems really exist?
Unfortunately, horses are often only treated for their symptoms and the underlying causal problem is never diagnosed or properly managed. The symptomatic treatment by non-veterinary complementary therapists over prolonged periods of time may harm horses. The revised law will protect consumers from unqualified practitioners of complementary therapies who are not adequately trained in animal physiology, pathology, disease or veterinary medicine.
The NJVMA believes it is critical that veterinarians work closely with non-veterinary complementary therapists to unsure that proper diagnoses are made and appropriate treatments prescribed.
Passage of the veterinary practice act will create an HMO for pets.
Not true. The statement that the bills would create an HMO alludes to a “managed care” concern by the opponents. This is an inaccurate analogy. In veterinary medicine there is no “network” of providers that must be used to qualify for insurance benefits (there really isn’t any viable health insurance plan for horses). Owners are free to see any veterinarian they choose- not at all like an HMO.
The amendments to the veterinary practice act would indeed require a veterinarian to see the animal first, prior to any referral to an unlicensed person, including chiropractors, acupuncturists, physical therapists, etc. This makes good medical sense, as veterinarians are uniquely qualified to be the primary health care providers for animals. Through a rigorous graduate education, doctors of veterinary medicine receive thousands of hours of training in animal physiology, pathology, disease management, and treatment techniques. Because of their training to observe the entire animal and correlate all aspects of the animal’s health, veterinarians are able to protect animals through their diagnosis and treatment. Additionally, veterinarians safeguard human health by recognizing communicable diseases, such as rabies, West Nile Virus and Eastern Encephalitis, that can be transmitted from animals to humans.
This bill is an attempt by veterinarians to create a monopoly by veterinarians for animal care and animal products.
Licensure of anyprofession establishes specific criteria for who may practice that profession. Almost 100 years ago, the state of NJ recognized the need to license veterinarians to protect animals and their owners from unqualified practitioners and quackery. The situation remains the same today- in order to be granted a license to practice veterinary medicine, an individual must possess the appropriate level of education and knowledge as evaluated by the NJ Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
The revisions to the practice act are no more an attempt to create a monopoly than the original veterinary licensing act of 1903- it’s merely an ongoing attempt to ensure that animals and their owners may be confident that the person working on their animals is qualified.
Summary: The proposed revisions to the veterinary practice act would modernize the act in reflecting existing practices. It would also further benefit the public by requiring continuing education for veterinarians, establishing minimum facility standards, improving licensing procedures and establishing the confidentiality of medical records, which currently do not exist.