Task Force Releases Proposed Revisions of AVMA Model Veterinary Practice Act

A special task force has drafted proposed revisions to the AVMA Model Veterinary Practice Act, after receiving about 1,000 comments from AVMA members and the public earlier this year. Proposed changes include additional recognition of  veterinary technician credentialing, clarifications of  “direct” and “indirect” supervision, modifying the “veterinarian-client-patient relationship” requirement, limited practice act exemptions for declared emergencies and providing certain care in animal shelters, and allowing narrow disclosure of client and patient information to third-party service providers. The next step is for AVMA committees, councils and the House of Delegates to provide feedback on the draft to the task force, prior to final submission to the Executive Board, scheduled for November 2011. To see the task force’s draft proposed revisions, go to http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/mvpa.asp and look for  the box on the right.

3 thoughts on “Task Force Releases Proposed Revisions of AVMA Model Veterinary Practice Act

  1. I join the others in showing my appreciation. I think the proposed changes are steps in the right direction, especially those related to vet techs and direct and indirect supervision. However, I wrote a letter to the AVMA’s Judiciary Committee two years ago, in which I suggested that the language concerning the handling of medical errors by member veterinarians be made more specific, and did not receive a satisfactory answer. I experienced first hand the devastating effects of lying and hostile treatment by the vet whose staff members missed my pet’s heart condition on an X-ray, which had tragic consequences. The errors were clear and well documented and the vet eventually received a formal letter of censure from the board. However, the dishonest treatment of the head vet was uncalled for and extremely unsettling. There should be specific language in the code of ethics about the handling of medical errors, and vets should be held responsible for making knowingly false statements. The statement in the Code of Ethics that they should be “honest” and “honorable” and “ethical” is too vague, and they are not held responsible for the lying they do to wriggle out of taking responsibility for their errors or those of their staff. It’s time. Thank you for your attention.

  2. Maybe this would have preveted my beloved dog’s death. I also wonder how any rescue group can run a clinic ( and use another name to further confuse and decieve the paying public)not knowing who actually runs the clinic. I also think the AVMA should conduct a serious inquiry into rescue’s who seem to get away with hiding behind the name RESCUE to use cheap, older dangerous drugs,not doing exams on animals as it was the case with my dog. The veterinary board stated because they were a RESCUE that they were limited to funds, then why did they not tell me they were using the same drug for all of the animals they were operating on. I had the right to know. It also seems as if the veterinary boards allow two standards of care, one for rescues and one for non rescues. How can that be? I believe the veterinary boards are falling way short on doing their jobs which is to protect the pet ower ad their pets. They are protecting their own instead. My dog died and no surgery was ever performed. I was never told that the drug they were usig was cheap as stated by the veterinarian himself.Even the drug manufacturer stated that this drug was NOT recommended for cats & dogs yet they continue to use it without informing the public. Pet owners deserve the protection from BAD veteriarian’s. All I can say it’s about time. Now we need a revamp of the state veterinarian boards. I believe NO rescue group should be allowed to own and operate a clinic, there is no regulation and this puts animals at a high risk for death.

  3. I applaud the AVMA’s decision to revamp and tighten up the Veterinary Practice Act. I hope all state’s adopt it and enforce it with the seriousness it deserves.

    I appreciate the significance of the “drug diversion section”, since enforcement of this would have most likely prevented the serious harm incurred by my pet & myself in the state of New Hampshire

    I would only suggest clarity that if a clinic is licensed to take patient/clients and operates with no immediate access to typical controlled substances, that they should not be allowed to accept surgeries, ill patients, or any sort of hospitalized treatments