Our take on the Fairness to Pet Owners Act

There has been a lot of speculation about why the AVMA and many of its member veterinarians oppose the Fairness to Pet Owners Act (H.R. 4023). Here are the facts.

This bill would require veterinarians to provide clients with written prescriptions for their pets whether or not the client requests one. Though not required by federal law, the veterinary profession has already assumed a responsibility to provide clients with a copy of their pets’ prescriptions if the client requested one. In fact, the AVMA’s Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics urges veterinarians to honor a client’s request for a prescription when asked, and many states have laws, policies or regulations in place that require compliance to this effect.

On the flip side of this equation, some veterinary medications are only available through a veterinarian, negating the need for a written prescription. But if the Fairness to Pet Owners Act is passed, however, veterinarians would still be required to provide the written prescription for a drug only available from a veterinarian, take the piece of paper back and then dispense the medication. This creates an administrative burden for veterinarians and staff who should be spending their time and resources on their animal patients, not on paperwork.

At the AVMA, we have seen the number of visits to the veterinarian declining in recent years and understand the financial burdens facing many of our clients. We all want what is best for our animal patients and our clients. That is why the AVMA is supportive of giving clients the flexibility to fill prescriptions at a pharmacy of their choice.

However, we disagree with a sweeping federal mandate when we do not believe there is a problem that needs resolving. Are veterinarians not complying with the ethical guidelines laid out by the AVMA or their state veterinary boards? Some of Congressman Jim Matheson’s (D-Utah) constituents, the bill’s sponsor, seem to think so, but is that representative of an entire profession or an isolated incident?

The Federal Trade Commission sought to answer that question during its October 2012 workshop and is currently examining the competition and consumer protection issues within the pet medications industry. Until we learn more, we believe it is premature for Congress to create new regulations that will place undue burdens on veterinarians. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a veterinarian, agrees:

“I think it would have been useful to wait for the FTC’s findings before introducing legislation,” Schrader said in a recent article with DVM360. “My principle concern has always been that this bill could lead to violations of doctor-patient confidentiality and allow uninformed retailers to make decisions about medication protocols without the patient or the doctor’s consent.”

While the AVMA is aware of potential problems that might arise if the owner chooses to fill veterinary prescriptions at pharmacies that dispense human drugs and/or online pharmacies, we do not believe these necessarily constitute a reason to deny a client the written prescription. The AVMA has been working with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and other pharmacy organizations to address these challenges and emphasize the need for pharmacists to establish and maintain a working rapport with veterinarians when filling pet medications.

Subscribe to the AVMA AdvocateAt the end of the day, we all want what is best for a pet’s health and well-being and for our clients, but we do not believe the Fairness to Pet Owners Act is necessary to accomplish these goals. We encourage congressional leaders to think twice before enacting a solution in search of a problem.

Learn more about the bill in AVMA’s issue brief.

5 thoughts on “Our take on the Fairness to Pet Owners Act

  1. Prescription is also needed for animals. Even though they are not humans, they have the heart that feels the hurt. I have a veterinarian friend who never gives prescription to his clients when they go to his clinic to have their pet checked. One time, he encountered a problem with regard to what medicine he gave to his client for his pet cat. The cat died because there was no written prescription given to the owner, and the owner accidentally bought the wrong medicine. Though this incident happened years ago, my vet friend always bear in mind what he had experienced. At present, he never fails to give written prescriptions to his client. :)

  2. Animals are not humans. For a person, a physician can prescribe for example, augmentin x mg tablets. The weight of animals , particularly small companions , the pharmacyst will not have the medication on the dosage for that pet.second, as veterinarians, at least in my case, I have to explain visually to clients how to administer a medication in a pet, which we all know is not the same process as in humans. Now, I have no problem IF the client requests a prescription . However, will I have to waive liability if the client administer another generic drug, or does not administer accordingly?
    That does not sound fair act to us, the doctors or to the pets.

    • Hello Dr Chapoval
      Please email me as we are the adopters of a Shih Tzu girl whom we love very, very much and we know you have information on her that we cannot find. Please contact us when you have a moment.
      Thank you
      Rob Copley

  3. Obamacair for animals
    Forcing the public to except by law
    Redundant procedures
    Increasing the cost to the public