For 40 years as a veterinarian, compassionate animal care has been my calling. As a State Representative, we have explored the idea of a Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA), in Prop. 129, for three years. After hundreds of hours researching, listening to experts, veterinary economists, the FDA, the USDA, universities, accreditation teams, veterinary liability providers, professional organizations of veterinarians and veterinary technicians, shelters, practice owners, rural folks and animal lovers everywhere…we heard serious safety concerns and barriers, concluding a VPA would be unable to truly help the animals we love.
Proposition 129 is in front of voters using the analogy of the human PA. We have seen the proposed VPA curriculum and that analogy is far from accurate. A VPA would be dangerously undertrained. VPA education would be 75% online, totaling only 4 semesters, with little hands-on learning and then a brief internship. Human PAs require 3 years of school plus thousands of in-person clinical hours with actual patients. Human PAs do not perform surgery. VPAs would be practicing veterinary medicine, including surgery, without competency measures to ensure consumer protection, putting animals and the public in harm’s way. This proposal is not comparable to what licensed Physician’s Assistants complete before practicing. Not even close.
Honestly, does it make any sense at all to create a new medical position by way of a ballot initiative? Circumventing careful in-depth analysis with input from experts and all who work so hard to help animals? On that point alone we should oppose. But let’s look further.
The proposed Masters program is also exploiting potential students who would be carrying up to $80,000 in debt with no evidence showing earning potential to pay off the debt. This job doesn’t exist anywhere on planet earth.
VPAs would not be legally allowed to prescribe ANY medications due to overriding Federal law. FDA has strict regulations on the prescribing of pharmaceuticals in animals, allowing only a licensed veterinarian to prescribe. This is to protect human public health and won’t change. How helpful is a VPA with limited ability to diagnose if they can’t legally prescribe medication? How would a VPA, doing surgery, prescribe an immediate need for that animal when doing so would be breaking federal law? No animal deserves that risk.
VPAs practicing medicine and surgery are not guaranteed malpractice insurance coverage, creating legal limbo. They would not “automatically” be covered under the supervising veterinarian’s liability insurance. Those who say that are misleading the public. VPAs would not ease the workload of veterinary teams and in fact will increase the work of the supervising veterinarian, needing the DVM to intervene to write every prescription.
Creating a new position without input from Registered Veterinary Technicians is harmful to those who are already a critical part of the team-based animal care. And Colorado just passed a great law that will help! HB24-1047 expands the scope of practice for RVTs and Veterinary Technician Specialists (VTSs), maximizing the ability to treat more animals with safe, accurate care while ensuring consumer confidence. A new position is not needed. I ran my own veterinary hospital as a small business owner and a VPA would not have helped my business, my clients or their pets.
No economic analyses support creation of a VPA. Zero data that this will lower costs or increase access to care. Prop 129 is a corporate effort aimed at increasing profits. Period. From a large corporation’s viewpoint, hiring VPAs may help lower overall payroll expenses. That’s it.
I am personally heartsick about this issue. I took a lifelong oath to protect animal health, welfare and public health. If Prop 129 was a measure that would actually help animals, then I would be all in. But it is not. Therefore I, and thousands of residents across our state, are opposed to Prop. 129. This is a move to bypass real problem solving and big money has gotten it on the ballot.
I feel a deep responsibility to educate voters about what is behind Proposition 129. It is not about lowering costs to consumers. It is not about increasing access to care. It is not about helping rural communities. It is not about helping our hardworking veterinary teams and it is certainly not about helping animals.
This is an attempt to hoodwink Colorado voters who love animals. Please don’t be fooled.
Please vote NO on Proposition 129.
Colorado General Assembly