EDITORIAL: NO on Proposition 129 -- for the sake of Colorado's animals: Denver Gazette

[hlthe2b]

Many falsely think that Proposition 129-opposing Veterinarians are somehow just greedy, self-serving, or totally unwilling to address shortages of veterinarians in Colorado, so on behalf of the state's veterinarians, I am really glad to see this editorial just out (with mail ballots on the way). Please take the time to read it if you are in doubt. I am including the full editorial as I don't believe that published opinion pieces are subject to copyright. (if that is incorrect, please let me know and I will edit it down).

EDITORIAL: NO on Proposition 129 — for the sake of Colorado’s animals: Denver Gazette
https://shorturl.at/vPpZe

Coloradans love their dogs, cats and other pets. Two of every three households in our state own at least one. Coloradans also appreciate the other domesticated animals that play roles in our lives, like horses and of course livestock.

Naturally, we want them all treated humanely and to be well cared for, including giving them first-rate veterinary care.

Which is the best reason to oppose Proposition 129 on this fall’s statewide ballot.

The proposal, backed by the nonprofit Dumb Friends League, aims to establish a new kind of quasi-veterinarian calling in Colorado to grow the ranks of the animal-care industry. The idea is to increase availability and perhaps lower fees.

Problem is, Proposition 129 is the wrong way to go about it — and the Gazette’s editorial board urges a NO vote.

The ballot proposal asks voters to create the position of “veterinary professional associate,” a new kind of midlevel veterinary practitioner. The position’s responsibilities apparently would lie somewhere between those of veterinarians and those of the familiar veterinary technicians who assist them at animal-care practices.

The training and qualifications that the proposal requires for the new associate’s position raise red flags even for lay people outside the veterinary profession. For example, it would require a job-specific master’s degree even though there is currently no accredited program in the country that could confer such a degree. There’s also no recognized test to certify such practitioners nor a national regulatory standard by which they could be tested.

Even more troubling, the proposal would allow the associates to perform veterinary procedures including surgery — after only a pale imitation of the training a doctor of veterinary medicine receives. A proposed master’s program still under development to train a similar kind of associate at Colorado State University would include a mostly online curriculum with very little laboratory work or hands-on training and just one in-person internship. It’s the presumed template for the degree envisioned under Proposition 129.

It’s no surprise professional veterinary associations, including the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and its national parent organization, oppose the Proposition 129 and warn against its consequences.

American Veterinary Medical Association President Sandra Faeh calls the proposal “disastrous.”

“The proposed training for this position is completely inadequate and will lead to missed or delayed diagnoses, ineffective treatment and repeat visits, all of which lead to more suffering for the animal and increased cost for the client,” Faeh said in a press statement.

That’s not to say there isn’t room for reassessing the duty roster of the typical veterinary practice to improve service for the animals they treat and the owners who pay for them. Colorado’s Legislature in fact did just that earlier this year, when it passed a bill expanding the scope of practice for registered veterinary technicians and veterinary technician specialists. The new law also gave clarity to veterinarians on which tasks they can delegate to other staff.

But that bill is fundamentally different from the pending ballot issue because it went through the kind of extensive, rigorous review, with checks and balances and expert input, that such a highly technical proposal requires — and only can receive in the legislative process. Indeed, the bill’s author — licensed veterinarian and state Rep. Karen McCormick, D-Longmont — also opposes Proposition 129.

Any proposal that calls on the general public to apply the minutiae of professional credentialing to the complexities of science — is bound to backfire. It simply doesn’t belong on the ballot in the first place.

Just as voters shouldn’t be expected to second-guess the state government biologists who help manage Colorado’s wildlife — as does another terribly misguided proposal on the fall ballot — they shouldn’t be asked to conjure up a new job description for veterinary care.

Vote NO on Proposition 129.

[hlthe2b]

1. The AVMA weighs in: Opposing midlevel practitioner proposals

I know there are a hell of a lot of CO ballot measures, but this one is irreversible if passed in terms of the damage it can do to veterinary care/services. This is NOT equivalent to licensing Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistance on the human side. Please read both pieces before you decide how to vote--and pass the word to your pet-or livestock-owning friends/family/neighbors.

Opposing midlevel practitioner proposals
Published on September 24, 2024
https://www.avma.org/blog/opposing-midlevel-practitioner-proposals

As the collective voice and leading advocate for our nation’s veterinary profession, the AVMA is working across numerous fronts to oppose proposals to create a midlevel veterinary practitioner—a role that would endanger animal safety, public health, our food supply, and client trust.

The AVMA and our members fully understand the grave danger posed by such a position. We’re joined by a wide range of other national veterinary groups as well as the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, whose state’s voters will decide in November whether to authorize a midlevel veterinary position in Colorado.
Collaborating with veterinary colleges

Last week, the AVMA sent a letter to the deans of U.S. and Caribbean veterinary medical colleges, along with an overview of our concerns, asking them to join our opposition to the proposed MLP and the development of educational programs to train MLPs. Read the overview of the concerns we outlined to the deans here.

Veterinary education and veterinary colleges are integral to this debate. Colorado State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences is in the process of developing a master’s-level program to train and graduate midlevel practitioners that, under Proposition 129, would be authorized to practice veterinary medicine.

Known as veterinary professional associates (VPAs), the proposed Colorado midlevel practitioners would be allowed to diagnose, prognose, create treatment plans, and perform surgery. However, an available draft of the Colorado State curriculum indicates the program would encompass a mere 65 credit hours: three semesters of fully online lecture with no laboratory; a fourth semester of truncated basic clinical skills training; and a short internship/practicum.

Our letter urged the deans to resist any pressure to create similar programs at their institutions.
AVMA’s multipronged approach

This week’s outreach letter was only the latest initiative in our work to raise awareness of the dangers of the proposed midlevel role. Among our other activities are these:

We’ve created a resource page explaining the dangers of the midlevel practitioner role as well as other short-sighted proposals whose proponents claim they would alleviate workforce issues in our profession.
We are ardent supporters of an issues committee called Keep Our Pets Safe, which is working to educate Colorado voters about the dangers posed by the ballot measure. Along with sharable social media images, the campaign has developed FAQs and videos describing the dangers of the VPA in Colorado.
We regularly post social media about the dangers of creating a midlevel veterinary position whose duties overlap those of the veterinarian and veterinary technician.

Make your voice heard

No matter where you live, you can help raise awareness of the risk to animal safety that stems from efforts to create a midlevel veterinary practitioner position, whether in Colorado or beyond. Here are just a few ways:

Follow Keep Our Pets Safe and the AVMA on Facebook and other social media, and reshare information to help spread awareness.
Talk to colleagues and clients about the dangers of proposals to create a midlevel position. Point them to avma.org/Workforce for more information.
Work with your state and local veterinary medical associations to build support for veterinary technicians and against proposals for midlevel practitioners.

By advocating for the veterinarian-led team, you’ll be helping to protect animal safety, public health, our nation’s food supply, client trust, and the future of veterinary medicine.