Advocates argue that a bill establishing implementation procedures for the newly created veterinary professional associate position includes provisions that contradict the intent of what Colorado voters approved in Proposition 129 in November.

The bill passed in an 11-1 vote, with Rep. Mandy Lindsay, D-Aurora, in opposition.

Veterinary professional associates, or VPAs, aim to bridge the gap between veterinary technicians and doctors of veterinary medicine. They would require a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care—more training than a technician with an associate’s degree but less than the eight or more years needed to become a veterinarian. According to the proposition, veterinary professional associates, or VPAs, could make diagnoses, perform certain surgeries, and order and conduct tests and procedures.

The bill also requires VPAs to be supervised by a licensed veterinarian before they can practice. It outlines the standards to be met before a licensed veterinarian can delegate tasks to a VPA.

Under the bill, the Board of Veterinary Medicine is also required to approve a nationally recognized credentialing organization for VPAs, provide guidance to veterinarians overseeing and delegating tasks to VPAs, and determine the scope of practice and registration fees for VPAs.

McCormick, a retired veterinarian and admitted critic of Proposition 129, told members of the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee that getting Colorado’s VPA program off the ground would require collaboration between three entities: Colorado State University, which is currently working on the curriculum for its Master of Science in Veterinary Clinical Care program, the Department of Regulatory Affairs and the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, which will be charged with writing the rules and scope of practice for VPAs with the help of a task force, the public, and the state legislature, which is responsible for setting guidelines in state statute.

McCormick addressed opponents’ concerns that the bill undermines the will of the voters and limits VPAs’ scope of practice beyond what was intended by the ballot initiative.

“The VPA will be able to practice all that is within their scope, and that scope will be determined not by what is in this bill, but by the state board,” she said, adding that it’s not unusual for the General Assembly to pass legislation following the passage of a ballot measure. “Once the people have spoken, then it’s incumbent on us to work with that language and make sure that it gets done with the voters’ intention in mind,” she said.

‘This is not what voters intended’

Dr. Apryl Steele, President and CEO of Humane Colorado (formerly Dumb Friends League), argued that the bill undermines Proposition 129’s goal of addressing Colorado’s veterinary shortage. She said it limits VPAs’ ability to provide care and weakens “essential educational standards” by lowering the requirement from a master’s degree to an associate’s degree.

“This is not what the voters intended, and revising their decision just months after the vote is both irresponsible and unnecessary,” said Steele.

A “robust” stakeholder engagement process is already underway, with CSU and the Department of Regulatory Affairs continuing to discuss the issue with veterinarians, animal welfare advocates, pet owners, and ranchers.

“Passing this bill now silences voters, creates conflicts for future rules, and causes unnecessary confusion for veterinary professionals,” Steele said. “If an implementation bill is needed, it must be developed with broad stakeholder input and align with the rules.”

Steele was also concerned that the bill prohibits VPAs from establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship, or VCPR. Should the bill pass, she said, VPAs would be unable to treat an animal until a licensed veterinarian has met and treated it first, which does nothing to resolve the veterinary workforce shortage.

Tony Frank, a former veterinarian and Chancellor of the Colorado State University System — soon to be home to the state’s first and only master’s program in veterinary clinical care — warned that the bill’s proposed restrictions on VPAs’ scope of practice would result in them adding “limited value” to veterinary clinics, which may result in practices forgoing hiring them altogether. He also criticized the bill for taking the regulatory process primarily out of the Department of Regulatory Affairs’ hands.

“At the end of the day, the voters have spoken, and the state’s regulatory processes are more than adequate to assure the quality of care,” he said.

‘The voters do not know what inherently is involved in the practice of veterinary medicine’

Other veterinary professionals testified in support of the bill, saying it’s necessary to address crucial aspects of implementing VPAs that were not mentioned in the ballot measure. Dr. Ron Carsten, former president of the State Board of Veterinary Medicine, said opponents have repeatedly harped on the theme of regulation when other veterinary professionals face just as much regulation from the state if not more. He said VPAs would be required to take fewer credit hours than veterinary technicians despite having a broader scope of practice.

“It is essential to establish reasonable regulations for VPAs, consistent with that for veterinarians and vet techs in Colorado,” he said. “The VPAs and consumers deserve that same regulatory framework as the other veterinary professionals. This bill helps do that.”

Dr. Heather Reeder, a veterinarian in Denver, also supported the requirement for direct supervision of VPAs, who would be allowed to perform potentially high-risk procedures such as spaying and neutering. She noted that even the most experienced veterinarians sometimes encounter emergencies during routine surgeries. Without a licensed vet present, she said she was concerned that a VPA could be put in a situation where an animal’s life is in danger.

“A veterinarian needs to be in the building because surgery inherently involves the possibility of emergencies,” she said.

The majority of Colorado voters are not veterinarians, Reeder added, and while it’s important to respect their will, it’s also necessary for experts to intervene and make adjustments when necessary.

“The voters do not know what inherently is involved in the practice of veterinary medicine,” she said. “They compare it to a human PA, who do not perform surgery. I am adamant that we should have informed consent and they should know who’s treating their animals, and we should definitely know who’s doing surgery on our animals. Consumers, even those with limited resources, deserve to know exactly who is working on their pet.”