Dr. Sandra Faeh AVMA House of Delegates plenary session remarks

Good morning, and welcome to the 2025 Veterinary Leadership Conference!

It is wonderful to see you all again, and I thank you for joining us for what is always a great event.

I’ll be speaking with you today about a topic that has been top of mind for most of us and will continue to require our attention, our energy, and our combined efforts to address.

In July 2023, with the veterinary profession facing mounting external pressures that could potentially forever change the way veterinary medicine is practiced, you, as members of the House of Delegates, adopted a resolution.

You called on the AVMA to, quote, "vigorously defend the practice of veterinary medicine, which includes the ability to diagnose, prognose, develop treatment plans, prescribe, and/or perform surgery, against scope of practice expansions by non-veterinarians that threaten patient health and safety, the safety of animal products, and/or public health."

We acted on this resolution and developed a multi-tiered strategy to protect the animals we serve, food safety, public health, and public trust in our profession.

And, with the help of many other veterinary organizations, veterinary practices, concerned stakeholder organizations, and individuals from across the country, we came together as a united coalition.
Our efforts began in 2023, and grew in both intensity and scope in 2024, after a group in Colorado called "All Pets Deserve Vet Care" secured enough signatures to put the creation of a midlevel practitioner, they termed a "veterinary professional associate" or "VPA", on the state’s general election ballot as Proposition 129. Despite the fact that, previously, the Colorado legislature found no reason to advance a bill for a VPA.

Directly tied to the outcome of Proposition 129 is another concerning effort underway to create a proposed master’s degree program at Colorado State University that would graduate this Veterinary Professional Associate. The combined result is an entirely new midlevel practitioner in Colorado who would be allowed to practice veterinary medicine, including performing surgery.

The CSU Master’s in Veterinary Clinical Care is a 5-semester, mostly online program that appears to provide very minimal foundational education and woefully insufficient hands-on training. Its graduates would step into decision-making roles without the knowledge or skills required, risking the safety of Colorado’s animals, the security of our food supply, public health, and the future of veterinary care. Creating this midlevel role is also unnecessary, as it fully overlaps the duties of the veterinarian and the veterinary technician.

Graduates of CSU’s primarily online program would be allowed to diagnose, create treatment plans, and even perform surgery. In fact, proponents have argued they could perform major surgeries, such as splenectomies, amputations, and C-sections, despite their limited clinical training. Based on the proposed curriculum, a VPA would have completed half the credit hours required by most DVM programs, and in some cases, fewer hours than a veterinary technician must accrue prior to graduation.

Veterinarians would face considerable liability risks from this midlevel practitioner. A veterinarian supervising the VPA’s activities would, under current proposals, be responsible for all the acts and omissions of the VPA. That’s one of many reasons veterinarians are strongly opposed to creating this position. They don’t want to be liable for the actions of an undertrained VPA. Lack of adequate training will lead to misdiagnoses, ineffective treatment plans, and repeat visits, which will result in additional suffering for animals and increased costs for their owners. According to the PLIT, the primary drivers of claims related to companion animal practice are spays, neuters, anesthesia, and dental procedures, all of which a VPA could do under current proposals.

Next, I’d like to provide you with more detail regarding our efforts in Colorado, and importantly, our path forward.

The AVMA partnered with the Colorado VMA to launch an issues campaign called “Keep Our Pets Safe,” and a coalition of nearly 200 organizations and individuals from across the profession joined us in opposition to the VPA, including national, state, and local veterinary organizations; Colorado lawmakers; veterinary clinics; veterinarians; veterinary technicians; and pet owners.

As a benefit of our work in Colorado, we now have a more fully united profession. All 50 state veterinary medical associations, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico VMAs, have committed to opposing a midlevel practitioner. Key allied veterinary organizations in the HOD, key specialty organizations, and organizations like American Humane and the American Kennel Club, also stand opposed to a midlevel.

Colorado veterinarians mobilized and raised their voices across the state. The AVMA provided data and insights, serving as a trusted convenor to help organize the opposition.
Our work with the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and its leadership was a model of true collaboration.
When our work began in early 2024, research showed those in favor of the measure heavily outnumbered those against it, in large part because of how the proposition was framed. As we educated the public about the dangers the VPA presents to animal health and safety and public health, we saw a steady change in public opinion.
Here are some key accomplishments from the campaign:

• "Keep Our Pets Safe" commercials resulted in more than 16.3 million media impressions.
• Multiple Colorado newspapers published editorials opposing Proposition 129, and the AVMA, Colorado VMA, and others authored 16 opinion pieces in Colorado newspapers stating our case.
• Veterinarians across the state alerted their clients, wrote their own op-eds, shared concerns on social media, and participated in media interviews, and the AVMA kept its members informed through emails, news stories, and social media posts.

While we are disappointed by the outcome of Proposition 129, it is important to note that the vote was close, with 52.7% in favor and 47.3% opposed. More than 1.3 million Coloradans voted against the proposition, and with such a narrow approval margin, it shows how organized advocacy efforts driven collaboratively by the AVMA and others can have a direct impact on public opinion.

It also shows that the public recognizes the importance and complexity of the work that veterinarians and veterinary technicians do to care for their patients, and that they want only properly trained and competence-assessed individuals filling those roles.

Looking ahead, it’s critically important that we all stay alert and actively engaged on this topic as we know there are efforts afoot to launch similar proposals in other states.

We’ve developed tools, messaging, and other resources you can use to advocate against creating a midlevel practitioner. It’s important that the pet-owning public and other stakeholders are fully aware of its dangers. We made a lot of progress this past year and will put that to work going forward.

The AVMA and our partners will continue to work with stakeholders across the nation to share our concerns about the dangers of an insufficiently trained midlevel practitioner; support appropriate recognition and leveraging the full skill sets of our already comprehensively trained and qualified veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and veterinary technician specialists; and do everything we can to ensure that our clients and the animals we serve continue to receive quality veterinary care, and that the nation's food supply and public health are protected.

As you meet with your constituents, we encourage you to share why creating a midlevel practitioner is a bad idea. Key messages to share include the following:

• It will reduce quality of care and poses serious risks for animal health and safety.
• There is no demand and no need for this position. It overlaps current roles on the veterinary team and will create confusion.
• It devalues the degrees and certifications of existing veterinary professionals.
• It is not the same as a PA in human medicine, in terms of function or education.
• It creates unacceptable liability risk for veterinarians.
• Veterinarians and the public don’t support it.

There will be opportunities to influence next steps in Colorado, including engaging in the upcoming Colorado legislative session and participating in the Colorado State Board of Veterinary Medicine’s rulemaking process to shape how VPAs will practice. The Colorado VMA and the AVMA will be actively involved and will continue to advocate on behalf of our profession.

Beyond Colorado, we will be at the ready to address threats to our talented veterinary teams and our profession.

In closing, the good news is that our profession is now more united than ever. You told us how important this is, and in 2025, we will work diligently to ensure this flawed concept for a new veterinary practitioner doesn’t gain traction in other states.

The AVMA sincerely thanks everyone who stepped up and made their voices heard, and I want to express my personal appreciation for your ongoing commitment.

We especially want to thank the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association for all their great work throughout the campaign, and Colorado Rep. Karen McCormick who is also a veterinarian, for her tenacious and ongoing contributions.

McDonald’s founder Ray Kroc once said, "None of us is as good as all of us." Collectively, ALL of us can make a profound difference for our profession—by staying united and aligned with one purpose—to defeat any initiative that would endanger effective and safe care for animals.

We look forward to working with you on behalf of our great profession.

Thank you.