Revised Model Veterinary Practice Act adopted

After three years of research, collecting feedback, and thoughtful revisions, an updated Model Veterinary Practice Act (MVPA) has been adopted by the AVMA House of Delegates (HOD).

The Council on Veterinary Service (CoVS) and an expanded working group—representing a wide range of stakeholders—oversaw the review process of the document, which is intended as a set of guiding principles for those preparing or revising a veterinary practice act under the codes and laws of an individual state.

Changes to the MVPA aim to elevate veterinary technicians, streamline licensing requirements for veterinarians practicing in multiple states, address telehealth and its various subcategories, and further clarify the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR).

AVMA delegates discussed various provisions of the revised MVPA July 17 and 18 during the HOD’s regular annual session, held in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with AVMA Convention 2025 and the 40th World Veterinary Association Congress. Early in the discussion, a motion was made to refer the policy back to the AVMA Board of Directors (BOD).

Dr. Andrew O’Carroll, Maryland delegate, said, “The last time the MVPA came up for review, the same thing happened. Our organization wanted to send it back to the Board. The CoVS puts years of work into this. There’s a lot of good stuff in there. I would urge you all to not let the perfect be the enemy of good.”

Ultimately, the House voted in favor of the resolution, passing with 96% of the vote.

Veterinary technicians

New wording in the MVPA indicates that state veterinary medical boards should be accorded authority to register veterinary technician specialists if there is a desire to clarify the duties that apply to those veterinary professionals.

“For example, the Board may want to consider making a rule that determines qualifications for a registered veterinary technician specialist so they may advertise as a state-recognized veterinary technician specialist, thus differentiating themselves from other veterinary technicians/veterinary technologists who claim specialty knowledge but who have not met these criteria,” the MVPA states.

Another notable update is that veterinary technicians and veterinary technologists are now referred to as “licensed” in the MVPA, moving away from other terms, including “certified” and “registered,” that have been used to refer to what is actually a licensing process. The change is intended to promote consistent licensing terminology and avoid confusion across jurisdictions.

Dr. Warren Hess, staff liaison to the CoVS, said in a reference committee meeting on Thursday, “We’re trying to make recommendations that we move in that direction, which will be helpful as this whole technician discussion unfolds,” he said.

When asked why the MVPA does not address the midlevel veterinary practitioner (MLP) role, Dr. Gail Golab, AVMA chief veterinary officer and associate executive vice president, said in the same committee meeting that before creating a new position, there needs to be greater focus on better integrating veterinary technicians, who are highly qualified existing members of the veterinary team.

Licensure by endorsement

Another MVPA revision involved changing the license by endorsement section to have fewer requirements. The hope is to encourage a more streamlined process for when a veterinarian who is licensed in good standing in one or more states wants to become licensed in an additional state. Oftentimes, the veterinarian must provide proof of a record of good standing for each state in which they are licensed, or have been previously licensed, as well as complete state-specific jurisprudence testing.

Additional requirements can pose barriers. Dr. Theresa Kelliher, Nebraska delegate, pointed out in a reference committee meeting that some states require practitioners to undergo fingerprinting on location. That leaves some poultry and swine veterinarians, who may practice in a dozen or more states, to travel to each location to do so.

The MVPA also encourages the creation of electronic databases to make the process more seamless and rapid. Ultimately, it’s up to each state to decide whether to make licensure easier for licensees in good standing from other states.

Telemedicine and VCPR

Recognizing the growing role of telehealth in veterinary care, a new section on telemedicine was added. The new wording affirms that telemedicine must be conducted within the context of a VCPR that has been established in person. This section also outlines considerations for privacy, recordkeeping, and continuity of care when telemedicine is practiced.

On the House floor, Dr. Timothy Smaha, American Association of Industry Veterinarians alternate delegate, raised a concern that the MVPA did not have a carve out for poison control services within its definition of teletriage.

Dr. Golab clarified that the definition of teletriage in the MVPA includes not only pet poison hotlines, but also other providers who may be assisting animal owners in determining whether or not to see a veterinarian and with what urgency.

After additional discussion, the MVPA was approved as presented to the House.

Dr. Rick Sutliff, Florida alternate delegate, remarked that the document is just that, a model.

“There is no chance this is going to be put in place in every state and followed as such. These are just suggestions if you are rewriting your practice act. You can cut and paste certain sections as you like.”

A version of this story appears in the September 2025 print issue of JAVMA

Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified the Maryland delegate.