Regulatory / Legislative Committee Nancy Ehrlich, RVT - Chair and Liaison
A CaRVTA Regulatory/Legislative Committee member is in attendance at all VMB, RVT Task Force, and MDC meetings to report on information that is important to our members, as well as to represent CaRVTA when appropriate. The Leg/Reg Committee is looking for more committee members. If you are interested, be sure to e-mail Nancy Ehrlich at firstname.lastname@example.org. Most state meetings take place in Sacramento, although VMB meetings sometimes are scheduled for Southern California.
CaRVTA works hard to make sure our members' voices are heard in Sacramento, from representation at California's Veterinary Medical Board meetings, VMB committee meetings and the State legislature to member e-news and alerts. Your CaRVTA Board also works with the State government to promote legislation favorable to the RVT profession, such as adding an RVT to the VMB and granting title protection for RVTs. In addition to regulations and laws, the VMB is also the RVT licensing body. Below, we have listed important VMB tools and resources that student and professional RVTs will find useful throughout their careers.
The Emergency Fee Increase was approved by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on January 27, 2020 and went into effect on that date. Anyone whose application was sent in prior to January 27 and included the fee payment, will not be charged the new fees.
Nancy Ehrlich, RVT
Regulatory/Legislative Advocate, CaRVTA
August 13, 2020
The Veterinary Medical Board met today to discuss two issues. The first item on the agenda was a discussion of proposed amendments to Sec. 2035, which would have added additional language describing a veterinarian’s responsibility when delegating job tasks. Sec. 2035 already required veterinarians to “be responsible for determining the competency of the RVT or permit holder or veterinary assistant to perform allowable animal health care tasks.” The proposed amendments would have added that the DVM shall not delegate a task unless the person has “Extensive skill; Requisite training; and Demonstrated competency”.
The proposed regulation was rejected by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as being too vague. CaRVTA took the position that the proposed amendments are unnecessary, as the current language already requires the veterinarian to insure competency. The VMB voted to send the proposal back to the Multidisciplinary Advisory Committee (MDC) for further review. The MDC will be meeting in October.
The second issue on the agenda was a public hearing on the proposed Animal Physical Rehabilitation (APR) regulation. The VMB had already approved the regulation but was holding the hearing based on comments from the public. The public was given the opportunity to comment once again. There were multiple individuals testifying in support of the regulation, including CaRVTA, as well as many in opposition. The regulation would allow veterinarians to delegate APR to RVTs under the level of supervision the DVM deems appropriate. It restricts the performance of APR by veterinary assistants (VAs) to Direct Supervision. Human Physical Therapists (PTs) want to be able to also work under Indirect Supervision. However, the VMB has determined that since they do not have jurisdiction over PTs, they cannot treat them any differently than other VAs.
The VMB reviewed the comments that they received and the replies to those comments, as they are required to respond to every comment. Since several comments came in during the meeting today, the VMB will continue working on their responses. The VMB agreed to consider at its October meeting one comment that wildlife being rehabilitated with official permits should be exempted. The VMB plans a final vote on the APR proposal at that meeting.
There were no other items on the agenda.
Laws and Policies Regarding Marijuana, Hemp and AnimalsAB-485 - Mill Bred Dogs, Cats, RabbitsAB-1522 - Sick Leave ActVeterinary Assistant Controlled Substance Permit
Unlicensed Veterinary Activity
When the VMB receives a complaint about unlicensed activity, it first investigates the complaint. Second, it sends a Cease & Desist letter to the individual, giving them an opportunity to explain whether or not they are actually engaged in the unlicensed activity. If they are performing the activity and do not desist, they are issued a citation and fine. They may also be referred to the local District Attorney for criminal prosecution. The VMB has passed a motion to direct its legal counsel to investigate further enforcement options.
For information about how to file a complaint - CLICK HERE
FINGERPRINTING OF VETERINARY LICENSEES
Some veterinarians and RVTs are receiving notifications from the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) that they need to be fingerprinted in order to renew their license. We received the following information from VMB regarding this requirement.
“The fingerprint requirement is not a new requirement. California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 2010.05 states, in part, the following:
As a condition of renewal of a license, a veterinarian who was initially licensed prior to January 1, 1960, a registered veterinary technician who was initially licensed prior to January 1, 2004, or any licensee for whom an electronic record of the submission of fingerprints no longer exists or was never created, shall furnish to the Department of Justice a full set of fingerprints for the purpose of conducting a criminal history record check and to undergo a state and federal level criminal offender record information search conducted through the Department of Justice.
This regulation took effect in 2012 after a legislative change to BPC section 144 requiring fingerprint results from DOJ and FBI (only DOJ was required prior to that). At that time, all boards listed under BPC section 144 underwent rulemaking to bring current licensees into compliance during their renewal period. Unfortunately, the licensing system at the time was not designed to check for or hold renewals in the absence of fingerprint results. BreEZe, however, was recently designed to check for DOJ and FBI results. If results are missing, licensees are notified accordingly.
If a licensee/registrant was fingerprinted before, but the system is indicating the need for fingerprint results, it’s possible it was before the fingerprints were required to go to the FBI. It’s also possible that when a licensee/registrant submitted fingerprints, the box was not checked to send to the FBI. Regardless, if a licensee/registrant received notification from the Board indicating the need for fingerprint results, it’s because an electronic record of the submission of fingerprints no longer exists or was never created.”
VMB FEE INCREASE (3.8.18)