Veterinarians, national experts tell Senate committee SB 5 would weaken veterinary oversight and risk animal‑health harms

Multiple veterinarians and national experts urged the Senate Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development Committee to reject provisions of Senate Bill 5 that would allow the veterinarian–client–patient relationship, or VCPR, to be established electronically.

Dr. Paul Jenkins, a practicing veterinarian from Vilonia testifying for the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association, said, “we are against senate bill 5, because it strips the required veterinary client patient relationship from telemedicine,” and warned that removing the in‑person requirement would threaten timely care and reduce accountability. Jenkins told the committee that telemedicine often leads to an in‑person visit — "60 to 80% of the time" — and argued that electronic-only relationships could divert fees and tax revenue out of state.

Dr. Lori Teller, president of the American Veterinary Medical Association and a clinical associate professor of telehealth at Texas A&M, explained the difference between telehealth and telemedicine and urged preserving an established VCPR for clinical telemedicine. Teller said telehealth can be valuable for triage and advice but that "for more specific care telemedicine is best utilized following an in person examination of the patient and establishment of the VCPR." She also noted research showing higher antibiotic prescribing in telemedicine visits and raised federal enforcement concerns, saying the FDA has authority that could conflict with an electronic VCPR.

Dr. Fred Gingrich of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners focused on risks specific to cattle and food‑animal medicine. Gingrich told senators his organization found widespread exposure to anaplasmosis in Arkansas cattle and said a recent study showed "59 percent of the cattle in Arkansas were sero positive for anaplasmosis." He argued that herd health relies on regular site visits and locally tailored protocols and cautioned that remote establishment of VCPRs could increase risks of misdiagnosis, spread of contagious disease and noncompliance with federal requirements such as the Veterinary Feed Directive and the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA).

Committee members pressed witnesses on state experience and workforce effects. Witnesses said some states temporarily allowed electronic establishment of VCPRs under COVID waivers but that the FDA has recently withdrawn enforcement discretion for electronic VCPR when it pertains to extra‑label drug uses and VFDs. Senators sought data on whether electronic VCPRs caused local veterinarian shortages; witnesses said it is too early or data are limited but argued that allowing remote VCPR establishment could increase economic pressure on rural veterinarians.

The committee heard the testimony but did not take a vote. Rodney Baker, representing the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Association, offered to remain available for follow‑up questions and noted that the state previously adopted telemedicine rules; he urged preserving the preexisting‑relationship requirement for animal care. The chair closed the session, invited members for a facility tour and adjourned the committee.

What happens next: No formal action or vote occurred at this hearing; the committee received testimony and may consider the testimony as it determines next steps on SB 5.