10/15/2024
I've been asked a number of times in recent days for my opinion on Colorado's proposition 129, which would create the new position of Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA). While the measure aims to expand access to veterinary care, I am concerned about the significant risks this poses, not only to animal welfare and public health but also in creating opportunities for corporate interests to undermine the integrity of veterinary care in Colorado.
1. Corporate Influence and Profit-Driven Care
The introduction of the VPA position could open the door for large corporate veterinary chains to reduce costs by hiring less-qualified individuals to perform tasks traditionally handled by licensed veterinarians. Corporate-owned veterinary clinics are often more focused on profitability than patient care, and allowing VPAs to diagnose, treat, and prescribe could lead to a lower standard of care, as cost-cutting measures are prioritized over proper treatment protocols. This shift risks turning veterinary care into a profit-driven model, where the quality of care could be sacrificed to increase corporate margins.
2. Undermining Small Veterinary Practices
Small, independent veterinary practices, which form the backbone of many local communities, are already under pressure from corporate chains. Proposition 129 could further tip the balance in favor of corporate consolidation. Larger corporations would have the financial power to employ VPAs at lower salaries, while smaller practices, which depend on the trust and relationships they’ve built with pet owners, could struggle to compete. This would likely lead to further consolidation in the veterinary industry, decreasing competition and reducing options for consumers in rural and underserved areas.
3. Risk to Veterinary Standards
Corporate veterinary groups have increasingly been involved in lobbying for regulatory changes that benefit their bottom line. The creation of the VPA role, driven by these interests, could compromise the rigorous standards currently upheld by licensed veterinarians. Animal care should not be commodified, and decisions regarding medical procedures and prescriptions must be made by highly trained professionals, not individuals with lesser qualifications. Allowing VPAs to take on these responsibilities will erode the high standards of care that pet owners and livestock farmers expect and deserve.
4. Harm to Public Trust in Veterinary Care
By opening the door to corporate-driven staffing models, Proposition 129 risks eroding the trust that pet owners place in veterinary professionals. Small, local veterinary practices tend to be trusted because they emphasize individualized care, transparency, and community involvement. In contrast, corporate clinics that rely on VPAs to cut costs may offer a more impersonal and less reliable experience, leading to diminished public confidence in veterinary care across the board.
In conclusion, while expanding access to veterinary care is a worthy goal, Proposition 129 introduces a pathway for corporate interests to further infiltrate and dominate the veterinary field. This would ultimately harm small, independent clinics, reduce the quality of care, and prioritize profit over the well-being of our animals. I urge voters to reject Proposition 129 and instead explore solutions that support both access to care and the integrity of the veterinary profession.