Use of Veterinary Telehealth
SB159 would expand the use of veterinary telehealth in Colorado. The bill allows a licensed veterinarian to establish a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) through a synchronous audio-video examination, rather than requiring an in-person physical exam or a visit to the premises where the animal is kept. It also updates statutory terminology by broadening and clarifying the definition of “telehealth” and replacing many references to “telemedicine” with “telehealth” throughout the veterinary practice statutes.
The bill would also change prescribing rules. Under the measure, a veterinarian with an established VCPR could prescribe medication through telehealth without first conducting an in-person exam, but controlled substances would still require a prior in-person exam or premises visit. Antimicrobial drugs could be prescribed through telehealth only for up to 14 days, and any additional antimicrobial prescription or refill would require an in-person physical examination. The bill also removes a current requirement that a veterinarian using telehealth be available in person at an accessible veterinary premises for emergencies or follow-up, and it repeals a restriction that prevented veterinary specialists from prescribing medication unless they had established a VCPR in person.
In practical terms, SB159 would amend multiple sections of Colorado’s veterinary practice law, including definitions, telehealth authorization, prescribing authority, referral rules, supervision of registered veterinary technicians, and continuity-of-care provisions. It would give veterinarians more flexibility to provide remote care, while preserving some limits for higher-risk drugs and certain follow-up needs. The bill would affect veterinarians, veterinary specialists, registered veterinary technicians, animal owners, and clients relying on remote veterinary services.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history was unfavorable to the bill in committee. On March 20, 2025, the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee first voted 3-4 against advancing the bill to the Committee of the Whole, and then used a reverse roll call to postpone the bill indefinitely by a 4-3 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows the bill did not receive enough support to move forward at that stage.
The main point of contention appears to be whether veterinary telehealth should be allowed to substitute for in-person examination when establishing a VCPR and prescribing medication. Supporters would likely view the bill as expanding access and modernizing veterinary care, especially for remote or time-sensitive situations. Opponents likely had concerns about patient safety, diagnostic reliability, and the appropriateness of remote prescribing, particularly for controlled substances and longer antimicrobial treatment.
SB159 would revise Colorado’s veterinary practice statutes to authorize telehealth-based establishment and maintenance of a veterinarian-client-patient relationship, broaden telehealth definitions, permit telehealth prescribing under specified conditions, and remove certain in-person availability and specialist-prescribing restrictions. It would directly affect licensed veterinarians, veterinary specialists, registered veterinary technicians, and animal owners by expanding remote service options while retaining limits on controlled substances and extended antimicrobial treatment.
The committee record indicates mixed but ultimately negative sentiment toward the bill. The measure failed to advance out of the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee and was postponed indefinitely after a reverse roll call, suggesting insufficient support among committee members. The lack of transcript detail limits insight into individual arguments, but the vote outcome shows the bill faced meaningful opposition.
The central controversy is the shift from an in-person model of veterinary care to one that allows a VCPR to be established through synchronous audio-video telehealth. Related concerns include whether remote prescribing is safe, how to regulate controlled substances and antimicrobials, and whether removing the requirement for in-person follow-up availability could reduce continuity of care. Supporters likely favor expanded access and modernization, while opponents likely emphasize clinical caution, animal safety, and the need for physical examination before diagnosis and prescribing.