Health occupations: veterinarians; veterinarian-client-patient relationship; require. Amends 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.1101 - 333.25211) by adding sec. 18818. TIE BAR WITH: SB 194'25
Senate Bill 193 would add a new section to Michigan’s Public Health Code governing when veterinarians may practice veterinary medicine and prescribe drugs. The bill requires a veterinarian-client-patient relationship before treatment, and defines how that relationship may be established: through an in-person exam, a medically appropriate visit to the animal’s premises, or, for companion animals only, a telehealth exam using real-time audio and video technology. The veterinarian must have current knowledge of the animal sufficient to make at least a preliminary diagnosis and must accept responsibility for clinical judgments while the owner agrees to follow instructions.
The bill sets specific limits on telehealth-based veterinary care. Telehealth exams could not be used for non-companion animals or for issuing interstate certificates of veterinary inspection or pet health certificates. If telehealth is used, the veterinarian must have appropriate electronic diagnostic tools, be available for adverse reactions or treatment failure, and offer or help arrange an in-person follow-up if requested. The bill also limits prescriptions based solely on telehealth exams to a 14-day supply with no refills, allows one additional 14-day supply after another telehealth exam, and bars further renewals without an in-person exam. Controlled substances could not be prescribed unless the veterinarian also performs an in-person exam or a timely visit to the animal’s premises.
The bill’s impact would be to formally authorize and regulate veterinary telehealth in Michigan while preserving traditional in-person standards for more sensitive services. It would amend the Public Health Code by adding section 18818 and would affect veterinarians, animal owners, pharmacies, and animals receiving care, especially companion animals. It also cross-references existing definitions in Michigan law for companion animal, pet health certificate, and telehealth, and requires compliance with federal and state prescribing laws.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and context appears to be supportive of expanding access to veterinary care through telehealth, while maintaining safeguards around diagnosis, follow-up, and prescribing. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available materials. The tie-bar to Senate Bill 194 suggests the proposal is part of a broader legislative package, indicating coordinated support for related veterinary telehealth changes.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of telehealth in veterinary medicine, especially whether remote exams should be allowed for all animals or only companion animals, and how much prescribing authority should follow a virtual exam. The bill draws a clear line against telehealth for controlled substances and for certain certification documents, which suggests concern about animal safety, diagnostic reliability, and regulatory oversight. Another possible issue is whether the 14-day prescription limit is too restrictive for ongoing treatment needs.
The bill would add a new statutory section to Michigan’s Public Health Code establishing a legal framework for veterinarian-client-patient relationships and telehealth-based veterinary care. It would permit remote examinations only under defined conditions, restrict telehealth to companion animals, limit prescriptions issued after virtual exams, and prohibit controlled-substance prescribing without an in-person exam or premises visit. It would also incorporate existing state definitions and require compliance with federal and state drug-prescribing laws, thereby affecting veterinary practice standards, animal owners, and pharmacy dispensing of veterinary prescriptions.
Based on the bill language and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears cautiously supportive of telehealth access for veterinary care, paired with strong emphasis on safety and professional oversight. The measure seems designed to modernize veterinary practice without eliminating in-person care requirements. Because no discussion transcripts or vote history were provided, there is no documented public opposition or endorsement in the available record beyond the bill’s structure and tie-bar arrangement.
The likely areas of contention are the limits placed on telehealth and prescribing. Supporters of broader access may view the bill as too restrictive because it excludes non-companion animals, bars telehealth for certificates of veterinary inspection and pet health certificates, and caps prescriptions at short durations unless an in-person exam occurs. Others may support those restrictions as necessary to protect animal health, ensure accurate diagnosis, and prevent inappropriate prescribing, especially for controlled substances. The tie-bar to SB 194 also suggests the bill is part of a package that may need to move together, which can be a procedural point of concern.