The blue gloves in this picture probably belong to a licensed veterinarian, but if Prop 129 passes, a Veterinary Professional Associate might be taking on some of the work licensed veterinarians perform.
In relatively simple terms, passing Colorado Proposition 129 would authorize establishment of a new veterinary category called the Veterinary Professional Associate (VPA), under the assumption that VPAs would help Colorado address its shortage of available veterinary care.
VPAs would not be professionally equal to fully licensed veterinarians, but they would need a master’s degree and could perform certain procedures under the supervision of a fully licensed veterinarian. The initiative language includes general limitations, educational and licensing requirements for VPAs. Prop 129 also requires the state Board of Veterinary Medicine to promulgate more precise rules for the VPA classification than the general statutory language found in the initiative text.
Prop 129 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure, once known as Initiative 145, and proponents collected enough valid petition signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. This is a statutory initiative, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of votes.
Why Is Prop 129 Being Considered?
The Prop 129 text (this can be found on the Initiative 145 link above) begins with a legislative declaration saying there is a “critical veterinary workforce shortage” in Colorado. Skipping ahead, the declaration says creating a “mid-level veterinary practitioner career pathway” could provide a solution to the shortfall.
The 129 proponent organization All Pets Deserve Vet Care has a statistic sheet illustrating its perception of the veterinary care shortages available at this link, with a short sample below:
- A recent CSU survey found that 1 in 3 people have experienced barriers to accessing veterinary care in the past two years.
- More than 20% of Colorado counties have little to no access to veterinary care – this is equal to more than 114,000 rural Colorado families.
- Up to 55,000 new veterinarians are needed to meet projected demand in 2030.
It might be worth a polite reminder to urban dwellers that veterinarians might care for livestock in rural areas, as well as for household pets. The proponent website also notes that 56.5% of respondents to a Colorado Cattleman’s Association survey said the shortage is affecting “the health of their livestock and the economics of their operations.”
Meanwhile, the opponent organization Keep Our Pets Safe argues that VPAs with “inadequate training” might be able to perform surgery, and notes that passing 129 would create “a new position for a job that does not exist.” The site has a list of organizations opposed to 129, including Colorado Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and claims that the measure “prioritizes corporate profits over the safety and well-being of your pets.”
In particular, the AMVA has taken a strong stance against both 129 and creating “mid-level” categories like the VPAs, and is the leading funder of Keep Our Pets Safe. Readers interested in AMVA’s opinion might wish to read this linked two-page letter delivered to veterinary school deans, but in short it calls into question whether VPA training would be adequate; whether mid-level practitioners are even needed; and whether the availability of VPAs would actually limit costs for clients.
This is not to judge the quality of corporate veterinary practices, but readers might find this story from 5280 Magazine interesting for perspective. The story notes that the veterinary landscape has shifted from a preponderance of independent or locally-owned clinics to more corporate business, as some small clinics were sold to corporations such as Veterinary Centers of America (VCA) or BluePearl. It also says that in 2017, VCA was acquired by Mars, Incorporated – best known as the candy company – and the story claimed in 2022 that it was becoming more difficult for people to find independent veterinarians.
While it might not be possible to give a precise number about the average pay VPAs would command since the positions aren’t in existence yet, it seems conceivable that they’d be paid less than fully licensed veterinarians but more than veterinary technicians.
There are many estimates of average annual veterinarian pay to be found online, but for one example, ZipRecruiter.com says the average is $177,378 annually, with a range between $52,050 and $309,146. ZipRecruiter.com also says licensed veterinary technicians in Colorado average $21 per hour, with a range between $12.64 and $33.37.
What is a Veterinary Professional Associate?
According to the Prop 129 text, a VPA would need to “hold a master’s degree in veterinary clinical care or the equivalent as determined by the board (of Veterinary Medicine),” and would need to pass a national exam plus go through biennial continuing education. For one comparison, veterinary technicians (Vet Tech) already exist in Colorado, but according to the Colorado Academy of Veterinary Technicians the Vet Techs need an associate’s or bachelor’s degree from an accredited program, and must pass a national exam.
There is an organization called Coalition for the Veterinary Professional Associates, with part of its stated objective being “to lobby for and support the creation of these new VPA providers.” It has a graphic supporting Prop 129 on its home page. The website also notes that there is a master’s program for veterinary clinical care being developed at Colorado State University.
While there isn’t a great deal of detailed description about the duties a VPA would be able to perform in the Prop 129 text, the basic requirements are that duties must be:
- Within the VPA’s advanced education and experience; and
- Performed while under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian who is responsible for the VPA’s performance
Readers who would like to understand what “VPA’s advanced education” might mean could pore through this webpage from CSU’s College of Veterinary Medicine. While CSU’s VPA master’s program is under development, it basically calls for a mix of online and in-person learning with what CSU calls “extensive hands-on training.” CSU has a highly-regarded veterinary medicine program, and for illustration only: U.S. News and World Report ranked CSU’s veterinary school second-best in the nation for 2023, while TopUniversities.com ranked CSU 10th in the world for 2024.
Readers should certainly read the full Prop 129 measure if they have time, but much of the rest of the statutory text is not super-exciting, covering issues including licensing requirements, discipline for veterinarians if there’s a problem with a VPA, and terminology definitions.
Could the State Legislature Tackle This Issue?
The Colorado General Assembly can indeed work on issues surrounding veterinary care. The legislature has considered several bills in recent years to attempt addressing care shortages, but they weren’t technically similar to Prop 129.
The nearly-local state Rep. Karen McCormick of Longmont is a veterinarian, and is among several current legislators who have sponsored bills designed to deal with veterinary care shortages. One such bill from 2024 (HB 24-1047) allows licensed veterinarians to delegate certain tasks to veterinary technicians and veterinary technician specialists (VTS), and veterinary technicians already exist while VTS was a new designation created under this bill. The bill was signed into law after it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate.
Rep. McCormick was also a prime sponsor of HB 24-1271, which would have created income tax credits for veterinary professionals in underserved areas. However, the bill was estimated to cost the state around $3 million because of the tax credits, and it was defeated in House committees. She sponsored a bill that did pass in 2023 (SB 23-044), which devoted $540,000 toward a state Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Cash Fund to help graduates who are willing to practice in geographic areas where there are shortages of veterinarians.
In this Colorado Public Radio story from March 2024 that touches on the legislative bills mentioned above, McCormick said that there is real awareness of the veterinary care shortages, but also said institutions including CSU are working to help address the shortages.
“CSU is in the process of building a brand new general practice primary care facility to help train their veterinarians more in the primary care space. They are adding about 30 students to each class coming in two years, so going from about 150 students per class to 180. And across the nation, there are about 10 to 12 veterinary schools in various stages of development and coming online,” said McCormick.
But McCormick has also spoken out against Prop 129, telling AVMA she does not believe the VPA curriculum she’s seen would be adequate to “assure the public that this person has the proper skill set to perform surgery or prescribe.”
Follow the Money
As of Oct. 28, the proponent organization All Pets Deserve Vet Care had taken in about $1.7 million in monetary and non-monetary contributions. The Dumb Friends League had contributed about $1.17 million, with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in for $400,000.
As of Oct. 28, most of the $2.45 million in monetary and non-monetary contributions to the opponent organization Keep Our Pets Safe had come from the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Richard’s Take
I’m probably going to vote against Prop 129, but it’s a bit of a close decision for me. It seems likely to me that there is a general shortage of veterinary care availability in Colorado, for whatever reasons, and the availability of VPAs could help address workforce shortages of the future. However, the various veterinary associations opposed to 129 make compelling cases to me as to why 129 might not be the best or only solution, including concerns over VPA qualifications relative to responsibilities they’d take on, and that neither the VPA master’s programs nor actual VPAs even exist yet. I could also see the possibility of dueling economic concerns – for example, if licensed veterinarians might be concerned about lower-paid VPAs taking work, or if corporate veterinary company owners would like to hire lower-paid VPAs to boost profit margins.
Conceptually, I see a decision that’s not really ready to be made by November 5 as voters who aren’t veterinary experts scramble for information, and I’m not convinced that an initiative is the best way to make this decision anyway.
Here’s one rhetorical question that I think applies to 129 – are most people in Colorado even remotely qualified to decide how to create a new veterinary medical category and really weigh the pros and cons? I’m pretty sure the answer is “no,” and I’m definitely counting myself here, even though I’ve spent many hours reading and searching for information. In my opinion, far too many casual Colorado voters are just not likely to gain more than passing knowledge about the issue during the last days or weeks of an election cycle, with plenty of other complex issues to learn about.
In this case, I will probably come down on the side of saying that this issue should be the domain of the state legislature. In legislative process, “the people” who truly care about an issue do get a chance to weigh in, whether it’s through testimony, email, phone, or snail mail. Also, state departments or divisions and professional organizations can provide well-informed input. Then, bills get heard in multiple committees and chambers, they might get amended, and elected officials can cast public votes after spending quality time with the issue.
With an election, there’s no telling how many people will cast completely or largely uninformed votes, and of course that happens every election whether we’re dealing with candidates or ballot measures. But the issue at hand with 129 is pretty technical, and I have very little confidence that this election will yield a decision that’s undeniably the best decision based on science and statistics and perspective and expertise, which is what I hope most people want in medicine. With a ballot measure, we run the risk of a narrow majority overruling a narrow minority that might include people who are very well informed.
On the other hand, if Prop 129 doesn’t pass, the act of running the initiative might shed some extra light on shortages of available veterinary care in Colorado, and might spur the legislature and people involved with the veterinary industry into future action. Remember, the defeat of one individual ballot measure does not mean an issue is settled forever – if 129 goes down the legislature can take issues up again beginning in January 2025, or ballot measure proponents can try again in future years. The legislature might even decide that the VPA approach is indeed the best way to move forward, but we just don’t have to vote now or forever hold our peace.
I prefer what I believe would be a more comprehensive approach, compared to a whole bunch of people trying to learn an issue more or less from scratch so they can make a decision by November 5, and for the reasons above I won’t be recommending voting for Prop 129.
