A recent Observer article makes the case for expanding veterinary telemedicine in Texas, but many of its interpretations of the data and legal context may not capture the full picture. It omits recent developments in veterinary education, such as the 11 new veterinary colleges planned across the country, which are likely to address regional care gaps. The article closely reflects the arguments of a national advocacy group supporting the same legislation. A closer look at the data suggests a more complex landscape.
The assertion of a massive shortage of veterinarians in Texas or nationwide, particularly in small animal practice, is not strongly supported. After a spike in visits during the Covid-19 pandemic, office visits are now down. This is not due to a lack of veterinarians, but rather a lack of demand. Studies forecasting a shortage rely on methodologies that likely reflect reflect distribution and access challenges rather than a true national shortfall. One such source, cited by the author, notes that it “provides a relative measure of the accessibility of veterinary care for counties throughout the country. It is not an absolute scale as data do not yet exist to provide reliable benchmarks for such absolute measures.” In other words, the data may reflect rural access issues, but not an overall deficit of qualified professionals.
Some of the sources cited in the article offer a more nuanced view than its conclusions suggest. For example, one document, presented as evidence of industry support for expanded veterinary telemedicine, begins by cautioning that “veterinarians, patients would see more risk than reward with proposed changes to practice.” Another source, cited in reference to a “critical veterinary shortage,” focuses primarily on rural areas and recommends strengthening the veterinary education pipeline and expanding loan repayment programs for veterinarians who practice in rural Texas, not expanded telehealth, as solutions.
Additionally, the article references a recent court decision as evidence that Texas’ telehealth requirements are unconstitutional. However, the scope of the ruling was more limited. The court ruled, regarding one veterinarian, that his use of email to offer clinical advice to pet owners was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. As the judge noted, “We specifically conclude that the State of Texas is directly regulating Dr. Hines’s speech and that this regulation fails to survive even intermediate scrutiny. The court did not weigh in on the broader constitutionality of requiring an in-person exam before prescribing medication or other aspects of veterinary medical practice.
Targeted solutions already in motion
To be clear, Texas does need more rural and large-animal veterinarians. But the legislature has taken steps to address those areas of need, including supporting new veterinary education programs aimed at rural and large-animal practice. The new Texas Tech School of Veterinary Medicine, which graduated its first class of 61 new veterinarians in May, says 95 percent of those new graduates will be working in rural and regional settings. By 2027, the school aims to train 100 new veterinarians each year with a curriculum emphasizing large and mixed animal practice and recruitment from rural communities. Meanwhile, Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Science has increased its class size from 130 to 180 students in the Class of 2025. Twenty of these students are now training at a West Texas campus that targets rural and large animal practices. Combined, these programs are on track to nearly double Texas’ veterinary graduate output compared to just a few years ago.
Diagnostic risks of remote-only care
Another fundamental concern that deserves more attention is the clinical risk of prescribing treatment for an animal the veterinarian has not physically seen or examined. In nearly three decades of experience across various veterinary settings, I have often encountered cases where an initial impression, based on a description or visual assessment, changed significantly after conducting a hands-on exam or diagnostic testing. Many potentially serious conditions simply cannot be responsibly differentiated and diagnosed without listening to the animal’s heart and lungs, conducting tests and performing a hands-on assessment. Without these steps, there can be a heightened risk of misdiagnosis, which can delay treatment, increase animal suffering, raise costs and lead to dissatisfaction for pet owners.
Veterinary telemedicine deserves serious consideration. It has significant responsible uses that should be encouraged, such as follow-up care after in-person visits or triage for emergency care. However, broad deregulation raises real clinical and ethical concerns that could carry consequences for Texas pets, livestock and the people who care for them. Any future changes to telehealth policy in the state should be guided by data, animal welfare and the needs of pet owners and rural communities—not by pressure from out-of-state tech firms spearheading deregulation in other states and seeking rapid market expansion in the Lone Star State.
